Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 25 20051 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works and Safety Committee October 25, 2005 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford Also Present: Dan McShane Seth Fleetwood Absent: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. REQUEST CONCURRENCE WITH THE RECOMMENDED FINANCIAL BASIS TO BE UTILIZED IN PREPARING A DETAILED PROPOSAL FOR A LUMMI ISLAND FERRY USER RATE INCREASE (AB2005 -410) Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, presented a power point presentation, which is duplicated on information in the Council packet, beginning on Council packet page 200. He read the presentation (on file). The cost of the system is different from the share of revenue coming from the fare box. Today they won't talk about how to distribute fares among user classes. Currently, fare box recovery funds doesn't include anything to do with the docks. It does include depreciation and financing. He proposes to switch that around by including the docks, but not including depreciation and financing. That is how the State and other counties define system and operating cost. Keep the fare box recovery rate at 55 percent. He continued to read the presentation regarding recommendation three. If the County collects more than 55 percent, apply it to a future deficit, and vice versa. Today, if the County collects less than 55 percent, it forgoes the difference forever. If the County collects more than 55 percent, it would simply retain that increase. Brenner asked what they consider as ongoing recovery. Monsen stated it is always looking forward to predict costs and revenues. Any fare increase results from the current condition and predicted future. In order to apply the increase in services plus this standard, there would be about a 50 percent increase in fares. For the next two or three years, the County would collect more than 55 percent because operating costs are lower. Once the new boat is in place, the costs will go Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. above that collection rate. Therefore, the average over four or five years would be 55 percent. Don't look at a fare increase until the average falls below 55 percent. He continued to read the presentation on the benefits of the recommended changes and a cost comparison of the ferry to County bridges. In order to apply the predicted costs over the next few years of increasing capacity of the system and other systems and to apply a rate increase that is good over the next five or six years, he recommends a 50 percent fare increase. The suggested 50 percent increase is affected by how much the service will cost. There are always ways to reduce services and costs. Or, they can change the recovery goal to something other than 55 percent. Today, he's asking the Council to concur with his recommendations on Council packet page 199. If the Council approves the recommendations, staff would develop an ordinance to create the fund, formalize 55 percent recovery, the new operating cost definition, and the continuous comparative. Also, staff would draft a fare increase proposal that would focus on which users would pay certain shares. It would present a lot of alternatives. However, deal with the more significant policy issues first. Fred Kinney, 4164 Legoe Bay Road, stated he agrees with Mr. Monsen's memo in the Council packet. The ferry user rates should be set to 55 percent. He is not really happy about including staging and parking, but understands the need for consistency. He agrees that operating costs should not include capital expenditures and financing. He agrees with the principal of recovering fare overcharges and refunding fare undercharges and with setting up the ferry system fund so all costs are identified easily. On the surface, he agrees with the thought. He has problems with how it's proposed to be done. In the past, fare box calculation was based on a ferry rental charge, which is based on estimated fuel and ferry maintenance costs. This estimated cost has distorted the costs used in the calculation of the fare box recovery rate. He is opposed to using estimates. He asked if that would be eliminated. Ken Richardson, Accounting Supervisor, stated this is the cost from the equipment revolve and rental (ER &R) fund to cover the operations of the boat. They're paid for by the ER &R fund. It includes money to recoup overhead cost of ER &R as well as direct monies spent. Staff proposes to charge all ferry costs as direct costs to the ferry system fund, with the exception of depreciation. Kinney asked if doing that would eliminate past distortions. Richardson stated he believed so. Kinney stated this distortion has amounted to about $289,000 the past three years. The actual fare recovery rate for the past three years, if actual costs were used, would have been at 54.9 percent, rather than about 50.7 percent. Adding the dock costs would add about $75,000 to $100,000 per year. It would reduce the Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. recovery rate from 53 percent to 49 percent. They are certainly below the 55 percent target, even on an actual basis, given the definition that includes docks and landings. It's to the point where something needs to be done on rates. They have to accept that. Make sure any rate change doesn't fall solely on the vehicle plus driver. The entire rate structure should be reviewed. It should be patterned after the Washington State ferry system for fairness. The new rate should be consistent with federal and State requirements for financing and deficit reimbursement. There has been rumors of a large rate increase. Before any change is enacted, the County should explain it to the islanders. He agrees with the ferry system fund. However, it's hard to forecast five years in advance accurately enough to set rates. No one can forecast what the fuel rates are in five years. Rates should be based on actual costs, not on a subjective five -year forecast. Islanders should not be expected to begin paying increased costs of operating a new boat before it is designed, financed, and constructed. Don't ask today's passengers to pay for tomorrow's projected costs. Too many unanticipated things can happen in the next five years. The recommendation for rate setting includes a means to adjust for both over- and under - recovery of costs, which is better than the current method. However, there are some weaknesses. Operating costs should be based on actual costs, not future estimated costs. Review the rates more frequently than every five years. When actual costs become more unpredictable, they need to improve the method for calculating fare box cost recovery. This is supposed to be a means of cost recovery, not a means to pre -fund potential estimated future expenditures. Use some form of multiple year cost averaging. His proposal to do that is in the information he submitted (on file). Brenner asked if actual costs are defined as costs from the previous year plus a cost of living adjustment. Kinney stated he envisions the average of the last three years as another method of calculating the escalation. Then, adjust for overages and underages to take that piece forward to recover any shortfall of the 55 percent or reflect overcharges above 55 percent. Eliminate subjectivity of where everyone thinks the world will be in five years. Calculate every three years instead of every five years. Brenner asked if there is a problem if rates change annually. Kinney stated do that mechanically, not subjectively, and project forward for the next three -year period. Also, have a trigger point where they would review the fare if things change dramatically. Adopt a method that is based on actual costs and remove the subjectivity. Brenner asked if Mr. Kinney recommends that the County not charge a higher rate for the new ferry until the new ferry is operational. There would be a huge bump initially when the new ferry becomes operational. Kinney stated there Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. would be some kind of increase at that point. It would go in a stepped fashion. The County wouldn't increase the fare three years in advance of the new ferry. Crawford stated that, using the Public Works Department methodology, the County requires an approximately 50 percent increase. He asked if they can project an approximate 50 percent increase to get fare box recovery to match 55 percent of the formula the staff proposes. He asked if Mr. Kinney has done a calculation of where the County would be. Kinney stated he took the actual costs for the last three years and applied it to his method. He came up with a 20 percent increase for the next three years, not five years. It includes adding the docks. Brenner stated another idea is to institute peak season fares. However, they won't be talking about that today. Crawford asked if Mr. Kinney's recommendations are to look forward three years instead of five and to use actual costs with some component built in for inflation of current costs. Kinney stated he also recommends that the fare box rate include a factor for overages or shortfalls. Monsen stated staff is not asking the Council to concur that a 50 percent increase should occur at this time. He is only asking for a method by which staff would take that next step. Whether they look at a three -year versus five -year increment influences the rate and frequency of the fare increases. He and Mr. Kinney are using the same approach, but different timeframe and frequency of rate changes. He won't dispute that five year predictions are shaky. Brenner asked if staff is only asking the committee and Council to agree to the definition of operating costs and capital costs and to approve the 55 percent cost recovery. Monsen stated that is correct. He asked if Mr. Kinney was looking at shifting to an ongoing calculation compared to forgiveness of under - collection, based on actual costs, when he came up with the 20 percent increase over three years. Kinney stated that is correct. He would like the committee to table this discussion for two weeks until he can get together with the Public Works Department to discuss different approaches. Brenner stated they're not talking about the process they use. The committee is being asked to retain the 55 percent, on which almost everyone agrees. The committee is also being asked to change what the operating costs would and would not include and what capital costs would and would not include, to make Whatcom County more in sync with the State ferry systems. Approval isn't about the timeline and actual versus estimated costs. That information is in the Council packet, but is not what the committee will vote on. The committee will also approve of the separate fund for the ferry system. Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Monsen stated he included the 50 percent increase in the Council's packet of information only to show what happens if they project out five years. If they project out three years past and present, he agrees with the 20 percent increase. Nelson asked if Mr. Kinney agrees that a five -year recovery timeline may result in a larger increase to recover actual costs. Kinney stated he agreed there may be another increase at some point down the line. Nelson stated the Council has to make a policy decision to either bank the money ahead of time or use an actual cost method, realizing there may be a bigger bump that would impact citizens more. They could also balance the two concepts. Kinney stated his three -year method is a combination of the two methods, without pre- funding things and basing rates on things that don't exist. It doesn't ask people to pay for something that may not exist for three or four years. Those people may be long gone by then. Nelson stated this is a form of an impact fee. If development occurs on Lummi Island, there will be impacts to the transportation system. Development should pay for a portion of the capital costs, if not the ongoing operating costs. He asked if staff considered that. Monsen stated there hasn't been consideration of that specifically. Impact fees apply to prospective capital investment. The aggregate collection of the road levy is about the amount of money necessary to maintain the system. The exception relates to the ferry. Impact fees can be collected for operational purposes, but it would be unusual. Brenner stated they apply to capital purposes, not operational. Crawford stated give the Public Works staff a recommendation for the things Mr. Kinney and the Public Works staff agree on. Kinney stated delay this long enough for him and the department to work together to help the Islanders understand what has happened. McShane asked who Mr. Kinney represents. Kinney stated he represents himself. Bob Fodor, 2343 N. Nugent Avenue, Lummi Island, stated the words should mean what they say. When listing a dock as an operating expense, that's not what it means. A dock is tangible. It's a capital expense. So is the parking. The maintenance of those things are operating expense. Don't call the dock an operating expense. Brenner stated they're talking about the maintenance of the docks, not the purchase, which has already come under capital expenses. Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Monsen stated the creation of the docks and parking lot is a capital cost and not recommended to be an operating expense. The maintenance of those facilities would be operating costs. Art Thomas, 2620 Islandview, Lummi Island, stated Mr. Kinney has articulated some of his concerns. Come up with a better formula for projecting operating costs. If they use this formula five years ago, they didn't have parking. There is some formula that may be more reasonable for projecting operating costs. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Crawford asked if there is urgency here, and if they can postpone this decision. Monsen stated he is asking for Council concurrence to move ahead with items one through five in his memo to the Council and Executive Kremen dated October 14, 2005 regarding the request for Council concurrence on the financial basis for preparing a Lummi Island ferry user rate proposal. Application of those five items means he would come back to the Council with proposed ordinances to create a fund and amend the code to redefine what 55 percent fare recovery means. He would also begin the discussion with the Council of what the fare will be and how it is distributed. That discussion will include the fare increase timeframe and calculation. Brenner stated there seem to be people who want to work on how they will establish the operating costs. She moved to recommend approval of the five recommendations in his memo to the Council and Executive Kremen dated October 14, 2005 regarding the request for Council concurrence on the financial basis for preparing a Lummi Island ferry user rate proposal and that the administration work with interested Lummi Island residents to address and incorporate concerns raised today regarding recovery of operating costs. Nelson stated the motion includes having an annual fare box revenue exceed future operating costs and that the recovery rate shall be viewed as an ongoing calculation. They need some more discussion on that item. He needs to understand where the 55 percent came from and where it is applied. Brenner stated 55 percent is the percentage the County has always collected. The staff will present an ordinance that includes input from the people today. That is not what her motion is. Her motion says they will continue with the 55 percent. Nelson stated the Finance Committee should also consider this item. They need to know the impacts to the budget over the five years or three years. The Finance Committee can work on those elements of this proposal. Brenner stated that's fine. McShane stated the operating cost is about $1.3 million per year. He asked if the 55 percent recovery rate would be about $600,000 to subsidize the ferry Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. service. Capital improvements would be treated similar to anything on the six -year road plan. It is an item the County eventually must pay for. Monsen stated they are always looking for grant funds for capital investments. Rarely do they find grants for operating costs. The consortium of the county ferry operators are cooperating to go to the legislature to obtain additional subsidy for these special operations and capital, because of the uniqueness of these kinds of services. The State provides some money for operating costs, but it's not a lot when divided between three counties. It's challenging to acquire capital assistance. That's where all three counties need some help right now. Crawford stated the five items in the motion were not against the concerns expressed by Mr. Kinney. He will support the motion. They have time to deal with those concerns. He appreciates Mr. Kinney's study of this and hopes he continues to participate. Mr. Kinney's points are very valid. When the new ferry begins operating, more vehicles will use it and the cost per use will go down. The estimated numbers on Council packet page 203 may not be accurate. He agrees with Mr. Kinney that the numbers are too speculative at this point. The projections need to be tighter. Motion carried unanimously. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING FLOOD - RELATED ISSUES AT MARIETTA (AB2005 -413) Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated they have done a lot of sand bagging in the Marietta area. Fleetwood asked if sand bagging guarantees anything. Cooper stated it does not. The levee has dropped in certain sections. They have raised those sections up to the elevation of the rest of the levee. The entire levee does not provide a 100 - year event level of protection, which is their goal for new development. Whether or not there will be flooding depends on the flood. This year is predicted to be most likely for flooding. Brenner stated Paul Ridley from Marietta asked her to thank Ms. Cooper for the work that people have been doing out there. Nelson stated the Council talked in the past about changes to the Slater Road so the river can spread out further. He asked if the Flood Division or advisory board has discussed it. Cooper stated staff hasn't brought it to the advisory board yet. They've been working on some soil boring along the levee to find out the material it is made of. They've done some surveying to see what they may be able to do to develop a drainage network. They've looked at the upstream tributaries. They're still working on that stuff. Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Nelson asked if spreading out the flooding elsewhere would have the greatest effect to reduce flooding in Marietta. Cooper stated it spreads out upstream. Once it gets to Marine Drive, it has to go somewhere. If it can't go into Marietta, it has to get shoved back into the river. Brenner stated dredging would make a difference. She asked when they will have something concrete. Cooper stated it depends on whether or not they get a flood. It will probably be another couple of months if there is no bad weather. Chris Munsie, 1881 Marine Drive, stated water floods through a grate in his front yard. It needs to be fixed. Every year, the river comes up and he has five feet of water in his yard. The water doesn't go over the dike, it comes through it. Dirt needs to be put up against the dike to stop the water from coming through. He asked who owns the dike behind his property. Cooper stated the dike is owned by the adjoining property owner. The Maintenance and Operations (M &O) Division looked at the gate in his yard. Nicky Bourne, Engineer, stated staff looked at the flap gate that discharged into the river. There will always be some leakage with the flap gate. She suggests that staff put a flap gate on the interior side where it drains Marietta to make it more of a manual opening. Munsie stated he will be happy to take care of the manual opening. Nelson asked if there is a diking district out there. Bourne stated there isn't. Nelson asked if this is a situation where they need a diking district. Munsie stated not everyone in the area has the $1,000 to pay for a diking district. Cooper stated diking districts assess themselves. They come up with assessment formulas that works for them. The idea is that they can assess themselves enough to pay for maintenance. Brenner stated they are working to get something done out there. Munsie stated there are some necessities. The community is working on it the best it can. It would be great if the County could help out by loaning equipment so the neighborhood could dig some ditches. Brenner stated it would be nice if they could. However, there are so many federal and State laws that the County's own staff can't go out and dig ditches. They all have to go through the processes that take some time. Bourne stated staff has done the survey. They've talked about ditches along Marine Drive, but on one side of Marine Drive is power poles and the water main is on the other side. Staff surveyed the possibility of installing those ditches, but it is Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. too constrained. There may be some interior drainage options to connect to a wetland, but it's not as straightforward as they'd thought. Cooper stated that even if they could improve the drainage, it won't solve the flooding problem. It will just make the flood drain quicker. Jere Boyd, 1845 Marine Drive, stated his community is trying to survive. Things only get done in Marietta during emergencies. He really appreciates the sand bags they've provided. Residents put together a wish list (on file). He referenced number 17 on the list, a mandatory County sponsored levee district for flood plain residents. He doesn't have the money to pay for a diking district. He doesn't know what is involved with that. They didn't even know who owns and has control of the dike. The residents are ignorant about these issues. All they can do is throw out their ideas. The main question has been why they should use tax dollars to save Marietta. He pays taxes, too. Every other road in the county has ditches and culverts, except the roads in Marietta. People in Marietta believe the County is trying to wait them out, hoping they get flooded, discouraged, and move out, so it doesn't have to deal with them. The residents will wait for an administration that is willing to do something. They are not asking for everything on the wish list. They are not asking for millions of dollars. Some of the things on the list can be done for just a few thousand dollars. They have done core samples on the levee. The levee is not in bad shape. However, the soil has washed out from between the rocks. When the water gets to the top of the levee, it comes through the rocks to flood peoples' backyards. Brenner stated Ms. Cooper has been given this wish list. The administration will consider it. Boyd stated he trusts Ms. Cooper to give it attention fairly. Robert Allen, 1716 Kaas Road, stated his house floods every time the County touches the dike. Ferndale is taking areas out of the flood plain. Twelve acres were taken out of the flood plain in Marietta. That is close to 25 million gallons that have been taken out of the flood plain, which goes to his house when it floods. The dikes in his system haven't been touched since 1971. They were purposely left out so the area becomes part of the flood plain to absorb the water. He doesn't know how to find out if he is in a district or who takes care of the flood plains. Brenner stated Mr. Allen needs to talk to Ms. Cooper and Ms. Bourne. Allen stated he preferred that all the dikes be breached, see where the flooding problem is, and replace the dikes to protect the people who let the water go. Karen Ridley, 1827 Marine Drive, stated this isn't a new issue that is just in Marietta. The problem is with the entire diking system. There is talk of redoing ditches on either side of the Marine Drive. That is not the way Marietta was set up. There was an original plan to drain Marietta, but all the ditches filled in because they were never maintained. A diking association would be nice, but there are only Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 20 households, most of who are on fixed incomes or work in seasonal jobs. They've done a lot of the work themselves. They've removed hundreds of cars and thousands of appliances. The County couldn't get their trucks down and drain the ditches because they weren't cleaned out. There are old septic systems that ran through the dike. Holes need to be filled. Huge trees are on the dike. When one goes, it exposes a hole where the root system was. Over the years, things are getting better. It's not fair to say nothing has been done. There is still a lot more to do. Most people don't expect a miracle cure. The residents have done a lot of work to clean up the town. Most houses are jacked up now so they are more protected when there is a flood. The residents appreciate that the County is doing what it can. Teri Underwood, 1880 Marine Drive, stated a creek runs through her property and other properties. It is a forgotten water source. She gets flooded from the water coming down Country Lane. They rerouted everything to go into this creek, but this creek has not been maintained. It has cars in it. They get flooded from several different directions. She hasn't heard anything about that waterway being cleaned up. Route the water to someplace other than her yard. People sand bag the water to divert it to her creek, which has never been cleaned out. Brenner asked if creek restoration would alleviate some of the flooding. Underwood stated it would. Nelson stated there are creeks all over the county like this. He asked if the County is trying to provide drainages or maintain the creek beds. Cooper stated they are looking at it. One thing they are looking at is the drainage system interior. A drainage system along a roadway would be easier to maintain. The County doesn't get involved in private property. Other systems have drainage districts to deal with drainage on private property. Nelson asked if the County drainages are being maintained. Cooper stated there aren't a lot of roadside ditches in Marietta. That's part of the problem. The main drainage path is behind houses, not along the side of the road. It's not maintained. Underwood stated a problem is that no one knows who owns a lot of the areas. No one is sure how far their property line extends. She asked the County to clean out a lot of brush behind her house, but the City told her she wasn't allowed because the property is not hers. Nelson asked if flooding creek beds is a typical problem in different areas of the county. He asked if a diking district in this area would begin to identify drainages, what is required, and funding through the advisory committee. Art Anderson, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee, stated it would. The advisory committee wants to listen to the residents of Marietta to get a Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. better understanding of the issue. Marietta is a complicated problem, with all the different agencies involved. There are a lot of channels of the mouth of the river that are extremely blocked. There may be a long -term solution. Go to some of these agencies to make some kind of survey about what can be done to remove some of that debris. There is a philosophy that more wood in the river is better. However, there is a balance to the point that the wood becomes a blockage. Maybe those logjams should be upriver, not at the mouth. It might be best if there were some kind of district, even though there are a small number of people. People in other districts could advise them and get them started. The sand bagging is good, but it's temporary. It isn't a permanent answer. Nelson asked the district in the county with the smallest population. Cooper stated there are about 1,000 acres in Diking District 3. She doesn't know the population. They assess per acre. Staff works with the districts to set up those assessment methods. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Nelson stated each area is unique and funded differently. Encourage the community to consider a diking district to address problems and to get information on and understand the political process. Begin the process to start solving the problems. Be proactive. The Council can work with the residents to get the community the way the residents would like it. If it were him, his first step would be to get these areas cleaned out. If the community takes small steps, the County can work alongside them. Brenner asked if the County can do anything to assist the residents to remove the junk from the creek. Cooper stated they've taken dumpsters down there in the past. Underwood stated they can't get a car into a dumpster. Brenner asked staff to find out how the County can help get the big junk out of the creek. She's not sure private citizens can go into the creeks and do that. She would like to know the process to do that kind of clean up. Nelson stated those are all steps to solving the problem. The most important step is for the community to formally work together through the formation of a diking district. It doesn't cost anything to form a district. Once the district is formed, there is a process to solve the problems. Brenner stated there are also may be some things the County can help with, in addition to things the community can work on on it's own. Once the district is formed, it may be eligible for grant money. Underwood stated the community was told it costs $1,000 to form the district. Monsen stated it depends on the district. The easiest thing is for the Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Council to form a flood sub -zone district. They need to go through the ballot process to elect three officials. Either way, they are not talking about large amounts of money. Procedurally, it's simple. It's up to the Council on whether the County charges the residents for the administrative costs. There is no requirement for the district to reimburse the County for administrative costs of creating the district. Once formed, the district doesn't have to start assessing itself. Brenner stated some of those charges can be made up for by in -kind contributions. Monsen stated in -kind contributions are, in most cases, viable ways to provide a match. Nelson asked if Mr. Anderson can get together with the Marietta community to work on a flood sub -zone district, if the community is interested. Anderson stated he agrees wth Mr. Monsen. By creating some kind of district, there would be three commissioners to speak for the entire population of the town. There is more energy, strength, and power by having that process in place. If someone wants to contact him or Ms. Cooper, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is very plain about how to form that district. Brenner stated it won't cost them to form the district, which will give the residents a voice and opportunity to go after grant funds. Underwood stated it sounds like a viable solution. They are trying to tackle one problem at a time. For instance, they have the resources to clean out the creek, but they want to make sure they have the permits and don't get fined. Nelson stated once formed, the district would have representatives to communicate with the community to formulate a plan. Brenner stated the community can work with County staff. The County can work with the community to get that junk out of the creek. Skylar, 1850 Marine Drive, stated forming a district is a great idea. In the future, keep in mind that they need to talk to the people who have been in Marietta for a long time. That has been ignored. Keep people informed of what is going on. Brenner stated it's helpful to have residents tell them the difference between what has happened in the past and what is happening now. Munsie stated he'd asked the County in the past to dig out the river. The County said it couldn't because the salmon have laid their eggs there. The County seems to care more about the salmon than the people. Last year, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife dug its own river on the other side of Country Lane. That was okay for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to do. Brenner stated Fish and Wildlife is not part of the County. The County has no jurisdiction over them. There are federal and State laws by which the County Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, 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 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. must adhere regarding salmon. The salmon are an endangered species. According to federal and State laws, the County must protect the salmon. The County has not yet come up with mechanisms to do everything it has to do. The Sediment Management Strategy talks about all the hurdles the County must go through before it is allowed to do anything. Don't assume the County isn't interested in taking care of people. Munsie stated the Department of Fish and Wildlife dug its own river. Right after that is when the big flood came that went through the dike. It was bigger than any other flood he's seen. Brenner stated Mr. Munsie needs to contact Fish and Wildlife about that. The County didn't dig that river. Nelson stated that forming the district gets the community involved and politically connected. It also helps the community begin to make decisions rather than blame others. To know what's going on, get involved and start the district. Brenner stated forming a district is not going to solve the problem. There are federal and State layers they have to go through. Forming a district will give them a louder voice and be eligible for certain kinds of funding. Beyond that, it will still be a very slow process. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:52 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works and Safety Committee, 10/25/2005, Page 13