HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session October 20 2015Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
October 20, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Civic
Center Garden Level Conference Room, 322 Commercial Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Rud Browne, Barry Buchanan, Ken Mann and Carl
Weimer
Absent: Pete Kremen and Satpal Sidhu
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION A62015 -024
1. 2016 FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BUDGET
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department Director, stated that additional programs
from the water resources action plan need a long -term source of planning from the flood
fund or elsewhere. Because they are new programs, the expenditures aren't as well
developed as they will be. They are still figuring out the long term expenditure for the
National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) phase II, for example. In the
future, they will demonstrate early investment in the program and long -term expenditures
to carry forward the program. In the meantime, there will be some uncertainty as they
gather information to develop long -term funding.
The budget will focus on deliverability of capital projects so they get a good sense of
the scope, timing, and cost of delivering the project. He's asked staff to write the budget
considering project delivery, which means putting off some capital projects to future years,
when there is certainty they can be delivered on budget and on time. There are constraints
on budgeting this year. Staff have met those expectations. They're trying to make sure
they can carry forward the additional burdens in future budgets and resolve long -term
funding.
Today they will look at the river and flood budget. At next work session, they will
take a broader view of fund balances and a view into the next few years.
Weimer asked the timeline for passing the budget. He asked if it will be passed the
second meeting in November. Hutchings stated it will be.
Weimer stated he would like to make sure they get the level of detail they would
like. Hutchings stated councilmembers can tell him what kind of detail they're looking for.
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated the water resources improvement
plan is the work plan for stormwater and other things. It is coming forward for introduction
at the next meeting and adoption at the November 10 Council meeting.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, Page 1
1 Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, described each cost center for Flood
2 Maintenance and Operation as shown in the revised packet information (on file).
3
4 Mann asked for the difference between the Systemwide Improvement Framework
5 (SWIF) and Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan ( CFHMP). Cooper stated the
6 SWIF is narrowly focused on levee deficiencies. The CFHMP is for the resource agencies to
7 look at the levees and the entire floodplain. Both efforts integrate fish habitat into flood
8 planning.
9
10 She continued describing each cost center.
11
12 Weimer asked who does the facilitation for the SWIF and the CFHMP. Cooper stated
13 David Robinson from Kulshan Services is the facilitator for the interagency team.
14
15 Mann stated the national flood insurance program saves people 20 percent. He
16 asked how much that percentage is. He would like to know that information. They
17 probably spend a lot more to stay in the program. Cooper stated they primarily regulate
18 development consistent with minimum requirements of the flood insurance program. Levee
19 maintenance is more about floodplain management.
20
21 Mann asked about a conflict with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers about the
22 vegetation management plan, and if the County would have been removed from the
23 national flood insurance program (NFIP). Cooper stated they are two separate things.
24
25 Mann stated the 20 percent discount seems like a good benefit for the little amount
26 of money the County spends
27
28 Browne stated that regarding the amount of money the community puts into the
29 flood program, demonstrate the return on investment to the community. Cooper stated
30 they will incorporate a cost - benefit analysis into the comprehensive flood update. That's
31 why she budgeted some money to survey the structures. They need to know their
32 elevation, compare it to the flood elevation, do damage analysis, and compare it to cost
33 estimate.
34
35 Browne stated he would like an overview of what those programs are, what the
36 County spends on them, and what the County gets in return. He would like to know what
37 the County spends on things that improve the county flood insurance rating and what is the
38 benefit to the community by improving the rating.
39
40 Weimer asked if there is still an early warning system on Jones Creek. Cooper
41 stated there is. The subzone pays for it.
42
43 She continued the presentation on the Flood Construction and Improvements cost
44 centers.
45
46 Weimer stated he would like to know in the future the rate they're paying for the jail
47 work crew and how the cost is calculated. Cooper stated the cost is going up, but the work
48 crew is a good source for labor.
49
50 Brenner stated she would like to know what is offered to the inmates regarding their
51 sentence for working on the jail work crew.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, Page 2
1 Browne stated it would be nice to know the comparable cost on an arm's length
2 contract with a private contractor.
3
4 Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated they're paying for the
5 crew, the sheriff's employee who oversees the inmates, and their transportation and tools.
6
7 Browne stated he would like to know if they're paying more, less, or equal. He
8 would also like to know whether the inmates can elect to work on the work crew.
9
10 Cooper continued the presentation on the Flood Hazard Reduction cost center.
11
12 Brenner asked if there is financial cooperation from the Lummi Nation on the work on
13 the Lower Nooksack. Cooper stated they participate in the SWIF, but not with specific
14 projects. The County has a $1.2 million grant from the State on the Floodways By Design
15 Deming Levee project and a hazard mitigation grant for three acquisitions in Marietta. The
16 Lummi Nation is not providing any financial help, but they are helping the residents find a
17 place to live outside of Marietta. She concluded the presentation on the 2016 Flood Control
18 Zone District Budget.
19
20 Stoyka continued the presentation on the Natural Resources cost center.
21
22 Brenner asked what they're spraying noxious weeds with.
23
24 John Thompson, Public Works Department, stated what they use to spray weeds
25 depends on the specific species and situation.
26
27 Brenner asked for specific information on spraying policies. Thompson stated they
28 would get that information from Laurel Baldwin.
29
30 Brenner asked if the County is using the Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) crew
31 or NSEA for spraying. Stoyka stated they sponsor a crew with Nooksack Salmon
32 Enhancement Association (NSEA). The County contributes $60,000 as a cost share. He
33 continued to describe the cost centers.
34
35 Brenner referenced the small farm technical and financial assistance and asked if
36 they are doing downstream and upstream tests on problematic properties through the best
37 management practices (BMP) program with the Conservation District. Stoyka stated they
38 can if they have access.
39
40 Weimer asked why the budget amount is less for the pollution identification and
41 control (PIC) outreach and technical assistance, even though they haven't cleaned up any of
42 the shellfish areas. Stoyka stated they got a grant to do the work, which shifted the work
43 to other line items. The amount for technical assistance went down because it was
44 accidentally double- counted in 2015.
45
46 Brenner asked how they are going to notify people about septic system training.
47
48 Holly Faulstich, Public Works Department, stated they have to be in the focus
49 watershed. The Health Department sends out postcards to landowners about the classes.
50 The information is also on the Health Department website. The plan eventually is to do all
51 the watersheds.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, Page 3
1 Brenner stated that as a councilmember, she would like to be notified of all the
2 classes.
3
4 Stoyka continued the presentation on the Aquatic Invasive Species cost center.
5
6 Mann stated he would like to know about the enforcement expenditure that is
7 transferred to the Planning Department for enforcement. He would like a report on what
8 they have done. Stoyka stated he will provide some of that information later in this
9 meeting.
10
11 Brenner asked if they are working with the Department of Ecology on enforcement
12 for onsite septic systems (OSS). Stoyka stated it depends on what they are enforcing. The
13 Health Department deals with OSS enforcement. Critical areas enforcement is done through
14 the Natural Resources division.
15
16 Brenner stated the amount for aquatic invasive species (AIS) has been increasing.
17 Stoyka stated the amount is the same as last year. Last year, part of the County's expense
18 was in developing an online program. This year, the program expanded to smaller non -
19 motorized boats.
20
21 Weimer asked if they will talk about changing the fees to offset some costs. Stoyka
22 stated he understands it will be on the next Council agenda.
23
24 Weimer asked about the amount budgeted each year for the water demand study.
25 Stoyka stated this year they spent it on the coordinated water system plan. Next year they
26 will spend it on the water demand study.
27
28 Stoyka continued describing the additional services requests for outreach and
29 education in the natural resources program, including a new position to do outreach in the
30 Natural Resource program.
31
32 Weimer stated the Council gave the Planning Department money last year for more
33 outreach for critical areas. He hasn't seen anything come from that yet. Perhaps they need
34 to reallocate that money to this additional services request (ASR) position.
35
36 Browne asked what flood outreach would do. Stoyka stated they would like to do
37 more outreach to other cities about what the County is doing, what is in the flood program,
38 what are the planned projects, and how they fit in the overall SWIF and CHFMP processes.
39 It seems like there isn't a lot of knowledge about the flood program. Create a better
40 website presence and an annual flyer on past accomplishments and upcoming projects. The
41 purpose is to let people know what the program is about and how the various projects fit in.
42
43 Cooper stated they have a lot of technical work that has not been transferred to the
44 new website. They also have an extensive database of elevation certificates. Anyone who
45 buys in the floodplain has to get flood insurance. The elevation certificate is what they use
46 to get their insurance rating. The County maintains those certificates. If the County has a
47 certificate, it can save a homeowner $500 to $1,000, so they don't have to hire a surveyor
48 to get them. The department gets a lot of those inquiries. The County can put them on the
49 website. There's a lot to do to make people understand and have access to their work.
50
51 Browne stated all the departments do outreach. He wonders if there is an
52 opportunity to coordinate all the County outreach programs in one central database for the
53 community. Stoyka stated there is little capacity for a coordinated outreach effort now.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, Page 4
When necessary, they hire a contractor for that task. Some staff help out with getting the
website up -to -date. There is some capacity in the PIC program for outreach, for which
they've hired someone.
Stoyka concluded the presentation on outreach and education for the Lake Whatcom
watershed.
2. COORDINATED WATER SYSTEM PLAN (CWSP) /JOINT BOARD /PLANNING
UNIT
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department stated the next Planning Unit meeting is
tomorrow. They're working on the 2016 work plan and budget. Staff received an
application for caucus support. The last Joint Board meeting was in September. Members
are still looking at the staff team proposal. There's nothing new to report. Staff will
prepare a 2016 budget for the Joint Board, which will come to the Council.
Brenner asked if that budget will come forward with any contracts, which are
supposed to come to the Council first. Stoyka stated he will bring them to the Council.
Stoyka stated they will run out of money in 2016 for funding the groundwater
modeling project. The Joint Board members will have to figure out how to fund it going
forward. The next meeting is December 10.
At the last Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) meeting in August, two
subcommittees formed. The first subcommittee will address utility service review
procedures. The other subcommittee will address design standards and fire flow
requirements. Those two subcommittees have finished their work and will come back to the
WUCC. They should finish all components of the coordinated water system plan by
December. They will have the final product to the WUCC for a vote in early 2016. If the
WUCC approves it, it will go through the adoption process through the Planning
Department, the Council, a public hearing, and to the Department of Health. The adoption
process will take 6 months, but most of the work will already be done. There were 15
subcommittee meetings to get this done, so the budget is running low. The next WUCC
meeting is tomorrow.
3. DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING UNIT
Linda Twitchell, Planning Unit Member, Land Development Caucus, introduced Dick
Whitmore, Dan Isis, Terry Montagne, and Andy Ross. Since the Planning Unit convened in
2013, it has had to rebuild. Their biggest accomplishment is that they are a changed group
that is working together, getting agreement, and moving forward. They hope to get over
the issue of some planning unit members who want the Planning Unit to be dissolved.
There are two subcommittees of the Planning Unit.
Dan Isis, Planning Unit Member, Water District Caucus, described the creation,
purpose, and work of the two subcommittees for in- stream flow and governance and
funding. One recommendation of the governance and funding subcommittee to County
Council is to update the Comprehensive Water Resources Plan, which is more like a simple
budget document, not a comprehensive plan. It puts all the water resources issues and
plans in one location. The instream flow subcommittee recommendation is for the Council
to designate a councilmember as a liaison with the Planning Unit. The Planning Unit will
designate a contact to work with the Council. The subcommittee is still working on the
Lower Nooksack Strategy and Instream Flow Action Plan.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, Page 5
1
2 Andy Ross, Planning Unit Member, Nongovernment Water Systems Caucus, reported
3 on the status of the work plan, budget, path forward document, and proposed interlocal
4 agreement. The Planning Unit submitted its budget pursuant to the request from the Joint
5 Board and regarding the Water Action Plan. There are communications issues. They want
6 to work with the County Council. The path forward work was unnecessary, contentious,
7 redundant, and not asked for. The facilitator insisted upon it.
8
9 Twitchell described the background of the path forward document and stated
10 communication with the County administration and County Council can be better.
11
12 Ross continued the presentation on the outcome of the path forward document
13 process, which took four hours of time and which was to reaffirm the dual role, come to
14 consensus, and complete the path forward document process. They didn't ask for it, but
15 they dealt with it and moved past it.
16
17 Mann asked if there are specific caucuses that always vote against something when
18 there is no consensus. Twitchell stated it changes, depending on the topic.
19
20 Ross described the interlocal agreement presentation and discussion at the Planning
21 Unit. The Planning Unit will provide comments on the interlocal agreement. The dual role of
22 the Planning Unit is not included in the interlocal agreement. The Planning Unit appears to
23 be an advisory committee to the County Council, but the Revised Code of Washington
24 (RCW) 90.82 as it regards the watershed management plan review and update is not
25 included. Focus should return to reviewing and revisiting the 2005 Watershed Management
26 Plan.
27
28 Browne stated his concern is that there isn't funding from the State to continue the
29 Planning Unit in its role authorized by the RCW. Twitchell stated they don't have funding,
30 but the only option according to State law is to dissolve both it and the Joint Board in favor
31 of creating a county watershed planning committee.
32
33 Browne stated the RCW also does not address the obligation to continue funding it.
34 Twitchell stated the Planning Unit represents a lot of folks who don't have ready access to
35 the Joint Board members. It's a valuable advisory group to the County Council and the joint
36 management jurisdictions.
37
38 Ross asked if the Planning Unit and Joint Board could request funding from the State.
39
40 Browne stated he has no problem requesting money from the State or the federal
41 governments. The advisory group role makes sense and is consistent with the way they do
42 other things. He is reluctant to encourage the County to assume a financing obligation that
43 was created by the State, when the State has now created an unfunded mandate.
44
45 Dick Whitmore, Planning Unit Member, Forestry Caucus, stated the County does not
46 have a vision for the future of the Nooksack River. None of the agencies coordinate with
47 each other. The Planning Unit can help create that vision for the future. There is also a lack
48 of public awareness of the County's efforts regarding water resources. The timber industry
49 spent millions of dollars and gave up thousands of acres for habitat and water quality and
50 quantity, including culvert replacement. Other industries and agencies need to give
51 something to this effort. The Planning Unit is trying to move that effort forward.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, Page 6
1 Terry Montagne, Planning Unit Member, Fisheries Caucus, described the problem of
2 trying to restore fisheries and wild fish population. Fish hatcheries and farms contribute to
3 the decline of the wild fish population. Many things have to be done that are beyond the
4 capability of Whatcom County and the water resource inventory area (WRIA). His caucus
5 hopes to get members from seven different areas, including: coastal, lower mainstream
6 Nooksack, upper mainstream Nooksack, the three forks, and Squalicum Creek. Saturation
7 fishing offshore is a big problem. He hopes the Council will talk to the Puget Sound
8 Partnership and others about revitalizing fisheries in the Salish Sea.
9
10 Twitchell stated the main point is that they need a better liaison with the Council,
11 County, and management team to resolve communication problems.
12
13 Weimer stated they haven't seen a proposal to update the multi - jurisdictional
14 comprehensive water plan. They need to create a proposal, work plan, and budget request
15 by November. The Council is working to formalize an advisory relationship, which could
16 include a Council representative or staff support for the Planning Unit. The County hasn't
17 yet discussed what that will look like. It could address a lot of the concerns.
18
19 Brenner stated she's not reluctant to keep both functions of the Planning Unit. She
20 likes the idea of the Planning Unit being involved with the Joint Board. She's not anxious to
21 drop both functions of the Planning Unit. She doesn't agree with having the Planning Unit
22 be just an advisory committee.
23
24 Whitmore stated they were working better without the facilitator. At the same time,
25 they can work with the management team to get the plan together.
26
27 Browne stated he wants the Planning Unit to be functional. It was dysfunctional for a
28 time. As a citizen, he wants his money's worth. If he's going to spend money on
29 supporting a particular group, he wants to get something out of it that's equal to or greater
30 than the value he's spending. The work should not be duplicative. Regarding the State
31 requirements, the original State funding was significant. The County is unable to match the
32 State's original funding. The Planning Unit role has to change from what the State requires,
33 unless the funding is found from somewhere. Twitchell stated the funding depends on what
34 they're expected to do. If the Planning Unit is expected to write reports, as the old Planning
35 Unit did, that work was grant- based.
36
37 Isis stated the significant money, up to about $10 million, from the State and the
38 County went into developing the 2005 Watershed Management Plan. The Planning Unit and
39 Council approved the 2005 plan. It was expected that the plan would be implemented.
40 Planning Unit is part of that implementation. The plan incorporates adaptive management,
41 so implementation would be monitored to see if things work. He described the 2005 plan
42 and 2007 detailed implementation plan. If they implement both plans, the Planning Unit is
43 part of that implementation, which is the Planning Unit's statutory role. The Planning Unit
44 can help get public buy -in for funding both of those plans.
45
46 Stoyka stated the Planning Unit did vote to have a facilitator, it was a close vote.
47
48 Ross stated the minority opinion was to have a coordinator, not a facilitator, and get
49 more caucus support. That request will come up again.
50
51 Twitchell stated they need secretarial support.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mann stated he supports the Planning Unit's requests for support. He assumed staff
would do that work. If the Planning Unit is still feeling isolated from the County Council, it's
a problem. He appreciates all their work.
Weimer stated the Council needs clear recommendations from the Planning Unit on
facilitation versus staff support and coordination.
4. PLANNING UNIT CAUCUS SUPPORT FUNDING REQUEST GUIDANCE
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, described the applications for caucus
support, including the process for submitting an application and the applications received so
fa r.
Andy Ross, Planning Unit Member, Nongovernment Water Systems Caucus,
described the past caucus application and contract processes. Mr. Stoyka is looking into
costs for postage and printing.
Stoyka stated payment is only made after the work is done and an invoice is
submitted. The County can run postage through its postage machine and probably find a
printer who can bill the County directly. The current application is from the nongovernment
water systems caucus in the amount of $9,000. They would develop a periodic newsletter
to mail to caucus members and for the consultant to attend and coordinate meetings. The
Planning Unit will discuss the application at its next meeting. If the Planning Unit agrees, it
will forward the application to the Council for funding approval. He asked if the Council
accepts that approach, is agreeable to paying the invoices as they are submitted, wants to
set a deadline for applications, or intends to set up an ad hoc committee for evaluating the
applications.
Weimer asked if the application and funding request is to pay for work that has
already been done. Ross stated the work has partly been done.
Weimer stated that the County doesn't give other advisory committee members any
money, so this will be a new thing, especially if they are giving caucuses money to hire
staff.
Ross stated caucus consultants have been hired before, with condition. They cannot
be technical consultants and do not get paid to attend Planning Unit meetings. They can do
public involvement and education and two other functions. Skip Richards has been reducing
all the information into something they can all digest, which is not a small task.
Browne asked if a budget has been approved to pay the invoices and if the Planning
Unit has had a full vote on requesting the work to be done. Ross stated the money was put
up by the County Council in the amount of $10,000 for caucus support. The Planning Unit
understood it was to be for nongovernment caucus support. The private well owners and
nongovernment water system caucuses were the only two caucuses interested in the
funding. It has taken them several months to figure out what the process was that was
used in the past.
Browne asked if the invoice from Catalyst was for work done that was requested by
the Planning Unit.
Weimer stated this was work done for one caucus, not the Planning Unit.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, Page 8
1 Ross stated the nongovernment water systems caucus contracted with Skip Richards
2 of Catalyst Consulting, to do this work. He billed the nongovernment water systems caucus.
3
4 Browne stated the County government is not in the practice of backdating approvals
5 for work that has been done. He wants to see the spending authority for the work. Ross
6 stated the money was set aside and there is a whole application process for funding.
7
8 Brenner stated the money was set aside to allow caucuses to do mailing and paying
9 for postage. She is concerned that he is already working for that group. She would
10 consider it if the Planning Unit supported the application.
11
12 Twitchell stated the Planning Unit never knew what the caucus support was supposed
13 to be for. Skip Richards has done more support work for the Planning Unit than anyone
14 else. He has been extremely helpful. He has been providing the staff support the Planning
15 Unit didn't otherwise have. That contract was with the caucus, not the Planning Unit.
16
17 Weimer stated he's fine with the Planning Unit discussing what the process ought to
18 be. However, the Council doesn't approve contracts. The Council shouldn't be in the
19 position of approving every invoice. Ross stated this package would be in the contract, and
20 the invoice would go to Mr. Stoyka.
21
22 Mann stated he's uncomfortable giving caucus facilitation support in principle, as
23 discussed. He would rather give clerical support to the Planning Unit. It's not obvious why
24 County government would pay for postage and caucus communication. His higher priority is
25 the entire Planning Unit.
26
27 Weimer stated one thing to talk about is whether or not they should get rid of the
28 caucus structure.
29
30 Twitchell stated the County gets the Planning Unit with the caucuses, or it gets
31 something that is not the Planning Unit.
32
33 Browne stated the County government is regulated by State law in the way it issues
34 contracts and spends money. The idea of someone submitting an invoice to the County,
35 with their version of a contract, and asking the County to agree, is completely outside any
36 governance structure or the way the County works. At the very best, assuming the County
37 approves, the caucus does projects like this, it has to go through the normal administrative
38 process of the County to be in compliance with State law. The County doesn't have the
39 ability to do this.
40
41 Weimer stated they did previously. As a caucus member, he had an agreement with
42 the County that if he did certain things that were written in an agreement and that meet
43 purchasing requirements, he would get reimbursed. They don't have that system set up
44 now.
45
46 Stoyka stated he suspects the application will be resubmitted since they've amended
47 their funding request.
48
49 Ross stated the previous process was in compliance with State law. He doesn't know
50 that State law has changed. Regarding Councilmember Mann's point, a big difference
51 between a caucus and assigning someone to represent all well owners is that the person
52 isn't responsible for actually representing the well owners. They would represent their own
53 well. With the caucus structure, there is an expectation that the person reaches out to
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, 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
J4
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
other well owners. That is a lot to ask of an individual. It quickly gets expensive. They
need a caucus structure to get community support.
Mann asked if there are any other situations in which they need to make decisions,
have representation, lobby in Olympia, lobby to the Council, or coordinate anything. Ross
stated there aren't any of those situations. This request is to help the caucus function and
do outreach.
Mann stated he assumed there was a formal association that accepted member dues
to pay for those tasks. Ross stated that is how it functioned in the early 2000's. The
caucus got money from caucus support funds and also raised revenue from within the
caucus. However, now they're starting over. They don't have the funding base now. They
need to reestablish it.
Twitchell asked if the Council supports the Planning Unit taking a vote on paying the
secretarial request, and then let the Council discuss the legalities of contract work with this
caucus separately.
Weimer stated any input from the Planning Unit will be helpful. Then the Council will
have to discuss whether it can move forward on work that has already occurred, for which
there was no agreement.
Browne stated an advisory committee structure is significantly cheaper than a
caucus - driven structure, which requires money for caucus outreach, inviting people to serve
in a caucus role, and going through an appointment process that ensures the caucus
member represents the majority view of its members. That's an ongoing expense. It
wouldn't surprise him if it cost a couple hundred thousand a year just to run the caucus
structure with authority. They have to validate that the person is representing the caucus.
Twitchell stated one structure is the Planning Unit, and the other structure is not the
Planning Unit.
Browne stated that they can get the intention and benefits of the Planning Unit in an
advisory group structure at a much lower cost.
Ross stated he strongly disagrees with that.
Brenner stated she also strongly disagrees with that. The Planning Unit worked. It
needs some fixing now, but these comments should go to the Planning Unit to work on.
This is about the money allocation. Some of the caucuses weren't able to mail information
out to many members, but some of them wanted to do that. There wasn't a discussion
about paying for a consultant for an individual caucus. She wants to hear from the Planning
Unit about what they think will work best with the limited amount of money. The Council
can check to see what is legal.
Weimer stated the Council needs to create some limits. Back in the day, the County
spent $50,000 per year for caucus support. That only lasted a year or two.
Brenner stated that was for facilitators. They don't need a facilitator anymore. They
need someone to do the clerical work.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, 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
Weimer stated the next step is to get the Planning Unit work plan and budget ideas
to the Council. The Council needs to decide if the relationship with the Planning Unit will
become advisory.
Whitmore stated that when the Planning Unit was developed years ago, the caucus
structure gave more power to the people, not to the government, which would be running
the process. They kept checks and balances on the bureaucracy that was helping the
Planning Unit write the plan. That is the importance of an autonomous caucus structure.
Ross stated the caucus structure will give the Council a lot of outreach for the
difficult decisions and expenses that are coming up regarding water issues. It's less likely
that people will be blindsided.
Browne stated there is a financial cost to give the body a legitimacy through
outreach and selection of caucus members. The Council must decide if that cost is best
spent on supporting that structure or on spending it elsewhere.
Isis stated there is a cost to it. The County received only one application so far from
all the caucuses. The caucuses are taking on most of that cost. There are a lot of costs
that the other caucuses are contributing to provide that representation, without asking the
County for money. The County is getting a good benefit with that representation.
5. UPDATE ON POLLUTION IDENTIFICATION AND CORRECTION PROGRAM
(Clerk's Note: This item was not discussed.)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:42 p.m.
The Coggcil opprgved these minutes on February 9, 2016.
ATTEST: ti,�-' fui "•, r`; WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan,F�+uq� S; .Orauncil Clerk
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2015, Page 11