Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/03/21 - Lower Hood Canal CWD LOWER HOOD CANAL CLEAN WATER DISTRICT MARCH 21, 1994 ATTENDANCE: Mary L. Faughender, Commissioner William O. Hunter, Chairperson Laura E. Porter, Commissioner Wayne Clifford, Water Quality Coordinator Brad Banner, Health Services Director Al Adams, Lower Hood Canal Clean Water District Advisory Board Chair Michael Luther, Hugh Middleton, Tim Sheldon, Harry Martin; Citizens The Lower Hood Canal Clean Water District was called to order at 1:34 p.m. by Board of Commissioners Chairperson Bill Hunter. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Cmmr.Porter/Faughender moved and seconded to approve the February 23,1994 minutes as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. F-aye; H-aye; P-aye. CORRESPONDENCE It was noted there was a list of correspondence received from the last public hearing. CLEAN WATER DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT Wayne Clifford, Water Quality Coordinator, reported the advisory committee at their last meeting reviewed several other issues regarding the proposed assessments and came back with two more recommendations. 1) The larger on-site systems (those above 3500 gallons a day or more and regulated by the State Department of Health)be assessed five assessments; 2)Assess systems with multiple connections (including RV Parks,Trailer Parks) be assessed one assessment + $10 for each connection beyond the first one. There were some other issues discussed by the Advisory Board that were not approved by them. Cmmr. Faughender asked if their recommendation is still $48 per assessment. Cmmr. Porter questioned how apartment houses would be addressed. Mr.Clifford responded it is still somewhat of a grey area in drawing a line between if an apartment complex has a larger on-site system. They seem to fall within both categories. Al Adams,Lower Hood Canal Clean Water District Advisory Board Chair added the Committee felt good about their decision on the five recommendations. The last three items they decided not to change. Having been to both the workshop and public hearing and in listening to people, not being privy to the written information,this helps satisfy some of the anxieties of some of the public regarding spreading it out to those that may cause more damage than others. From the little bit of information received, it seems like a fair assessment. He added that he hoped they didn't lose momentum on what's going on in Lower Hood Canal clean up. The people are excited about what's going on. He hates to see them run out of funds and stop before they can continue on. He expressed his personal viewpoint in fine tuning too much what they are trying to do. There is no way they can be totally fair to everybody. It is a type of project they can fine tune to the point of breakage. He felt they should give it the best they can. Cmmr. Faughender questioned what a 20 unit apartment house would be assessed. 20 X$48 = X plus the fee for multiple assessments.' LOWER HOOD CANAL CLEAN WATER DISTRICT MARCH 21, 1994 - PAGE 2 Harry Martin, Lower Hood Canal Clean Water District Advisory Board Member, responded they would be charged $48 + $10 hook up. Cmmr. Porter asked what the difference is between a group of condominiums hooked into one system and a group of RV's hooked into one system. It will still require the same amount of staff intensity, going from unit to unit and pouring dye down all the units tracing back with that same complexity and extra time. Mr.Martin responded they asked Mr. Clifford if it would take just as much time to check the more hookups as it would the large user such as an apartment house. The Board noted there needs to be a clear definition for administering this policy. Cmmr. Porter noted she has heard different explanations from different advisory board members. Chairperson Hunter added it would be helpful to list the different items addressed such as campgrounds,trailer parks, larger grocery stores-restaurant, motel, condos, etc. Mr.Martin stated they used the criteria of 3200 gallons for large users;450 for 4-bedroom home;and 360 gallons per day for 3-bedroom home. Mr.Adams interjected it would be a good idea if the staff could present this tonight so they can clarify item by item so they have a better idea of what the Board is asking about. Cmmr. Porter noted that Totten/Little Skookum is a lot simpler. The fee for more than one home on a septic system was per household;which.was defined by any structure affiliated with the septic system. It wasn't based — on the septic system. It was based on the structure. Mr.Adams added that part of this has to do with asking the Committee to do something that they don't have the knowledge to do. It is getting down to a fineness that they are not aware of or should be concerned about. He asked the committee be given copies of all the public/written information (letters). He felt this would be helpful for the advisory committee to note and be aware of. They are on the threshold for 1994. Cmmr.Porter requested Mr.Adams ask the Committee if it would be an extra task in the work plan to identify numbers of hook ups and that kind of detailed information. Also, if they would still be making the recommendation. If there is a significant cost (more than one day's worth of time) that part of their fee would have to pay for what is making the multiple hook up recommendation. Mr. Adams asked for feedback from the Board to take to the Advisory Board on what has gone on at the Workshop and Public Hearing. Cmmr. Hunter stated he hasn't had a whole lot of irate calls or people concerned about the assessment. It seems to be fairly well received. Cmmr. Faughender expressed there seemed to be general support of cleaning up the Canal. There also was a general support for fees. The main disagreement was why assess tidelands in addition to the regular lot. Letters received have also been showing support for cleaning up the Canal. Cmmr.Hunter concurred that the tideland assessment is the biggest irritant for people for the amount of people affected by it. LOWER HOOD CANAL CLEAN WATER DISTRICT MARCH 21, 1994 - PAGE 3 Cmmr.Porter voiced she received most complaints about tidelands assessment,which were from tideland owners objecting to paying. She added there seems to be a lot of confusion whether the work proposed will really make a difference. There appears to be a further need for explanation on where the County did work and needs an upgrade,so people could see a more positive future,that this is the action they have been asking for a long time. She thanked the Advisory Board for their role in helping to establish credibility for the County within the watersheds. Mr.Adams questioned if there is a time element when things might happen. The Board noted they are as anxious as the Advisory Board to get this settled. Cmmr.Porter stated they are trying to iron out the administrative issues such as if they adopt a fee which is not just a downloading of Assessor records,it is a little more complex in terms of who gets what billing. Where will they get the information from and how will they merge it with the Assessor information. Also, does there need to be software upgrade, manual search and flag. When they adopt a fee they would like to know how it is administered and how long it would take them to create a billing. They don't want to adopt a fee that is not billable. SURVEY PROGRESS REPORT Mr. Clifford wanted to mention that up through February they were almost at a full time employee (FTE) in the field and they have cut back to about .6 FTE to ensure they don't run out of funding and have to stop completely. March 1- 18 they completed two shoreline dye tests,contact letters mailed 28;complaint inspection 1. They are doing more work around Park Place. They have had one complication. The State Department of Health On-Sit Program is having problems with the definition of a"failure." They are not wanting to accept the information given them to classify the system under the jurisdiction as a failure. They are having to spend more time on doing dye testing. Cmmr. Faughender questioned what the disagreement is. Mr. Clifford responded they want to see the failure when you put dye in the system and you can visually see it in the water. They use the charcoal packets. The charcoal absorbs the dye. Whether you can see it or not,the dye is there and it is brought out in the lab. Cmmr. Porter questioned if they call it suspect. Grant Holdcroft, Environmental Health Specialist, stated it is not an overt failure or a visible failure. It is a maintenance problem which needs to be taken care of. They State is wanting an overt failure or visible dye. Cmmr. Porter questioned if it is still reason to be asking for corrective action. Brad Banner, Health Services Director, added that once they turn it in as a failure, they use the dye test data. It is not just the dye in the packet, it is the bacterial analysis. This is a problem between two sections of Department of Health; Shellfish and On-site. FORCE ACCOUNT EXPENDITURES Wayne Clifford, Water Quality Coordinator, stated that as of the end of January they had spent$27,000 of the $50,000. They anticipated running out of monies by the end of January if they continued to spend at the same rate. They have cut back the staff hours and the funds should extend beyond April. LOWER HOOD CANAL CLEAN WATER DISTRICT MARCH 21, 1994 - PAGE 4 He added that one other complications is the way they are budgeted, they are supposed to have 11/2 field staff for Totten/Little Skookum and 11/2 staff for North Bay. That staff is fulfilling that obligation on the other two projects. There is a lot of work that is contingent upon the assessment to have it work out. ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM STATISTICS A handout on on-site sewage systems was circulated to the Board. Mr. Clifford has done some work on analyzing what they do know about on-site systems within the district. The District is broken down into 12 areas which are numbered on the left of the diagram. The total number of parcels with on-site systems is in the first column and the total number of on-site systems is in the second.column. He explained the difference of the numbers because some parcels have more than one on-site system. Waterfront parcels are looked at for each area. They know how many systems are on waterfront parcels and how many are on upland parcels for each of the numbered areas on the map. They further broke down the waterfront parcels into salt water and fresh water so they will know how many are on the marine shoreline and how many are on some other fresh water body. The community systems are coded by the Assessor's office as being on sewer,which could be a community system. This may be a good point for discussion by the advisory board. This will also help guide the planning and analyzing of the work load to achieve what they want to do. Michael Luther, Belfair, asked how long this process takes. Chairperson Hunter noted the assessment is a yearly assessment. Mr.Clifford added they have been projecting this to take four years and they will know more from the numbers they just generated from the Assessor. Mr. Luther questioned if the assessment will increase/decrease along with the budget. Chairperson Hunter noted that any fee schedule or budget adopted will be created in a public arena so there is opportunity for input. It was noted the Advisory Board meets every 1st & 3rd Monday at 7:00 p.m. at the Theler Center. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:18 p.m. due to no further business. Respectfully Submitted, Rebecca S. Rogers LOWER HOOD CANAL C EAN WATER DISTRICT 0 William O. Hunter, Chairperson M. . FaughendeU Commissioner Laura E. Porter, Commissioner