HomeMy WebLinkAboutord2013-009 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-329
CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to:
Originator: M.A. 10/08/2012 10/23/2012 Introduction
Matt Aamot
Division Head. � ' w� 11/7/2011 Planning & Development
Mark Personius f '�" i2 /D f 1/ f D Comm. and Council
Dept. Head: , t o fgtli a OCT 15 2012 2 / 12 / 2013 Council
Sam Ryan
Prosecutor: , _/
Royce Buckingham /vlj' (� - ( ( _ �� WHATCOM COUNTY
Purchasing/Budget: COUNCIL
Executive:
Jack Louws �k
TITLE OFD b t� iT:
Capital Facility ' a - ing for the East County.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Proposed Ordinance and Exhibits
2 . Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action
Other background information is on file at the Council office.
SEPA review required? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X1 ) NO
SEPA review completed? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date
the Council must hold a hearing if they want to change the Planning Commission 's
recommendation IWCC 2. 160. 100(B)I.
SUMMARYST14TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public
hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be
clear in explaining the intent of the action.)
Amending Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan provisions relating to capital facility planning in the eastern
portion of the County. Amendments include adopting by reference and incorporating information from an
updated sewer plan serving the Columbia Valley Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a fire capital facilities plan
serving the Columbia Valley UGA, Sumas UGA and surrounding areas.
NOTE: Final approval of these amendments would occur as part of concurrent review of comprehensive plan amendments in early 2013.
COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION:
11 / 07 / 2012 : Approved for concurrent review 10 / 23 / 2012 : Introduced
11 / 07 / 2012 : Council forwarded to Concurrent
review 6-0 , Weimer absent
2 / 12 / 2013 : Council Adopted 7 -0
Ord . 2013-009
Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number:
AB2012-089 and Ord . 2013-009
PLN2012-00004
Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on
the County 's website at: www. co. whatcom. wa. us/council.
10-08-2012
SPONSORED BY: Consent
PROPOSED BY PDS
INTRODUCTION DATE : 10 / 23 / 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 2013 -009
ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS RELATING TO
CAPITAL FACILITY PLANNING FOR THE EAST COUNTY
WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council initiated the subject amendments for review in
2012 ; and
WHEREAS, Water District 13 approved a comprehensive sewer plan and Fire District 14
approved a capital facilities plan in 2012 ; and
WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on September
27, 2012 ; and
WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission recommended the comprehensive
plan amendments on September 27, 2012 ; and
WHEREAS, The County Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 . The subject amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan are as follows :
a. Amending the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4 Capital
Facilities, to adopt the Water District 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the Fire
District 14 Capital Facilities Plan by reference, and make related changes.
b . Amending the Foothills Subarea Plan to acknowledge that the Water District 13
Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan have been
updated, and make related changes .
c. Amending the sewer provisions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital
Facilities Plan.
d . Amending the fire protection provisions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital
Facilities Plan.
2 . A determination of non-significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) on May 14, 2012 .
1
3 . Whatcom County Fire District 14 Commissioners adopted the Capital Facilities Plan on
July 16, 2012 .
4. Whatcom County Water District 13 Commissioners adopted the Comprehensive Sewer
Plan on August 28, 2012.
5 . Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and the proposal to amend the Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan was posted on the County website on August 21 , 2012 .
6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and that the proposal had been posted on the
County website was sent to the City of Sumas and citizen, media and other groups on the
County' s e-mail list on August 22 , 2012 .
7. Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of
Commerce on September 4, 2012 .
8 . Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendments was published in
the Bellingham Herald on September 14, 2012 .
9 . The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendments on
September 27, 2012 .
10 . Pursuant to WCC 2 . 160 . 080, in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan
amendments the County must find all of the following :
a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is
internally consistent with the county-wide planning policies and is consistent with
any interlocal planning agreements.
b. Further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and
Development Services indicate changed conditions that show need for the
amendment.
c. The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining
whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the
following shall be considered :
i . The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth,
employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned
in the comprehensive plan.
2
ii . The anticipated effect on the ability of the county and/or other service
providers, such as cities, schools, water and/or sewer purveyors, fire
districts, and others as applicable, to provide adequate services and public
facilities including transportation facilities .
iii . Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral
resource lands.
d. The amendment does not include or facilitate spot zoning.
e. Urban growth area amendments that propose the expansion of an urban growth
area boundary are required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR
sending area, with certain exceptions.
Growth Management Act
11 . The Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes planning goals in RCW 36 . 70A. 020 to
guide adoption of comprehensive plan amendments .
12 . GMA Planning Goal 1 is to "Encourage development in urban areas where adequate
public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner" (RCW
36 . 70A. 020( 1 )) .
13 . GMA Planning Goal 12 is to "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels
below locally established minimum standards" (RCW 36 . 70A.020( 12)) .
14 . The subject amendments include updating Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan to
incorporate the Water District 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The District serves a
portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. The sewer plan supports planned urban growth in
the Columbia Valley UGA.
15 . The subject amendments include updating Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan to
incorporate the Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan. The Fire District serves the Sumas
UGA, Columbia Valley UGA and surrounding areas. The capital facilities plan supports
planned urban growth in the Sumas UGA and Columbia Valley UGA. It also plans rural
levels of service for areas outside the UGAs.
3
16 . The GMA, at RCW 36 .70A. 070(3 ), requires that a comprehensive plan must include a
capital facilities plan element consisting of:
a. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the
locations and capacities of the capital facilities.
b. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities .
c. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities.
d. At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected
funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such
purposes.
e. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of
meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities
plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are
coordinated and consistent.
17 . With regard to UGAs, the Growth Management Hearings Board has held that RCW
36 . 70A. 070(3 ) and RCW 36 . 70A. 110(3 ), when read together, obligate counties and cities
to include in the comprehensive plan' s capital facilities element the proposed locations,
capacities, and funding for the 20-year planning period covered by the comprehensive
plan (Skagit County Growthwatch v. Skagit County, Case No . 07-2-0002, FDO at p . 17,
Aug. 6, 2007) .
18 . The sewer plan and fire capital facilities plan contain inventories, forecasts of future
needs, proposed capital facilities, and financing plans as required by the GMA.
County-Wide Planning Policies
19 . County-Wide Planning Policy E-4 states "The County shall assure that there are plans to
provide appropriate levels of urban facilities and services within non-city Urban Growth
Areas. These plans should be developed by special purpose districts . . . "
20 . The Columbia Valley UGA is not associated with a city. The Water District 13
Comprehensive Sewer Plan has been formulated to provide sanitary sewer service to the
portion of the Columbia Valley UGA within the District' s service area.
21 . County-Wide Planning Policy D- 1 states " . . . The small cities shall do appropriate
planning to ensure adequate distribution of land uses and services at a range of urban
densities and zoning classifications. "
22 . The Sumas City Planner has participated in process of developing the Fire District 14
Capital Facilities Plan, which serves the City of Sumas and its associated UGA.
4
23 . The Fire District 14 Capital Facility Plan has been formulated to provide urban levels of
service to both the Columbia Valley UGA and the Sumas UGA.
Interlocal Agreements
24. An interlocal agreement between the City of Sumas and Whatcom County concerning
Planning, Annexation and Development within the Sumas UGA was signed in April
2012 .
25 . There are no provisions in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan amendments that
are inconsistent with this interlocal agreement.
Further Studies/Changed Conditions
26 . The Foothills Subarea Plan was adopted in May 2011 . Foothills Subarea Plan Policy U1 -
D, in Chapter 5 , is to "Encourage and facilitate completion of capital facilities planning
by special districts, which serve the [Columbia Valley] UGA, by 2012 ."
27. Water District 13 and Fire District 14 have studied facilities needed to serve existing and
planned development and have formulated new capital facility plans.
28 . Further study and formulation of capital facility plans by Water District 13 and Fire
District 14 constitute changed conditions that warrant amendments to the Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan.
Public Interest
29 . The comprehensive plan amendments will serve the public interest by adopting sewer and
fire protection capital facility plans to serve planned growth in the eastern portion of
Whatcom County. These special purpose district plans are consistent with the County' s
Comprehensive Plan, will enhance provision of public facilities and services, and will not
harm resource lands.
Spot Zoning
30 . The subject proposal does not involve rezoning property.
CONCLUSIONS
1 . The subject comprehensive plan amendments comply with the provisions of the Growth
Management Act.
2 . The subject comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the approval criteria of
WCC 2 . 160. 080 .
5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that :
Section 1 . The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 (Capital Facilities) is hereby
amended as shown on Exhibit A.
Section 2 . The Foothills Subarea Plan is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit B .
Section 3 . The sewer provisions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan
(Appendix E of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan) are hereby amended as shown on
Exhibit C .
Section 4. The fire protection provisions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan
(Appendix E of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan) are hereby amended as shown on
Exhibit D .
Section 5 . Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections, clauses, or provisions of this
ordinance shall not affect or impair the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part thereof
other than the part so declared to be invalid.
ADOPTED this 12th day of February , 2013 .
nittttttrrr
r,��
\
\\`‘\ C, O u v ''�, WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
ATTES# '� • • ° ° ° ° • • • z WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
•
•
• o •
e /r c
Dana Brdxrn-Da•�iis,'` . ,> C1L� lok ii• Kathy Kershner, Chairperson
4'''''���'�rrrrrtttt r 'I0` .`
APPROVED as to form : Cif-Approved ( ) Denied
, c/- ..�._.-.
Civil De � .J Jack Lou s, Executive
Date : 02 / l3 ( l3
6
Exhibit A - Comp Plan Chapter 4 Amendments
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Exhibit A
Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
(Chapter 4)
NOTE : For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes , portions of the
Comprehensive Plan that are not being modified by this ordinance are not shown below.
The text, goals , policies and maps that are not shown below are retained as previously
adopted .
1
Exhibit A - Comp Plan Chapter 4 Amendments
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Amend the Capital Facilities Chapter of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
(Chapter 4) as follows:
The GMA expressly authorizes cities and counties to impose impact fees on new development
to help finance the capital facilities required to serve new development. This authorization
applies only to capital facilities owned or operated by government entities: (a) public streets and
roads; ( b) publicly owned parks, open space , and recreation facilities; (c) school facilities ; and
(d ) fire protection facilities. Certain background information that must be included in a capital
facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan in order to collect transportation impact fees is
included in Appendix G .
Goal 4N : Adopt special district and County capital facility plans for
unincorporated UGAs into this plan by reference when consistent
with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan .
Policy 4N-1 : The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Water System
Plan , dated March 2009, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive
plan .
Policy 4N-2 : The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Sewer System
Plan , dated May 2009 , is adopted by reference into the comprehensive
plan .
Policy 4N-3: The Birch Bay Comprehensive Stormwater Plan , dated July 2006 , is
adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan .
Policy 4N-4 The North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan , dated
August 2009, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan .
Policy 4N-5: . The Public Utility District No . 1 Comprehensive Water System Plan , dated
October 2004, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive Plan .
Policy 4N-6 : The Evergreen Water-Sewer District Comprehensive Water System Plan ,
dated June 2004 , is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan .
This water system serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA.
Policy 4N-7 : The Water District No. 13 Water System Plan , dated February 2005, is
adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan . This water system
serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA.
Policy 4N-8 The Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan , dated August
2012 , is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan . This sewer
system serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA.
2
Exhibit A - Comp Plan Chapter 4 Amendments
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Policy 4N-9: The public stormwater facilities sections relating to the Columbia Valley
UGA in the Water Quantity and Quality Report Foothills Subarea (Aspect
Consulting , July 18 , 2008, pp. 2-3, 36-39, and 55-56) are adopted by
reference into the comprehensive plan .
Policy 4N-10: The Whatcom Fire District No. 14 Capital Facilities Plan , dated July 2012 ,
is adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan .
Policy 4N-11 : The Whatcom County Fire District No. 7 Capital Facilities Plan , dated
May 2011 , is adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan (except
that the UGA boundaries shown in the Fire District No . 7 Capital Facilities
Plan are not adopted by reference).
3
Exhibit B - Foothills Subarea Plan Amendments
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Exhibit B
Foothills Subarea Plan
Amendments
NOTE: For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes, portions of the Foothills Subarea Plan
that are not being modified by this ordinance are not shown below. The text and maps that are not
shown below are retained as previously adopted.
1
Exhibit B - Foothills Subarea Plan Amendments
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Amend the Foothills Subarea Plan, Chapter 2, Land Use as follows:
Land Use Planning Issues
Much of the planning process focused on land use and the issues associated with the way in which the
subarea develops. Land use conversations tended to focus on the following issues, in no particular order
here:
• Many Foothills residents are actually employed outside the subarea, resulting in long morning and
evening commutes along SR 542 and SR 547.
• Foothills residents believe the urban-style development occurring in the Columbia Valley should be
restricted to the UGA, with the balance of the subarea remaining rural in character.
• The four Rural Communities each have created their own identities and add to the character and
richness of the subarea.
• The access and proximity to natural open spaces are vitally important to Foothills residents.
• The Foothills population is surprisingly diverse given its relatively small number.
• The Nooksack Tribe has acquired more property in Deming, enlarging its holdings and reducing the
amount of land available for housing. The Mt. Baker School District has also acquired additional
property in Deming. Deming residents wish to encourage more people to live in town, making land
availability an issue.
• Water and sewer districts may not have adequate sanitary sewer capacity or systems now in place to
serve projected urban development in the Columbia Valley UGA. However, an update to the Water
District 13 sewer plan, which includes a capital improvement plan, was completed in 2012.
• The Growth Management Act imposes requirements on "limited areas of more intense rural
development" (LAMIRDs) that will impact how the four Rural Communities may develop in the
future.
• Forecast population growth will put more pressure on the Columbia Valley, and the four Rural
Communities to a lesser degree, to accommodate additional housing.
• Land supply and population forecast studies indicate that sufficient land exists to support forecast
population. The arrangement and density of land uses impact the feasibility of providing adequate
services with scattered or less dense development generally being more expensive to serve. This is
especially important in the Columbia Valley, where provision of sanitary sewer will be necessary as
population increases.
2
Exhibit B - Foothills Subarea Plan Amendments
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Amend the Foothills Subarea Plan, Chapter 5, Utilities as follows:
Sewer Districts
Whatcom County Water District No. 13 provides sanitary sewer service to a portion of the Columbia
Valley UGA. The District's comprehensive sewer plan was updated in 2012. The sewer plan contains
plans to serve new urban growth in the portion of the UGA that is within the District's boundaries over
the 20-year planning period.
There are no other purveyors that provide sanitary sewer service in the Foothills Subarea as of 2010.
3
Exhibit B - Foothills Subarea Plan Amendments
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Amend the Foothills Subarea Plan, Chapter 10, Community Facilities, Schools, Sheriff, Fire Protection,
Emergency Medical Services and Solid Waste Management as follows:
Fire Protection/Emergency Each of the four fire districts that serve portions of the Foothills
Medical Services Subarea provide both fire and emergency medical services. Of the four,
Fire District 14 serves the largest portion of the subarea.
Fire District 1 : The fire district indicated that population growth
within their district would have very little impact on their ability to
provide services and they had no planned facilities or service
expansion.
Fire District 14: Fire District 14 serves the Columbia Valley UGA. In
2012, the District updated its capital facility plan.
Fire District 16: Less than 1 % of the land in the Foothills Subarea is
within District 16 and these lands are planned for rural and forestry
land uses. Growth in the portion of the District within the Foothills
Subarea should have little impact on their ability to provide service.
Fire District 19: The fire district indicated that the large number of aid
calls within the neighboring national park and national forest coupled
with the lack of available land within their district will limit their
ability to collect additional revenue on developed land which, in turn,
limits their ability to improve services. The fire district also has and
will continue to have a difficult time drawing volunteers from the
largely seasonal population in Glacier.
4
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Exhibit C
Whatcom County 20 -Year
Capital Facilities Plan
Amendments
( Sewer Provisions)
NOTE: For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes, portions of the Whatcom
County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan that are not being modified by this ordinance are not
shown below. The text and maps that are not shown below are retained as previously
adopted.
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Amend the "Executive Summary " of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan
(Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows:
Sanitary Sewer
A review of LOS standards found in individual sewer purveyor' s plans in relation to population
and employment projections indicate that the City of Bellingham, Birch Bay Water and Sewer
District, City of Lynden, City of Sumas, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District have
adequate sewage treatment capacity to meet projected demands through 2029. The City of
Everson shows a sewage treatment deficit in 2029 and the city' s own analysis of sewage
treatment capacity indicates that it has available capacity to meet approximately 8 to 12 years of
residential growth and that expansion of the sewage treatment plant will be necessary. In
addition, the City of Blaine expects to provide an additional 0.7 MGD of sewage treatment
capacity when its new wastewater treatment plant starts operation in 2010. With this additional
sewage treatment capacity, the City of Blaine is expected to have a sewage treatment capacity
reserve in both 2015 and 2029. The City of Nooksack, which shares a sewage treatment plant
with City of Everson, is expected to have a sewage treatment deficit in 13 to 15 years. Expansion
of the Everson sewage treatment plant would be needed to accommodate growth in City of
Nooksack to 2029. Water District 13 , serving a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA, has
existing capacity and planned improvements to serve growth within its boundaries. The
Columbia Valley Water District does not provide sewer service at the present time. Additional
sewer planning will be needed to serve new urban growth in the undeveloped portion of the
Columbia Valley UGA that is not addressed in a comprehensive sewer plan. The City of
Ferndale would have sewage treatment deficits in 2029 if no improvements were made to the
existing wastewater treatment plan. However, Ferndale adopted a comprehensive sewer plan in
2011 to address needed improvements to serve planned growth over the 20-year planning period.
For those service providers without an adopted plan, the Capital Facilities Implementation section
of this CFP provides options for addressing any identified deficiencies in their capital planning
process.
NOTES : "CFP" means capital facilities plan and "LOS" means level of service.
2 February 2012
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Amend the "Sanitary Sewer " chapter of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan
(Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows:
Sanitary Sewer
Overview
There are a total of 10 wastewater collection systems and seven wastewater treatment facilities
that serve UGAs in Whatcom County. Most of the facilities provide services within city limits
with plans for future service to areas designated as UGAs. However, some systems provide
service to unincorporated UGAs (Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, Water District 13, and
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District).
Inventory of Current Facilities
The following cities and sewer districts (in alphabetical order) provide sanitary sewer services in
the County:
• City of Bellingham maintains a collection system within its city limits and operates wastewater
treatment facilities that are also used by Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. The city
plans future service within its UGA and for connections to both undeveloped properties and
those that are using septic systems within the city limits.
• Birch Bay Water & Sewer District owns and operates a collection and treatment system that
serves the Birch Bay UGA and portions of the Blaine and Cherry Point UGAs.
• City of Blaine provides a collection and a wastewater treatment system for property within the
city limits. There is a second wastewater treatment facility located in Blaine that was
constructed in 1986 to treat wastewater from the Port of Bellingham and fish processors that
lease from the Port of Bellingham other than T.M. Protein. The city plans to serve portions
of its UGA that are not served by Birch Bay Water and Sewer District.
• The City of Everson maintains a collection system to serve property within the city limits. The
city' s sewer system also provides wastewater treatment for the City of Nooksack. Both cities
provide funding for operation and maintenance of the treatment facility. The city sewer utility
plans future service to areas within its UGA.
• The City of Ferndale provides a sewer collection and treatment facility for property within the
city limits as well as future service to the city' s UGA.
• Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly called Water District 10) maintains a sanitary
sewer collection system that serves the UGA adjacent to Lake Whatcom, east of the city
limits. This special district relies upon the City of Bellingham wastewater system for
treatment.
• The City of Lynden provides sewer collection and treatment facilities for property within the
city limits and future collection and treatment to the city' s UGA.
• City of Nooksack constructed a wastewater collection system for property within the city limits
in 1989. The city has plans to provide future service to unserved properties within its city
3 February 2012
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
limits and to properties within its associated UGA. By agreement with the City of Everson,
Nooksack pumps its sewage for treatment at the wastewater treatment plant located in
Everson. Nooksack also provides funding for the operation and maintenance of the Everson
wastewater treatment plant.
• The City of Sumas provides a wastewater collection system for property within the city limits.
Since 1999, the city has had wastewater treatment provided at a large regional treatment
facility in Abbotsford, BC owned and operated by Fraser Valley Regional District. The city
sanitary sewer utility has plans to extend service to UGA property upon annexation.
• Whatcom County Water District 13 provides wastewater collection and treatment to a portion of
the Columbia Valley UGA in unincorporated Whatcom County.
An inventory of existing wastewater facilities located in the County is presented in the table on
the following pages. The table summarizes millions of gallons treated per day, the most current
existing flow data, and surpluses or deficits for each of the wastewater systems in the County.
Existing population served is also noted.
4 February 2012
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP ( Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February I2, 2013
Table 43 . Sanitary Sewer Inventory
System
Name Collection System Treatment Plant Service Area Notes
Surplus/ 2008 Existing
Miles of Existing Design Flow Deficit Population Connection
Pipe Collection System Existing Conditions Flow (mgd) (mgd) 1 (mgd) Served2 s (ERU)
City of 324 The city operates and maintains approximately 12. 5 20 7.5 86,990 26, 100
Bellingham 324 miles of mains and force mains. The system
includes 27 pump stations and associated force
mains, and one Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
structure. Modeling indicates that portions of the
interceptor downstream from Oak Street are close
to capacity. The system needs improvements to
collection system to limit CSO events to the
allowable frequency and volume. Long Term
Simulation modeling shows needs for additional
10 mgd conveyance and treatment capacity, or 1 .7
MG of storage to limit CSOs to 1 event per year in
2026. Additional collection system improvements
are required to maintain CSO volumes at current
"baseline" levels.
Lake 82. 18 District has completed several improvement 0.75 4.6 3.85 10,690 3, 729 Relies on
Whatcom projects including Lake Louise Rd Interceptor and City of
Water & Sudden Valley Sewage Detention Basin. District Bellingham
Sewer also has an ongoing program to upgrade aging WWTP.
District sewer lift stations. District is also working to Flow is
decrease potential build-out density within the restricted by
district boundaries which allowed the district to contract with
decommission Clematis Pump Station. city to 3,200
gpm (4.6
mgd) .
City of 40 The existing service area for the Blaine sewage 0 .496 0.8 0.304 4,780 2,391
Blaine treatment system is the Blaine city Limits. The City
of Blaine wastewater collection system consists of
gravity sewers , force mains and eight pumping
stations. The collection system is divided into two
primary areas which are separated by Drayton
Harbor. The Semiahmoo portion of the service
5
February 2012
Exhibit C -- 20-Year CFP ( Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
System
Name Collection System Treatment Plant Service Area Notes
Surplus/ 2008 Existing
Miles of Existing Design Flow Deficit Population Connection
Pipe Collection System Existing Conditions Flow (mgd) (mgd) 1 (mgd) Served2 s (ERU)
consists of the Resort Semiahmoo. Effluent from
Central Blaine is collected at Pump Station 1 on
Marine Drive , where it is pumped through a
submerged pipeline under the entrance to Drayton
Harbor to the sewage treatment plant. The city
invests in reducing I&I in the collection system as
well as investing in additional off-line storage for
peak rain events.
Birch Bay 52 District operates 11 pumps , 7 of which follow the 0 .901 1 .28 0.379 5,970 6,658 3
Sewer beach line. The district monitors its I/I in the
System collection system.
Plan
City of 8 .52 Consists of 9 pump stations in City of Everson (in 0 .270 0.44 0. 170 2,380 716
Everson addition , 4 pump stations are located in Nooksack
to serve that population) . Rehabilitation of
manholes occurred in mid-1990's and study of I&I
finds that it does not exceed EPA standards.
City of 58.48 Ferndale's existing collection system contains 2. 18 3.23 1 . 05 11 ,280 5, 183
Ferndale more than 308, 000 lineal feet of sewer piping
(gravity and force main) . It is made up of piping 4
to 48 inches in diameter. Approximately 64% of
the system consists of 8-inch gravity sewers.
There are also 17 pumping stations currently used
for transmission of wastewater flows.
City of 37 Collection system includes 14 operating pump 1 .31 2. 18 0.87 11 , 610 4,440 °
Lynden stations. Three existing pump stations and some
associated force mains and piping were identified
as having inadequate capacity for projections to
2024. In addition sewer extensions will be needed
to service new development.
City of 6.89 Wastewater collection system has sufficient 0 .075 See Notes N/A 1 , 140 250 Relies on
Nooksack capacity for future flows. The city anticipates City of
6 February 2012
Exhibit C -- 20-year CFP ( Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
System
Name Collection System Treatment Plant Service Area Notes
. Surplus/ 2008 Existing
Miles of Existing Design Flow Deficit Population Connection
Pipe Collection System Existing Conditions Flow (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Served2 s (ERU)
extension of existing collection system to serve Everson
new development. The city requires annexation of WWTP.
unincorporated areas of the UGA prior to service. Flow
restricted to
154,000 gpd
(0. 154 mgd) .
City of 10 Collection system will be extended to serve new 0 .2325 See Notes N/A 1 ,280 900 Relies on
• Sumas development within city jurisdiction. New WWTP in
extensions to portions of the city that require Abbotsford,
crossing natural barriers of Bone Creek and BC. Contract
Sumas River are anticipated to be more expensive limits to
capital projects. The city requires annexation of 339,500 gpd
unincorporated areas of the UGA prior to service. in 2008,
increasing to
maximum
400,000 gpd
by 2019.
W.C . Water 4.47 Water District 13 owns, operates and maintains 0.0626 0 . 125 379 5
District #13 two pump stations, approximately 20 ,200' of 0.063 920
Sewer pressure and gravity sewer pipe , a wastewater
treatment plant, and a 3,400' force main that
transfers flows from the treatment plant to the 1 .71
acre drainfield.
mgd = million gallons per day, gpd = gallons per day, I/I = inflow and infiltration, CSO = combined sewer overflow, WWTP = wastewater treatment plant, N/A = not available
1 Based on the average day flow during peak flow month as reported on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
2 2008 Population provided by Berk & Associates estimates or comprehensive sewer plan . For Ferndale, population serve is for 2010 (City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan, 2011 , p.
11 ).
3 Birch Bay uses " Equivalent Living Units". Information is from May 2009 Birch Bay Comprehensive Sewer Plan (see page 5-2). Information is from December 2008.
4 2007 data. Assuming 2.5 persons per ERU (Personal communication, Tammy Adams, Wastewater Plant Manager and Dean Martin, July 10, 2009).
5 Source is from Foothills Subarea Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (December 2008), p. 83
6 Whatcom County Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan (August. 2012), p. 6-1 .
Sources: Unless otherwise noted source comes from Department of Ecology NPDES Permit data (accessed via Internet February 5, 2009); review of latest sewer system plan; and Berk &
Associates for 2008 population.
7 February 2012
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Level of Service Capacity Analysis
The adequacy of existing sewer facilities to meet present and future needs is based on the estimated gpd
of wastewater for the current population and the projected future population. This figure represents the
LOS standard for sewer service for sewer providers.
Most of the 10 sewer service providers have developed their own LOS standard based upon their local
geography and service area demographics. Table 44 outlines LOS standards established by each sewer
provider.
Table 44. Sewer Level of Service Standards
Service Provider LOS Standard
City of Bellingham 102 gallons/capita/day I
Birch Bay Water and Sewer District 85 gallons/capita/day
City of Blaine 300 gallons/household/day
City of Everson 300 gallons/household/day
City of Ferndale 193 gallons/capita/day 2
Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer (formerly Water 198 gallons/day/connection 3
District 10)
City of Lynden 100.7 gallons/capita/day '
City of Nooksack 250-275 gallons/household/day 5
City of Sumas 300 gallons/household/day 5
Whatcom County Water District 13 67 gallons/capita/day 6
1 Section 4.3.2 Per capita flows, page 4-6, City of Bellingham Comprehensive Sewer Plan, June 2009.
2 Derived from City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan, pp. 9 and 11 , 2011 . The LOS for Ferndale is based upon
peak month flow.
3 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Sewer Plan, page 8, September 2007.
4 City of Lynden General Sewer Plan, page 4-1 , December 2007.
5 Personal communication from Erin Osbom to Matt Aamot, Email July 14, 2009, citing communication with Rollin Harper
of Sehome Planning.
6 Derived from Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, pp. 3-3 and 6-1 , 2012. The LOS for Water District 13 is
based upon the peak month flow.
Table 45 identifies how future population and employment for each sewer service provider affects
treatment capacity based on existing treatment capacity mentioned in Table 43 above.
As can be seen from the analysis in Table 45 , only the City of Everson is anticipated to experience a
sewage treatment deficit in 2015 . The City of Everson ' s response to the County' s CFP growth
projections indicate that the city has sufficient capacity to serve the majority of growth anticipated in the
20-year timeframe. In response to the highest growth alternative considered in planning this CFP Everson
indicates that the city has available capacity to accommodate approximately 8 to 12 years of residential
growth, and that expansion of the treatment plant will be necessary (Memorandum from Rollin Harper of
Sehome Planning & Development Services to Matt Aamot, dated April 8 , 2009, page 3) . See narrative
under City of Everson Treatment below for more detailed information. The City of Blaine expects to
8
•
•
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
provide an additional 0.7 MGD sewage treatment capacity when its new wastewater treatment plant starts
operation in 2010. This will increase the 2015 reserve shown for Blaine in Table 45 .
Table 45. Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2015
Service Provider Current Treatment 2015 Treatment Capacity
Capacity (MGD) Surplus (Deficit)
expressed in MGD
Bellingham 20.00 10.44
Birch Bay Water & Sewer 1 .28 0.69
Blaine 0.80 0.06
Everson 2 0.29 (0.01 )
Ferndale 3.23 0.64
Lynden 2. 18 0.85
Nooksack 3 0. 15 0.03
Sumas 0.39 0.22
Lake Whatcom Water &
Sewer District (formerly
Whatcom County Water
District 10) I 4.60 3.82
WC Water District 13 0. 125 0.051
1 City of Blaine anticipates opening a new wastewater treatment plant in 2010 which will increase treatment capacity to 1 .5
MGD. With the anticipated additional treatment capacity, the City expects to have additional reserve available in 2015.
[City of Blaine website: http://www.ci.blaine.wa.us/, accessed April 24, 2009].
2 Everson's Treatment Plant has a total capacity of 0.44 mgd. However, 2/3 of capacity, or 0.29 mgd are owned by Everson,
while 1/3 of capacity or approximately 0.15 mgd is owned by neighboring Nooksack.
3 This analysis uses 275 gallons/household/day as a LOS measure, the upper end of the range provided by the City of
Nooksack in communication with Erin Osborn, as communicated in email to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.
Table 46 below provides an LOS analysis for sewer providers to the 2029 planning horizon. The 2029
LOS analysis finds sewage treatment deficits for the cities of Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, and Nooksack.
The City of Everson's expectation of a sewage treatment deficit is consistent with the city' s analysis
(Sehome Planning & Development Services 2009). The same communication from Sehome Planning &
Development Services indicated that the City of Nooksack, sharing the same Everson sewage treatment
plant, is expected to have sufficient sewage treatment capacity for the next 13 to 15 years and an
expansion of the Everson sewage plant may be needed to accommodate some growth occurring outside
the current city limits (Sehome Planning & Development Services 2009). The LOS analysis for City of
Nooksack to 2029 in Table 46 confirms this assessment. Although the City of Blaine shows a deficit in
Table 46, when accounting for the additional 0.7 mgd of sewage treatment capacity that is expected to be
available in 2010, the City is expected to have a net reserve of sewage treatment capacity in 2029. The
City of Ferndale would also experience a sewage treatment capacity deficits in 2029 if no additional
capacity were constructed. However, the City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2011 ) includes
plans to almost double the capacity of the wastewater treatment plan, which will more than accommodate
wastewater flows through the year 2029. Individual jurisdictions and districts have planned projects
9
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
that may help alleviate some or all of the deficits identified in Table 46. More discussion is provided
below by service provider.
Table 46. Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2029
Service Provider Current Treatment 2029 Treatment Capacity
Capacity (MGD) Surplus (Deficit) expressed
in MGD
Bellingham 20.00 8.86
Birch Bay Water & Sewer 1 .28 0.5
Blaine 0.80 (0.29)
Everson 2 0.29 (0.09)
Ferndale 3 3.23 (0.99)
Lynden 2. 18 0.49
Nooksack 4 0. 15 (0.03)
Sumas 0.39 0. 16
Lake Whatcom Water & 3.79
Sewer District
(formerly Whatcom County
Water District 10) 4.60
WC Water District 13 0. 125 0.018
1 City of Blaine anticipates opening a new wastewater treatment plant in 2010 which will increase treatment capacity to 1 .5
MGD. With the anticipated additional treatment capacity, the City will be able to meet the projected sewer flow
requirements to 2029. [City of Blaine website: http://www.ci.blaine.wa.us/, accessed April 24, 2009]
2 Everson's Treatment Plan has a total capacity of 0.44 MGD. However, 2/3 of capacity, or 0.29 MGD are owned by
Everson, while 1 /3 of capacity or approximately 0.15 MGD is owned by neighboring Nooksack.
3 The City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2011 ) includes planned improvements to increase the capacity of the
wastewater treatment plant from 3.23 MGD to 6.37 MGD (p. 13 and Exhibit H). This will increase the capacity by 3. 14 MGD
and address the deficit that would occur if no capacity improvements were planned.
4 This analysis uses 275 gallons/household/day as a LOS measure, the upper end of the range provided by the City of
Nooksack in communication with Erin Osborn, as communicated in email to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.
Capital Projects and Funding
Population
Table 47 below identifies each sewer provider' s latest sewer plan' s horizon year and population, as well
as the populations expected under County' s 2029 population projection. This table serves to provide an
order of magnitude check with respect to the population that each service provider is planning on serving
in comparison to the latest population projections for the 2029 Whatcom County CFP.
10
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Table 47. Population Comparison : Sewer Plans and 2029 Population Projection
Horizon year of 2029 Population
Service Provider Capital Plan Capital Plan Population Projection
Bellingham 2026 122,007 109,200
Birch Bay Water and 2029 11 ,307 9, 160
Sewer
Blaine 2025 10,871 9,040
Everson 2024 4,202 3,610
Ferndale 2034 24,6001 21 ,8272
Lynden 2024 18,235 16,790
Nooksack 2024 2,039 2,080
Sumas 2024 1 ,625 2,080
Lake Whatcom Water 2027 13,936 11 , 190
and Sewer District
(formerly Water
District 10)
W.C. Water District 2029 1 ,595 1 ,595
13
1 The City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (p. 3) uses a 2029 population projection of 20,707 for the Ferndale UGA,
consistent with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Ran. The Sewer Plan extrapolates the population projection to 2034 for
consistency with the City's planning horizon date.
2 This projection is higher than the projected UGA population because City sewer currently serves two existing areas east of the City
that are outside the UGA.
Source: Berk & Associates (2029 population projection); each individual purveyor capital facility plan for horizon year and capital plan
population columns.
Capital Project Funding
Sewer services and capital are funded primarily by the users of the system through service charges and
connection fees. These rates are adjusted as needed to fund capital and operational needs. Some grant
programs exist for the construction of sewer facilities and upgrades, but, like many grant programs, they
are generally very competitive.
In addition to this general approach to funding, the following Capital Facilities plans list additional
possible funding sources :
• The City of Ferndale - The Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan states that the City has various funding
sources available for sewer capital projects including (but not limited to) sewer rates and connections
fees, bonds, loans, grants, utility local improvement district (ULIDs), and developer extension
contracts.
• The City of Lynden - The City considered using $4,000,000 in capital reserves as well as a bond or
Public Works Trust Fund loan to fund their desired capital improvements.
City of Bellingham
The City of Bellingham maintains and operates a wastewater collection and treatment system that
provides existing service to the city limits as well as sewer service zones within the Bellingham UGA.
11
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
The existing sewer network is most dense in the central city, and there appear to be portions of the city,
particularly in the south that are not yet served by sewer. There are also less extensive sewer networks
extending into the city' s UGA. The City has established a potential future sewer service area that extends
beyond the city limits and encompasses all of the city's UGA not currently served by Lake Whatcom
Water and Sewer District (formerly Water District 10). The city' s current Comprehensive Sewer Plan
(Carollo Engineers, 2009) indicates that the city' s long-range sewer system plan accounts for sewage
treatment capacity for approximately 122,007 people by 2026 (Carollo Engineers, 2009). This is a larger
population than the 109,200 projected under this CFP. The city' s sewer service area and population
forecast excludes Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District.
The city' s sewage treatment plant is designated for a two phase expansion to accept future demand. The
phase one facilities plan has just begun and will be sized to accept future Biological Oxygen Demand as
required in the city' s Ecology permit. A phase two expansion is expected in the 20 year planning period.
This expansion will build on the upcoming facilities plan to adequately size the treatment plant capacity
to meet future needs.
Birch Bay Water and Sewer
Birch Bay Water and Sewer District adopted a Comprehensive Sewer Plan in 2009. The district' s plan
indicates where current sewer service exists and establishes a future service area that consists of portions
of the Birch Bay, Blaine, and Cherry Point UGAs. The plan does not appear to identify future service
lines. A review of a GIS layer of existing sewer lines indicates that sewer is concentrated along the coast
of the Birch Bay UGA, though there are less extensive networks of sewer lines inland in the Birch Bay
UGA. The sewer district' s 2009 plan had higher population projections in the 2029 horizon year for the
district than the 9, 160 anticipated in planning for this CFP. The 2009 Sewer Plan indicates that the
district will exceed existing capacity by 2019. However, with the wastewater treatment plant upgrade
projects . noted in the 2009 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, the District will be able to accommodate the
growth anticipated to 2029. (Birch Bay Water and Sewer District and CHS Engineers 2009, pages 6-6
through 6-7)
City of Blaine
The 2004 City of Blaine General Sewer Plan and its 2005 update shows major existing sewer service lines
and some future sewer trunk lines. The City of Blaine Comprehensive Plan includes a map showing
future sewer service area as portions of the Blaine and Birch Bay UGAs not served by Birch Bay Water
and Sewer District. A GIS layer showing existing sewer lines indicates that large areas of the city east of
I-5 are not served by sewer or close to sewer trunk lines. Table 46 above indicates that the City of Blaine
reaches a sewage treatment deficit by 2029 using existing treatment capacity. However, the City of
Blaine 2005 General Sewer Plan and 2006 Comprehensive Plan both indicate that the City has plans to
upgrade and expand sewage treatment plant capacity to meet future demands for service, Ecology
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, and to replace aging
infrastructure. The city plans to complete construction on its new wastewater treatment plant and begin
operation in 2010 (City of Blaine 2009) . The new wastewater treatment plant' s design capacity of 1 .5
mgd would accommodate projected wastewater flows to the end of the 2029 CFP planning period.
Another major component of the city' s capital improvement plan is a program for reduction of inflow and
infiltration (I&I).
12
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
City of Everson
The City of Everson does not have a sewer comprehensive plan. The sewer system was addressed in the
2004 update of the Everson Comprehensive Plan. Wilson Engineering also provided an analysis of the
sewer system in a memorandum prepared in early 2007.
Collection & Transmission
The Everson sewer system includes a collection and transmission system that serves all of the
incorporated portions of the city except for a small number of residential customers and one industrial
customer located on Mission Road. The City operates a system of sewer lift stations that direct sewage to
the Everson sewage treatment plant. Sewage from the City of Nooksack is also transmitted to the Everson
treatment plant through a system of lift stations.
Treatment
The Everson sewage treatment plant has a capacity of 440,000 gallons per day (gpd). Of this total
Everson owns two-thirds or 294,800 gpd. According to the 2007 memorandum prepared by Wilson
Engineering, at that time the City had 222 ERUs of capacity available in the treatment plant. Although
this amount of capacity is sufficient to serve the majority of growth anticipated within the existing City
limits, it is insufficient to meet the anticipated demands to 2029 as seen on Table 46. Depending on the
rate of growth, the available capacity is sufficient to accommodate approximately 8 to 12 years of
residential growth. Therefore, expansion of the treatment plant will be necessary. The City is beginning
work on a sewer comprehensive plan that will address future needs at least through 2029. This plan will
be developed in conjunction with the City of Nooksack and will be funded in part through the Community
Development Block Grant program.
Improvements and Financing
All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. The City may
participate in constructing a new east-west connector to serve the City' s industrial zone and would need to
access Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) and Economic Development Initiative (EDI)
funding at that time. The City also has planned to extend the sewer system to serve the residential area
along Mission Road as part of the Mission Road Phase 3 project. Funding for this project has not yet been
identified. It is recognized by the City that expansion of the sewage treatment plant will require the City
to secure major sources of funding, primarily low-interest loans. The Everson Comprehensive Plan
shows the locations of some but not all of the system extensions necessary to serve new development in
the Everson UGA. The City has identified creation of a comprehensive sewer plan as a key project in the
City' s future plans for sewers (personal email communication, Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14,
2009).
City of Ferndale
The City of Ferndale provides sewer service inside the City limits, and plans to provide service to areas
within the UGA as they are annexed to the City. The City also serves two areas outside the UGA, east of
the City, but has no plans to expand service in these areas. The LOS analysis in Table 45 indicates that the
City would experience a sewage treatment capacity surplus in 2015 . The LOS analysis in table 46
13
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
indicates that the City would experience a sewage treatment deficit by 2029 if no improvements were
made to the wastewater treatment plan. However, the City has plans to expand wastewater treatment
capacity (City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan, 2011 , Exhibit H). Implementation of the Sewer
Plan will increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plan from 3 .23 MGD to 6.37 MGD (p. 13).
This will increase the capacity by 3 . 14 MGD and address the deficit that would occur if no capacity
improvement were planned. Ferndale's Comprehensive Sewer Plan states that the "City's existing sewer
collection and treatment systems have sufficient capacity (with planned improvements) to provide sewer
service to growth within the City limits and UGA for the next twenty years" (p. 26).
City of Lynden
The City of Lynden General Sewer Plan (BHC Consultants 2007) indicates that the city provides service
to areas within the city limits, and will provide future service to areas within its UGA. The Sewer Plan
indicates future sewer trunk lines to serve areas of the city and UGA not currently served (BHC
Consultants 2007). The sewer plan provides for a sewer system population of 18,235 people by 2024,
which is greater than the 16,790 anticipated by 2029 under this CFP. The LOS analysis in Table 46
above indicates a small sewage treatment reserve in 2029 with existing sewage treatment capacity. The
city' s General Sewer Plan anticipates planning for additional sewage treatment capacity in 2019. A series
of pump station and force main improvements are planned as part of the city sewer system' s capital
improvement plans to maintain system capacity within the planning period.
City of Nooksack
The City of Nooksack does not have a sewer comprehensive plan. The Nooksack sewer system was
addressed in the 2004 update of the Nooksack comprehensive plan in the Capital Facilities Element.
Wilson Engineering also provided an analysis of the Nooksack sewer system in a memorandum prepared
in early 2007.
Collection & Transmission
The City of Nooksack maintains a system of collection and transmission pipes and four sewer lift stations
that direct sewage to the Everson sewage treatment plant.
Treatment Capacity
The Everson sewage treatment plant has a total capacity of 440,000 gallons per day (gpd). Of this total,
Nooksack owns one-third, which equals 145 ,200 gpd. The 2007 memorandum prepared by Wilson
Engineering states that the City of Nooksack had 230 additional ERUs available. The available capacity
is insufficient to meet the growth anticipated in this CFP. Available ERUs appear to be sufficient to
accommodate anticipated growth over the next 13 to 15 years. Expansion of the Everson sewage
treatment plant will be necessary to accommodate some of the growth that will occur outside of current
city limits.
Improvements and Financing
All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. It is
recognized by the City that expansion of the Everson sewage treatment plant will require the City to
secure major sources of funding, primarily low-interest loans. The Nooksack Comprehensive Plan does
14
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
not show the locations of system extensions necessary to serve new development in the Nooksack UGA.
The City has identified creation of a comprehensive sewer plan in conjunction with the City of Everson
comprehensive sewer plan project as a key project in the City's future plans for sewers (personal email
communication, Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009).
City of Sumas
The City of Sumas does not have a comprehensive sewer plan. The Sumas sewer system was addressed in
the 2004 update of the Sumas Comprehensive Plan. The Sumas Comprehensive Plan addresses the 20-
year period from 2004 through 2024 including a 2024 population of 1 ,750.
Collection & Transmission
The City of Sumas owns and maintains a sewage collection and transmission system that includes gravity
sewer lines and a small number of sewer lift stations. The Sumas system directs sewage to a discharge
into the City of Abbottsford system in British Columbia, Canada.
Treatment
The City has an ongoing contract with the City of Abbotsford to receive and treat sewage collected in
Sumas. This contract provides for the receipt and treatment of a maximum volume of 400,000 gallons per
day through December 31 , 2028. Discharges from the Sumas system are metered on a daily basis. A
review of City records from February 2009 indicates that typical maximum effluent levels are
approximately 270,000 gallons per day total. One-third of the City' s total maximum daily discharge is
generated by a single industrial customer. Using the conversion factor of 300 gallons per day per
equivalent residential unit (ERU), the total contract amount equates to 1 ,333 ERUs. The available
capacity of 130,000 gallons per day is equivalent to approximately 433 ERUs. Excluding the one large
industrial customer, which generates the equivalent of 300 ERUs, leaves an available capacity of 1 ,033
ERUs for the remainder of the City. This available capacity equals a 72% increase over the current City
typical maximum daily volume of 180,000 gallons per day or 600 ERUs (e.g., maximum daily volume
without considering the single large industrial use) . This CFP assumes a population increase from 1 ,279
to 2,080 along with a comparable level of employment, representing a 63% increase through 2029. On
this basis it appears that Sumas has sufficient sewer service capacity to meet its needs through 2029.
Improvements and Financing
All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. The City has
recently completed a sewer lift station that was designed to be deep enough to receive gravity flows from
all of the currently designated areas within the Sumas unincorporated UGA1 . No additional major City-
funded improvements to the sewer system are anticipated at this time. The Sumas Comprehensive Plan
shows the locations of sewer main extensions necessary to serve new development in the Sumas UGA.
I Refers to the UGA approved by Whatcom County as of the 2004 County Comprehensive Plan. UGA boundaries have decreased with the
2009 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
15
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District (Formerly Water District 10)
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District includes areas within Bellingham' s UGA and rural areas
surrounding Lake Whatcom within its sewer service area. The district relies upon the City of
Bellingham' s sewer system for treatment capacity. As noted in Tables 46 and 47 above, the sewer
district' s contract with City of Bellingham provides adequate treatment capacity through both 2015 and
2029.
The district plans sewer extensions to newly developing areas on an as-needed basis. The 2007 Lake
Whatcom Sewer Plan identifies several future service extensions to serve vested developments, including
a handful of vested lots located within the district' s boundaries, but outside of the UGA. The 2007 Plan
notes a number of collection system improvements, including upgrades to various district pumping
stations.
Water District 13
Water District 13 provides sewer service to a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. . The LOS analysis in
Table 45 indicates that the District would experience a sewage treatment capacity surplus in 2015 . The
LOS analysis in table 46 indicates that the District would also experience a sewage treatment surplus in
2029. However, the District plans to make improvements to the wastewater treatment plant and other
components of the system over the 20-year planning period (Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Sewer
Plan, 2012, pp. 7- 10 and 7- 11 ). The Columbia Valley Water District, which provides water service to a
portion of the Columbia Valley UGA, currently does not provide sewer service. As noted in the
Foothills Subarea Plan (May 2011 , p. 12-5), in the future Water District 13 may contract with its
neighboring water district to provide sewer service to the portion of the Columbia Valley UGA served by
the Columbia Valley Water District.
Sewer System Capital Projects and Financing
Sewer providers have identified capital projects as noted in Table 48 below, broken down by service
provider, to accommodate the future needs of sewer service in the County. Specific revenue sources are
not identified for the non-County service providers included in Table 48 below. Sewer providers obtain
their revenue from a variety of sources, including but not limited to service charges, connection fees, and
grants, as noted at the beginning of this section.
Table 48. Sewer Projects
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
a -r, Q" , �/ Nj i
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Phase 1 and 2
Improvements
Cost 5,990 3,320 16, 340 28,250 16,030 69,930
16
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Priority 1 and 2
Collection
System
Improvements '
Cost 3,430 23,470 2,340 800 5,020 9,780 37,690 82,530
Infiltration &
Inflow ( I&I) Study
Cost 520 2,080 2,600
I & I
Improvements
Cost 1 ,286 1 ,624 1 ,606 1 ,838 2,005 1 ,974 17,858 28, 191
ip;rneivAtxt, /Ay,/
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Headworks
Cost 2,000 2 ,000
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
New Process
Water
Cost 41 41
Wastewater
Treatment Plant -
2 new oxidation
ditches
Cost 3,591 3,591
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
— New Flow Split
Structures
Cost 103 103
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
— Upgrade
Aerobic Digesters
Cost 385 385
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Convert to
Digestion
Cost 309 309
17
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Gravity Belt
Thickener
Cost 1 ,504 1 ,504
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—New Dewatering
Cost 3,248 3,248
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Secondary
Sedimentation
Cost 2,470 2,470
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Demolish Small
Secondary
Clarifiers
Cost 52 52
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Demolish
Primary Clarifiers
Cost 52 52
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—New UV
Modules
Cost 102 102
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
—Third New
Oxidation Ditch
Cost 1 ,978 1 ,978
Continue 16 and
18 inch force
mains from Pump
Station #3 to
Pump Station #4
Cost 1 ,066 1 ,066
Increase Pump
Station #2
Capacity
Cost 2 ,850 2,850
18
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Increase Pump
Station #3
Capacity
Cost 344 344
Pump Station #6
Upgrade and
force main
capacity
Cost 1 ,318 1 ,318
Increase Pump
Station #7
capacity and
replace force
main
Cost 341 341
Replace electrical
system including
standby
generator and
relocate from
vault to building
Cost 365 365
Upgrade Pump
Station #8
Cost 336 336
Increase Station
Capacity (#P-8)
Cost 359 359
Modify pump
station and 18"
force main `(#P-9)
Cost 1 ,252 1 ,252
Increase Pump
Station Capacity
(#P-10)
Cost 1 ,834 1 ,834
Construct
submersible
pump station
north of
Semiahmoo
Drive near
Semiahmoo
Dr/Birch Pt Rd
(#P-11 )
Cost 1 ,750 1 ,750
19
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Construct
submersible
pump station
west of
Semiahmoo
Drive (#P-12)
Cost 638 638
Construct
submersible
pump station
south of
Hall/Blaine Rd.
(#P-13)
Cost 1 , 169 1 , 169
Construct
submersible
pump station
south of Lincoln
Rd and wet of
Harbor View Rd .
(#P-14)
Cost 711 711
Construct
submersible
pump station at
intersection of
Harbor View Rd
and Drayton
Harbor (#P-15)
Cost 1 ,775 1 ,775
Continue
evaluation of
sewer system
(Collection- 1 )
Cost 350 350
Install parallel
gravity sewer
between Pump
Stations #5 and
#4 (Collection-2)
Cost 1 ,305 1 ,305
Install parallel
gravity sewers
between pump
stations #6 and
#5 (Collection-3)
Cost 1 ,272 1 ,272
20
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands 5) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Install parallel
gravity sewers
between pump
stations #7 and
#6 (Collection-4)
Cost 1 ,336 1 ,336
Install parallel
gravity sewers
between pump
stations #8 and
#7 (Collection 5)
Cost 1 ,583 1 ,583
Construct 10"
parallel sewer
between Birch Pt
Rd and Selder
Rd (Collection-6)
Cost 132 132
Construct 21 "
sewer between
Birch Pt Rd and
Selder Rd
(Collection-7)
Cost 1 ,218 1 ,218
Construct 10"
sewer north of
Birch Pt Rd to
receive discharge
from Pump
Station A force
main. (Collection-
8)
Cost 891 891
Construct 18"
sewer north of
intersection of
Semiahmoo
Dr/Birch Point Rd
north along
Semiahmoo Dr.
(Collection-9)
Cost 1 ,000 1 ,000
Construct 15"
sewer from
Semiahmoo
Dr/Birch Pt Rd
north along
Semiahmoo Dr.
(Collection-10)
21
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Cost 1 ,410 1 ,410
Construct parallel
10" sewer and 8"
sewer
(Collection-11 )
Cost 288 288
Construct 24"
parallel sewer
beginning east of
Birch Bay
Drive/Alderson
Rd east along
Alderson Rd.
(Collection-12)
Cost 649 649
Construct 15"
parallel sewer
from west of
Blaine Rd
/Alderson Rd
along Alderson
Rd. (Collection-
13)
Cost 576 576
Construct 10"
sewer from Birch
Bay Dr/East Golf
Course Dr east
along East Golf
Course Dr. —
replace 8" sewer
(Collection-14)
Cost 367 367
Construct 18"
parallel sewer
from Harbor View
Rd/Birch Bay Dr
north along
Harbor View Rd
and associated
construction
(Collection-15)
Cost 750 750
Construct 12"
sewer beginning
at Harbor View
Rd . (Collection-
16)
Cost 442 442
22
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Construct 12"
sewer from
Harbor
View/Anderson
Rds east along
Anderson Rd.
(Collection-17)
Cost 1 ,476 1 ,476
Construct 15"
parallel sewer
along Cedar Ave
to Anderston Rd
and parallel 8"
sewer line
(Collection-18)
Cost 340 340
Construct 21 "
sewer from
Cedar
Ave/Anderson Rd
north parallel to
Cedar Rd.
(Collection-19)
Cost 525 525
Construct 10"
sewer from north
of Shintaffer/
Anderson Rds
north to Lincoln
Rd. (Collection-
20)
Cost 545 545
Construct 18"
sewer at
intersection
Drayton
Harbor/Harbor
View Rds.
(Collection-21 )
Cost 1 , 126 1 , 126
Construct 12"
sewer at Harbor
View Rd/Drayton
Harbor Rd
northward
(Collection-22)
Cost 498 498
23
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Construct 18"
sewer from south
of Blaine
Rd/Birch Bay —
Lynden Rd south
along Blaine Rd
(Collection-23)
Cost 522 522
Construct 12"
sewer from
intersection of
Blaine Rd/Arnie
Rd, south along
Blaine Rd
(Collection-24)
Cost 442 442
Construct 12"
sewer beginning
south of
intersection of
Blaine Rd/ Birch
Bay-Lynden Rd
east (Collection-
25)
Cost 986 986
Construct parallel
15" and 18"
sewer
(Collection-26)
Cost 784 784
Construct parallel
10" 12" and 15"
sewer through
Anchor Manor
(Collection-27)
Cost 960 960
Construct 10"
sewer from
Blaine Rd/Loomis
Trail Rd north
along Blaine Rd
to Drayton
Harbor Rd
(Collection-28)
Cost 990 990
24
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Construct 8"
parallel sewer as
noted in detail
project
description
(Collection-29)
Cost 72 72
Acute and
Chronic Toxicity
Testing (0-1 )
Cost 5 5
Outfall Evaluation
(0-2)
Cost 15 15
Effluent Mixing
Study (0-3)
Cost 35 35
Application for
NPDES Permit
Renewal (0-4)
Cost 6 6
Engineering
Report Update
(0-5)
Cost 60 60
Comprehensive
Sewer Plan
Update (0-6)
Cost 80 80
Water
Reclamation
Engineering
Report (0-7)
Cost 60 60
(timing
TBD)
'l :� : , ,�� ' y la: ° e� r . r "N
° a„u °sS
Construct New
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility for West
Blaine or convey
to Birch Bay (T-3)
Cost 500 4,012 4,512
25
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Proposed New
Sewer Sub-Main
Extensions
(locations
unspecified) (P-3
through P-5 & P-
8)
Cost 860 860
Proposed new
Sewer Sub-Main
Extension along
Jerome Street (P-
6)
Cost 400 400
Proposed Sewer
Sub-Main
Extension along
Harvey Road (P-
7)
Cost 390 390
Proposed Sewer
Sub-Main
Extension along
Old Mill Road (P-
9)
Cost 380 380
4
Comprehensive
Sewer Plan 3
Cost TBD
Miscellaneous
Capital Projects
Cost 18 1111 18
} ,a
General
Planning,
Telemetry and
Programs
Cost 25.0 278. 1 217.5 5.5 5.6 635.2 1 , 166.9
Misc. and
Maintenance
Cost 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.6 99.0 125.6
Sewer Collection
Projects
26
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Cost 887.5 903.9 554.3 426.6 401 .7 6,738.9 9,912.9
Sewer Pump
Station Projects
Cost 95.0 566.5 1 ,060.9 437.1 562.8 3,710.6 6.342.9
Vehicle and
Heavy Mobile
Equipment
Cost 55.0 20.6 21 .2 21 .9 61 .9 756.0 936.6
Wastewater
Treatment Plan
Improvements
Cost 97.0 453.2 461 .5 92.9 377.0 5,916.4 7,398.0
;
Pump Station 3 &
FM
Cost 120 120
Pump Station 9
Cost 30 120 150
Pipe
Replacements
Cost 100 100 100 100 400
Infiltration/ Inflow
Study
Cost 100 100
Asset
Management
Update
Cost 100 100 200
Fats, Oils, and
Grease ( FOG)
Study
Cost 20 20
TV Pipe
Inspection
Cost 10 10 10 10 40
Treatment
Outfall
Improvements
Cost 350 350
Biosolids Dryer
27
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Cost 80 160 2,060 2,300
Compost Screen
Cost 100 100
New Front
Loader
Cost 150 150
Everson
Treatment Plant
Cost 76 76
Comprehensive
Sewer Plan 3
Cost TBD
No Projects -------
Noted
Sewer Collection
System l&I
Improvements
Cost 77 77 77 77 77 77 462
Rehabilitate
Sewer Manholes
Pilot Project
Cost 70 70
Sewer Tightline
Project
Cost 250 250
Old Lakeway &
Euclid Interceptor
Pigging
Cost 52 52
Boulevard Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Agate Bay Pump
Station Retrofit &
Generator
Placement
Cost 297 297
28
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Strawberry Point
Pump Station
Retrofit
Cost 267 267
Tomb Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Afternoon Beach
Pump Station
Cost 257 257
Geneva Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Edgewater Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Country Club
Pump Station
Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Par Lane Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Dellesta Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
Rocky Ridge
Pump Station
Retrofit
Cost 307 307
Lakewood Pump
Station Retrofit
Cost 257 257
. . �
S ; t . �� EW ,' b ® . y S. ( Sa .y. ;
'y14 jt Replace Influent
Pump Station
Equipment
(WWTP)
Cost 169 169
29
Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Replace
Comminutor
(WWTP)
Cost 81 81
Install New
Floating Surface
Aerator (WWTP)
Cost 18 18
Purchase
Additional
Drainfield
Property
Cost 40 40
Reserves for
Annual
Maintenance
Fund
Cost 5 5 5 5 25 45
NW Service Area
New Pipe
Cost 347 347
NE Service Area
New Pipe
Cost 250 250
Easements for
Existing Facilities
Cost 10 10
Developer
Extension
Manual
Cost 5 5
Easements for
Future Facilities
Cost 10 10
Infiltration and
Inflow Study
Cost 10 10
Discharge
Permit: Required
Studies
Cost 20 20 10 50
30
Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project
Costs/Revenue 2016-
(thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total
Comprehensive
Sewer Plan
Update
Cost 65 65
Reline Lagoon
No. 2 (WWTP)
Cost 98 98
Replace Influent
Pump Station
Force Main
(WWTP)
Cost 121 121
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
(WWTP)
Upgrade
Cost 7,822 7,822
Reline Lagoon
No. 3 (WWTP)
Cost 98 98
Refurbish
Chlorination
Equipment
(WWTP)
Cost 20 20
2nd Phase NW
Service Area
New Pipe
Cost 809 809
2nd Phase NE
Service Area
New Pipe
Cost 1 ,617 1 ,617
1 Collection system improvements includes: remote wet weather facility and priority 1 , 2, 3 collection system improvements.
2 City of Blaine 2005 Sewer System Plan. Note: Plan only shows projects in individual years from 2005-2010, and in a lumped group
2011 -2025. All projects shown in 2011 are projects included in the 2011 -2025 timeframe.
3 Source: Personal communication (email) from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.
4 See the City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2011 ) for more detailed information on these projects.
5 No projects noted per personal communication (email) from Erin Osbom to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.
6 See the Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2012) for more detailed information on these projects.
31
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Exhibit D
Whatcom County 20 -Year
Capital Facilities Plan
Amendments
(Fire Protection Provisions)
NOTE: For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes, portions of the Whatcom County 20-
Year Capital Facilities Plan that are not being modified by this ordinance are not shown below. The
text and maps that are not shown below are retained as previously adopted.
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Amend the "Executive Summary " of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows:
Fire Protection
Most fire districts in Whatcom County do not have their own adopted capital facility plans. In some
cases, districts have recently been reorganized or consolidated into fire protection authorities. However,
the cities of Bellingham and Lynden fire departments both have adopted capital facilities plans, and North
Whatcom Fire and Rescue, Fire District 7 and Fire District 14 have recently adopted CFPs addressing
their facility needs.
Whatcom County adopted a level of service standard in 2011 based upon response times and fire ratings.
There will necessarily be a transition period in which the County will work with the fire districts to
develop or amend CFPs in accordance with the new county-wide LOS standards. For capital facility
planning purposes, fire districts that have not yet developed or amended CFPs in accordance with the
County's adopted LOS standards are evaluated under a square feet per emergency incident method of
calculating LOS .
The square feet per emergency incident method is utilized for fire protection LOS analysis in this CFP for
fire districts that have not yet developed or updated their plans to address the county-wide LOS standards
adopted by the County in 2011 . Based upon information provided by the County Fire Marshal ' s Office,
all five fire districts serving urban areas that were evaluated under the incident per square foot method are
expecting to have a future deficit in capital facilities by 2029. Most fire districts serving rural areas are
also expected to have capital facility deficits by 2029 based on this analysis. The exceptions are Fire
District 18 and Fire District 5 both of which show small facility surpluses in 2029.
The County adopted county-wide fire level of service standards based upon response times and fire
ratings in 2011 . The Fire District 7 and Fire District 14 CFPs were developed to meet the new LOS
standards . The County may incorporate by reference fire district CFPs as they are adopted or amended in
accordance with the new county-wide LOS standards. The Capital Facilities Implementation section of
this CFP identifies measures that service providers without adopted or amended CFPs can take to address
any identified deficiencies.
2
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Amend the "Fire Protection " chapter of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows:
Fire Protection
Overview
The County is served by 15 different fire departments or districts, 13 of which serve unincorporated
portions of the County:
• City of Bellingham • Fire District 7 • Fire District 17
• City of Lynden • Fire District 8 • Fire District 18
• Fire District 1 • Fire District 11 • Glacier Fire District 19
• Fire District 4 • Fire District 14 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue
(Fire District 21 )
• Fire District 5 • Fire District 16 • South Whatcom Fire Authority
The cities of Bellingham and Lynden have their own fire departments. Fire District 7 serves the City of
Ferndale and the Cherry Point UGA. North Whatcom Fire and Rescue (Fire District 21 ) serves the City
of Blaine and the Birch Bay UGA. Fire District 14 serves the City of Sumas and the Columbia Valley
UGA. Fire District 1 serves the cities of Everson and Nooksack.
Each city and fire protection district is assigned a numeric fire protection rating (a Class 1 rating is
considered best) by the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau. Insurance companies fund the
Bureau to perform on-site inspections of fire districts to determine the rating. The Bureau analyzes five
areas: average response time, water supply, communication network, schedule of fire inspections, and
existing conditions of fire stations. Fire station evaluations focus on the age of vehicles, amount of
personnel training, and whether the facilities are staffed or not. Insurance companies use the fire
protection rating to help determine insurance rates on all fire insurance policies. Quality of fire service
can have a significant impact on fire insurance rates with the greatest impact experienced by commercial
occupancies.
In addition to fire protection services, the agencies listed here provide responses to medical emergencies.
In fact, EMS calls account for 75% of the responses by most fire protection agencies.
A countywide 911 dispatch system is jointly operated by the City of Bellingham Fire and Police
Depait,nents and administered by a countywide governmental board called "What-Comm Administrative
Board" (Boyd pers. comm.) .
3
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Inventory of Current Facilities
Table 74 summarizes the capital facilities for each fire district. It also includes each district' s fire rating
and service population. Unless otherwise stated, the 2008 population is based on estimates prepared for
the CFP update process.
Table 74. Fire Facilities Inventory
Fire Protection Number Fire Fire Units 2 EMS Service Area Serves UGA
Provider of Rating 1 Services Population (YIN)
Stations (YIN) (2008)
City of Bellingham 8 3 3 22 Y 78,500 Y
City of Lynden 1 5 6 Y 11 ,350 Y
North Whatcom Fire & 104 N/A 32 Y 28,246 5 Y
Rescue (District 21 )
Fire District 1 2 8T 6 107 Y 8,460 Y
Fire District 4 3 6 13 Y 8,600 8 Y
Fire District 5 2 6 6 Y 1 ,370 N
Fire District 7 6 6/5 9 24 Y 19,530 Y
Fire District 8 4 N/A N/A Y 6,240 Y
Fire District 11 1 8 5 Y 1 ,610 N
Fire District 14 3 6-1010 22 Y 9,830 Y
Fire District 16 3 N/A N/A . Y 1 , 160 N
Fire District 17 2 6 8 Y 1 ,520 N
Fire District 18 2 N/A N/A Y 2,460 N
Glacier Fire District 19 1 7 4 Y 1 ,630 N11
South Whatcom Fire 6 N/A 12 26 Y 13,000 13 Y
Authority
N/A = Not Available; Y/N = Yes or No
1 Fire rating is based upon the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau (WSRB). Insurance companies use the Bureau's ratings to help
determine insurance rates on all fire insurance policies.
2 Fire units include fire and/or emergency response units such as fire engines, water tenders, and medic units.
3 Two of the 8 stations are medic stations that serve unincorporated areas of the County, one serving northwest and the other north and east of
the Bellingham city limits. Station 1 also houses the countywide fire/EMS dispatch center. (Boyd, Bill, Fir e Chief, Bellingham Fire
Department, personal communication, April 14, 2009 email. )
4 Includes 3 career fire stations and 7 volunteer fire stations. Source: North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan, August 2009,
Exhibit 1 ).
5 Source: North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan, August 2009
6 This indicates a tanker rating, which means that the rating is achieved through additional water for fire flow provided from tanker trucks
(Personal email communication from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009).
7 Per email communication from Erin Osbom to Matt Aamot (July 14, 2009), this figure includes 3 fire engines with 1 ,000 gallon water tanks, 2
tanker trucks with 3,000 gallon capacity (water delivery at 1 ,000 gallons per minute), 3 aid cars, and 2 rescue boats.
8 Personal communication, Email from Bill McLaughlin to Matt Aamot, on February 25, 2009.
9 Fire rating for Cherry Point is 6 and fire rating for Ferndale is 5 (Personal communication between Gary Russell and Alex Cleanthous, July 1 ,
2009)
10 The WSRB ratings vary within Fire District 14 from 6 (in Sumas) to 10 (in outlying areas), depending on location and type of structure.
11 Although Glacier Fire District 19 does not specifically serve the Columbia Valley UGA, it is part of a mutual aid agreement that would provide
back-up to Fire District 14 which does include the Columbia Valley UGA within its service area.
4
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12 , 2013
12 At time of inventory, the South Whatcom Fire Authority has not received a rating for the whole agency. Agency was formed in January 2009.
Currently, Geneva and Sudden Valley communities are rated Class 5; Yew Street Road and Chuckanut Drive areas are rated a Class 6; and
the Lake Samish Area is rated Class 8.
13 Personal communication, Email from Bill Hewitt to Matt Aamot, on March 10, 2009.
Source: Individual district plans and district communications with County staff.
Level of Service Capacity Analysis
Methods that can be used to determine LOS for fire districts include square feet per emergency incident,
response time and fire ratings. Whatcom County adopted a LOS standard tied to response time and fire
ratings in 2011 . Fire district capital facility plans submitted in 2011 or later will be reviewed against the
new county-wide LOS standards. For capital facility planning purposes, a method that ties fire and EMS
response incidents to projected population, employment, and/or land use (square feet per incident) is
being utilized for fire districts until they develop new capital facility plans that meet the adopted County
LOS standard.
Whatcom County will consider adoption of fire district capital facility plans by reference into the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, as they are approved by the districts.
Square Feet per Incident
This Capital Facilities Plan will rely on analysis based on a square feet per incident for fire districts that
have not yet adopted or revised their capital facility plans to meet the County LOS standard. The
methodology in the plan is based upon review of records received from the Whatcom County Fire
Marshal ' s Office for Fire Districts. These records include 2008 existing square feet of fire district
facilities, and calls for fire and aid service for the years 2006-2008 were used to provide average annual
calls for service per district. This information and a LOS methodology are outlined in Table 75 below.
A review of the Fire District LOS analysis provided in Table 76a below indicates that all districts serving
urban growth areas that were evaluated under the square feet per incident method would have a fire
facility deficit by 2029, if new facilities were not added.
•
5
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Table 75. Level of Service Standard for Fire Districts : Square Feet per Incident
Fire District Total Facility Size (2008) Average Annual Calls For Square Feet Per Incident
(Square Feet) Fire and Aid Service
(2006-2008)
Fire District 1 17,008 682.3 24.93
Fire District 4 25,314 531 .3 47.64
Fire District 8 28,460 1 ,025.3 27.76
North Whatcom Fire and 72,422 2,362.3 30.66 '
Rescue
South Whatcom Fire 35,418 734 48.25
Authority
e
Fire District 5 8,250 134.0 61 .57
Fire District 11 4,200 60.67 69.23
Fire District 16 9, 100 121 .3 75.0
Fire District 17 6,892 89.7 76.86
Fire District 18 5,400 118.7 45.51
Fire District 19 3,600 84.0 42.86
1 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue prepared a draft Capital Facilities Plan (undated) that was reviewed and evaluated as part of the
preparation of the Capital Facilities Plan. This undated version of the District's draft CFP included a square foot per incident
measurement as one of many factors reviewed in evaluating the District's ability to respond to emergency incidents, whether fire or
medical (Square feet per incident for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue was listed as 35.64 in the undated draft). Since that time, North
Whatcom Fire and Rescue has prepared and adopted an updated Capital Facilities Plan (dated August 15, 2009) which does not utilize
a square footage per incident analysis. The updated methodology relies on response time and fire station geographic coverage to
arrive at a number of stations and apparatus needed to maintain recent ratios to existing development. Most fire districts in Whatcom
County do not currently have this information. For this reason, and to ensure consistency of analysis, the North Whatcom Fire and
Rescue Square Feet per Incident in Table 75 utilizes the information obtained from the Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office.
Source: Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office, Warner Webb, email to Matt Aamot, April 23, 2009.
Table 76a indicates that all fire districts serving urban growth areas that were evaluated under the square
feet per incident method are projected to experience deficits in 2029. With the exception of Fire District
4, all fire districts serving urban areas also have higher fire facility deficits than their rural . counterparts in
2029. All rural fire districts, with the exception of Fire Districts 5, and 18 are expected to have facility
deficits in 2029. All fire districts can reduce these anticipated fire facility deficits with capital facility
projects that maintain or replace facilities and equipment in the 2009-2029 planning period.
Response Time/Fire Rating
Whatcom County adopted the following level of service standards in 2011 :
Urban levels of service for fire protection shall be a response time of 8 minutes 80% of the time
when the department covering the urban area has staffed the fire station. When the fire station is
not staffed the response time shall be 10 minutes 80% of the time, or a WSRB Rating of a 6.
Rural levels of service for fire protection shall be a response time of 12 minutes 80% of the time
when the department covering the urban area has staffed the fire station. When the fire station is
not staffed the response time shall be 14 minutes 80% of the time, or a WSRB Rating of an 8 .
6
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Staffed stations shall be a fire station that is staffed 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year.
Staff may be paid, volunteer, or combination of the two.
There will necessarily be a transition period in which the County will work with fire districts to develop
capital facility plans that meet the adopted LOS standards. Fire district capital facility plans that have
been developed utilizing the County LOS are shown in Table 76b below.
Table 76a. Fire District Level of Service Analysis-Square Feet Per Incidents
Annual
Average 2029 Projected
Calls For Facility
Fire and Aid Total Facility Size Level of Service Reserve/(Deficit)
Service Incidents per (2008) Square Feet Per Expressed in Square
Fire District (2006-2008) capita (2008) (Square Feet) Incident Feet of Facilities
Fire District 1 682.3 0.08 17,008 24.93 (4,952)
Fire District 4 4 531 .3 0.05 25,314 47.64 (2,428)
Fire District 8 1 ,025.3 0. 17 28,460 27.76 (8,421 )
North Whatcom 2,362.3 0. 10 2 72,422 30.66 3 (37,498)
Fire and
Rescue
South Whatcom 734 0.05 35,418 48.25 (3,308)
Fire Authority °
w �
Fire District 5 134.0 0.07 8,250 61 .57 549
Fire District 11 60.67 0.04 4,200 69.23 (1 , 164)
Fire District 16 121 .3 0. 12 9, 100 75.0 ( 1 ,853)
Fire District 17 89.7 0.06 6,892 76.86 (2,865)
Fire District 18 118.7 0.05 5,400 45.51 85
Fire District 19 84.0 0.05 3,600 42.86 (380)
1 Fire districts that have not developed capital facility plans that incorporate the county-wide level of service standard for fire protection,
adopted in 2011 , are included in Table 76a. The steps used to calculate the results are as follows:
a) Determine incidents per capita: Average calls for service 2006-2008 supplied by Whatcom County Fire Marshal / 2008 estimated
population (Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 10-Year Urban Growth Area Review, May 2009, Appendix D)
b) Determine square feet per incident: Current square footage of fire stations supplied by Whatcom County Fire Marshal / Average
calls for service 2006-2008
c) Calculate 2029 incidents: Future 2029 population of each district (Appendix D) x incidents per capita
d) Calculate square footage required: 2029 estimated incidents x Square feet per incident
e) Compare to square footage available: 2008 inventory of fire station square footage supplied by Whatcom County Fire Marshal
f) Calculate Reserve (Deficit): Square footage available - square footage required
2 The district's own population estimate of 2008 population (28,246) is higher and was developed based on 2000 U.S. Census calculation
of district population plus the City of Blaine, which annexed to the district in 2004 (District Plan, p. 3). Population estimates prepared for
the CFP analysis indicate a lower population including Blaine of 23,570. If assuming the higher population, the incident per capita would
be 0.08. For a conservative analysis the higher 0. 10 rate was applied to the future growth numbers. If using the Districts 2008 population
as a base and the net increase of each alternative, the results would be 15% lower than the square footage estimates above.
3 • North Whatcom Fire and Rescue prepared a draft Capital Facilities Plan (undated) that was reviewed and evaluated as part of the
preparation of the Capital Facilities Plan. This undated version of the District's draft CFP included a square foot per incident
measurement as one of many factors reviewed in evaluating the District's ability to respond to emergency incidents, whether fire or
medical (Square feet per incident for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue was listed as 35.64 in the undated draft). Since that time, North
7
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Whatcom Fire and Rescue has prepared and adopted an updated Capital Facilities Plan (dated August 15, 2009) which does not utilize a
square footage per incident analysis. The updated methodology relies on response time and fire station geographic coverage to arrive at
a number of stations and apparatus needed to maintain recent ratios to existing development. Most fire districts in Whatcom County do
not currently have this information. For this reason, and to ensure consistency of analysis, the North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Square
Feet Per Incident in Tables 75 and 76 utilizes the information obtained from the Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office.
4 If using these Districts own 2008 population estimates, the incidents per capita would be higher (incidents per capita divided by smaller
population). The facility deficits would be approximately 16% higher for Fire District 4, and 6% higher for the South Whatcom Fire
Authority.
Source: ICF Jones & Stokes, Berk & Associates, and Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office (2008).
Table 76b. Fire District Level of Service Analysis - Response Time/Fire Ratings
WSRB Rating Response Time Meets
Fire District Standard Standard Adopted LOS?
E 0 b rra".2
Fire District 7 6 for the 8 minutes 80% of the Yes2
Cherry Point UGA time for the Ferndale
UGA
Fire District 14 6 for UGAs and
10 minutes 80% of
8 for rural areas the time for the Yes3
Columbia Valley &
Sumas UGAs and 14
minutes 80% of the
time for rural areas
1 Fire districts that have developed capital facility plans that incorporate the county-wide level of service for fire protection, adopted in May
2011 , are included in Table 76b.
2 Table 74 and Whatcom County Fire District No. 7 Capital Facility Plan 2011 -2029.
3 Table 74 and Whatcom County Fire District # 14 Capital Facilities Plan (2012).
Capital Projects and Funding
Capital Project Funding
City Fire Departments and Regional Fire Districts usually fund needed capital improvements through a
combination of revenue sources. These can include General Fund revenues, excess property tax levies,
sales taxes, capital bonds, fire benefit charges, and fire impact fees.
The State of Washington authorizes cities and regional fire districts to levy both "regular" and "special"
property taxes to support their operational and capital needs. As part of the regular property tax levy, a
fire service provider is authorized to levy a property tax at a total maximum rate of $ 1 .50 per $ 1 ,000 of
assessed value. However, the total maximum aggregate "regular" property tax levy by all taxing agencies
in an area may not exceed $5 . 60. Occasionally, all local levies will total more than this limit. In this case,
"junior" taxing districts, including fire districts, must follow state statute to lower their levy rate so that
the total aggregate rate does not exceed the statutory limit. Fire districts may also pass "special" property
tax levies for short-term periods without a statutory maximum levy limit.
An Emergency Medical Service property tax may be levied at a total maximum rate of $0.50 per $ 1 ,000
of assessed value. This levy must pass by at least 60% of the vote and must be renewed every six years.
These funds can be charged by city fire departments, but not by fire districts.
8
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Fire impact fees may be collected on new residential and commercial development to fund facility
improvements necessary to serve that development. Additional comments on capital funding strategies of
note are discussed below:
• Bellingham Fire Department - The Bellingham Fire Department receives capital dollars from the Medic
One Fund, which is funded by a 1 % sales tax that can be used for operations or capital; from the first
0.25% of Real Estate Excise Taxes, and from general fund revenues.
• Lynden Fire Department - The City of Lynden Fire Department receives capital funding from the
general fund and from impact fees. Impact fees for the fire department are project driven, and are
expected to pay a set portion of the costs of needed expansion due to growth.
Capital Projects
Capital projects for the Bellingham Fire Department, Lynden Fire Department, North Whatcom Fire and
Rescue (which serves the Birch Bay and Blaine UGAs), Fire District 7 and Fire District 14 are provided
below. The following fire districts do not have approved capital facility plans:
• Fire District 1 (serving the Everson and Nooksack UGAs) .
As these districts approve capital facility plans, they will be incorporated by reference into the Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan.
Table 77. Fire District/Department Capital Projects 1
Project 2010 j 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 I 2016- Total
Costs/Revenue 2029
(thousands $)
e
Boat House
Cost 150 1 150
Revenue 150 150
REET (1St Quarter)
Classroom/Office
Cost 1 ,000 1 ,000
Revenue 1 ,000 1 ,000
REET (1St Quarter)
Broadway Fire I
Station Upstairs
Carpet
Cost 9 j 9
Revenue 9 I I 9
REET (1S` Quarter)
Cardiac Monitor/ I
Defibrilator I
Cost 24
24
— - -
Revenue 24 24
Medic 1 Fund
9
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12 , 2013
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
Costs/Revenue 2029
(thousands $)
Field Computers
Cost 11 12 23
Revenue 11 12 23
Medic 1 Fund
Medic Unit
Cost 158 158
Revenue 158 158
Medic 1 Fund
Rechassis Medic
Unit
Cost 111 111
Revenue 111 111
Medic 1 Fund
Thermal Imaging
Camera
Cost 12 12 24
Revenue 12 12 24
General Fund
-474:5 .7.7‘ "3"7:7 ‘ gParelatiatrOWn4MAWaagn, Rieganre 77" `41::
Ladder Truck
Purchase
Cost 950 950
Fire Station
Remodel -
Sleeper
Cost 380 380
New Ambulance
Cost 130 130
•
New Pumper
Truck
Cost k 600 600
F ® A
New Station A
with engine and
aid vehicle
(location TBD, but
likely northwest
area of district)
i
Cost ; I 5,723. 1
New Station B
i
10
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
Costs/Revenue 2029
(thousands $)
with engine and
aid vehicle
(location TBD)
Cost 5,723. 1
Station 62 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 376.2
Station 63 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 340
Station 63
Exhaust system
Cost 140
Station 64 Exterior
Skin Replacement
Cost 117.5
Station 64 Reroof
Cost 87.5
Station 64 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 218.7
Station 65 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 227.5
i
Station 65 Exterior
Skin Replacement
Cost 121 .8
Station 68 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost I 223.8
Station 68 Site
Paving Overlay
Cost j 97.5
Station 69 Seismic i
Upgrade
Cost 279.9
Station 69 .Site
Paving Overlay
Cost j 126.2
11
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
CostslRevenue 2029
(thousands $)
Station 70 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 226.2
Station 71 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 426.8
Station 71
Exhaust System
Cost 70
Station 72 Seismic
Upgrade
Cost 285.7
New Maintenance
Vehicle
Cost 40 40
Reserves 40 40
New Medic Unit [
Cost 150 150
Reserves 150 150
New Tender
Cost 320 320
Reserves ( 320 320
Finalize Short Plat
Cost 35 35
Property Tax 35 35
Funds
Station 43 -
Carpet & Repairs
Cost 50 50
Reserves 50 E 50
Station 45 - New
Water Service i I
Cost 25 1 25
Property Tax ! i 25 ; 25
Funds
i
New Staff Vehicle
12
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
Costs/Revenue 2029
(thousands $)
Cost 40 40
•
Reserves 40 40
Refurbish Medic
Unit
Cost 75 75
Reserves 75 75
Station 42 -
Remodel
Cost 1 ,500 1 ,500
Voted Bond Issue 1 ,500 1 ,500
or impact fees
New Staff Vehicle
Cost 40 40
Property Tax 40 • 40
Funds
New Engine Unit
Cost 375 375
Reserves 375 375
Replace Two
Engines
Cost 900 900
Reserves 900 900
Station 44 -
Improvements
Cost 300 300
Reserves 300 300
Station 2 - Fiber
Connection
Cost ( 30 30
Reserves I j 30 30
Station 42 -
Remodel
Cost F 1 108 108
Reserves 108 108
I
Station 44 - Fiber
Connection
Cost 1 35 35
13
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
Costs/Revenue 2029
(thousands $)
Station 43 -
Improvements
Cost 77 77
New Ambulance
Unit
Cost 165 165
Data Terminals for
Apparatus and
Stations
Cost 90 90
Department
Training Center
Cost 2,000 2,000
Station 45 -
Improvements
Cost 245 245
Station 46 -
Improvements
Cost 75 75
Station 41 - G
Support Facility
Cost 500 500
W4
Sumas Land
Payment
Cost ( 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 184.8 237.6
Replace Tender
93
Cost 200 1 200
Replace I
Command Vehicle
Cost 20 20
Replace
Ambulance
Cost ; 125 125
i
New Command [ i
Vehicle
Cost ? 145 45
Columbia Valley
14
Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total
Costs/Revenue 2029
(thousands $)
Station
Cost 945 945
Equipment
Cost 11 .5 11 .5
New Fire Engine
Cost 450 450
New Ambulance
Cost 125 125
Air Station
Cost 40 40
Kendall Station
Addition
Cost 380.475 380.475
Replace
Ambulance
Cost 125 125
Replace
Command Vehicle
Cost 45 45
Replace Fire
Engine
Cost 250 250
Replace Tender
Cost 300 300
Refurbish Fire
Engine
Cost 50 50
Sumas Station
Architectural &
Engineering costs
Cost 1 207 207
1 Specific revenue sources in Table 77 are only provided where identified within the service provider's individual plans.
2 City of Bellingham 2008 Adopted Budget includes Fire Department projects through 2013, while the City of Bellingham Comprehensive
Plan Capital Facilities element (Chapter 5) only include fire department projects through 2011 . Locations are not provided for projects.
3 City of Lynden Fire Department 2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan shows projects through 2014. Locations are not provided for projects.
4 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue's August 15, 2009 Capital Facilities Plan identifies cost but does not identify year of funding.
Therefore, all project costs are noted only in the Total column. Locations are not provided for new stations, and locations of projects at
existing stations are associated with the station number per August 15, 2009 Capital Facilities Plan (page 25).
Sources:
For Bellingham Fire: City of Bellingham, 2008 Adopted Budget, Capital Facilities Plan (page 408),and Bellingham Comprehensive Plan,
Capital Facilities (Chapter 5), page CF-75.
15
Exhibit D — 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection)
Approved by the County Council on February 12, 2013
For Lynden Fire: City of Lynden 2008-2014 Fire Department Capital Facilities Plan
For North Whatcom Fire and Rescue: North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan prepared by Henderson, Young & Company,
(August 15, 2009).
For Fire District 7: Whatcom County Fire District No. 7 Capital Facility Plan 2011-2029 (May 2011 )
For Fire District 14: Whatcom County Fire District # 14 Capital Facilities Plan (2012).
16