Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources July 15 20031 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 Special Water Resources Work Session July 15, 2003 The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Council Vice -Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Sharon Roy Absent: Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2003 -025) 1. LAND PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION Sudden Valley Tax Title Lots Erika Stroebel, Resources Planner, stated there are 85 tax title lots being held in trust by the Treasurer's Office. The lots go into trust after foreclosure. In 2001, there were approximately 122 Sudden Valley lots in the tax foreclosure auction. The 85 that remain were not purchased. They want to do a joint agreement with Sudden Valley and potentially Water District 10 and the City of Bellingham to purchase these tax title lots and place restrictive covenants on those lots or substitute lots that have a higher priority in terms of water quality benefits. The Water District 10 utility local improvement district (ULID) does not apply to these lots. The County can put in an application to put the lots up for auction, or can do a negotiated sale with a public agency for a public benefit, which is the preferred option. The County will use Conservation Futures funds if staff can establish an agreement with Sudden Valley. Sudden Valley is interested in pursuing this option. Following the purchase of the lots, the County would enter into a joint agreement with the Sudden Valley Community Association and potentially Water District 10 and the City of Bellingham to place restrictive covenants on these parcels or substitute parcels. A portion of the cost would be reimbursed to the County and go back into the Conservation Futures fund. Caskey- Schreiber asked how they should handle the ten lots that have an application to go to auction. Stroebel stated that if the County purchased the 85 lots, folks who put in an application would be reimbursed their $75 application fee. Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County could apply the profit of selling the lots to purchasing the 75 other lots. Barbara Cory, Treasurer, stated the County could resell the lots to Sudden Valley and set whatever minimum price it wants. The Council can decide where funds from the purchase would be deposited. Roy stated these ten lots are random lots. She asked if they are more desirable for resale because they have applications for sale. Cory stated most applications are from adjacent property owners. Some of the applicants want to extend the home on those properties. One person put in an application to buy three lots to build on. The applicants may not be interested in restricted lots. Stroebel stated half of those lots are a high or medium priority. Those lots should have restricted covenants. Roy asked if the Council has the opportunity to approve the different steps on the process, including the agreement. Stroebel stated the next step is a joint agreement that lists the parcels or substitute parcels. At that time, the Council can discuss the reasons for those choices. Brenner stated this option is the best benefit for the County's money. Buy them all and negotiate with the people who want to purchase the lots. Stroebel stated another option is to just purchase the 75 lots that don't have pending applications. If the County uses Conservation Futures funds, staff will have to sort out some of these details. Caskey- Schreiber asked what incentive the applicants would have to negotiate with the County. Stroebel stated some people might be interested in building on the lots. Fleetwood asked how many undedicated funds are in the Conservation Futures fund. Caskey stated over $2 million is in the fund. Fleetwood moved to approve option two. Michelle Brooks, Sudden Valley resident, stated she is one of the ten applicants to purchase a lot. She put in an application because she has become frustrated with the amount of development in Sudden Valley. She doesn't want to build on the lot, but wants to have a larger lot. The lot has a steep slope. Brenner stated she wants to buy all the lots and negotiate with the ten applicants to buy back the lots. If they just want to increase their lot size, that's fine. She doesn't want to negotiate with those who want to develop. Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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 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. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council should just approve option two, and let staff come back to the Council to figure out the next step. It may be more complicated than what they can decide right here. Kurt Baumgarten, Planner I, stated that if the County purchases those 85 lots, the lots would have restrictive covenants placed on them. If an adjoining landowner is concerned about the lot being developed and is interested in preserving it, that will happen de facto by the County's purchase. Brenner stated some people might want to increase their privacy. If the lots are publicly owned, it may end up being publicly used. Roll stated staff would pursue option two and come back to the County Council for more Council action on the agreements. Motion carried 4 -0 with Crawford absent, Land Preservation Issues Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the Property Management Committee discussed how to formulate Council policy direction for land acquisition in general. There are a number of land acquisition or development right opportunities becoming available. The Council may want to think through giving instruction to the administration about how to package these issues for the Council, including prioritizing time, energy, and the amount of money available to do these things. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated this was one reason why they funded the PDR /TDR position. The goal was to coordinate with all the other folks coming through. Staff will continue to do that. The idea is to bring forward a format to the Council. Monsen asked for guidance on how the Council would like information and recommendations packaged as they move into the budget process. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like information on how much density reduction the County gets for its dollar and priority properties with the best water quality benefits. Roy stated one of her expectations on the new position was to see some sort of local picture of how all the agencies and programs fit together. Many of the purchases are opportunistic. Hart stated that once the new Parks Director is on board, they can work together to develop a strategy. move. Monsen asked for preferences on financial limits or how fast something may Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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 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. Caskey- Schreiber stated the councilmembers are open to hearing a recommendation from staff about the best way to go about it. 2. WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT Plan Implementation and Land Use Coordination Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated this is an integral piece of the WRIA watershed management plan and the activities that are happening in several County departments. Previously, Council asked for more information on how staff is coordinating the water resource issues with land use planning activities. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the new shoreline program guidelines are out. The WRIA project is going to be the basis for shoreline master programs, land use planning, and critical areas updates. Whatcom County is among the first of the entity in the State of Washington, with the City of Bellingham, to do shoreline management updates. The completion of the WRIA management draft plan is a big step in getting basic information out there. The Comprehensive Plan is general policy guide for the County. Other things have to be integrated. Jeff Chalfant has been able to bring back information to the Planning Department on how the WRIA process is going at the Water Resources Division. The growth in the county is far beyond what they've estimated. Jeff Chalfant will carry information between the two departments that is needed for critical areas, shorelines, and the Comprehensive Plan updates. Information developed in the WRIA management process will be helpful in the TDR and PDR programs as they begin to look at open space planning issues, consider green belt planning issues that are mandated by the Growth Management Act. That information will also help with future Parks Department acquisitions. Executive Kremen spoke about the quality of the natural environment being Whatcom County's competitive advantage. There is a need for benchmarking successes and determining where they are environmentally. There is a business and community group called Competitiveness Council that is made up of commercial interests, and which says that having a healthy ecosystem and natural environment is important for businesses and the community to sell this area. Benchmarking has to be informed by good science. They have the best available science rule in the Growth Management Act. The shoreline master program has a rule on what current, accurate, and complete science is. WRIA is meeting those standards. Specific examples of coordination include watershed regulation amendments, Lake Whatcom rezone, and the transfer of development rights (TDR) program. The locations they choose for sending and receiving zones will be based on WRIA Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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 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. management concepts. Shorelines regulations apply to saltwater shorelines and creeks with 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater. The new rule says the County must establish the principle of no net loss of ecological function. That is a stringent rule. There are a lot of unknowns right now. This was discussed in Olympia. Crawford asked if the no net loss is site -, stream -, or watershed - specific. Hart stated it is probably stream specific. It is up to the County to understand the ecological functions of values of county ecosystems and watersheds. Brenner asked if there is a map that shows all the creeks and streams that have a flow of 20 cfs. Hart stated there is. For example, Ten Mile Creek has that flow a few hundred yards behind the Guide Meridian. The flow measurement is an average over the year. Brenner stated it's important, regarding no net loss, to always do mitigation as close as possible to the impact site. Roy stated all the separate streams in the Drayton Harbor watershed go clear back to Lynden. There can be an impact several miles downstream. For any watershed, the councilmembers have to have input from Water Resources on some of these topics. She asked if they could improve in that area. Hart stated they could. They have to coordinate a lot more in the future. The shoreline master program says they must start out by looking at the values and functions of a stream. The County has to understand that. The Water Resources Division will help them do that. Roll stated the WRIA watershed management plan will begin to describe those kinds of links. Ninety percent of the division's effort has gone toward getting that plan to the Council. As they reevaluate where resources are directed Jeff Chalfant is actually writing the section on natural policy resource integration for the plan. That is a good example of the link with the Planning Department. The draft plan will more clearly show those links. Hart stated other part of the new rule for the shoreline master program is resource restoration. It needs to be addressed. They must identify resources for restoration, prioritize restoration activities, and coordinate with development. It is a more active look at the watershed functions and values. Resources can be financial resources or other types of resources, including programs that are already underway, that are local resources. Fleetwood asked if the statute provides money. Hart stated the statute provides planning money. Whatcom County is one of the first to go through the process. If there is a good plan that identifies restoration and protection, they are way ahead of the game. Roy asked if the County would work with the State Department of Ecology (DOE) on the plan. Hart stated they would. The DOE will meet with the County Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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. this month. The DOE will send a number of folks to that meeting. One of the pieces is to figure out how the $120 million in private sector development in the county can be leveraged in such a way to protect wetlands, such as wetland mitigation banking between the City and County. There are ways to use a banking system to protect, restore, and maintain shorelines of significance elsewhere or watersheds that must be maintained. Roy asked if they are looking at a lot of data showing that wetland mitigation is questionable in terms of effectiveness the way they've been doing that. Hart stated there have been a lot of questions. He's asked staff to look at 330 wetland mitigation sites to do an inventory. That will be part of the strategy. Fleetwood asked when the County would review the shoreline component in the Comprehensive Plan. Hart stated they would review that component in 2005. That is the policy. There will be integration between policy and regulations. Staff isn't looking for gargantuan changes in the shoreline master program regulations. The one they have is one of the better in the state. They will see the whole package of regulations and policy in 2005. Hart stated they are beginning to ratchet up integration efforts. The natural resource integration component will be a road map for updating the critical areas ordinance, shoreline ordinance, subarea plans, and Comprehensive Plan. Roll stated over the last four or five years, the Water Resources Division has worked through the issues in Lake Whatcom. There is a sincere coordinated effort between the County and City land use managers. That is unprecedented. They are discussing solutions rather than processes. The Lake Whatcom Management Committee sees this as a big win. Plan Implementation and Monitoring Roll stated there have been common themes regarding wetland issues. The question is whether they have the information to know how well they are functioning. Get at that question by having a monitoring strategy that provides information along a continuum. Monitoring is tied to many things they've talked about. If they are not monitoring for some of this information, it's difficult to provide information on progress and benchmarks. Sue Blake acquired a $250,000 grant to develop a long -term monitoring strategy for WRIA 1. This is done through the coordination efforts of the management plan. There are other types of monitoring, including the long -term trend monitoring and project specific monitoring. Sue Blake, Resources Planner, read from PowerPoint presentation (on file). (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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 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. Blake continued to state that monitoring is collecting information to understand the status of whatever issue they are interested in. Monitoring is a tool to see how well management actions are working. The March 2000 scope of work for WRIA simply says that they must develop a long term monitoring program. It wasn't specific about what needed to be included. Since then, they have more details about what that monitoring plan must include. Models will help fill in the data gaps. Monitoring has broad, general goals and also more specific goals for each component. They've heard from most of the caucuses, which have an interest in making sure they understand the conditions and trends, cause and effect relationships, and whether the management actions are working. There is a need for better information. People want to know that the actions will actually correct some of the problems they see. At this point, they are building on the goals they've already adopted and are establishing specific objectives tied to status, trends, models, and project evaluation. Recommendations for what to measure have come from the different technical teams that are working on the components and the caucuses. In the WRIA process, they looked at the different information that's already out there. The reality is that most of those monitoring programs have been of a very limited duration, less than five years. There is very limited monitoring for water quality and natural systems. Brenner stated they should access the information on all the public water associations. Blake stated it is centralized in a State database. They are required to analyze that information. The WRIA process has pulled as much information as it can into the existing database for WRIA. Now, there is no easy way to keep it constantly updated. That is part of what they will have to consider. They don't always monitor for the same constituents that they may want to monitor for. Brenner stated that is the first thing they should be doing. That's not a super - difficult program to create. Blake stated the intent is for the DSS to be able to be updated with that information. She is hopeful that is what they are planning to do. That's only one of the pieces of information they want to collect regarding water quality. That kind of information doesn't meet the needs for shellfish. Roll stated that as they begin to put these efforts into a single package, the question is how they maintain, update, and insure the integrity of the information. Those are the questions and needs they are going to have in 2004 and 2005. Caskey- Schreiber stated there are entities out there doing continual monitoring. They should utilize that information as much as possible to save costs. Blake stated that is what they intend to do. There will be gaps that aren't addressed. A dilemma is getting those sources to share the information. Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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 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. They have enough monitoring information to get a sense of the problems and issues, but there is plenty of room for improvement if they want to monitor changes over time. Critical to a monitoring program is making sure that they are collecting the information that the decision - makers need to see. When looking at the monitoring program in the plan, consider whether that information is going to be helpful in making decisions. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they have the staff to handle the analysis. Blake stated they have grant funding for $250,000 to get them going on the new water quality work they want to do. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to see a package that incorporates the monitoring that could work reasonably with how much analysis they can do. That may involve more limited monitoring, but may guarantee results down the road. Brenner stated they are having more and more revenue being taken away from the County because of growth management and the cities. There is no way she will support creating another huge bureaucracy. They need to have financial cooperation from the cities. There's no way the County can have bigger and bigger government with fewer and fewer resources. Increasing taxes is not the answer. They need to go to the State and get more than just a grant that lasts for a few years. She's frustrated with always going to the taxpayer. Roll stated that as they develop monitoring strategies, it has to be a collective effort with a number of stakeholders to make it work in the long run. Ami Stillings, Resources Planner - Shellfish, stated Drayton Harbor is a good case study to use for monitoring issues. She continued to read from the Power Point presentation (on file). The programs in Drayton Harbor include short term, targeted monitoring projects and long term monitoring projects. There are 17 freshwater sites in Drayton Harbor that are monitored monthly, in addition to the Department of Health and Port of Bellingham monitoring sites. The Conservation District developed a map that compares water quality data in California Creek and Dakota Creek with the new farm nutrient management plans. That is one way to use that monitoring information. The Northwest Indian College does their freshwater monitoring. They have a Department of Ecology grant that expires at the end of this year. A grant proposal to continue that monitoring and do additional marine testing was not funded. The same is true for Portage Bay. This year, the entire State budget associated with the shellfish programs from the State Department of Health were on the State cutting block. There may be issues with losing that kind of funding. The prohibited and restricted areas will be the first to go. They are not required to monitor those areas. The Port of Bellingham is monitoring in the marine environment as part of their expansion plan. It is a defined plan that will be finished up this decade. That monitoring will go away eventually. Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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. Birch Bay went on the Department of Health's threatened list this year. The area is deteriorating. They need to think about how to address that area with programs and monitoring before it becomes an issue. Roy stated the Department of Health will only accept their monitoring. Stillings stated they allowed the Northwest Indian College to do collection and analysis in Portage Bay for a time in 2002. In Drayton Harbor, they agreed to allow Geoff Menzies and her to do monitoring on the months they are not monitoring. They are getting 12 samples a year instead of six. The Department of Health is still doing the analysis, but they are allowing her to collect the samples. They are very strict about what information they will accept to go toward classification. Fleetwood asked how feasible it is to meet monitoring needs through volunteer effort. Roll stated it isn't feasible. Voluntary efforts can supplement the need, but it won't take them where they want to go. They are creating a management strategy for instream flows. They will need to know what the flows are in each stream of critical importance so they can understand the relationship of a management strategy and what is actually in a stream. Those types of programs are historically never voluntary because they require equipment to be installed and monitored consistently. Voluntary monitoring can be applied in terms of public education and outreach. Blake stated the water quality technical team has a goal related to volunteer monitoring to enhance the public's involvement. It's a critical link with the community. It's a way to get people connected to water quality issues. It is a component of the program. Roy asked if there is a plan for Birch Bay of any sort. Stillings stated the Department of Health gives out that information to make the community aware that it is an issue that needs to be looked at sooner rather than later. The Department of Health is not going to increase its amount of sampling at this time. Roy asked if the County is doing that. Roll stated they haven't devoted a lot of time and energy to it at this point. They focus mainly on Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay. When they talk about finances, they will want to talk about prioritizing efforts. Roll stated that when they are doing projects, they need to make sure each project has an effective, integrated monitoring strategy. Long term monitoring is getting cooperative agreements between the people who need that information. Long term trend monitoring is very costly. They have to ask themselves what data they are collecting, how they will analyze it, and how it will guide management actions. (Clerk's Note: The Council took a ten - minute break.) Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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 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. 3. WATER RESOURCES FUNDING OPTIONS Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, provided handouts (on file). The first handout is a description of where they are today financially. The most significant information in these worksheets is the yearend projection for 2003. It is a historical perspective. The ending fund balance for 2002 is lower than anything they will see on any of the County's financial reports. The reason for the $800,000 difference is due to an interlocal agreement with the City of Bellingham that has not yet been spent. They have about $3.5 million in output per year. The big change is that they have gotten to the point where they have a stable staff that is able to perform. That performance level is outpacing the revenue side. To bring balance to the future, the $3.5 million assumes that $1 million is other revenue outside of the flood district revenue. If that revenue doesn't come in, then expenditures will also go down. The second page of the first handout is the water resources fund. The fund balance is approaching zero. There are possible program areas that could begin in 2004. They are all ongoing or new activities. The third page of the first handout is the Joint Board fund. At the close of 2003, the project is coming to a close. He assumes full expenditure in 2003, but there may be some carryover that will be expended in 2004. Roy asked if the expense column on sheet one is for all programs or just the WRIA program. Monsen stated it is total revenue and three expenditures. Adding the three numbers together is the total expense. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Crawford stated the flood fee ends this year. The June 30th handout assumes they do nothing to add revenue. Brenner asked if they would have a discussion on the legality of the flood fee. Monsen stated he didn't intend to. He wanted to focus on the recommendation for next year. Brenner stated there is still money in the fee. If that money is potentially not legal, she's not sure they should keep spending it out until the end of the year. She asked how the flood fee is a legal fee because it is loosely based on assessed value. She asked how it would even be a legal tax because it is levied incrementally and not dollar per dollar. One of the caucuses is bringing this issue up right now. Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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. Roy stated that is a discussion for the Council to have sometime. Because they are getting letters from a specific caucus and because they have to approve this, she would like to be reassured that they are okay. Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that in his discussions with Mr. Brown from Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, he has always been straightforward in his response to expressed concerns. The result is seen in the staff's plans for the future, which is to shift this from an assessment to a tax. Look at this in terms of tax. In view of pending litigation, he hesitates having this discussion outside of executive session. Monsen stated the proposal is to address the fee versus tax issue, but also because the planning work has been general, with the intention of leading to on- the- ground activity. The intention of the Flood Control Zone District financing was for on- the - ground activities. This proposal describes those things the district can continue to implement within its statutory authority. The purpose of the flood district is to do generic planning to gather information needed to do on- the - ground activities. Once the information is gathered, they must extinguish any further generic planning. Brenner asked if they could do a tax based on an incremental assessment. Gibson stated tax is based on value. The proposal approaches a tax because it puts the assessment in direct relationship to increments of increased value. An ad valorem tax is based on so many cents per thousand. This bears resemblance to a tax. If they are talking about switching to a tax, they are talking about a pure, ad valorem property tax. Monsen stated they are proposing to identify activities that the flood district can carry out over time. Those activities are on- the - ground activities leading toward changes in water quantity and water quality. That is a function of the district. A new fee structure for those activities isn't defined yet. The recommendation is for an ad valorem tax for the flood district. Brenner asked if it has to go on the ballot. Gibson stated it does not. When a district imposes a tax for the first time, they don't bring it to the voters. Subsequent impositions of the tax above what was done at first would have to go to the voters. Crawford asked if this has the $.50 per $1,000 cap. Gibson stated it does. The flood district has that cap. Monsen stated they don't know of any location in the county where approaching that cap would be an issue. To generate the $4.1 million they have today would require a tax of nearly $.32 per thousand dollars. He recommends dropping it down to $3 million collected, based on the activities that are the statutory function of the flood district. Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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 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. Caskey- Schreiber asked if this money stays at the flood district or goes back to the County, and what happens to the WRIA implementation. Monsen stated this recommendation is for the tasks that a flood district could engage in. There are things that the flood district doesn't have any statutory ability to do for WRIA. Part of the drop from $4 million to $3 million reflects the fact that funding for those things shouldn't occur through the flood district. The fewer funds does not reflect that there is less to do. The third handout is for the cash flow projections for that $3 million plus $1.25 million from other sources. The handout presumes that there is a declining fund balance that they will need to address. The majority of the expenditures for stormwater will come out of the road fund. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County could dictate how the flood district spends its money. Monsen stated it could. The County Council is the flood district governing body. Crawford stated one group picks up the lion's share of the tax. He asked for a characterization of the 671 properties being taxed, valued in excess of $1 million. There are 97,964 parcels in the county, and 671 parcels are going to basically pick up the cost of this. Monsen stated that the original design of the flood fee was to recognize that there was a relative increase in benefit, to a point, as the parcel value increased. There was a limit as far as how far it would go up. An ad valorem tax is based solely on value. It shifts revenue collected to high -end parcels that were held back. Of those 671 parcels, the average parcel value is $4.5 million. They are the major industries. Brenner stated the fee has been unfairly shifted to people in her category. The people whose charge was most out of kilter this way were people in the middle ranges. It was totally wrong the way it was. It is supposed to be a certain percentage per dollar of assessed value. She wants to pay back the people who have had their money unfairly taken by those with higher end property values. Crawford asked how the fee was originally initiated. Monsen stated the County Council operates as the Flood District Board of Supervisors. Until three and a half years ago, the assessment stopped at $100 for every parcel valued over $400,000. This is an adjustment to shift some additional burden to the higher value parcels. As they move into the budget process, he will look for guidance from the Council on the allowable activities to be performed by the flood district, through the water resource fund. That does not include much money in the plan implementation phase. Therefore, the question is whether the fund will be supplemented by the general fund. Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, 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 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. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they could get State funds for implementation. Roll stated there might be $100,000 available for now. It would be scaled back over the years. Monsen stated that grant revenue is already included in the projections. Roy stated she doesn't want to form an opinion until they have an executive session discussion with their attorney about the tax issue. Crawford stated he agreed. They need to discuss the legal issues. He would also like to know more about the history of how this started and the intent. He is not clear on what the Council was thinking when this fee started. The decision on how to generate this revenue is significant because of its impacts. Monsen stated they realized in 1989 or 1990 that there was a need for flood hazard management in the lower Nooksack basin. Prior to that, they operated under the river improvement fund, which was money from the general fund to be used for putting rock on riverbanks. They don't do that kind of work today. The State and federal governments threw a lot of money at the County when there was a disaster. There was no shortage of money for disaster response. That is dramatically different today. The County created the Flood Control Zone District in the early 1990's. It was important to focus on the damage that was done in Canada, and stop the water at the border. The first three years of the district, the fee structure was meant to be temporary so planning work could start and a new fee structure could be put in place to finance ongoing, focused flood hazard work. After the first three years, the temporary fee was reduced by half and renewed for another three years. There was a recommendation that the fee structure was reasonable to handle general activities. Big projects should be shifted to the creation and financing by diking districts, sub -flood districts, and drainage districts. At the next renewal, the fee was increased to the original fee structure, with 50 percent of the total fee going to the water resources fund. A substantial amount of the money was meant to deal with the general planning that the flood district needed. Once they got some focus on work to be performed by the flood district and because the WRIA project was extended, staff recommended continuing the fee for one year. Now, he recommends generating about $1 million less per year and to make the conversion to a tax. Crawford asked if they were able to accomplish what they intended originally in 1992. Monsen stated the intention was to stop flooding. The intention was to bank a lot of cash to build a lot of levees to stop flooding. What they learned is to not try to stop the flooding, but to work their way around it. An outcome of the planning process for the Flood Hazard Management Plan was that it was a waste of money to try and stop it. The kind of work needed to deal with a levee system is more than $4 million per year. Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, Page 13 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. Crawford stated critics are saying that they are doing a lot of other things that aren't related to major floods. They may want to also redefine what they are calling the tax and what they are using it for, so the critics have an understanding of what they are doing. Monsen stated a motive for moving to a tax is for the flood district to refocus on the original purpose. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Fleetwood asked if there is an ongoing need, and the fee shouldn't have been temporary. Monsen stated that is correct. Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed with the suggestion to change the name. Monsen stated the statute allowing a flood district allows more ability to deal with surface water management than any other statute, but it has the most restrictive name. Water in someone's garage in Gooseberry Point is a flood because it is in the flood plain. Flooding impacts individuals, not just the entire community at once. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are prohibited using a water resources fee. Gibson stated the flood district is given a broad power, but they can't do everything they want to do. There will be a point in which they go to far. Monsen stated a flood district has specific ability to deal with stormwater, in addition to just flood. Changing the title is beyond his ability. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on August 5 , 2003. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Vice -Chair Water Resources Work Session, 7/15/2003, Page 14