Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources July 23 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 Special Water Resources Work Session July 23, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 10:07 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward Nelson in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Seth Fleetwood Sharon Roy Dan McShane Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sam Crawford WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2002 -065) 1. SALMON RECOVERY Local Salmon Recovery Governance Structure Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated an action item is replacing the 1998 memorandum of agreement (MOA) with an interlocal agreement between the County, tribes, and local cities. The current draft describes a policy roundtable dealing with salmon recovery issues. It will include three caucuses that are now described as co- manager, local government, and stakeholder. Each sphere of interest still has to be refined. The process also describes a relationship between a joint technical advisory group, which is the science base that influences the policy table, and a citizen advisory group to influence salmon recovery efforts. Roy asked who the co- managers are. Monsen stated co- managers are local tribes in the State of Washington. Co- managers refer to fishery co- management. The other piece is an administrative function to make it work. They haven't decided who that will be and how that will work. Someone has to make sure the pieces are maintained. Nelson stated this is a new format for the MOA. Monsen stated the current MOA is still in place. It is exclusively a relationship between the County and the two tribes. It contemplates a two - caucus system that includes fisheries and land use. The new system is also to deal with the statutory requirements for Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2496, salmon recovery grant funding, and to bring a variety of interests to the table. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 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. Brenner asked if there is an MOA or memorandum of understanding (MOU). Monsen stated the terms are interchangeable. It outlines the relationship, and is not a legal entity. Brenner asked for an example of land use. Monsen stated one example is the shoreline regulations. Land use includes other jurisdictions. From a regulatory perspective, they are applying standards and regulations in the context of a permit request for activity. That is not the same thing as looking for a grant to proactively change a shoreline. The new concept is meant to deal with formal fishery issues from a tribal perspective; deal with bigger local policy issues; and to deal with those folks who are impacted from day -to -day. They haven't determined who will sit at the table. However, they need to bring these perspectives to the table. How they create it needs to be determined. The tribes' reactions have been positive so far. He submitted comments from the Nooksack Tribe (on file). The Nooksack Tribe submitted guiding principles that should be considered and attached to the interlocal agreement. The tribes also recognized the position of the stakeholder perspective at the table. There is an unresolved issue of how to put the stakeholder interest at the table, without undermining the notion of the government -to- government policy making. They need to determine how they will ultimately make decisions, given the diversity of opinions around the table. Brenner asked if the Lummis are agreeable to government -to- government decision making with the County, rather than through the State. Monsen stated it is important to the tribes to have equal status in the decision - making process. In some situations, the tribes see the County as being an equal. In other situations, the tribes see the county as being a subgroup of the State. Because of some of the things they've done with salmon recovery, the tribes are comfortable dealing with all local governments at a table like this. Roy asked if the stakeholder perspective will have the same weight at the table for making decisions. Monsen stated the local agricultural industry has a substantial vested interest. It is important to bring that perspective forward. That is different than that representative having the same status to vote. That is different. Roy stated that is the problem she sees because of the government -to- government issue. Technically down the road, that could create a problem. Monsen stated his intention while putting the draft together was for salmon recovery to have coordination and consistency between efforts, and also to have a collective proactive effort. A significant item on the table is selecting and ranking projects for grant funding. Beyond that, an issue before the group can compel an individual government to regulate that issue independent from the group. The group almost becomes advisory. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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 asked if local government co- managers would rank the projects. Monsen stated the collective group would rank projects. McShane asked if they leave it to the citizen and technical group to rank the projects, and then the local government and co- managers would decide whether they want to go forward with the ranking as it is or to send it back. He asked how the stakeholder relationship is represented at the table. Monsen stated the technical and citizen input is toward the table, not the stakeholders. McShane asked who the stakeholders are. Monsen stated that hasn't been decided. There are stakeholder interests that should speak openly to get their issues on the table. There is a variety of ways to do that. McShane stated that the way it works now, the citizen committee looks at and ranks projects. The project ranking then goes to the technical committee, and then it goes to co- managers and local government. He asked what the local governments and co- managers do with them. Monsen stated the current process is dynamic. Each time they've gone through the ranking process, it has been slightly different. Between the County and co- managers, there were boundaries placed on what the priorities are. The boundaries were handed to the citizen committee to use to go through a selection and ranking process, which was again validated by the County and co- managers. The new process is to formalize that process and confirm their ability to make that decision in the end. They don't have that ability now because not all the participants are mandated through ESHB 2496 or the MOA. The MOA and ESHB 2496 are not the same. The new process consolidates those documents and resolves a variety of problems by creating a round table for everyone. Fleetwood asked if this model has been used elsewhere in the state. Monsen stated no. Any successful processes deal with these interests, but how the processes are constructed differs from place to place. One difference from place to place is the role the tribes play. There are areas where the tribes have chosen not to engage, so the process has moved ahead without them. There are other areas where the tribes are at odds with local folks. In other areas like Whatcom County, they are maintaining contact with the tribes at the table. They need to clarify the process so it is less dynamic. Crawford asked if the Council is going to provide direction that this is the direction it wants to go so it can go back to the tribes, or if the Council and the tribes will have a joint meeting to hammer it out. Monsen stated he recommended not putting together a large meeting to work out the details. Crawford stated a lot of their questions are about how the tribes feel about things. Mr. Monsen is trying to speak for the tribes. It would be easier to just ask them. Monsen stated he is not certain that they could resolve issues with the Lummi contingent at the table. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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 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. Brenner stated she understood that Monsen wants the Council to give him the green light to move forward with developing the process, and it would come back to the Council when it is more refined. Monsen stated that is correct. He's asking if the Council agrees with the concept for the new process. If they agree, he will refine some of the issues with the tribe and bring it back to the Council. Secondly, he will open this up more broadly for other local governments to react to and refine what the table will look like. Nelson asked for an example of the key stakeholders. Monsen stated the local governments include those listed in ESHB 2496 now, which are the County and cities. The Public Utility District (PUD) doesn't have a direct interest in salmon recovery. This is a salmon recovery table, not water resources inventory area (WRIA) 1 implementation table. Nelson stated they would end up with two agreements and two tables, one for WRIA and one for salmon recovery. Monsen stated they have an agreement for the watershed project. They don't know what implementation will look like and what that table will need. From a WRIA standpoint, they will pay attention to how this draft process will work, because it may become a template for the watershed project process. The stakeholders may include the chair of the technical committee and the chair of the citizen advisory committee. He hasn't listed out what interests may need to be at the table. Brenner asked why they chose six government seats. Monsen stated co- managers are based in government. Three seats are for local government and three seats are for the co- managers. Brenner asked who the State's lead entity is. Monsen stated the current MOA allows the ability for the County to be designated the lead entity. The new table will deal with the bigger picture of salmon recovery, which goes beyond ESHB 2496. If they are formalizing the bigger picture, don't presume the County will be the lead entity. Brenner asked why it is called the State lead entity. Monsen stated the State legislation requires a lead entity, which is the County. Brenner stated it is confusing to make the group the lead entity. She asked who makes the final decision. Monsen stated the group would make the final decisions. Brenner stated the Council makes the final decision for the County. It has been an interactive process all along. She asked if that would change. Monsen stated that would still happen. Nelson stated that the County would have a say in the discussion, but the final decision would come from the group. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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 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. Brenner asked if it is conceivable that there will be some decisions that the County will not agree with. With the current process, they could stop anytime they didn't feel right about something. Monsen stated that in the context of the watershed project, that is true. That is not true in the context of salmon recovery. Nelson asked how that is not true. Monsen stated that they are structured today to have a tribal perspective, County perspective, and Citizen Habitat Committee perspective. At this point, there is no mechanism to resolve the differences. Brenner stated it is like they are creating a regional entity. Monsen stated the new process is trying to accomplish two things. It is to resolve differences that occur now. It is also meant to formalize how they deal with the policy issues that are pretty loose right now. Nelson asked if this is necessary to come to a conclusion for salmon recovery. Monsen stated it is if they are going to be consistent in land use issues, understand the tribal issues in that context, and in accessing grant programs. They need to find a way to resolve disputes. Nelson stated they need to make sure the tribes sign on to the MOA. Brenner asked if it would be better to hire a mediator. She doesn't want some other entity to make decisions that she doesn't approve of, and then have to pay for them. Monsen stated that isn't his assumption. This body has no authority over anyone. It has the ability to agree with a concept and project. This table allows for motivating people to apply things consistently across the County, not to create mandates. This body will never have that authority. Roy stated she doesn't see this working unless there is a buy -in from the co- managers' side on the government -to- government issue. If the buy -in is there, she would support the process. If not, they need to go back to the joint table. McShane stated his chief concern is making sure that the best projects get funding, and not derail projects because there may be a financial interest by the local governments or co- managers. If this process moves toward that assurance, then he is comfortable with it. There are good technical people and a good citizen committee who have done a good job ranking projects. There have been glitches after it goes through that process. He asked if this new process is to resolve that glitch. Monsen stated it is. The further they go along, there are more differing opinions on the highest priority. There is no way to resolve those disputes. McShane stated the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has a process with the U.S. Forest Service. They've got three different caucuses at the table to make decisions about which projects they will spend money on. That crew doesn't make a financial decision on whether or not the projects are approved. The Forest Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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 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. Service chief or BLM chief cannot manipulate the projects at all. He can accept them or not. If not, it goes back to that committee. One caucus can veto a project and kill it. Monsen stated that might be the ultimate outcome here as well. George Boggs, Citizens Habitat Committee Chairman, stated they were initiated under ESHB 2496. This process contemplated a single table with all the stakeholders. It was a very inclusive model that was very democratic. They recognized that salmon recovery doesn't belong to any particular tribe or major landowner. It belongs to the community. The Citizen Habitat Committee has functioned with that understanding. This is a community effort. The current model has produced some friction. Rather than go through the particular difficulties, they suggest revisiting the 1998 MOA so what comes out as a model expresses the entire communities' notion of what salmon recovery is. There are a lot of stakeholders in the community. This presents an alternate mechanism for the existing process, which resulted in conflict. The Citizen Habitat Committee viewed itself as being the ESHB 2496 committee with certain rights and responsibilities. He supports moving into a process that is inclusive of all stakeholders in the community. Nelson stated the new process is for salmon recovery, not all watershed planning. Monsen stated that is correct. This is meant to deal with long -term salmon recovery matters, which has a relationship with watershed planning efforts. Nelson stated some projects would come forward under the WRIA planning process. He asked how they would coordinate with the WRIA planning process. Monsen stated he speculates that, from a financial standpoint, the exclusive financial relationship is with the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board. They have a particular financial purview. It is possible that the State would expand the SRF Board's scope for financial support under other watershed planning efforts. John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, stated funding of inflow studies has been moved to the SRF Board. The strategy for salmon recovery is being fed into watershed planning. They need to improve coordination. Boggs stated the strategy has come from the co- managers and their technical group. If there were a more inclusive model, the strategy could be refined to incorporate those priorities of the watershed planning so that, once the strategy is adopted, review of the projects would be consistent and give deference to that strategy. Fleetwood asked if the local governments would include tribes, the County and cities. Monsen stated it includes just the County and cities. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Monsen continued to state that the co- managers are the tribes and the State. There are other interests out there that are not represented by those two groups. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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. Fleetwood stated there are three seats representing local governments, one for the County. Presumably, there will be a subcommittee of the cities that will meet together to make decisions, and then speak as one collective voice. Monsen stated he assumed the three chairs would include the County, the City of Bellingham, and a representative from the small cities. Those three individuals have the ability to state a decision. When it comes to decision - making, they will preferably speak with a single voice. Fleetwood asked if one stakeholder seat is the representative from the citizen committee. Monsen stated there are individual stakeholder voices to deal with the issues. However, they need to speak with a single voice to make decisions. Brenner asked who would appoint the stakeholder members. Monsen stated they recognize the value of the other perspectives. To give the stakeholders that status, it may require an appointment from the co- managers and local government caucuses. They haven't decided on that process. The interlocal would say how that works. Brenner asked how the stakeholders were appointed in the WRIA process. She thought the caucus members got together and appointed someone from their group to represent them. She prefers that process. They make public announcements about the meetings, they get together, and they choose their own representatives. McShane stated that still has to be worked out. Roy stated that if the stakeholders have the same weight for voting, there will be an issue that causes concern. Thompson stated it would be contingent on the types of decisions that this group makes. He preferred that the stakeholders have an equal say on grant application ranking decisions. If it is a decision about policy, it is not a stakeholder decision. Nelson suggested the stakeholder chairs might need flexibility to have different stakeholder representatives sitting at the table, depending on the issue. Brenner stated there have been times when the tribes have been at odds with State or local governments regarding the fish return rates. She asked if there will be majority approval. Thompson stated that would be a decision made outside of this system by the co- managers. Those decisions will be picked up and carried into this process. Monsen stated this process would create an opportunity to influence those decisions. Nelson stated all this discussion is for is to provide information and get general consensus of this process to move forward. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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. McShane stated he is supportive of the process. Nelson stated there is consensus that the Council is supportive. Fleetwood asked when the final agreement would be adopted. Monsen stated late summer. 2. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT Caucus Support Request from the Non - Municipal Systems Caucus Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated the Council developed a grant system of support for the various water interest caucuses in the WRIA process to help pay for educational materials and membership drives. Judy Slotemaker from the non - municipal water association caucus requests additional funding for their caucus. Judy Slotemaker, WRIA 1 Non - Municipal Water Systems Caucus, stated she submitted a letter (on file). Her caucus is mandated by the WRIA process to represent water associations. They represent a large constituency of unincorporated Whatcom County. It is a difficult caucus to represent because the members are diverse. Many of their governing body representatives change frequently. Even getting in contact with the constituents is difficult at times. A number of groups representing a number of water associations have formed a caucus that evolved into an official non - profit organization. There are set dues. They receive some funding, but it is very limited. People who have been active in the caucus are those with a strong sense of civic responsibility. They do what they can with what they have. Their consultant works at half his normal rate. Aside from the paid consultant, a vast amount of in -kind time is donated. Many of the members need to know in layman's terms what is going on. Nelson asked what their budget is. Slotemaker stated she submitted that information. Basic expenses are for the newsletter to constituents and the consultant's fees. The consultant fee is about 95 percent of their budget. Brenner stated most of the other caucuses have ways to develop funding through taxes and other methods. This caucus doesn't have the access to monies that other caucuses have. It is very important to fund this caucus. They have been one of the most active caucuses in the process. This is an example of spending money wisely. They need to keep the Council very informed of their decision - making. Nelson stated that Councilmember Brenner advocated for reducing funding for the caucuses. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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 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. Brenner stated she did for some of the caucuses that had their own funding sources. Nelson asked if the other caucuses are using consultants. Roll stated some are and some aren't. Slotemaker stated they work closely with the consultant. Nelson stated that is understandable. Some of the caucuses haven't spent any of their allocated money. Roll stated some haven't submitted their invoices yet. Brenner stated she felt that the government caucuses should fund themselves. The small caucuses made up of regular citizens should receive funding. This is one of those caucuses. Nelson asked if the organization has a fee structure. Slotemaker stated they do, but it is voluntary. Nelson asked if there is a board of directors. Slotemaker stated there is. The membership requirement for the association is that the member has to be an organized water association. Roy asked if the consultant did not know that they were running out of money, or if additional projects were taken on. Slotemaker stated the budget was more than the allocation. Roll stated it is extremely difficult for this project to predict a year into the future. They cannot also predict needs for extra costs. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the members shared the cost of this in any way. Slotemaker stated they anticipated needing $30,000. They get $10,000 from the County. Volunteers do the rest of the work. Roy asked if there is money for this. Roll stated there is a line item in the County Water Resources Division budget for this. He made an assumption that all the water interest caucuses would request their $10,000. Right now, not all of the caucuses have requested their allocation, so there is a budget capacity for this amount in this year's budget in an amount of $40,000 to $45,000. Brenner stated the Council did foresee that some of the caucuses would have this need, and others wouldn't. Slotemaker stated the $10,000 allocated annually was not used last year, but the balance was not rolled over to this year, which is what she would prefer would happen. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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 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. Caskey- Schreiber asked if staff anticipates the other caucuses needing more money. Roll stated he hasn't heard anything from the others. Slotemaker stated the private well owners have a more difficult constituency to represent. The Council should be sympathetic to their cause as well. Roy asked what staff needs are on this issue. Roll stated staff requests a motion to direct him to amend the contract for the amount they are requesting. The existing contract would be amended to be in effect through the end of the project, which is June of next year. Nelson so moved. Crawford asked the difference between the $10,000 budget amount and the $9,000 contract. Roll stated the difference is for miscellaneous copying fees provided for clerical printing from Anvil. Nelson stated the motion is to add $15,000 to the original $10,000. Roll stated the request is to add $15,000 in addition to the $10,000 allocated this year and $10,000 allocated next year. The increase is only $7,500 extra for this year and $7,500 for next year. Nelson asked if the private well owner group can work with this group. Brenner stated they are very different. Slotemaker stated the private well owners wanted to discuss it with her caucus at one point, but that meeting never happened. Nelson stated that might be one way to conserve funds. Slotemaker stated they could work cooperatively together. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated the problem with the private well owners is that they can't get together and organize. This caucus has put a lot of time and effort into the process and has spent a lot of time at the table. Roll stated Scarlet Tang is trying to get more people from the private well owners involved. Nelson stated there is no association. The closest thing to it would be the non - municipal water systems. Brenner stated another idea would be to combine the caucuses, and if any private well owners show up, then they would be represented. The non - municipal well owners will be sympathetic and not conflict. More funding would be available Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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. for the non - municipal water association caucus. Slotemaker stated they could look at it. Motion carried 5 -2 with Crawford and McShane opposed. 3. LAKE WHATCOM Lake Whatcom Street Sweeping Mike Donahue, Engineering Manager - Traffic, stated the Council discussed this in the spring. He has more detailed information. There are three options for implementation: contract with a local provider; contract with the City of Bellingham; or perform the work in- house. • Contracting Locally: he was refereed to Bayside Services, who expressed an interest in doing this. Bayside Services has two regenerative air street sweepers. • Contract with the City of Bellingham: Bellingham has three regenerative air sweepers plus staff, but they are being fully used at this time. Bellingham would have to acquire more equipment and staff. • In- House: the County could obtain the equipment and use current staff. Caskey- Schreiber asked if anyone has a vacuum assisted sweeper available. Erica Stroebel, Resources Planner, stated the recommendation from staff is to go with the regenerative air sweeper. The vacuum assisted sweeper is new technology that is promising, but there is a question of applicability in the Northwest. It can't run under wet conditions or on chip seal roads. No one in the Northwest is using it. Staff wants to watch other communities who may use it, and not be the leader on that. Brenner asked where they are being used mostly. Stroebel stated they have been used in Idaho. Donahue stated the filter is unproven. He is not confident that they want to invest in that technology. Stroebel stated for a best management practice (BMP), they want to do street cleaning right before a storm event. With the vacuum sweeper, a light mist or rain may be enough to make those filters not work properly. The City of Olympia will look into this in the next couple of years. Staff felt it was best to watch their progress, and review again in five years. Brenner stated she thought everyone on staff was stretched now. She asked how they can use current staff. Donahue stated the work would take one full time Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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. employee Maintenance and Operations (M &O) staff. As they discuss the options, it will become clear how it will work. Staff is busier in summer than in winter. They may do some work in -house and some contracted. The County could have six people on a brush crew or five people. The sixth person increases production, but is not required. Brenner stated there either is or isn't excess time on their hands. Donahue stated it is about the level of service. It is worth going to a lower level of service in other tasks to do this project. Monsen stated they are always making scheduling adjustments depending on current annual climate, work priority, and other factors to fulltime, temporary staff, and contractors. That changes all the time. If they are to buy a street sweeper unit, it is of value to assign a staff person to it, which opens up other alternatives that are more easily adapted to contracting activity. Stan Campbell, Bayside Services, stated he would be happy to put a bid in on a proposal, and he can provide the service cheaper than County government. He has three pieces of equipment that can go to work tomorrow. In the Lake Whatcom watershed, it seems to be premature. The roads in the watershed need to be paved with catch basins and contingent ponds to control sediment. Residential areas already have curbs, gutters, and catch basins in place. Spending $135,000 plus staff is not really feasible. Contracting is a feasible option. There will not be measurable results to sweeping Lake Whatcom Boulevard. Brenner stated she heard that, when operating on chip sealed roads without curbs, they will get some gain but not a measurable gain. She asked if they could put in curbs. Donahue stated he envisions a multifaceted approach to clean up the watershed from the road contribution. Street sweeping is one tool. Staff is also looking into putting a catch basin program in place. They have a new vacuum truck to collect sediment. There is also planning for new detention ponds. The street sweeper option is one of the most important services. Crawford asked if the Bayside Service units are regenerative air or mechanical. Campbell stated two are regenerative air and one is mechanical. Crawford stated a study did a comparison between street sweeping and installation of detention vaults, and found that street sweeping was much less expensive. Campbell stated the sweeping should be targeted to the areas that already have containment. There is so much rain that it is not viable to sweep Lake Whatcom Boulevard in a rainstorm. Too much runoff would have to be contained. It is a good idea to sweep, but they should also do containment. They both have to be accomplished. Crawford asked if there is a use anticipated for these sweepers, other than in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Donahue stated there is a need to be responsive. There is also a need for a systematic sweeping program. Private contractors get it Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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 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. done well. Last year, the County rented a street sweeper for seven months. The County used the mechanical machine, but it was clear that they needed a better machine. They are renting again this year. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Brenner asked for a cost comparison between renting a machine and contracting the service. Donahue stated he could provide that comparison. They need to provide parameters to the contractor because he has to take more risk of unknowns. If the County rents equipment, their costs are fixed. Caskey- Schreiber stated the goal of this program is to deal with Lake Whatcom Boulevard because it doesn't have a catch basin. She asked if Mr. Campbell's sweepers would work on that road. Campbell stated they would work fine. It is questionable if there is a measurable gain. Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, asked Mr. Campbell if his machine will work better picking up materials on roads with the curbs if they compare equal roads with an equal amount of sediment, but one with curbs and one without. Campbell stated his machine will work equally well on both roads, but they will gain more with areas that are paved and have catch basins. With curbs, the material stays on the street. Without curbs, the material blows off the side of the road and can't be picked up by the machine. Nelson asked if they developed a request for proposals (RFP). Donahue stated that is why staff is here, to get direction on proceeding. Nelson stated he has to know what staff wants to do in the Lake Whatcom watershed, and what a legitimate process would be. The proposal would have to match with the measurement standards. Donahue stated the cost for the County to provide this service would be $9,000 per month for equipment and labor and $1,500 per month for disposal. Campbell stated he could do it for $4,800 per month, not including disposal. Donahue stated Bayside Service's monthly rate is $12,000 per month in the annual rental rates that various contractors submit. Campbell stated he is talking about twice per week in the watershed. That is not a monthly rate. Monsen stated the equipment cost to the County is not to buy a piece of equipment and do Lake Whatcom twice per week. They would use it full time. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, 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 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. Nelson stated that means they will have to find a full -time equivalent (FTE) employee from another work area. Donahue stated he would rather reprioritize their workload and put together a good street sweeping proposal than ask the Council for another FTE. Brenner stated they need another FTE whether it is a new FTE or someone from another work area. That cost has to be included. Monsen stated that cost is already built in. Brenner asked if Bayside Services would be available to take care of emergencies and other areas if it was also doing Lake Whatcom. Campbell stated he could do that. Brenner asked why the County would buy a piece of equipment instead of contracting out. Many times, they've contracted out instead of buying equipment. They are talking about a big, expensive piece of equipment. She doesn't know of very many communities that have this service available. The County should take advantage of what the private sector can provide, especially if the cost is the same or less. They can be available at a moment's notice. She'd like to know about the County's options before they purchase a huge piece of equipment. Donahue stated a rough cost for one FTE and to have the equipment would be around $10,500 per month. It is important to provide the service one way or another. They need to have a sweeper internally because they've rented one for seven months and haven't used it in the watershed. There will be more of a need as the County becomes more urbanized. Nelson stated that he preferred to contract the services from the community. Government should not compete with the private sector. Donahue stated he recommended that the County do both contracting out the services and purchase the equipment also. There has been a huge need. It is a new need. There is a need to integrate the equipment into the shop. They can also use a broom sweeper as well. It is a new need in the community. Nelson moved to refer this to the Public Works Committee, expanding beyond the scope of the watershed issue. Look at the total costs. McShane asked the percent of work on road projects annually that is contracted out. Monsen stated 40 to 50 percent of the work on the annual road projects is contracted out. McShane stated he is ready to support this now. The Public Works Department has looked at this carefully. They often contract things out. If it makes sense to them to do this in- house, he is convinced. The issue is more of contracting work out versus working in -house than whether or not they need to do this service. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, Page 14 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 agreed with buying the machine to do the work in- house. Brenner stated she is amazed that they would just approve something for $2 million without getting any more information. She asked if there was an attempt to contract out the work that caused them to rent for seven months. Donahue stated he didn't know at the time that the service is there in the community. Crawford asked how long it would take to get the equipment and implement the service if it is approved. Donahue stated it could happen quickly. Crawford stated they have discussed this for a while. He wouldn't mind going forward with it. He is confused about the cost. Donahue stated they can sweep 15 miles per day. They have to do 50 miles of road. They would do three passes on the roads for a total of 150 miles. That takes ten working days to do. If they sweep twice monthly, they would engage a street sweeper and operator for 20 days per month, which is full time. Mr. Campbell is looking at how much it costs to sweep the watershed, and he is looking at how much it costs to run per month, so there may be a discrepancy in their two estimates. Staff wants to prioritize some areas more than others. Crawford asked if the machine would be available to use anywhere else. Donahue stated it would not. McShane stated the timeline estimate may be off, and they may be able to do more elsewhere. The estimate of 15 miles per day may be a conservative estimate. Donahue stated they are comparing the cost per month for the County to perform the service versus what it would cost per mile for Bayside Services to perform the work. They really don't want to have the private and public sector vying against each other. A better solution, given the workload, would be to do both in -house and contract. The County can engage a sweeper fulltime in the watershed and contract for other areas. It is an increasing need that needs to be met. Crawford asked the what Bayside Services estimated proposal is. Campbell stated he would charge $4,800 per month to 20 to 25 miles per day, which is a variable amount of roads he could do. Crawford asked if Bayside Services could do three passes on 50 miles of road for $4,800. Campbell stated he shouldn't have to do three passes. He would do two passes. They are going after the particulates, not the larger material. The regenerative air sweeper will pick up the particulates. If they leave something behind on the first pass, then keep going. That is not their target. The target is the contaminant. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, Page 15 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. Stroebel stated the street sweeping BMP is covering the entire road surface so they remove the particulates from the entire road surface. That is the reason for three passes. Campbell stated his machine doesn't have to do three passes. They would get nothing done on the third passes. Donahue stated he didn't understand how there would be a difference if they were using the same machine. Roy asked how long a street sweeper lasts. She asked if it makes economic sense to own it. Donahue stated the replacement cost of $5,000 per month is for a five -year lifecycle. It is built into the cost he quoted. Fleetwood stated he wanted to hear in the Public Works Committee where and why they need street sweeping services elsewhere in the county. Crawford suggested contracting with a contractor for a couple of months to do the level they are talking about, which three passes. Measure the yardage of material that is collected. Then, they will have real information on what the costs would be. They could measure the difference in yardage collected between two passes and three passes on the roads. Roy asked if the recommendation to do three passes on the road is based on something. Stroebel stated it comes from research. Roy stated three passes is what is recommended. The issue of whether to do two or three passes is not relevant. Donahue stated that if they contract with Bayside Services temporarily, the only estimate they have now for Bayside Services to perform the work is a monthly rental rate with an operator at $12,000 per month. Brenner stated that if they have someone who has done this for 25 years, the County should respect what he says, too. This is a huge cost. Crawford asked if the three passes is done because the machine covers one - third of the road at a time. Donahue stated that is correct. Motion failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Fleetwood in favor. McShane moved to approve purchasing a regenerative air sweeper. Crawford stated it makes sense to experiment before they make the purchase. Contractors are available to test this program for the County and produce data on the most cost effective route. Tell the contractor to do three passes. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, Page 16 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. Brenner asked if the contractor can measure the difference in collection between two passes and three passes. Campbell stated he could do that. Brenner stated she would like that information. Fleetwood stated he concurred with Councilmember Crawford. He asked if it is feasible to contract temporarily. Monsen stated it is feasible. He needs to work through the legal issues. McShane stated the research has been done. It is a BMP in the watershed. The issue is contracting versus in- house. Staff has made a good case for doing it in -house for a lot of reasons. After five years, which is the lifetime of the equipment, they can have a good understanding at that point. They need to know the conditions over the different seasons, over a long period of time. At that point, they will understand where to focus. Staff can write an RFP for how the work would be done by a contractor. Brenner stated they contract for experimental things all the time. They can get the same information by contracting out. She's not convinced it is cheaper to do it in- house. Look at a contractor who has been in the business for 25 years. Motion carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Fleetwood, and Brenner opposed. (Clerk's Note: The Council took a break at 12:25 p.m.) 2. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT Management Options, Management Areas, Instream Flow Update, and Approval of USU Phase II Deliverables Roll submitted a timeline of events (on file). There is a compact disc (CD) in the Council packet that has the proceedings from the instream flow development. There is no set road map. It is specific to each of the WRIA's. There isn't one clear template for all. One of the first things they did was to identify the options and issues. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Roll continued to state that Parametrix put together a packet of management options that are coming forward. They are coming forward parallel to the Utah State University (USU) alpha version of the models that provide insight into water quantity, quality, instream flow, and habitat issues. The goal is to feed the management options into the decision support system (DSS) tool. In September, they will evaluate the status of the technical work and plan development. Then Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, Page 17 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 will proceed to the beta version of the DSS, which is the more integrated version that is much more user friendly. It is targeted for November. There are two things going on simultaneously: WRIA wide management options and regional management options. The three regional areas for more in -depth focus are South Fork, Ten Mile, and Lynden North. Lake Whatcom is a fourth area that the Council approved. There is a small group of Joint Board staff working to decide how they get from the data to an instream flow regimen for WRIA 1. In those meetings, they have learned that the original goal of adopting WRIA 1 instream flows by June 2003 is not going to happen. To have them set in all the drainages in the WRIA on this time frame will not happen. They may need to go in different directions with different drainages regarding instream flow. They can be approached differently. The group will develop the strategy and determine who needs to participate. They will do a few basins at a time. The established legislation stipulated that, if instream flows were to be changed, the group would have to recommend an instream flow process. The flows would also have to be changed through rulemaking at DOE, which would take a year for DOE to do after the recommendation is made. All the Joint Board members understand these issues. Some management options cannot be run fully if the option depends on information on instream flows. They need models that run different management scenarios. He will come back next month with a more refined approach to how they get from the compiled data to an instream flow management strategy for a particular drainage. The Planning Unit and stakeholders can look at that strategy and make comments. He hopes to create something where the people who are affected by instream flows have a voice to speak to the issues. Brenner stated some of the management options don't look possible, such as augmenting streams with groundwater. Roll stated that is already being done effectively in some places. Brenner asked about off - channel storage using small reservoirs. People have talked about having a reservoir instead of Lake Whatcom. She asked if the County can legally create a small reservoir. Roll stated these points are the criteria that were mutually adopted by the Planning Unit and others. As they move forward, the options have to go through screens, such as what is financially doable, what is legal, and who is obligated and has the authority. It is possible that creating a small reservoir is legal. It is used in other agricultural areas. Brenner asked about agricultural to urban /residential conversion. Ten Mile is full of farms. She asked why they would focus on converting agricultural to urban /residential. The County has taken a position against doing that. Roll stated he hoped that, through tools such as the DSS and scientific tools, they will know where they want to preserve land and what areas will most impact or not impact Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, Page IS 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. water issues. This is a tool that will provide more clarity on where they want to develop urbanized areas. This doesn't say where it has to happen. This is a tool to evaluate where the best places are for it to happen, from an environmental perspective. Caskey- Schreiber stated there is land there that is zoned for development but hasn't been developed yet. Brenner stated this is talking about conversions, which could be a rezone. She asked for an explanation of the senior environmental water right. Roll stated it has to do with the tribal perspective of having water rights time immemorial. Every water right has a certain seniority depending on the time the right was filed. Bellingham has a senior right for their water. The tribes have said all along that their right is the senior right, although that hasn't been adjudicated, from time immemorial for fisheries purposes. John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated an adjudication of that same issue in another area has been going on for twenty years. Nelson stated there are no projects yet, just proposals. He asked if he would be looking at the USU beta models if he were looking for criteria to make decisions on these projects. Roll stated that is correct. Those will be flushed out in the beta versions. There are some general criteria. They've proposed the next wave of those criteria. Nelson asked if those criteria would be weighted. Roll stated they are not weighted right now. Nelson asked when they will see weighted criteria. Roll stated he was not sure that they would see weighted criteria. Right now, Parametrix is not advocating for weighting the criteria. Nelson asked if Parametrix wants to move forward on deciding on projects. Roll stated they do not now. They are creating another tier of criteria to take it to the next step. There is a matrix that will help people sort through the projects. He will bring it to the Council next month, and they will have discussion to describe Parametrix's rationale. Watts stated the first or second iteration of the beta models may not have all the information necessary. For example, the information on instream flows will not be available. That won't prevent what is done from coming forward. Roll stated that is correct. When they did the water rights analysis for the basins, they assumed they could get through many steps of the analysis to determine who is using it, who is not using it, and who has valid rights. They found that they underestimated the amount of work needed to be able to make decisions about changes to water rights. Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, Page 19 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. Watts stated they really can't weight the criteria until they get a complete model and are satisfied that they have all the factors that could be significant. Roll stated there will be a checkpoint when they can look at the capabilities of the models. They won't run every possible management scenario through the models. Some will need to go through and some won't. Because of adaptive management, they will go through a prioritization process for seeing what they need to do for subsequent work plans in the future. He's speaking about what they will see in the first version of the plan. 3. LAKE WHATCOM Lake Whatcom /WRIA Proposal Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated the proposal to study Lake Whatcom follows the same format as what they are doing with the three WRIA regional areas. She needs to know from the Council if they are moving in the right direction. The six tasks are the same as those in the three detailed management areas. The proposal before them outlines the issues and problems. It puts them into the northern, more developed portion of the watershed. What is lacking with the current set of goals is a performance benchmark if they want it. Nelson asked the problem they want to solve. Blake stated there are water quality problems in Lake Whatcom. If there are recommendations that don't address that problem, then it's not relevant. Brenner stated she wanted to see a Lake Whatcom stormwater management district as soon as possible. Create retrofit requirements as soon as possible. Also, with all the ways the people in the watershed are affected, they should do the pesticide ban. She understands that they can't always enforce it, but they can do education. The County should say it is not acceptable in the residential zoning areas in the watershed. Blake stated these are general recommendations now. If there are specific details like this, she needs to hear them. McShane stated look at recreational uses of the lake. Blake stated another citizen group is taking the lead on looking at motorized watercraft on the lake. The other recreational topics can be added in. Watts stated he reviewed this and submitted comments. His interest is in clarifying the point that that certain management options will be automatically included. (Clerk's Note: Nelson left the meeting at 1:00 p.m.) Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, Page 20 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. Watts continued to state that there are a number of the management options that need the results of the USU modeling. That may or may not add additional options. He asked if that is the intention. Blake stated it reflects that the focus is on water quality. However, that comment is for water supply issues. If water quantity makes a difference to water quality, then they may need to revisit how they do that. They can consider a variety of management options. However, the models will not provide input on all of those things, such as pesticides. They can set the models up so future data can be plugged into the models. McShane stated there has been discussion about recreational use in the lake. That decision has been in the administration's realm. The Executive and Mayor created a committee, which has completed two tasks and made recommendations to the councils, which were accepted. The committee has not met or been called to meet for quite some time. He's contemplating that, since the councils are the policymakers, they need to help launch the committee. He is not sure about launching into a pesticide ban. He would like to get together with city councilmembers, have the councils take over that citizen committee, and give the citizens committee direction. The citizen committee is not meeting and has not been working. They are supposed to be working on the boat issue. He is tired of being told they are working on it. Clare Fogelsong, City of Bellingham stated the Citizen Advisory Committee wasn't designated to be the Motorized Watercraft Advisory Committee, which hasn't been convened yet because he's been swamped. People are designated on the Citizen Advisory Committee. The Executive, Mayor, and Water District 10 went through applicants for the Motorized Watercraft Advisory Committee. There are nine members. The Citizen Advisory Committee was not structured for that task. He's been working on an integrated pest management plan. The Parks Department incorporated it into their operations. That would be great information for the Citizen Advisory Committee to consider. McShane stated he is not comfortable that they haven't heard about the existence of a watercraft committee until now. The Executive and Mayor need to communicate to the councils better. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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. These minutes were approved by Council on September 10 , 2002. IWAVEMM Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair Water Resources Work Session, 7/23/2002, Page 22