Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources Worksession February 13 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 45 46 47 Whatcom County Council Special Water Resources Work Session February 13, 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: Absent: Barbara Brenner Connie Hoag Sam Crawford Bob Imhof Dan McShane Marlene Dawson WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2001 -063) 1. LAKE WHATCOM Land Preservation Strategy Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, presented a copy of the proposal that came out of the joint Lake Whatcom Citizen's Task Force land preservation criteria. This is a work item of the joint Lake Whatcom Management Team, which looked at creating a jointly approved set of criteria for targeting lands for either acquisition or preservation. The information at this point is informational. They plan to craft a joint resolution for review and consideration in early March. If the Council wants to provide comments on the criteria, he has provided information from each jurisdiction. He encouraged the councilmembers to comment prior to March 2, 2001. They came up with good criteria. This is a big step forward in terms of targeting lands best suited for preserving water quality in Lake Whatcom. He is going through it with the County Planning Department and Water Resources staff to make sure the criteria fit. The Council will see a joint resolution in March or April. The resolution will be done at the joint meeting. He hoped the Interjurisdictional Coordination Team (IJCT) can craft the resolution for each of the councils to consider. Nelson stated there are criteria. The problem is whether land is purchased or reserved. He questioned whether they would use the scoring system, and asked if there will be a matrix as proposals come forward. He questioned whether the public would bring proposals forward. Roll stated there are three components of this activity. One component was the development of criteria. The second component was to develop the options available, including conservation easements and futures. The third component was a management strategy for implementing criteria options in a coordinated fashion. Halfway through the exercise, the City Council approved its $5 land preservation fee that alluded to a management Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, Page 1 1 preservation strategy. They are going to have to talk about how to manage it 2 jointly. 3 4 Nelson stated the problem is whether there is a funding source. There is 5 nothing in the proposal regarding cost. He questioned whether any proposal at any 6 cost, as long as it meets the score, would be accepted. Roll stated this is just a 7 draft. That will be addressed. Part of the issue is that staff realizes that costs have 8 to be factored in. Many times, they don't know the actual cost until an evaluation 9 of a specific parcel is done. Part of the strategy is how to incorporate cost. 10 11 Nelson suggested that they look at zones. Make the cost greater than or 12 equal to a certain cost be a limiting factor. At least have a criterion to weight it 13 with. 14 15 Crawford referenced page three of David Hunter's memo. He questioned 16 whether anything in the city is weighted higher. Roll stated only the first item could 17 be in the County. The other zones could be in the county. 18 19 McShane stated they are saying high density would score higher. 20 21 Crawford asked if they are identifying that it is natural that the city is the 22 highest priority targeted for acquisition, since the city has the highest density zone. 23 24 McShane stated that is just for zoning. 25 26 Proposed Lake Whatcom Road Work 27 28 Roll stated this item is good marriage of water quality stewardship with 29 Public Works Department best management practices (BMP) while in a sensitive 30 watershed. 31 32 Mike Roberts, Maintenance and Operations Manager, stated this is a two -year 33 project in Geneva /Lake Louise /South Bay area to perform preventative 34 maintenance and improve water quality off the County right -of -way. Year one is 35 the roadway maintenance, including temporary and permanent water quality BMP's. 36 They would also engage in a water quality monitoring program and engineering 37 feasibility study for water quality improvements, for comprehensive improvements. 38 In year two, they would like to engage in these improvements, such as vaults and 39 ponds. 40 41 Dan Bakke, Road Crew Leader, stated they started working on this last fall. 42 They undertook a mapping of all drainage basins, cross culverts, catch basins, and 43 flows. They identified locations for BMP's and made decisions on what types of 44 BMP's to use. Now, they are at the stage to begin putting them in, previous to their 45 work to protect siltation and pollution from entering the lake. The packet shows 46 types of devices to use. Once they get this set up, there are considerable amounts 47 of triangular silt dikes. Everywhere a cross culvert crosses the roadway, it would 48 be protected from silt leaving the site. There will be catch basin inserts in all catch Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 47 48 basins in Geneva. They will have a silt catch and an oil absorbent sock in the bottom of it. They are developing a spill prevention plan for the work. It will involve monitoring weather and application of the product. They will be in radio contact with the County and crews, and have a suction - pumping truck on standby, as well as a van full of absorbent material. The work schedule begins in April. They will scrape the edges of the road to promote drainage and remove the sod build -up. Then, they will seal cracks in the roadway. Those activities would happen from April to September. After the overlay application, certain driveways will need to be sealed, as well as other areas with existing cracks. They will do depth patching to put in good quality patches and then resurfacing. They will also do any drainage improvements as needed from April to September. They will do pre - leveling of road surfaces. The proposal is to do overlays on the more urbanized roads such as in Geneva. Lake Louise Road and South Bay road will have pre - leveling of asphalt with chip seal on top of that. The actual chip sealing will total of 12.8 road miles and include all of Lake Louse Road, Lake Whatcom Boulevard, and around South Bay Drive. They will do a double lift with the project on Park Road. They will do a chip seal because they need a surface that is abrasive with good traction because of the fog, in addition to sealing the road and adding longevity and flexibility to the road. The last of the road activities will be the road striping. They will have a long -term eco- maintenance recommendation, following the Tri- County Endangered Species Act (ESA) maintenance manual. They will remove silt buildup behind the silt dikes, clean out catch basins, clean and change the absorbent pillows in the catch basins, compact and heal the shoulder gravel, and eventually remove the silt fence. The silt fence will need to be in for one to two years to let reseeding happen. The Water Resources Division will monitor the catch basin. Roll stated they are going to do a comprehensive monitoring at the same time to make sure the BMP's are working. Dawson asked if there are catch basin inserts elsewhere. Bakke stated they were used in the Tweed Twenty area last year. They are effective. They have to removed the silt out of them. This is the first time he'd used them. They take maintenance if used long -term. Most of the silt will accumulate through the first winter. Dawson asked how deep the catch basins are. Bakke stated there is a picture in the handout. They attach to grate and fit into the bottom of the basin. They are a geo- synthetic fabric to allow water to pass through but catches silt. A pillow sits at the bottom to catch pollutants from asphalt activities or other activities. Nelson stated this is above and beyond what they typically do for chip sealing. He questioned whether it comes out of the Road fund. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 47 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated it does. Nelson questioned the percent of increase on the projects. Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Operations, stated that last year a project had a 20 percent increase. Much of the work was contracted out. People were there in case of an emergency spill. Nelson asked if that cost is built into the chip - sealing budget. Prieve stated yes. Right now they are doing it in the Lake Whatcom watershed, which is of heavy concern. Bakke stated the roads are due for maintenance in that area. Prieve stated they held off from doing them last year because of a lack of time. Nelson asked if they are going to do all the roads outlined in the documents. Prieve stated yes. Nelson asked if they are going to address the problem on Euclid. Prieve stated they would let the neighbors know ahead of time. Crawford asked if they ever get any vandalism. Bakke stated no. It would be a hassle to get the inserts out. Dawson asked if they've talked to the City of Bellingham about doing catch basin in the city. Prieve stated the County coordinated with the city last spring on a project. This activity is in the growth area, but not in the city limits. Monsen stated the city would employ these methods depending on the case. Compared to the city, the County has open roadside ditch activity. The city has a small percentage of their system that has that type of system. Prieve their approach would be the same, but their drainage systems are closed. Nelson asked if the Water Resource Division would monitor for effectiveness and if they are working. Roberts stated they want as many eyes out there as possible. Roll stated they are working up the monitoring program now. They are going to help coordinate it. McShane questioned the monitoring they are going to be doing, and if there will be pre- monitoring for baseline data. Roll stated Erika Stroebel is working now to identify the locations and the best places for sampling. He anticipated that they Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 44 45 46 47 48 will use indicators for turbidity, suspended solids, and others. He didn't anticipate a costly endeavor. McShane questioned the flexibility on the work schedule for getting sod off the shoulders. Bakke stated they would work in as dry of weather as possible. With the shoulder scraping, they will pick days with low chances of rain or light rain. That is critical for chip sealing. 3. WATER RESOURCES FINANCIAL PLAN Monsen stated that in order to continue some of the programs to complete the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) watershed projects, they need to bring back specific focus to a financial plan to carry out all of those expectations to make sure there is a match between the financial plan and the expectations. There is a relationship with the Flood Control Zone District, the Water Resources Fund, and the Watershed Project fund for the financial plan. At this point, the first step to conclusion is where they sit today and the financial alternatives they may have. To finish a financial plan at this point is about what long -term programs they intend to have as it relates to what role the Flood Control Zone District will play in implementing those programs versus other new grant resources. Sheet one of his handout shows the actual revenues from 1997 through 2000, and projected revenues through 2003. When they doubled the flood fee in 1999, it was transferred out to the Water Resource fund. It is shown as a separate expense. A key plan is, at this point, simply assuming the same relationship beyond the end of 2002, when the current resolution expires. McShane asked if it would be a decision of continuing or not continuing, or whether there would be a change in how implemented. Monsen stated he hoped to resolve some of those issues. They will question the role of the flood district to deal with the issues. This is the first step. The second page of his handout, Sheet 2, has the numbers beginning in 1999, transferred into the Water Resources fund, which has received various other grant revenues. At this point, he only showed the two budgeted transfers out to the watershed project. That shows a positive fund balance. Because it is not a budgeted actual transfer yet, he didn't presume one. The County, through the Water Resources Division, is making specific expenditures toward the WRIA project, which he listed on Sheet 2. That is what "direct expense" means. "Other program expenses" include Lake Whatcom, salmon, ESA, marine resources, groundwater, shellfish, and other expenses. The third sheet shows the transfers without the presumption of others. The Joint Board will receive an additional $250,000 from the state. He listed the projected known contract expenses, which is primarily the contract with Utah State University (USU), with some money set aside for small early action activities. In this case, without the additional transfers, the project is nearly $1.7 million short. He did not put in an assumed transfer, but up to $1.4 million would be available. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 47 That would make the shortage $300,000, based on how they are handling money today. Crawford asked who the Joint Board is. Monsen stated the Joint Board is the group consisting of the Initiating Governments, including the tribes, County, City of Bellingham, and Water District #10. Crawford asked if they are also funding the effort. Monsen stated the County is funding the entire thing from the flood fee, which is a countywide source. Crawford stated that since they haven't looked at 2002 to 2003 in terms of a transfer, they are going to have to allocate some resources. Monsen stated that was correct. If they continue today's programs, they will not have enough money to transfer the needed amount to finish the WRIA plan. Brenner stated the concern is that they are spending a lot of money. She was concerned that they will get to the point where there is no money left and they are not even close to the results. Monsen stated he was hoping that this discussion begins a discussion of what they intend to do in two or three years. What they are finishing this year will get them set up to pull that off. The question is, if they don't intend to finance at least that amount, then they need to change what they intend to accomplish. While the project is planned to conclude in 2003, it was originally designed to be done in 2002. They were short $2.5 million at that moment. In order to get to this point, they stretched the project out an extra year, and they took out elements of the project, such as early action and early implementation. The way the financial plan is at this moment, it will carry through to get a plan on the shelf. It does not have anything to implement the plan. Crawford stated that in 2002, with no transfer out, they end up with a fund balance of $871,000. Even if they take that amount and transfer it in to the Water Resources fund, they still end up with a negative fund balance. Monsen stated they could presume that the fund balance would be used for the Joint Board project, which is the watershed project. If they transfer out $800,000 in 2002 and another $500,000 in 2003, they are still in the negative, but not as much. There are ways to deal with the shortfall. Nelson stated this financial plan gets them to a point where there is a plan on the board. It has nothing to do with implementation. Monsen stated that was correct. Brenner stated this is coming out of flood money. She questioned what happens if there is a flood. Nelson stated they still have $5 million in an emergency response fund. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 44 45 46 47 48 Monsen stated he was not suggesting that they take more money out of the flood fund. The message is that there is a question of what level of implementation they intend to finance and how they plan to do that. Nelson asked if it depends on whether the plan is going to get approved, the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the direction of the state. Monsen stated a question is whether they intend to use the current form of the flood fee, or some other method, to answer the questions. Nelson stated they are beating around the bush. They have a current funding mechanism. He questioned whether staff is concerned with the current funding mechanism. Monsen stated they need to make sure that everyone in the county benefits from using those funds. As long as that test is met, any alternative is available. He was not suggesting that this is the simple solution. Discuss the priorities for the use of the money. They need to look longer term than next year. Brenner stated she would like to see them work within the amount they have, and project them out without a shortfall. She suggested that they stay within their limits. Nelson asked Brenner what this money provides for the County. Benner stated she didn't know. Monsen stated it provides a plan on the shelf. Brenner asked if there is a way to get the plan on the shelf within the budget. Nelson stated they are $300,000 short. This financial plan gets the County a plan on the shelf. The plan gets submitted to the state and federal government. If all parties accept the plan, then there is the significant issue of implementation. They need to spend money on whatever the plan has in it. They have to provide direction on how to maintain the implementation and what they are going to use to do that. Dawson stated fees are for direct services. She suggested establishing an ESA fee fund for implementation costs. Nelson asked if the state will address how local communities are going to fund the programs. Monsen stated the best example is that they are talking about a $3 million expenditure toward plan. They now have $500,000 from the state. By the end of 2002, they have to reauthorize the flood control fund. Nelson they have to come up with a mechanism for funding for implementation purposes. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Nelson questioned whether they have enough for flood control emergencies and projects if they have an ending balance of $10 million in the flood control fund. Monsen stated the answer is yes, given how they have spent money in the past. If they have a flood today, they are at a point where they don't know if they would receive federal assistance. For example, there is a hole that has formed in a levee. In the past, the $250,000 fix was mostly covered through state and federal money. Now, they may not get that money. The question is whether to fix the hole using County money, or leave the hole there. If the County is going to fix the hole, the money in the fund will disappear quickly. He is working as hard as possible to make sure that the levee system is in a condition that the County will see federal money in the future. The County is not there yet because of the way the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) has changed its policies. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, questioned whether FEMA has for sure changed the policy so that there isn't going to be federal disaster assistance available to local communities under major flood events. Paula Cooper, Special Projects Manager, stated it has, for the levees. FEMA says that, because there is a federal program with the Army Corps of Engineers, there is federal money available to the communities, and so FEMA is no longer going to cover levee repairs. Monsen stated they would still see FEMA for roads, structures, and personal property. Desler stated that if the fund source is going to remain, there is a major flood event, didn't get the money they expected, and want to continue on with some of these activities, then they should use the flood fee to bond themselves. The flood events don't necessarily occur annually or predictably. Nelson asked where to cap the fee and reduce the tax load to the taxpayers, and reserve the ability to bond in the future. Desler stated the use of the flood fee for other key purposes is a policy question. Nelson stated the original taxing purpose was for flood disaster. Brenner asked if FEMA money wouldn't be available. Cooper stated FEMA had no strings attached to their money. The Army Corps of Engineer money has strings attached. The County hadn't received a report yet about what portion is eligible for the program. There is an eligibility requirement. The County has to beef up levels and meet criteria that it didn't have to do for FEMA. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 47 Monsen stated they are trying to find out what kind of investment the County needs to put into the current levee system to be eligible for disaster recovery money. McShane stated that philosophically, if they ignore a levee system, the federal government is not keen at throwing money at counties that are not taking responsibility for their infrastructure. Crawford stated he agreed with Councilmember Dawson. They ought to have a separate designated fund that people see on their tax bill that addresses the issue of salmon protection. He presumed the average Whatcom County taxpayer didn't know where the flood money is going. It is fairer for the taxpayer to understand by calling it a fee or a tax for that particular use. The flood fee should work on flood issues. That is a reasonable way to go. It would take the heat off the County if there were a deficient it couldn't address through the current funding structure, to go to the taxpayers. If the County says that it needs more flood money, but no floods are happening, then it would be a hard sell. If the County says to the public that the flood fund was capped, but they have to pay for ESA, it would be better. Let the taxpayer know what he or she is paying for. Brenner agreed. Her concern was that she was not comfortable raising more money. Dawson stated they could reduce the amount collected for the flood fee, and institute the other fees. Brenner stated she liked separating it out so people see where the money goes. Desler asked what the state law says with regard to the flood fee. Monsen stated that if the expense has something to do with water, the money could be used. The Flood Control Zone District is described as the most flexible, with the most restrictive name. They can use the fee for just about anything. Dawson stated it is important to make a distinction between the two. Monsen stated they are already doing that by having created the Water Resource fund. Desler stated the County may have to educate the people about the use of the fee. If no other funding source is available, they may be able to go to the public to rename it. Nelson stated that requires a vote of the public. Desler stated that might be appropriate. If the County is going to use $4 million or $5 million of the public's money based on the way it is collected, the name should say what the money is to be used for and why. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 47 Brenner stated it is really a tax based on assessed value, not a fee. She suggested running the fee by many attorneys. It is a very gray area, and the County crossed the line by delineating the property value classifications. Desler stated it may be appropriate to have a resource like the property tax, based on assessed value, and make the big companies pay. That is a policy decision. Nelson stated he was in favor of that. He would like to see the state allow a water resource fund ability. The state needs to set it up so they can deal with ESA or water resources in lakes. Brenner stated people expect to see a service when they pay a fee. This isn't how this works. Monsen stated that however it is generated, there has to be expenditures that benefit the entire community as opposed to one activity. Dawson asked if the property owners should bear the cost of something that benefits the entire community. Property owners shouldn't bear the cost of all this. Have a separate sales tax. Everyone should bear the cost. Nelson stated the reason for using flood fee was because it was to protect homeowners against flooding, and those properties impacted by flooding should bear a greater cost. In this case, they are dealing with issues concerning everyone. Brenner asked if they could do that. Nelson stated they could do a sales tax, but the money would go into current expense. Desler stated there is no current opportunity to do that. It would have to be authorized by the legislature. Monsen stated the next step is to get some feedback on what programs they want to put in place to look at financial alternatives. Today this does not describe things they will actually do in two or three years. Nelson stated it depends on what comes out of the projects. Brenner asked where the check and balance is. Desler stated the check and balance comes from a combination of Mr. Monsen and his staff, the Executive's Office, and the County Council. Brenner asked if there are other counties to compare to or an internal audit. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 Monsen stated it is worthwhile considering. He would have to think about how that would be structured to be at arms length and also provide good advice. Nelson stated there is nothing from the state. Monsen stated the annual audits are based on whether the expenditures are legal. Desler stated they would lie out performance measures. They want outcomes and performance- driven things. The County Council should be holding the administration's feet to the fire by looking at the performance measures. If the administration achieves the performance results, then the County Council can approve. Nelson stated one measure is to have this plan done by 2003. McShane stated the Council's responsibility is setting the priorities. Nelson stated staff's concern is where how fund to implement the plan. Dawson asked how the plan meshes the money the County just got from the Salmon Recovery Fund (SRF) Board. Monsen stated that money goes into other projects in the area. It is not being spent from this account, and the County is not receiving those dollars. Nelson stated they are developing a plan based upon County, tribal, and city actions using County dollars, grants, and dollars from other municipalities. Monsen stated the Water Resource focus is to have enough money to facilitate a process that would be grant - successful for the region. Through those project activities, they are not going to demonstrate those projects through this source. The only reason they get further into this source of money would be if the Council chose to put more money toward it to make it move faster. Nelson asked if he had an idea of how that might appear. Monsen stated that Paula Cooper is prepared to address the flood side of it. Nelson asked if it is dependent upon the plan that comes out. Monsen stated the various plans are underway right now, including the Chinook Recovery Plan, the Watershed Management Plan, and the update to the Comprehensive Plan. This presentation was meant to lay a foundation to begin discussing implementation, so they are ready for it and there is not a delay. The assumption is that the current form of revenue continues into 2003. There is no new money. Brenner stated the rules keep changing. The County has to keep changing direction. She asked what happens when new things come onto the table. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 44 45 46 47 Nelson stated they have to decide if they want to use more of the flood control funding mechanism, set up another funding mechanism, or not do certain things. Brenner stated it is a moving target. Monsen stated there is a reasonable expectation that they can actually implement what they have now. Part of his work is to ask these questions at the state and federal level, and then make adjustments as they need to. Roll stated they've already started to implement some of the plan. There are small projects. As the plan comes to conclusion, they are going to see an escalation of those types of things. Stuff will be implemented before the finished plan, but the lion's share of the projects will be done after the plan is done. 2. SALMON RECOVERY Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board Grant Update John Thompson, ESA Resources Planner, discussed the SRF Board grant results. They did very well. They funded the first five projects, totaling over $ $2 million. They also will get indirect funding for number six, related to historic scale logjams on the South Fork of the Nooksack River. They didn't fund the project to build more jams, but the SRF Board is allocating additional funds towards doing a comprehensive monitoring program for the logjams in the state. Before it provides more money to construct more jams, it wants some analysis on the benefits and how the logjams are working. The Lummi Nation will get $30,000 to $40,000 to do monitoring. Nelson asked if most of this is for gathering information. Thomson stated item number two is to fix failing forest roads. Projects three and four are information gathering. Five is information gathering and project design. Out of that, they will get specific sites. Nelson stated he was pleased with tribes' participation. Thompson stated the process speaks well to the groups of folks working up here. McShane stated the previous round included a land acquisition proposal that was knocked off. Thompson stated that got funded in the last round. It is near Marietta. It is the property just to the northeast of the bridge. McShane asked the status. Thompson stated that as of the last he heard there was a landowner agreement. It is all off the reservation. McShane asked about number two. He asked the general input on funding. He asked if the discussion is continuing to fix federal roads on Forest Service land. Thompson stated the board is willing to fund it. The Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) can partner with the Forest Service, which can't Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 apply, to do the work on the federal lands. There is legislation that may open up the SRF Board funding to state agencies, but not federal agencies. Brenner asked if the SRF Board funds are federally funded. Thompson stated the SRF Board funding is a mix of federal and state money. They funded a total of $31 million. Brenner asked what the Forest Service would do in the partnering. Thompson stated contribute in -kind services. It would also supervise the construction and road treatments. Wendy Shearer, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA), stated the Forest Service would do the engineering. NSEA hires a contractor to do the work. The contractor does the work, and then the Forest Service does the maintenance and monitoring. Thompson stated a minimum of 15 percent match is required. The projects usually have more than that, around 30 percent. Nelson asked about number one. He questioned whether there are going to be enhancements. Thompson stated it includes some riparian rehabilitation. Nelson questioned how it is determined that the area is high quality chinook habitat. Thompson stated it is based on the state spawner survey data and other local knowledge. Nelson stated 2.7 miles of this acreage abuts the Nooksack. Thompson stated yes. Two parcels are joined. The first property includes the lower half -mile of Racehorse Creek and sloughs to the north. The mouth of Racehorse Creek on the east side. Brenner asked if it is private property that the owners agreed to sell. Thompson stated it is. Nelson questioned whether the owner was Trillium. Thompson stated part of the property was owned by Trillium. Nelson asked who would be responsible for maintenance, enhancement, and preservation. Thompson stated the Land Trust would be responsible. Nelson asked if the County is contracting. Thompson stated the County is not involved. It is a contractual relationship with the Land Trust and the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. They will monitor it. The SRF Board request was to be determined using an independent appraisal. Once they get an appraisal, they will agree to a price. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 47 48 Nelson asked if they would use conservation futures funds. Thompson stated no. The SRF Board match is provided by Trillium, which lowered the price of the property by several hundred thousand dollars. Nelson stated these are things that are going on outside the loop of the planning process. Monsen stated they are going on outside the loop of the WRIA planning, but inside the loop for the salmon recovery process. They are still trying to define the link between the planning process and the salmon recovery process. some of the federal and state relationships are helping to define what linkage must exist. Thompson stated the top priority in the salmon recovery strategy is to protect the habitats that are working well. That is why the Land Trust proposal ranked highly on everyone's list. Brenner stated the paperwork says that Whatcom County is the lead entity. She assumed that the match is from the County. Monsen stated the lead entity is to provide facilitation of the process. The County's cost is to make sure everyone is the region is eligible and successful. In this case, the successful grant applicants are all outside of the entity of Whatcom County. Brenner asked if everyone checks in to Whatcom County because the County is the lead entity. Thompson stated the County is responsible to coordinate the review, transmittal, and presentation of the applications to the SRF Board Technical Panel and the SRF Board. At this point, the County performs an administrative support role. Monsen stated they Council will see in the annual budget some grant funds in the amount of $100,000 into the Water Resources fund to pay for some of this administrative cost. Brenner stated the money not received is in kind from the County. Monsen stated yes. Nelson asked how County faired in comparison with other WRIA's. Thompson stated Whatcom County was seventh out of 25. Nelson asked what types of projects were funded. Thompson stated a similar mix of projects was funded. The next round begins in July. There are three things to do. One task is to look at the projects that weren't funded and talk to the folks who applied to see if they want to resubmit. If so, review the technical merits so it is clear how the projects fit into the strategy, in order to put forward the best projects possible. Another task is to identify new projects. County culverts are one idea. The County, as a government, can submit those. He would coordinate with people to identify those projects. When they send the list to the SRF Board, they want to make sure all the applications have a high technical merit regarding the benefit to salmon and certainty for success. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 47 48 Dawson stated the County worked on culverts. She questioned whether they need to work on additional ones. Monsen stated yes. Thompson stated they are being assessed. Monsen stated he had asked for some of this money before for culverts. As the process matures, they recognize that they need a substantial scientific basis for a project to be on the list. In the next round, they will be in a much better position to get projects financed. They also hope the state legislature will fund barrier removal through the state Department of Transportation. Nelson questioned whether they anticipate funding for planning process regarding land use. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they are hoping shoreline grant monies would be available. It is a separate process, but would be for land relating to shoreline. Most of the rivers are shoreline. Nelson asked, if the County gets involved, whether the County is prepared to seek out grant funding for that process. Goodwin stated they are looking at all available funds. They just applied for a shoreline grant related to shoreline inventory. They will look at all grant sources. They are working hard to get in compliance with the Growth Management Act. The County still doesn't have compliance and is ineligible for about half the money available. Nelson asked when it will be reviewed. Goodwin stated there was a pre - hearing teleconference to discuss it, and then they would let the County know. Once resolved, the County will have a broader range of grant opportunities. She has worked with the Water Resources Division to coordinate programs. Desler stated the County is involved with the Forest Service to allow resources from them to plan around lands adjacent to forest service national forest. He will bring that forward to the Council. North Fork Acclimation Pond 2001 Operation Contract with the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Agency (NSEA) Thompson stated there is a desire to amend contract with NSEA to operate the acclimation ponds. They have been operated since 1989. The intent is to get the juvenile fish further up the basin. The adults would return further upstream to spawn. The operation last year was funded through Governor salmon recovery office. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Thompson stated NSEA has $11,000 left in grant amount. The proposal is to combine the money with $14,000 from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). They would get two years of operation for one grant price. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 47 48 They would like to have authorization to move forward in continuation of the process. Dawson asked if the acclimation ponds are more natural. Ted Thygesen, WDFW, stated there is one natural pond at Excelsior Camp Ground. It is a series of pools. They are evaluating that pond. One pool is actually in the river itself. This one in particular is natural and they are doing a study to see if the fish benefit more from that pond than the others, in terms of returning fish. Each pond has a different mark. Nelson asked the results. These are on the North Fork above Glacier and Maple Falls. They have to have personnel to monitor the ponds and maintain the water flows. Much of the money is to support the volunteer efforts. Shearer stated these fish are on the ESA list, so they have to have constant, 24 -hour supervision. They have volunteers to do that. They get about $36,000 in volunteer time in addition to the money that the state and the County have put in. Crawford moved to approve the additional $14,000 and continuation of the contract. Roll stated they are asking for direction to create a contract amendment to carry this into two years. It will come back through the regular session. Nelson questioned the escapement estimates. Thygesen stated the first page of the handout shows the number of adults returning. It is a combination of four sites. The first year they were from the acclimation sites was in 1991. Prior to that, the fish were native. Every four years, there is a dip in the rate of return, which is the brood year. The dips have become smaller. Nelson stated the objective is to get the dips in returns smaller, and have a more linear rise in the returning population over time. Crawford asked if the fish come back as four years olds. Thygesen stated they could return from three years old to six years old. Motion carried unanimously. 4. FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 11:45 a.m.) Paula Cooper, Special Projects Manager, stated that last November they had a discussion in the Public Works Committee. There was a concern about the flood control maintenance process for prioritization. There was a discussion about minimum eligibility criteria. The Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee (FCZDAC) reviewed the concern in December. She provided the guidelines used to Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 43 44 45 46 47 48 date, which are in WCC 17.20.030. The Advisory Committee felt that the current process was adequate. They liked the flexibility. They suggested additional criteria for subsection (B). Dawson asked for an explanation of subsection (E). Cooper stated that, for example, Point Roberts people paid for their own engineering. Cooper stated the Advisory Committee felt that as long as it is a flood project, it is eligible for the program. They liked the existing criteria, and created additional guidance to help define subsection (B). At their February meeting, they looked at 18 project applications for this year and the 13 remaining projects from the past. Nine of the 18 projects were from Sandy Point. One project was from the City of Bellingham. There was additional discussion about the public benefit being reviewed while looking at the criteria. The City of Bellingham project was for $1.2 million for implementation of Squalicum Creek plan for a berm. The committee talked about a flood hazard reduction project compared to repair and maintenance projects. The Advisory Committee felt the projects should be judged differently. There is a lower Nooksack plan they are now implementing. Ultimately, the results will come up as capital projects that will need to be implemented. A question is how to evaluate the projects as repair and maintenance projects or another type of project. The Advisory Committee agreed to come up with a separate project geared to flood control and reduction. The Advisory Committee committed to considering a special allocation for that project. There is no recommendation for a dollar amount or time frame yet. The Council may see a special recommendation for a special allocation for the Squalicum Creek flood control project. Dawson asked if the added criteria had a point system. Cooper stated no. It is almost impossible to come up with a point system to reflect the nuances of all the different projects. There is much variability. They work with a matrix. Brenner suggested making sure that this discussion isn't just in committee, and gets scheduled on the Council's agenda. As projects come in every quarter, get a list of the projects for the Council to review. Cooper stated the Advisory Committee agreed to do that already. They will have the results of the prioritization done in a month or month and a half. Crawford asked if the field trips are coming up. He wanted to go on some of them. Cooper stated they are typically done during the week. Brenner stated she also wanted to attend. Nelson suggested notifying the Clerk of the Council about the field trip schedule. Crawford asked where Canyon Creek fits into all of this. Cooper stated the Project Review Committee sorts through the applications to see if a projects needs to be elevated to alternative management, which is where Canyon Creek is at. She is still evaluating alternatives. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 47 Crawford asked what they are doing at Sandy Point. Cooper stated she is doing flood plain mapping in Sandy Point. They will need to regulate new development. Crawford stated Canyon Creek is a decision of whether or not to do something. Sandy Point is a regulatory thing. The County is not going to go out there and build up a big bulkhead. Cooper stated they have nine applications for bulkhead repairs on Sandy Point. She didn't know what the County is going to do because they haven't prioritized yet. Monsen stated they are talking about an allocation of time. One of the priorities is management of the National Flood Insurance Program. When they had the event in Sandy Point, the County diverted energy to deal with National Flood Insurance issues. They are not comparing Canyon Creek with Sandy Point. It is a shift in focus for a time. Cooper stated it is very rare to get an event that provides calibration data when there is a flood. They have to run out there before the debris gets moved to collect the data. Brenner asked if the projects are in order of when they were applied for. Cooper stated they are not. The first 17 on the list are new and the last 13 are carryovers. Brenner asked about the Betty Lou Close project. Cooper stated it is completely new. Brenner asked what phase the projects are in. Cooper stated the new applications are at the beginning of the process. The other 13 applications are in various phases of the process. Brenner asked how many projects have been done. Cooper stated that they did nine projects in 1999 and 2000. Monsen stated the average expenditure in project completion is $1.3 million. Brenner asked if they are getting further behind. Cooper stated they are because the permitting is nightmarish. Crawford stated 9 of the 17 projects are to repair bulkheads that have been damaged. Cooper stated they have not been prioritized. Crawford stated he didn't understand why they would even consider it. Dawson stated that residents were wrecked. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 44 45 46 47 48 Crawford stated the residents chose to build their houses on the most exposed location of the County. They have a natural event that occurred. If the residents who live there want to create a sub -zone to tax themselves to build up a rainy day flood, that's the way they should be treated. This is not the responsibility of the County. Nelson stated it is part of the 80/20 program. Monsen stated the applications are there because the department received the applications. They could be removed. Brenner asked if anyone who pays into the flood fund could apply for the 80/20 program. Cooper stated they could as long as it is a flooding problem. Part of the evaluation criteria is the public benefit. McShane suggested it would be beneficial for the councilmembers to see where the priorities fall after they are laid out. If the councilmembers don't like something, they might need to give guidance to the Flood Advisory Committee. Don't tell the Advisory Committee to not do a project. Provide a framework for guidance instead. It needs to be a fairness process. Look at the priority criteria to see how these applications fall. Brenner stated she would like to question projects they are not comfortable with. If she sees something that bothers her, she would want to bring it up McShane stated that if something bothers her, then question why it was ranked the way it was. Dawson asked for an example of a project that was approved by the County Council and Flood Zone District Board of Supervisors. Cooper stated the Riverberry project was funded by the County 100 percent. Dawson asked if that gives a project extra points. Cooper stated it makes the project a high priority. OTHER BUSINESS Desler stated that the administration needs the Council's advice and help, and the Council approved a series of adjustments to staff. The administration has been trying to figure out how to carry out those changes. They are having a problem with space. They can't hire staff because they can't put them anywhere. Today, the administration needs conceptual approval for something that is hanging them up, which is ordering telephone connections and systems. It takes about six weeks for the equipment to come in. The outline is to consolidate the Public Works Department operations. It does require the County to make a modest investment in some existing space they have, which are the first two floors of Civic Center building. This is all in anticipation of carrying out the master planing process for use of all facilities. They are going to need the equipment wherever they go. He Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 45 46 47 was only willing to order the equipment if the Council feels that it is appropriate. He asked for feedback. Nelson stated that the request was to proceed with the purchase of equipment necessary to deal with the increased staffing levels. Brenner asked if they were expecting that the Public Works Department would be consolidated and stay at the Civic Center Building. Desler stated it depends on the Council's decision. One medium -term option is to put the entire Public Works Department and some of the Health Department in the Civic Center building. Another option is to use the building for other purposes or to not use it at all. Make the decision as part of the comprehensive process. Brenner stated she thought the budget included more office space at Smith and Northwest. She was concerned about the Civic Center building. She supported the phone upgrade, but was not comfortable with putting money into the Civic Center building. There is not going to be enough parking and it is not in good shape. Desler stated the kind of money they want to spend, beyond phones, is for three areas. One area is making sure the building is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. A second area is to allow them to properly key and lock the building, and also do lighting upgrades. Hopefully it will be less than $100,000 to do all of that. They are making bond payments on the building now. They have to provide heat and light right now. The only other alternative is to lease another space with the same costs and problems that exist with this building. The County would still have to buy the phone system, make other upgrades, and have problems with location and property. It is a very odd and ineffective way to manage the current staff in multiple locations. Crawford stated he expressed his reservations with the building to Mr. Desler and Executive Kremen. He also had said he would agree to using the building as a County asset if it is put to use as a short -term fix by spending the bare minimum to get some use out of it, and implement a third -party review of the usefulness of that building so they can add that asset to the long -term facilities plan. Right now, he suspected they got a lemon of a building. However, they need to have a black and white figure on the real costs of rehabilitating the building and using the building. He would agree to a short -term use and quick fixes at low cost. Second, contract for a full evaluation of the building and provide guidance and guidelines. Desler stated their intention is to do the short -term use, which is for a couple of years. That would give them the time frame to do the master planning. The independent review is part of what they are planning with the master - planning process. It is a useful building for some purposes. If they decided to use it for those purposes, then fine. The building has parking limitations, but they will propose something for that. Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, 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 48 Brenner agreed with Councilmember Crawford. The problems started with an appraisal, which didn't show what the assessment showed. Nothing is any better than the person who is doing the work. She would like to purchase the work that Bill Geyer did and get the other side of the story without having to start all over again. Desler stated they have done much more substantial work with engineering, HVAC, and architectural firms who can analyze that building. That is why he is making the recommendation he is. That is also why the Executive's Office is not coming forward with active plans for the use of it, other than this very basic office space use. Nelson moved to give direction to the administration to bring forward a contract for purchase of the phone system required to upgrade to the needs of the staff for the amount of $96,000, in the form of a supplemental budget request. Brenner asked if the phone system could be moved. Desler stated it could. Motion carried unanimously. Nelson moved to provide direction to the administration to prepare office space on a limited time for two and a half years, no more than 36 months, to provide office space to the Public Works Department, with a limited budget to retrofit the space for no more than $100,000. Brenner stated she would abstain from voting. She had a problem with the building, but didn't want to vote no. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 with Brenner abstaining. Roll submitted information on a presentation by USU on February 28, 2001 regarding the status of their work and where they are going. The presentation is open to the public. It is located in the City of Bellingham Public Works facility. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on March 6 , 2001. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair Water Resources Work Session, 2/13/2001, Page 21