HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources Worksession April 24 20011
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
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
April 24, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Northwest Annex Hearing Room, 1000 N. Forest
Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Connie Hoag
Marlene Dawson
Absent:
Barbara Brenner
Bob Imhof
Sam Crawford
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2001 -063)
1. LAKE WHATCOM
DOE Fish Mercury Study
(Clerk's Note: There was not a quorum for the first ten minutes of the
meeting.)
Erika Stroebel, Planner II, stated that in 1998 the state Department of
Ecology (DOE) did a screening level study of water quality sediments and fish tissue
in Lake Whatcom, and found elevated levels of mercury in one composite sample of
small mouth bass. In the Lake Whatcom Management 2000 Program plan, they
identified a placeholder to do follow -up work to the DOE study. It is a joint effort
between the DOE, Fish and Wildlife, and the Whatcom County Health and Human
Services Department to collect more fish tissue samples from a wider diversity of
species, as well as larger sample of the fish. A human fish consumption survey was
done. The first report on that survey came out on April 12. The mercury levels
were summarized. A fish advisory was developed for Lake Whatcom for small
mouth bass and yellow perch.
Other reports are coming from the state Department of Health (DOH). There
is also another study from Department of Fish and Wildlife that will discuss potential
affects on fish health. The final piece is the Lake Whatcom Management Program,
which says they will pursue a request for proposals (RFP) to do further source
identification work. Those proposals will come to the Council later.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Regina Delahunt, Environmental Health Manager, stated the DOE report
confirms the previous screening sampling. The small mouth bass had elevated
levels of mercury. Although the levels were above what they would like to see,
they still fell within of range of values seen nationwide and statewide for small
mouth bass. All the fish sample results fell within range of what they see
nationwide. Perch also had slightly elevated levels. The Health Department put out
a fish advisory to pregnant women and children under the age of six who should
not eat small mouth bass and should limit the consumption of yellow perch to one
meal per week, depending on body weight. It has been shown that at low levels,
mercury can cause neurological effects to fetuses and small children. There is no
evidence that there is any issue with other populations of adults or older children.
The health benefits of eating fish outweigh potential affects of mercury.
Nelson questioned the form the mercury is in, and the standards for
measurements.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Hoag arrived at 10:20 a.m.)
Nelson questioned whether mercury is a heavy metal. Delahunt stated it is.
Nelson questioned what they expect to see in normal concentrations, the
solubility properties of mercury, and whether there are studies that indicate toxic
doses relative to human consumption.
Stroebel stated those types of questions would be addressed through the
source investigation that would be done. They would ask how the lake
characteristics affect the mercury compounds. Bio- accumulation in fish tissues is
the main source they are concerned with for public health. There may be
characteristics of the lake that contribute to the increase in production of
methylmercury in the lake. That is one aspect they would look at through the RFP.
Nelson questioned whether they would primarily measure methylmercury.
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated they would look at
methylmercury in fish tissue. In the context of results specific to what a drinking
water purveyor is looking at, they would look for total mercury. They can't assume
that total mercury is methylmercury, which is the most toxic form of mercury.
Nelson questioned whether the basis of the decisions of DOE is on the
amount of total mercury or methylmercury. Roll stated total mercury is looked at
from a drinking water perspective.
Delahunt stated fish tissue is examined for methylmercury.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Dawson asked why it is not a problem in the drinking water. Delahunt stated
it is rarely detected in lake water that is untreated, and is never detected in the
city's treated water. It has only been detected three times in the untreated lake
water, and only once has the level exceeded drinking water standards. That was in
1995. The city tests the raw water and treated water. The fish bio- accumulate the
mercury.
Hoag asked how often the city tests for heavy metals. Delahunt stated she
would have to ask the city. It is probably weekly or monthly.
John Watts, Bellingham City Councilmember, stated the city tests frequently
for 80 or 90 compounds, including mercury. They've been testing for years.
Testing is done at least monthly.
Dawson asked if humans bio- accumulate the mercury. Delahunt stated that
the city keeps getting non - detectable limits, which is .5 parts per billion (ppb). In
looking at bio- accumulation for a person 155 -lb. adult, and assuming that the
mercury levels in the water were just below the detectable level, the adult would
have to drink 11.2 liters of water per day, every day, to get close to the tolerable
daily intake limit. However, the adult would only have to eat just a little over an
ounce of tuna fish that comes in a can every day to exceed the tolerable daily
intake limit of mercury. That is a comparison of the risk. When the state derived
the tolerable daily intake level, it also looked at bio- accumulation levels. They take
into account the fact that some of the mercury is going to stay in a person's tissue,
and some of it would be excreted. They are looking at the bio- accumulation. Fish
is the major source of mercury in a person's diet.
Roll stated one is probably consuming more lead in the drinking water.
Balancing this with the other risks that are out there is critical, in terms of
exposure.
Nelson stated it is good information to be aware of, but they need to keep it
in perspective.
Hoag asked if mercury is from an outside source or natural to the lake.
Stroebel stated there are characteristics of the lake that would change the form of
mercury. Methylmercury is the compound of concern for bio- accumulation in fish.
There are lake characteristics that will increase the production of methylmercury,
which would become more available biologically to those fish. The methylmercury
would be produced from elemental mercury. They would look at potential sources
of elemental mercury to describe the global cycle of mercury.
Nelson stated the highest level of mercury was in the fish in basin three.
Delahunt stated there could be a lake characteristic in basin three that causes the
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
methylmercury to be more available to the fish. It doesn't necessarily mean there's
a source in basin three.
Roll stated the microbial process in sediments is most active in the presence
of sulfides. Basin three has the highest oxygen levels of all three basins, and
certainly in the sediments. Also, just because the fish are caught in basin three,
they don't assume that is where the organisms are accumulating.
Hoag asked how mercury naturally occurs in the lake. Stroebel stated could
be in the sediments that are naturally occurring.
Delahunt stated it is an element and occurs in the rocks. There is not a high
level of mercury in the soils around the lake. Mercury is associated with coal
mining. At that end of the lake is where there were coal mining operations. Those
are some of the sources they have to look at.
Hoag questioned whether it is associated at all with sand and gravel mining.
Delahunt stated it was not to her knowledge.
Roll stated mercury has been found in undeveloped lakes in the state of
Maine. They are finding in those situations that there is a major contribution
potential from atmospheric deposition.
Hoag stated all fossil fuel burning produces mercury. The East heavily
depends on coal -fired power and heat.
Delahunt stated the study will look at atmospheric sources.
Hoag questioned whether Lake Whatcom is downwind from Georgia- Pacific.
Stroebel stated they are working on getting wind pattern information.
McShane asked how far the RFP study would go. Delahunt stated they would
make sure they look at any point source that is ongoing to rule out anything at all
and look at any ideas anyone has. So far, they have not come up with any sources.
Hoag asked if they have looked at creeks that feed into the Lake. There was
a study about that a year ago.
Delahunt stated they need to make sure there is not a point source. It is
important that people know there are mercury levels in the fish. They are putting
up signs and will distribute brochures at locations where people purchase fishing
licenses. It is mentioned in the state fish pamphlet. They would send out
information to fishing clubs and lakeside residences.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Hoag questioned whether the levels in canned tuna are the levels that people
are allowed to have, or the level that every can has in it. Delahunt stated the
average concentration in canned tuna is .2. The bass in Lake Whatcom have an
average concentration of .4. The state issued a statewide advisory telling pregnant
women and children to limit their consumption of canned tuna.
Nelson questioned whether they are checking any of the other lakes for bass
concentrations of mercury. Delahunt stated they would like the state to do that.
One recommendation in the state report is for the state to have a program to look
at fish in water bodies. The County could help the state follow that
recommendation.
Lake Whatcom Management Strategies
Roll submitted an overview of activities they've been doing for the last two
years. They will see renewed collaboration with the Planning and Development
Services Department. This is a short list of what has been going on over the last
couple of years.
The Reservoir Management Program recognizes the need to protect drinking
water. Most of the programs are geared toward the beneficial use of drinking
water. The industrial water is not as big an issue. Recreation is another beneficial
use. The Lake Whatcom Management Program is one they are familiar with. These
activities are being coordinated and linked with other large -scale watershed
planning efforts. They tried to focus on bringing products and programs to
stakeholders to acquaint them with appropriate behavior. They need to
institutionalize programs in the watershed so the appropriate behaviors become a
part of everyday life. The thrust has been toward education.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated it is important
to think about the land use zoning regulations. They are more able to manipulate
data in the office. They will be able to better track the development that is going
on. The Tidemark system will link to the geographic information system (GIS).
That is a new approach this year. Another upcoming opportunity is that the Sudden
Valley residents will work with the Planning Department and Water Resources
Division to determine where best to cluster. It is an opportunity to do long -term
planning with the Sudden Valley group.
Regarding Land Preservation, they are reaching out to the Parks and
Recreation Department more than in the past. New rules are coming out for
timber, fish, and wildlife, that will impact the County as a landowner.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Regarding enforcement, his staff is actively going out in the field to look for
violations. The department is doing as good as any other county in the state at
looking at land use issues. He described a typical enforcement action that is taking
place in the watershed.
Dawson questioned how much buffer one is supposed to leave.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there is a 100 -foot buffer
on all critical areas, and a 200 -foot shoreline setback.
Hart stated the County's enforcement is good. They are doing an education
component with every enforcement action.
Goodwin stated one could get a critical areas permit to disturb a buffer.
There could be mitigation. There is much that one could do in a buffer, but he or
she needs a critical areas review.
Hart stated the department is involved in other issues. They are working
with the Public Works Department on stormwater issues. The Stormwater Advisory
Committee will be able to produce a recommendation for revised stormwater
development standards.
Nelson asked for information in the future on the status of each project.
Roll stated each jurisdiction has a notebook that describes the activities, who
does it, the budget, and the deliverables. He encouraged the councilmembers to
contact Erika Stroebel for that information.
Dawson asked what happens if a vacant lot interferes with a view corridor.
Goodwin stated there is nothing in the ordinance that says a person couldn't block
someone else's view. There are limits to building size and setbacks.
Hart stated there are things in the Shoreline Master Program to prevent
encroachment on someone else's view.
Roll stated there was an education workshop over the weekend on backyard
riparian buffers. The program was a huge success. The workshop teaches people
about the types of programs the landowners should be thinking about. It is one
workshop in a series of four workshops.
Stroebel stated the backyard buffer program is to encourage people to think
about how they want to use the land, and how they develop the desired use. There
are ways to address people's needs and uses while protecting the shorelines.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Roll stated he would talk about their work on stormwater.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Roll continued to state that they need to do load modeling on what is coming
in and the potential impact on water quality in the lake. They are working toward
addressing many of the modeling efforts in the context of the larger Water
Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) watershed effort. They can expect a collective
effort with Water District 10, Bellingham, and DOE to develop the monitoring
strategy to fit into the larger decision - support system (DSS) in the entire WRIA.
This will include other components, such as the diversion and the loss of water
going to Georgia- Pacific. Tied to this is a grant for the collective group to collect
more data to fill data gaps. They are going to have approximately ten gauging
stations. All tributaries will be covered through Western Washington University and
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). It will take two to five years to acquire that
information.
McShane asked how much concern there is about the moving target of
increasing development. Roll stated it is a struggle. They will work with the
Planning Department to target land use areas. They hope to develop the
framework to provide the information and be ahead of the curve.
McShane questioned whether there will be turbidity measurements on the
streams, and whether they would incorporate the general belief that the streams
tend to be episodic on their sediment dumping into the lake. Roll stated they need
the data to predict those events. They will acquire information on event data.
Nelson suggested looking at areas that are developed and compare them
with areas that are not developed. Roll stated the watershed would be broken
down with that in mind.
Stroebel stated there are nine sites they would do gauging on, which would
be representative of the different types of sub - watersheds.
Roll stated there is a concern with the creation of information that isn't
necessarily supported by the constituency. Stakeholders are buying off on the
science. They are concerned about going into Lake Whatcom. They have to do
that carefully.
Nelson asked if they are working with the Noxious Weed Board on
stormwater management. Make sure they are not creating another problem with
noxious weeds.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, Page 7
1 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there is not anything directly tied
2 to the Noxious Weed Board. The Noxious Weed Board looks for areas of actual
3 infestation to deal with and determines the likely causes for infestation.
4 Stormwater management is a transport vehicle for noxious weeds. Regarding
5 landscape plans, the Noxious Weed Board does deal with landscape proposals so
6 that they don't create a noxious weed.
7
8 Nelson stated they want to make sure they don't prohibit property owners
9 from using the property and replacing vegetation with other natural vegetation.
10 They need to have some flexibility.
11
12 McShane stated the point goes back to shoreline rules and vegetation
13 management.
14
15 Goodwin stated they will work on a revision to critical areas and shorelines in
16 the next year or two. They will add that component.
17
18 Roll discussed monitoring and benchmarking. They need to create
19 benchmarks. There are varying opinions on what the appropriate benchmark is.
20 They need to work with the communities. The problem is agreeing on common
21 management strategy and aligning the data structure accordingly.
22
23 Dawson asked if geese and ducks are still a problem. Stroebel stated they
24 are. That issue was addressed in the backyard riparian buffer workshop. Property
25 owners can use buffers as a technique to deter the nuisance species.
26
27 Dawson suggested that the Parks Department begin establishing backyard
28 riparian buffers to set an example for the public. Stroebel stated she is
29 coordinating with the Parks Department.
30
31 Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated the bulk of enforcement education comes at
32 the front counter when someone applies for a building permit. They talk about
33 open space, impervious surfaces, and stormwater runoff. They also are checking in
34 the field.
35
36 Nelson asked if the system is complaint driven. Pederson stated the staff
37 drives around the watershed two to three times per week looking at known permits
38 and additional activity. They also coordinate with building inspectors. There is
39 good coverage of the watershed.
40
41 Hoag asked if the program is successful. Goodwin stated it is the one area
42 for the County where someone on staff goes over best management practices
43 (BMP's) with a person while getting a permit. It makes a big difference to have
44 that extra education up front. In the watershed, it's been successful.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
McShane asked if they have enough support from the Prosecutor's Office.
Goodwin stated they still need to amend the County code enforcement ordinance so
enforcement staff can just write a ticket, rather than pursue enforcement through a
civil action. They have been working on that ordinance with the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office. The follow -up needed to get immediate fines is difficult now.
Nelson stated it is frustrating to the public when they don't see any action
being taken against violators.
Stroebel spoke regarding land preservation. Staff is working to incorporate
comments received at the joint council meeting. They removed the condition of
proximity to drinking water intakes. The zoning designation element was changed.
They are still targeting the riparian areas and the shorelines.
Nelson asked the width of the riparian buffers. Stroebel stated the widths
are either 200 feet, 200 to 400 feet, or more than 400 feet. Most are around 200
feet.
Hoag stated her concern with the criteria is that areas closest to the lake are
not all prioritized. Areas without a likelihood of being developed should be less of a
priority than closer areas that could be developed. An objection to the intake was
that it was an arbitrary distance. Comments indicated that they wanted the criteria
for proximity to be refined, but not removed. A lot of what they are putting money
into protecting is not likely to be developed anyway. Stroebel stated there is
additive criteria. There are current land use scores that are given to establish these
criteria, as well as potential land development through zoning designations. When
added together, they target areas that have the highest potential for development
that they want to preserve because they have the greatest area for riparian
protection. The riparian and shoreline areas are the critical areas for protecting
water quality. It doesn't mean they won't look at a site - specific area for protection.
If protection provides for water quality protection, then they will protect it.
Roll stated the Council could expect this to come back for joint adoption.
This is not land acquisition. The goal of land acquisition is land preservation. They
are trying to preserve land that would have the best benefit to the lake. That does
not always involve acquisition. Most times, acquisition is not the most cost -
effective way to preserve land. There are alternatives such as development rights,
conservation futures, and conservation easements.
Hoag stated she was told that a forester did not support these criteria, and
his land would have to be put up for sale. The committee pushed for something
similar to what Skagit County did, which was look at the development potential.
Stroebel stated there were a variety of methods that the committee discussed to
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
address potential development. They found it to be very difficult to do. They
ultimately went to using the land use zoning designations and the scores from the
two elements to develop these criteria. When they tested the criteria, they found
that they were, in fact, targeting the areas they thought needed to be targeted,
using the current land use and potential land use through zoning districts.
Hoag stated that rural and commercial forestry zones don't pose a huge
threat for development in the watershed. Stroebel stated that is true for residential
development, but they need to have preservation for a variety of different land use
activities.
Nelson stated the County's main mechanism for land acquisition is through
the Conservation Futures fund. He questioned whether this process is for the City's
new stormwater fee revenue. That is what drove this process.
Hoag stated her concern was with the criteria that produced the map. She
wanted her suggestions reflected in the criteria. Some of the points could be
changed to more effectively address the problem.
Roll spoke on spill response. They have had exercises and are in good
shape. They have already discussed stewardship issues.
Hart stated this preparation would be beneficial if funds become available
from the state legislature. The County would be prepared to take advantage of any
grants that come along.
(Clerk's Note: A five - minute break taken at 11:45 a.m.)
2. MARINE RESOURCES UPDATE
MRC Grant Received
Roll stated the Marine Resources Committee (MRC) submitted project
proposals. His is formalizing the receipt of the DOE grant by the County on behalf
of the MRC. The County acts as administrative conduit for disbursement of funds to
the MRC.
Nelson moved approval of receipt of the grant.
Stroebel stated the action grant has four areas. One area is to have broader
dissemination of information generated during the 2000 work, so the Marine
Resources of Whatcom County report will become available on the website. There
will be additional hardcopies for community members. A second area is to look at
data collected in 2000, identify how to use that data to identify high - priority habitat
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
protection areas, and develop the marine summit. Third, they will work on marine
related projects. The final piece is more public information and education about the
local marine resources and the MRC.
Hoag asked how the recommendations came about. Stroebel stated data
was collected in 2000. A compilation report was produced on the studies that have
been done. The Rapid Shoreline Inventory was also done in 2000. They will bring
together that data to use as a part of the process of identifying high priority
projects for protecting, enhancing, and restoring marine areas.
Roll encouraged councilmembers to take project ideas to Councilmember
Hoag, as the voting member of the MRC.
Hoag encouraged councilmembers to also attend the MRC meetings. She
wants the MRC to look at pollution sources on the near -shore marine environment.
Nelson asked about indirect costs for administrative services. Stroebel
stated administrative cost is to provide assistance for the public information and
educational pieces.
Nelson stated the budget allows up to 25 percent for indirect costs. There
are also impacts these types of grants have.
Roll stated the budget submitted an administrative piece to cover the cost
associated with administering the grant.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Monsen stated that not included in the grant is an allocation to general
County services. This is just to administer the grant through the Public Works
Department. He doesn't anticipate a cost to the County.
Nelson restated the motion to accept receipt of the grant.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
USU Early Data Needs
Roll stated there are early data needs that are identified through the WRIA
planning project that are germane to those activities occurring between now and
the anticipated adoption of phase three of the WRIA project, which will include the
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
remainder of the project through 2003. The group is hashing through what the
data needs are to be collected this summer. This will not be ready for review until
next week. The Council can expect a memo from him describing what they are,
which seeks Council endorsement.
OTHER BUSINESS
Monsen stated he would send over copies of the final report from URS
regarding their Endangered Species Act (ESA) evaluations of County regulatory and
operational programs.
Monsen also stated that in three weeks there would be formal action
regarding Lake Management District 1 at Lake Samish. The district has a limited
life. It is now nearing the end of its possible life. The district will go away. There
is a desire in the neighborhood to maintain the purpose of the district. The Council
will see something in three weeks that recognizes that the district is going away,
and the intention to form Lake Management District 2. By statute, the district can
only live for a certain period of time, and can't be continued. There is money left
over in the bank from fees collected for the district. The district will use a portion
of the money to redo the assessment roles. At this point, there is enough money in
the fund to manage it in the future. The County still needs to go through the
process to create the assessment role.
Hoag asked if statute allows the County to transfer funds.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the statute doesn't
address it.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, asked if there is an allowance in the
legislation to transfer the money to the general fund. Gibson stated it is not
addressed in the legislation. The County went through this process once before,
however in this instance, there is a direct connection with the new district. It
seems to be the best government to shift existing money from one fund to the
next.
Desler suggested a shift by resolution of the County Council.
Nelson asked if they would try to change the purpose of the district. Gibson
stated state law defines the district's purpose.
4. WATER RESOURCES FINANCIAL PLAN
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Monsen stated he wanted to discuss and get direction on financing various
water resource activities, or at least get direction or suggestions on what else the
Council wants to discuss before providing its direction. He summarized the
February 13 work session. At that time, the Council asked for a recommendation
on how to deal with the shortfall in the watershed management project. At that
time, the shortfall was about $300,000.
The goal of the review was to look at the watershed management project and
determine the minimum amount of money to finish the project in some form to be
of value to community. To do the programs that have already been discussed and
recommended by the Council, the minimum amount of money needed is shown on
page three of three in the Council packet. Having a fund balance no less than zero
through the end of the water resource project can be accomplished by changing the
transfer formula from 50 percent of the flood fee to 60 percent of flood fee revenue
beginning next year through 2003. The minimum transfer needed from the flood
fund side to finish the watershed management project is listed on page two of three
of the Council packet. The Council can decide whether to stop the additional
transfer at the end of 2003 or continue. If they continue, they would set money
aside to implement the plan. If they don't continue, they simply continue running a
fund balance near zero, with no money to implement the plan. That can be decided
at a later date. What is critical now is 2002 and 2003.
Nelson asked where it leaves the flood balance. Monsen stated the money
comes from the flood district, and he would talk about the purpose of the flood
district.
Hoag asked the role of the Joint Board. Monsen stated the County created
the Water Resource fund and the initial transfer in 1999. The County began a
variety of water resource programs. One program is the watershed management
project. It was a little over a year ago when, in order to formalize the relationship
between the initiating governments, they formalized the Joint Board. The Joint
Board is made up of the initiating governments so it can be given status to manage
the work of Utah State University (USU). That is its primary function. In the last
two years, in the Water Resources budget, there is a line item for a transfer out to
the Joint Board relating directly to the watershed management project.
Hoag asked if all that money goes to the project. Monsen stated it does.
The Joint Board can only spend the money on the items in the budget that the
Council approved.
Hoag stated a lot of the budget is being eaten up in administrative and
general planning and technical support, as shown on page two of three in the
packet. She questioned whether the fees paid to USU or the PUD are included in
that line. Monsen stated those fees are in addition to that line item.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Roll stated there are staff positions and the caucus support that are included
in that item.
Monsen stated that most of the staff costs are taken from that line item
instead of being distributed throughout the programs. Also included are things
such as insurance and office space.
Hoag stated she was hesitant about using flood fund money if there are ways
to minimize overhead to reduce costs. Monsen stated there is no change in activity
compared to the budget the Council adopted in November. The information is
simply a tally of the Water Resources Division budget as approved.
Nelson stated they may have to go back through all the projects and
activities to reexamine what they want to finance.
Desler stated the Council had already made decisions about 2001 and
provided direction.
Hoag questioned whether there are any new programs. Monsen stated there
are not. He needed to know whether he needs to cut programs before identifying
how much money they are still lacking.
Hoag stated that cutting specific programs is different than cutting overhead.
When the Council began the WRIA process, it stressed that it didn't want to build
another bureaucracy. It just wanted to implement projects and do studies. They
wanted an emphasis on minimizing the overhead.
Desler stated that the key is to question what they are getting for the
money. Focusing on outcomes and results is more important. Take the
recommendations of the staff about how the money is to be used to get at those
results. The Council wants the most effective programs and results. As long as
they get their results, whatever they call the use of the resources is immaterial.
Hoag stated they need to do that within a budget.
Mike Reilly, Ferndale City Council and Flood Control Zone District Advisory
Committee member, stated the Flood Advisory Committee voted 8 -1 to not increase
the fee split to 60 percent. Page one of three of the Council's packet shows that
the amount of money for flood control goes down every year. The fund balance
goes down every year.
Desler stated the expenses are increasing by a great amount every year.
There is something going on there.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Reilly stated that every year, there is more money being transferred out to
the Water Resources fund. Most citizens think that all the money is going toward
flood control activities. He suggested cutting the assessment back down to 50
percent for flood control, and then being honest with the citizens and put the cost
of water resources on the property tax.
Nelson stated people don't know that preventative projects are part of flood
control. This is all education.
Reilly stated people don't see a relationship between flood control and WRIA.
Make a separate line item for WRIA.
Hoag asked if there was a discussion on flood district funds because of ESA,
which stalled a lot of the projects. Reilly stated many projects were postponed.
When they are finally approved, there won't be enough money to do them.
McShane stated there were discussions about borrowing money from the
flood fund, then paying it back. Monsen stated that if they start with the premise
that they want the watershed project to move in the direction it is moving, they will
be short of money. An alternative is to increase money from the flood fund, the
General fund, or to get a new source. A fourth option is to cut programs. He didn't
get the impression at the February 13th work session that there was a desire to do
any of those alternatives other than questioning what it would do to the flood fee
balance.
Hoag stated that if they borrow from the flood fund and then plan to pay it
back, they will tailor what they are doing so they do not really negatively impact
the flood control fund. Monsen stated he laid that alternative on the table last
summer during the budget process, but there was no support for it.
McShane stated he remembered seeing that alternative, which is why he
brought it up.
Nelson stated he would not recommend designating another tax revenue
source.
Desler stated the flood fee ordinance is very general in its purpose. He
questioned the recommendation from the Flood Advisory Committee.
Reilly stated the committee voted not to change the transfer from 50 percent
to 60 percent. It was his idea to cut the fee collected by 50 percent, and make the
costs for water resources a separate funding issue.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Monsen stated the flood fee has the greatest discretionary use, with the most
restrictive name.
Hoag stated the Council will have trouble finding people to serve on the Flood
Control Zone District Advisory Committee if the Council doesn't respect it's
recommendation to not change the percentage. She didn't want to add to the
frustration of those volunteers.
Desler stated the flood fund is not the only source of funding if there is a
flood event. The County can make a bond. It is a good idea to maintain a solid
fund balance. However, the staff suggestion is prudent.
Hoag stated she would prefer to stay within the budget by finding other
funds, to cut expenses, or to borrow from the flood fund.
Dawson moved to postpone the implementation of the WRIA plan and
continue with the 50/50 percentage split of the flood fee. Monsen stated one year
from now, without some kind of shift regarding finances, they will be out of money
on their current course. At the same time, they are beginning to look at phase
three activity. If the intention is to design the program around the money they
have, they need to know that right away. If the split stays at 50/50, they have to
redesign the watershed project entirely. They will need to know that soon.
Dawson questioned how the costs became more than the amount budgeted.
Monsen stated they didn't have an idea of what the project would likely cost until
less than a year ago.
Hoag suggested a friendly amendment to maintain funding at the 50 percent
level, and look to see if items can be cut from the administration item and general
planning and technical support item.
Dawson accepted the friendly amendment.
Desler asked the difference between 50 percent and 60 percent.
Monsen stated it is approximately $400,000 per year.
Desler stated one idea is to consider taking the interest income on the flood
fund and assign it to the Water Resources fund. That would leave intact the 50/50
split. That interest is about $450,000. By ordinance, they could move the interest
income for a period of time with a sunset clause. It would address ultimately, over
a short period of time, the flood fund balance. It would cause the flood fund to sag
a bit, but it would retain the 50/50 percent issue.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Hoag stated that still transfers money from the fund balance. It is a matter
of semantics. The loan idea does not reduce the fund, but borrows it so it will be
paid back.
Reilly stated the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Board wants to know
why the budget wasn't set up so that it could meet the 50 percent revenue.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Nelson stated they were looking at many unknown costs. The intention of
designating the 50 percent was to allow the WRIA to proceed.
Monsen stated they initially estimated a total cost for WRIA over time at $12
million. The project they designed cut that down to $4 million. They already went
through the exercise of determining what they will and won't do, with a lot of
argument on the table. They already substantially cut this back. If this is still the
supported project, they are going to run out of money. They need to deal with
that. All the alternatives are still on the table. They've made decisions
incrementally to add programs, such as those for shellfish and for nutrient
management.
Desler suggested prioritizing and estimating the costs for each program. The
department could present to the Council some ideas about lower priorities and
higher priorities. If they want to proceed to borrow or transfer the interest income
from the flood fund, they could work out those implications.
Hoag asked for more information on the six program expenses.
McShane stated one issue is perception. The flood fund is pretty beefy.
They could afford to borrow from it with the idea to pay it back. In the future, they
could discuss whether they really need to pay it back, depending on how the
projects are going. At the previous Flood Advisory Committee meeting, he got the
impression that a lot was being done. He questioned whether borrowing would
make a difference financially.
Monsen stated the message was that they could borrow it, but why do that if
they could legally use it.
Desler stated the reason why the flood balance is dropping is because the
real increase is in the flood fund expense category, not because they are spending
more for water resources. They are ramping up activity for floods.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Hoag stated McShane's suggestion was prudent. Borrow now to buy time to
find out what is going on with the flood zone. If they don't need it in the future, it
is fine to forgive the loan.
Nelson stated they need to look at it more globally. No one wants to see
programs diminished. Lake Whatcom is important, as well as Drayton Harbor and
Portage Bay. Everyone pays into that and expects to see results. Many issues
regarding flood management are going to have to work through ESA before getting
approvals. The number one priority economically in the County is fish habitat and
ESA. If they have a disaster tomorrow, they have more than enough money to
work on that disaster. Get ESA lifted so they can get on with their lives and take
care of other issues.
Hoag asked that McShane's suggestion be accepted as a friendly
amendment.
Dawson accepted the motion.
McShane asked if that causes a problem. Monsen stated that there are two
issues on the table. One is the need to confirm whether to redesign the watershed
project or find a way to finance the current scope. If they are going to change the
scope of the watershed project, they need to do that quickly. Financing that project
doesn't have to be dealt with for six to nine months.
Hoag stated it was said earlier that the budget is laid out for 2001, and they
are concerned about 2002. She's been hearing that, if they need additional
flexibility for the next year or two, it would be okay with the Council to borrow that
money from the flood fund, with the plan that it be paid back. Then, they can see
the status of WRIA and whether projects are dropping off the table. It gives them
time to figure that out.
Nelson stated he couldn't support the motion. The administration has
already scaled back the costs. The economic concern to this county is allowing the
survival of county industries and services. Look at the motion carefully and make
sure they move forward with the projects.
Hoag stated the motion addresses all of Councilmember Nelson's concerns
regarding not stopping projects and addressing ESA.
Nelson stated the recommendation was for the continuation of the current
flood control zone district funding fee structure up to 2005. They need to have a
long -term plan of what the revenue sources will be. A second recommendation was
to increase the revenue to the Water Resource fund from 50 percent to 60 percent
of the flood fee beginning January 2002. The critical issue now is whether they
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, Page 18
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
want to revamp all the projects or support the administration's proposal for the
next four years, which they feel they can accomplish in a reasonable amount of
time with the funding available.
Dawson restated her motion to go forward with the 50/50 split. Borrow any
additional funds that may be needed.
Nelson asked how the borrowing would occur. The administration would
have to come forward to the Council with each proposal and have a debate and
argument about each proposal.
Dawson amended her motion to allow the administration to borrow up to ten
percent more.
Hoag questioned the timeframe for which the administration would need the
additional ten percent. Monsen stated the additional revenue is needed from 2002
through 2003.
Hoag suggested that the motion include a review of the costs at the end of
2003 to look at areas they would like to cut. At the end of that time, they can look
at whether the flood fund needs to be paid back and if there are cuts they should
make, or whether they need to find additional revenues for this program.
Dawson accepted the friendly amendment.
Nelson stated those evaluations go through the budget process already.
Dawson restated the motion to maintain the 50 percent flood fee fund split
with the Water Resources fund, with the ability to borrow an additional ten percent
in 2002 and 2003.
Nelson asked if that hinders any of their progress from moving forward.
Monsen stated that when they get into 2003 and 2004, they would talk about
financing implementation of the program. He expected that policy decision to occur
well before then anyway.
Nelson restated the motion to split the revenue of the Flood fund with the
Water Resources fund by 50 percent, and allow borrowing an additional ten percent
for the years 2002 and 2003, with a review at the end of that time to see if the
additional amount borrowed needs to be paid back.
Motion carried unanimously.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, 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
Monsen stated that, based on this motion, he would put in place the action
that would allow the motion to continue the funding mechanism, which would
otherwise be formal action. The critical issue now is whether they need to redesign
the watershed project or find a way to finance it, even through a loan.
Nelson suggested that, and extended an invitation for, a member of the
Flood Control Advisory Committee attend these meetings.
McShane suggested appointing a member of County Council to the Flood
Control Zone District Advisory Committee.
(Clerk's Note: The meeting lost a quorum at 1:10 p.m. when Councilmember
Dawson left the meeting.)
Monsen stated he would provide a clearer summary at the Natural Resources
Committee on what the expenses are.
Nelson suggested bringing the summary to the Water Resources work
session instead.
Hoag asked to include on the next agenda for the full Council the discussion
of amending the code to mandate having a County Council member on the Flood
Control Zone District Advisory Committee.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on May 15 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 4/24/2001, Page 20