HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 13 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
October 13, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara Brenner in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Tom Brown
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING USE OF GENERAL FLOOD CONTROL
ASSESSMENTS TO FUND THE MATCHING DOLLARS NEEDED BY THE FLOOD
CONTROL ZONE DISTRICTS (AB98 -362)
Council Member Connie Hoag stated that this item was before the County Council at the
last meeting. Council Member Ward Nelson suggested that the Council look at using general
flood fund dollars to make up the difference between the sub -zones original budget request and
the amount they were funded, which was much smaller. This discussion looks at funding the
difference out of the general flood fund.
Brenner stated that it was a good idea.
Brown suggested the possibility of instead using a matching fund formula. The County
could match the contributions made by the residents in the sub -zone. The County would fund
70% of the project, per the 70/30 regulation, then the sub -zone and the County's general flood
fund would equally split the funding for the remaining 30 %. This would make the total split
85/15.
Hoag stated that this discussion should be saved for the next agenda item.
Brenner stated that they should be funded at a level that they really need.
Ed Henken, Public Works Engineering Division Manager, stated that Ward Nelson made
a motion during the Council Meeting to put this discussion in committee. Also, there are three
diking districts that never assessed people outside of the flood plain. If the Council is looking at
reducing the matching funds, then as a matter of equity, they should be entitled to the same
benefit proposed for the sub -flood control zone districts.
43 Brown questioned whether the sub -flood control zones could become diking districts.
44 Henken responded that if the Council dissolved the sub -flood control zone districts and create
45 diking districts, then they could.
46
47 Brown stated that the members would have to then be elected by the people within the
Public Works Committee, 10/13/98, Page 1
I district.
2
3 Ron Bronsema, Lynden/Everson Sub -Flood Zone District Advisory Committee, stated
4 that the County Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) has a recommendation to form three
5 additional sub - zones, one in the Marietta area, and two in the upper watershed. In the area of the
6 Nooksack river forks, there aren't many people that live within the 100 -year flood plain. There
7 would be a problem getting a match.
8
9 Brenner stated that is why the County is doing the general flood fund. There should not
10 be separate zones in those two upper watershed areas.
11
12 Fred Nowicke, 3341 Berg Road, Everson, Sumas /Everson Sub -Flood Control Zone
13 District Advisory Committee, stated that the residents of the area had an opportunity to decide
14 whether they wanted to be a diking district or a sub -flood control zone district. They chose to be
15 a sub -zone.
16
17 Brenner stated that the only difference between the two is that the people representing the
18 diking district are elected.
19
20 Bronsema stated that sub -zones are up and running within one year of establishment.
21 Diking districts take a couple of years.
22
23 Brenner questioned whether there was anything the County could do to expedite the
24 decision - making process for the diking districts. Henken replied that state law determines it.
25
26 Brenner questioned whether the Council could require the sub -flood zone district
27 advisory committee members be elected. Henken responded that they could not.
28
29 Hoag questioned whether the sub -zones could assess for activities that contribute to
30 flooding, whereas diking districts could only receive funds from people who benefit from the
31 work. Also, all decisions must tie in with the Comprehensive Flood Plan.
32
33 Brenner stated that the discussion should just be focused on making up the difference in
34 the budgeted amounts.
35
36 Hoag questioned the dollar figures that would be funded.
37
38 Bronsema stated that the original Lynden/Everson sub -zone budget request was
39 approximately $125,000 and the revised was $28,000. The others did not have as much of a
40 discrepancy. The Sumas /Everson sub -zone requested $180,000 and the revised was $63,000.
41 AcmeNanZandt requested $37,000 and the revised was approximately $10,000.
42
43 Brenner stated that the amount to be funded from the general fund is approximately
44 $150,000. She questioned the amount in the general flood fund. Henken responded that it is
45 approximately $7 million.
46
47 Bronsema stated that the opposition would be that they would have to pay to protect the
Public Works Committee, 10/13/98, Page 2
I City of Lynden infrastructure, particularly the sewage treatment plant, water in -take, and Guide
2 Meridian and Hannegan road bridges. That would be the opposition if they tried to form a diking
3 district.
4
5 Brenner moved to fund the original budget requests from the sub -flood control zone
6 districts from the general flood fund for the remainder of this year only.
7
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9
10 Hoag questioned whether this is legal. Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor,
11 stated that she assumed that it is.
12
13 Brown stated that they need to assess the state and County for the state highways and
14 county roads that are within the sub - zones.
15
16
17 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DRAFTING OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE
18 AMENDING ORDINANCE 97 -027, WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
19 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (AB98 -363)
20
21 Brenner stated that the only thing that is needed is to change item #3 on page 2 of
22 ordinance 97 -027.
23
24 Brown questioned whether it would solve the long -term problem. Henken stated that
25 there are still questions regarding the long -term. This would make it more equitable in the
26 meantime.
27
28 Brenner stated that it would just provide more options, but not solve the problems.
29 Henken stated that they are not yet aware of what all the problems are.
30
31 Council Member Connie Hoag stated that the State Department of Ecology (DOE) and
32 the State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Fisheries) mentioned that from now on, all projects
33 would require fish mitigation. That is why she suggested the change to 80/20. Fish mitigation is
34 a general public benefit, not specific to protect an area. Also, there was a concern raised at the
35 Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee that not all projects contain fish mitigation,
36 such as coastline projects which protects the Lummi Shore Road. Fisheries disagreed. She
37 suggested language regarding projects that require fish mitigation being funded at the 80/20
38 level, and all others be funded at 70/30.
39
40 Brenner stated that she preferred to leave the designation at 80/20 and let the projects
41 come forward on a case -by -case basis.
42
43 Brown questioned whether something like that comes out of the road fund. Henken
44 responded that some road projects do have fish mitigation considerations. In that case, a road
45 had been infringing on the coastline, so was moved back. That road was a parks access road, and
46 the project was funded from flood money and Parks Department money.
47
Public Works Committee, 10/13/98, Page 3
I Brown stated that if the County's property is involved, it should not be funded by the
2 general flood fund, only the Parks Department. Henken responded that the roads generally pay
3 their own way, and no flood money is involved.
4
5 Brenner questioned why they are using flood funds on County property. There needs to
6 be a directive in the ordinance to not use those funds.
7
8 Dawson stated that the Council voted to approve funding for that project.
9
10 Henken stated that it was approved through last year's flood budget. If County property
11 is going to be excluded, then state property should be excluded also.
12
13 Brown stated that state agencies should be paying for the protection of their own
14 property.
15
16 Henken stated that they have been cost sharing with the County.
17
18 Brenner proposed to recommend that the County do not cost share with the State on flood
19 issues. County residents are already paying state taxes. Also, the State should have to pay for
20 any damage to its own property. No flood fund money should be used for County owned
21 property.
22
23 Dawson suggested bringing the amendments before the full Council.
24
25 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that the State pays into the general
26 flood fund, just like private property owners.
27
28 Brenner stated that they get assessed at a low rate, because it is timberland. She
29 questioned whether the County could assess a flood fund amount that is not directly proportional
30 to their property tax assessment. The County is not getting a fair return for the State's
31 contribution in some areas. She requested a legal opinion. There are several questions that need
32 to be legally answered, including whether the County is prevented from charging state lands
33 more in direct relation to their contribution, above and beyond an insignificant amount. Another
34 question is whether the County is prevented from eliminating cost sharing with the State
35 altogether. She also questioned whether the County could prevent flood money from being used
36 on County owned property. It should come out of the general fund or a specific dedicated fund.
37
38 Brenner stated that she would schedule this again in two weeks.
39
40 Brown stated that he would like to change the split from 70/30 to 80/20 or 85/15. The
41 sub -flood control zones should not be responsible for fish mitigation costs. The committee does
42 not need to do anything now, until questions can be answered and the issue can be reviewed for
43 the long -term.
44
45 Hoag stated that projects come forward all of the time. She recommended putting the
46 issue in motion.
47
Public Works Committee, 10/13/98, Page 4
I Brown moved to amend ordinance 97 -027, page 2, item #3 so the split would be 80/20,
2 unless there is fish mitigation, when the split would be 85/15.
3
4 Brenner proposed a friendly amendment that properties outside the flood plain would not
5 be assessed.
6
7 Hoag stated that the boundaries of the sub -zones are not a part of ordinance 97 -027. She
8 questioned whether tying it to whom would be taxed in the sub -zones would be appropriate. The
9 part about who is paying in the sub -zone is a different issue.
10
11 Bronsema stated that one idea is that if there is significant fish mitigation, then a portion
12 of the total project could be the determining factor of how the project is funded. He
13 recommended in excess of 1/3.
14
15 Brown questioned Bronsema about the portion of the RiverberryNanDalen project that is
16 considered to be fish mitigation. Bronsema stated that most of the reason it was done was for
17 fish mitigation.
18
19 Brenner suggested a friendly amendment that the funding level would be at 80/20, unless
20 there is a fish mitigation threshold that is over 1/3 of the cost of the total project, when the
21 project would be funded at 85/15.
22
23 Brown suggested adding language that would require any available state or federal funds
24 to be used.
25
26 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
27
28 Hoag suggested that 1/3 of the cost is after any state or federal funds have been applied.
29
30 Brenner restated the motion to amend the language, "... pay for *44Y twenty percent
31 (320 %), unless there is a fish mitigation threshold that is over 1/3 of the cost of the total project
32 after federal and state dollars have been applied, when the property owners or sponsors shall pay
33 for fifteen percent (15 %) of the local cost.. "
34
35
36 Nowicke stated that a gentleman with 100 acres in five parcels was charged for each
37 parcel. He explained to the gentlemen that he could combine the parcels and would only be
38 assessed once. The gentleman stated that he would not then be able to sell the parcels.
39
40 Brown stated that those questions need to be referred to the Assessor's office or the
41 County Council.
42
43 Brenner stated that she would like the public to be told by the sub -zone committee
44 members that they could combine their parcels for assessment purposes only. The Assessor's
45 office needs to inform the committee of whether parcels, which are separated only by a road, are
46 considered contiguous or adjacent for combining the parcels for assessment purposes.
47
Public Works Committee, 10/13/98, Page 5
Hoag stated that Committee might consider including a note with the tax bill that informs
the property owners that they can combine their parcels.
Brenner restated that the motion is to set a hearing for amending the ordinance to change
item #3, , "... pay for thifty twenty percent ( -320 %), unless there is a fish mitigation threshold that
is over 1/3 of the cost of the total project after federal and state dollars have been applied, when
the property owners or sponsors shall pay for fifteen percent (15 %) of the local cost..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Dawson out of the room.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Council Member
Public Works Committee, 10/13/98, Page 6