Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 26 20021 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. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee November 26, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Sharon Roy in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington, Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Dan McShane Also Present: L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford Laurie Caskey- Schreiber COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO. 02 -02 (A132002 -378) Roy stated this was scheduled during the previous committee meetings. Questions arose about this and the next two items. The Council desires to decrease density in Sudden Valley. Crawford stated there are three kinds of sales. These are tax title sales. He asked if they've gone through a foreclosure sale, but no one purchased the properties. Debbie Hayes, Revenue Deputy III /Real Property Foreclosure, stated that is correct. Crawford asked if they are proposing to sell the property. Hayes stated they are. Someone has submitted an application to purchase those properties. It is reviewed by the Property Management Committee to determine whether it is property the County might want to keep or put up at a public auction, which is what the Property Management Committee recommends. The County Council must determine whether they will move forward for public auction. Roy stated the question of the Natural Resource Committee was whether the County can put any development restrictions on the parcels, but the County can't unless it buys the property. She asked if this Property Management Committee looks at the property at the time of foreclosure. Hayes stated the Property Management Committee does not look at them until someone submits an application to purchase the property. Natural Resources Committee, 11/26/2002, 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 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. Erika Stroebel, Resources Planner, stated she has taken a look at these properties. They are a low priority for land preservation based on the County's criteria. They aren't close to tributaries or are on steep slopes. If they are just looking at density reduction, the County could purchase these parcels, and identify higher priority parcels as substitute parcels on which they could put a covenant. Nelson asked where the money would come from if the County purchased this property. Roy stated no one was considering that, but the money would come from the Conservation Futures fund. Nelson stated it would be better to purchase higher priority lots that can provide a benefit to Lake Whatcom. Roy stated that is a legitimate point. The question was about the Council's options if it wanted to do that. Fleetwood asked if the County could save money in the long haul by buying this property now and swapping it later for a more critical piece of property. Stroebel stated they are trying to avoid swapping parcels. Now, they are trying to identify higher priority parcels as substitute parcels prior to the purchase, so they put a restrictive covenant on the highest priority parcels as opposed to lower priority parcels. The Water Resources Division has a recommendation for the other 84 tax title parcels to work on a joint agreement with the Sudden Valley Community Association to purchase those parcels, similar to what they did in the tax foreclosure auction. The process for tax title lots is different than foreclosure, which Ms. Hayes explained. McShane stated Sudden Valley didn't have a particular interest in these lots. The program with Sudden Valley is good, and could be expanded beyond Sudden Valley. As small as this might be, he questions whether they are letting opportunities pass them by. The duties of the Property Management Committee include considering a variety of land use and environmental things. Stroebel stated they can substitute lots and put restrictive covenants on a high priority lot because the County is working with Sudden Valley Community Association, which already owns lots. When the County identifies substitute lots, it's from the pool of lots that Sudden Valley already owns and that don't have restrictive covenants. It may be possible to create something in the future around the watershed. Without having parcels that someone already owns in Geneva, they are going to have to think about it. Also consider that Sudden Valley Community Association requires dues if the County were to own lots within Sudden Valley. Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Natural Resources Committee, 11/26/2002, 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. McShane stated they need to have the Property Management Committee take a closer look and make a recommendation. Fleetwood stated the County can't restrict this property. If the County buys it, it would take money from Conservation Futures that could go elsewhere. It is a lower priority. Roy questioned whether the Council needs to discuss these parcels on a different level. McShane stated they are talking about hundreds of lots over the years for which the County missed opportunities. Nelson stated he has been on the Council for 12 years, and he doesn't recall seeing hundreds of lots come forward. There have been 300 or 400 lots that had no value out of the watershed that were developable. McShane stated Sudden Valley came up with a very successful program. He thinks it can expand beyond that. Sudden Valley may be interested in having these lots developed so they have residences on these properties that will pay their dues. There may be properties in Geneva where they could transfer development rights. It may be a good idea to transfer development rights from a sensitive area in the watershed to a lower priority property in the watershed. Nelson stated there are lots that will never be developed. Another issue is lots that are developable. The ones that have come forward that are developable have been few and far between. McShane stated they've talked about transferring rights from developable lots. These three lots are developable, and someone might have a lot in Geneva that is in a sensitive area. It might be financially beneficial for someone to give up a development right in Geneva for a development right in Sudden Valley. Crawford asked about the language governing tax title properties, and the reference in the resolution about going to bid. Someone made an application to buy the lot. Hayes stated the tax title property would go to auction and be sold to the highest bidder. The Council will set the minimum bid. Crawford stated that once the Council approves this, the person who put in the application for the property does not automatically get the property because it goes to auction. Hayes stated that is correct. At the time of foreclosure, the minimum bid included the taxes, penalty, interest, and foreclosure costs. The Sudden Valley Community Association is not interested in purchasing these lots. Roy asked if someone who fills out an application and pays the application fee has a reasonable expectation of purchasing the lot. Hayes stated the applicants are waiting for the Council to make a decision on this. The applications were Natural Resources Committee, 11/26/2002, 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. submitted in July. The applicants understand what takes place, what the procedure is, and that anyone can bid against them. If the applicant is not the successful bidder, he or she will get the application fee back. Roy asked if the Water Resources Division has a representative on the Property Management Committee. McShane stated a representative from the Public Works Department, not the Water Resources Division, is on the Property Management Committee. Roy asked if the evaluation of the appropriateness of this property is heavily weighted toward the priorities in Sudden Valley. Crawford stated one criteria reviewed by the Property Management Committee is that the public's interest is maintaining the tax roles. He is in favor of approving the auction of these properties. McShane stated he would vote for moving it forward because it is too much of a pain in the neck for people to deal with. As a councilmember, he has to decide where to put his energy. He can't take a lead on this issue and doesn't feel right passing it on to another councilmember. He still believes this is a missed opportunity, and the Council is going to keep seeing this situation. Roy asked if this issue is something that the open space /transfer of development rights (TDR) /purchase of development rights (PDR) employee could handle. Fleetwood stated this is an issue the Property Management Committee can take up. Roy stated the motion includes this item and the next two items scheduled on the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO. 03 -02 (AB2002 -379) See item one. 3. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON SALE OF COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY, REQUEST NO. 04 -02 (AB2002 -380) See item one. Natural Resources Committee, 11/26/2002, 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 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. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT - INSTREAM FLOW UPDATE (AB2002 -085) Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated a strategy is going forward to establish instream flows in water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1. Also, the County Council was interested during the previous work session in the status of pilot projects tied to the first draft plan. He submitted information (on file) on those projects. Forward comments related to the pilot projects to Scarlet Tang. John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, stated there were two pieces of information related to instream flow in the Council's packet. He submitted information on an overview of the instream flow documentation (on file). He read through the memo. There are two pieces to instream flow: maintaining functions of the stream and the need to use water. Technical methodology is being done to define the function piece. Data was gathered at 27 sites, which is being analyzed. Those analyses form the basis for decision - making to select flows. They've got a range of stream types and land uses in the basins and watersheds. A one - size - fits -all process isn't the way to go. They need to start with good scientific data, and then establish a process to meet the needs of individual watersheds and also achieve the goals of the watershed management project. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) An instream flow working group of local and state agencies worked on an action plan of how they establish instream flow. The work group would like feedback on their draft action plan in time for the December 10 meeting with the agencies. The objective of the action plan is to identify the instream flows with the data they have. In step one of the action plan, Foundation Development, they would identify how they go about establishing instream flows by including everyone who would be affected. The second step is to identify the initial flows, using the feedback. That is the starting point. From that information, they want to come up with a set of recommendations for each basin. Put the recommendations before everyone involved in WRIA. Step three is to seek agreement on the flow recommendation. The last step is to develop and finalize the flow recommendations. Roy asked if they have instream flow recommendations from Utah State University (USU). Thompson stated they have some of it. They are calibrating the models. Natural Resources Committee, 11/26/2002, 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 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 asked if the models would be put into the decision support system (DSS) modeling. Thompson stated it would. Roy asked if they would analyze basin -by -basin based on what they need for fish, clean water, and out -of- stream uses. Thompson stated they would. Roy asked if it goes to the caucus groups after that. Roll stated the legislation recognizes a process for identifying instream flows, which includes consensus. It will take two to three years to get to that point. Data models current uses and future uses in addition to ecological models. Roy asked if there is a step that allows review WRIA -wide. She asked if there would be conflicts. Roll stated there would be conflicts. This is one of the most significant pieces of the whole project. Roll stated the governments have come up with a strategy that engages everyone. It also engages people in the drainages. Nelson asked why there are not criteria for what they are looking for regarding flows. Roll stated the criteria were established in the March 2000 scope of work. Nelson asked the type of information that will be developed through this process. Roll stated initial recommendations would come from a core group, based on scientific data on instream and out -of- stream uses. Recommendations will be based on the drainages. McShane asked what role restoration projects will provide regarding instream flow habitat for fish. He asked if that is taken into account at all. Thompson stated it depends. Ideally, they would have all the factors into the DSS. They are not there yet. They tried to pick sites that are representative of the better habitats within the sub - basins. They are correlating how much habitat they can get for a given amount of water. All the other factors, such as shade and woody debris, are included in the water quality model. Part of this process will be to synthesize all the information into a set of recommendations. McShane stated this is the one area in the WRIA process where they are making good progress. Thompson stated they need to gather the historical knowledge and anecdotal information to come up with the best set of recommendations. Roy stated the basin -by -basin approach makes sense. Those people are going to know those kinds of efforts that are going on in their basin. Thompson stated they will look for opportunities to optimize instream and out -of- stream water uses. They hope they will make more water available by doing these things. It will depend on where they are at, the time of year, and other specifics. There also Natural Resources Committee, 11/26/2002, 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. might be a case where people can continue using the water they use, even if no more is available, because of these efforts. Nelson stated the ultimate result is restoration of fish. He asked how they quantify that goal. Thompson stated the restoration of fish is one goal. Within the instream flow modeling, there is a quantitative relationship between flow and habitat. They will take that information and question how to extrapolate that data to the rest of watershed and link to fish production. They want to link these efforts within the models to fish production models. It won't give them an answer of a specific number of fish. It will say whether or not efforts have a positive or negative effect. Nelson asked if they are going to measure quantification to know the results achieved. Roll stated that if a pilot project does not have clearly defined measures for success, then it is not worth doing. They do pilots specifically to determine whether or not they want to do that action. Some results may take years or decades to see results. Fleetwood stated this is an intelligent process. He asked for a quick description of the various flow components, as illustrated on Council packet page 22, specifically water quality maintenance flow. Thompson stated water quality maintenance flow is the flow needed to maintain water quality. Channel maintenance flow is linked to fish habitat. Streams need to have occasional water flows, equivalent to a two -year flood, that have enough volume to actually move sediment down the stream so it shapes the channel bed. If they don't have that flow every couple of years, sediment will accumulate and lose habitat values and stream functions. If they have those flows too often, it will move too much sediment through. Maintain the channel form from year to year. Riparian maintenance flow is getting the flood plain wet so they keep the cottonwoods alive. The valley maintenance flow is the big flood that will cover the entire valley floor. Typically they don't manage for that in an instream flow setting. It is a big flood that will happen anyway. It changes the availability and distribution of the habitats within the flood area. There is an opportunity to really look at what a flood is doing. Fleetwood asked if managing the minimum instream flow assumes that it will incorporate all these flow components. Thompson stated the concept of ecological flow regime is that it will accommodate all the components. They are trying to emulate what the natural hydrograph does. Here, they are trying to identify a range of flows instead of one number. Fleetwood asked where they are at with water rights, and when they can present a plan to the public. Roll stated it will hopefully be in the plan due June 2003. Fleetwood asked if they expect to contemplate the number of affected water rights before or after they establish instream flows, and then deal with the water Natural Resources Committee, 11/26/2002, 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. rights implications. Roll stated they would do both at the same time. The quantities used to determine the different uses are not tied to water rights. They are estimations based on land use, population, and those types of things. They have tools that will provide an estimate of how much water a particular drainage is using for out -of- stream use, independent of water rights. He's encouraged to deal with some of the work Henry Bierlink proposes for a drainage -based management area that can deal with movement and allocation of water within a particular drainage area. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Fleetwood asked if the potential of global warming is factored into this process. Thompson stated part of the action plan does not address the total effect of global warming, but looks at drought years and wetter years. Instream flows are typically set at a specific number, not a range. The challenge in this process is to provide flexibility based on the weather and water forecast. Fleetwood asked if it is fair to call the pilot projects a part of the methodology. Roll stated it is part of the work Parametrix is doing to develop the first draft of the WRIA watershed management plan. Pilot projects are a chapter of the watershed management plan. Roll stated people at the State government are supportive of all the WRIA's. Eight plans will be out next year, including Whatcom County's plan. The State is thinking about contributing $100,000 for implementation purposes. Over the course of five years, that amount would scale down to zero. Over the course of this project, Whatcom County would have acquired $700,000 of grant money. The State is very interested in infrastructure. There is a strong interest in WRIA 1 piloting an irrigation district management project. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they would complete the entire Four Mile restoration project. Roll stated he didn't know their timeline. Part of implementation will be to get other people to be a catalyst for pilot projects. A big piece of the government's work will be to work with these groups. (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued below.) 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY MARINE RESOURCES GRANT APPLICATION (AB2002 -085) Roll stated the Marine Resources Committee is required to notify the County Council when it applies for a grant. It is a continuation of existing projects and funding for new projects. 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT - INSTREAM FLOW UPDATE (AB2002 -085) Natural Resources Committee, 11/26/2002, 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 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. (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.) Roll asked if there are any legal questions regarding instream flow. Caskey - Schreiber asked what would happen if a farmer takes too much water out of a channel that needs more water to be viable, with the result being the farmer losing his ability to continue to farm. She asked if the County would be liable for taking away the farmer's livelihood. Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there is an issue of junior and senior water rights. Courts will determine where in the priority scheme the rights lie. If established by the court, there would not be a liability. Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is a scenario that could realistically happen. Gibson stated it is possible that there could be an agreement that establishes instream flows and that assigns a priority date to certain natural resource uses or to certain tribal uses. There will be intense politics that would go into plan approval. That scenario is conceivable. A political goal is to provide as much water as possible to agricultural users consistent with environmental requirements. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING LAKE WHATCOM MANAGEMENT — SUDDEN VALLEY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT (AB2002 -085) Erika Stroebel, Resource Planner, stated the County Treasurer is holding 84 additional tax title lots. The Water Resources Division staff recommendation is to pursue a joint agreement with the Sudden Valley Community Association to evaluate these properties, jointly purchase the properties, and place restrictive covenants on high priority parcels. The restrictive covenant would be placed on the purchased parcel or a substitute parcel. The process for tax title properties is different than tax foreclosure. It can be more time consuming. They recommend pursuing this now because the Water District 10 utility local improvement district (ULID) is coming up in December. Groups need to determine whether or not they can pay the assessment fee to hook up to sewer in the next 25 years. If they are parcels that the County is interested in for protecting and placing restrictive covenants on, then they need to work with Water District 10 on it. Pursue a joint agreement with Sudden Valley. She asked for guidance from the committee on whether or not the staff should pursue this option. The committee concurred. Caskey- Schreiber suggested that the County funnel any money received above and beyond the County's cost to Water Resources Division to address this issue. Natural Resources Committee, 11/26/2002, 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 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. Stroebel stated that in previous years, there hadn't been a lot of activity by private individuals to purchase tax foreclosures. This year, they were only able to purchase about 24 of those lots out of 61 because there were other bidders. There is a lot of interest in Sudden Valley properties right now. The tax title properties would go up to public auction again. Steve Oliver, Chief Deputy Treasurer, stated the Treasurer could sell lots by negotiation. It is discussed in Barbara Cory's memo. There may be statutory requirements about who is entitled to the surplus. If a parcel is sold at foreclosure, the surplus goes to the property owner who foreclosed. He will check the statute to see if that is true in a tax title situation. There is a process, a sale by negotiation, to acquire these lots through negotiation as opposed to a public sale. A sale to the County for a public purpose would meet a condition to allow a sale by negotiation. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:37 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Sharon Roy, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 11/26/2002, Page 10