The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPacket Jul 25 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-296 CLE4i4ANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Kraig Olason r fr-� �'-- ( t ' !' 9 J U L 0 3 2606 WHATCOM CO ��l 3CLr0 `INViL I 7111106 Natural Resource/Council Division Head: Dennis RhodesIO Dep[ Head. Hal H. Had 1414 2, Prosecutor. Royce Buckingham �9 Purchasing/Budget. )' 0 I Executive:PeteXremen SUBJECT: Resolution adopting the Purchase of Development Rights Oversight Commitlee's ranking of applications and authorization to continue with Purchase of Development Rights acquisitions for Round 4, 2005. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Application Ranking list and background materials SEPA review required? { } Yes { X) NO SEPA review completed? { } Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a !tearing ? { ) Yes , (X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT. As required by the WCC 3.25A - Purchase of Agricultural Development Rights Ordinance, applications submitted by landowners interested in participating in the PDR program were reviewed for program eligibility and ranked pursuant to the PDR Guidelines Document Ranking Criteria by the PDR Oversight Committee. County Council needs to review the ranking as submitted by the Oversight Committee and affirm or mods that ranking list and authorize the PDR Administrator to proceed with the acquisition process. Distribution Request Indicate those who should receive a copy after Council action. List specific names to the right. ADS Facilities Management ADS Finance ADS Human Resources ADS Info Services Assessor Auditor Cooperative Extension District Court Executive Pete Kremen Health Hearing Examiner Jail COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: -ru venile Parks Planning Hal. H. Hart Prosecutor Royce Buckin ham Public Works Sheriff Superior Court Related County Contract Treasurer Other Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number (this item): I:12 Planning Division!! PDR ProgramlApplicants-20051Ranking InfolAB PDR Round4-2005.doc WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, WA 98226 MEMORANDUM TO: Whatcom County Council THROUGH: Hal Hart, AICP FROM: Kraig Olason DATE: June 22, 2006 Hal Hart, A.I.C.P. Director RE: 2006 IAC Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program -Farmland Preservation Program Grant The Whatcom County Purchase of Development Rights Program is now in it's fourth round. As in previous years, the PDR Oversight Committee has reviewed and ranked the applications based on the specific criteria included in the PDR Guidelines Document. This year Whatcom County received eight applications from seven individuals totaling nearly 620 acres. This is by far the best application response to date. Included in the group of applicants are larger acreages in Ag zoning, two applications received from Rural 10 acre zoning and some choice properties from the Rural 5 acre zone. As noted above, the PDR Oversight Committee did not consider probable costs of the properties in the ranking, since the ranking criteria concentrates on soils, location etc. Cost for some properties may be significant and Council may want to consider individual property costs as they review the attached ranking report. I look forward to reviewing this year's applications with you and providing you with an overview of the PDR Program at our duly 11th Natural Resource Committee. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me, at (360) 676-6907. Thank you, Office (360) 676-6907 County (360) 380-8110 FAX (360) 738-2493 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: RESOLUTION NO. AFFIRMING THE RANKING AND AUTHORIZING WHATCOM COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ADMINISTRATOR TO PROCEED WITH THE ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR ROUND 4, 2005 APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, Whatcom County government recognizes agriculture as a major contributor to the local economy and a high quality of life for Whatcom County citizens; and WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act and the County Comprehensive Plan support the retention of agricultural lands of long term commercial significance and encourage the use of innovative techniques to do so; and WHEREAS, Ordinance #92-002 enacted a property tax levy known as the Conservation Futures Tax as authorized by RCW 84.34.230 to provide a funding source to assist in acquiring open space, wetlands, farm and agricultural land, and timber land; and WHEREAS, Ordinance #2002-054 authorized the creation of a Purchase of Development Rights program for agricultural land within Whatcom County, and WHEREAS, Ordinance #2002-054 established a Purchase of Development Rights Oversight Committee to provide review and assistance to the PDR Administrator, and WHEREAS, Resolution No # 2002-040 adopted the PDR Guidelines Document which includes specific direction for program administration and conservation easement acquisitions, and WHEREAS, The Purchase of Development Oversight Committee met regularly from March 2005 through March 2006 and has developed a final preliminary ranking of all applications received during Round 4, 2005 and forwarded that ranking to Council; and WHEREAS, Council, pursuant to PDR Guidelines Document, must affirm or modify the properties as submitted by the PDR Oversight Committee, and WHEREAS, Council has reviewed the application ranking and background materials at a public meeting, and WHEREAS, Council concurs with the ranking and finds that the ranking complies with the requirements of Title 3.25A and the PDR Guidelines Document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that 1. The PDR Oversight Committee and Administrator proceed with the next steps toward possible acquisition of conservation easements in the order of the approved ranking (Exhibit 1) pursuant to the process outlined in the PDR Guidelines Document. IA2 Planning Divisionll PDR Programftplicants-20051Ranking InfolRanking Resolution Round 4-2005.doc 3 ADOPTED this day of , 200fi. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Dan McShane, Council Chair Clerk of the Council APPROVED as to form () Approved () Denied Roy m, Civil Deputy Prosecutor Pete Kremen, Executive Date: 1A2 Planning Divisionll PDR Program Appllcants-2005kRanking InWRanking Resolution Round 4-2005.doc 4 2005 Applications Whatcom County Agricultural Purchase of Development Rights Program EXHIBIT 1 1. Roger and Ruth Bajema a. West Property • Number of Points: • Type of Farm: • Zoning District: • Parcel Size (acres): • Number of Development Rights • Target Area: 64 Grass and Corn Silage Ag40 78.4 10 Yes The property is a productive grass and corn silage farm located on East Badger Road between Double Ditch and Benson Rds. The property is adjacent to the Lynden Urban Growth Boundary. Approximately 78 acres are in active production. This is the first application within the Lynden target areas. The duality of the soils, availability of water for irrigation and total acreage make this a viable agricultural property 2. Roger and Ruth Bajema a. East Property • Number of Points: • Type of Farm: • Zoning District: • Parcel Size (acres): • Number of Development Rights: • Target Area: 59 Grass and Corn Silage Ag40 75 8 Yes The Bajema East property is a 75 acre productive farm located within the Lynden PDR target area. The property is located on East Badger Rd. in between Depot and Bender Rds. Approximately 70 acres are dedicated to grass and corn silage. The property is adjacent to the Lynden Urban Growth Boundary. Approximately 78 acres are in active production. The quality of the soils, availability of water for irrigation and total acreage make this a viable agricultural property 3. Louie and Jennie Sytsma Number of Points: 57 Type of Farm: Dairy • Zoning District: R5 and Ag40 • Parcel Size (acres): 108.36 Number of Development Rights: 9 • Target Area: Yes The farm is a productive dairy farm located on Laurel Rd. between Aldrich and Old Guide Rds. The property is comprised of prime soils, contains water rights and is located within the Laurel Rd. target area. 5 2005 Applications Whatcom County Agricultural Purchase of Development Rights Program EXHIBIT 1 4. Marty Maberry • Number of Points: 55 • Type of Farm: Berry Production • Zoning District: R5 • Parcel Size (acres): 87.61 • Number of Development Rights: 14 • Target Area: Yes This property is comprised of prime soils, including some high value berry soils. The parcel is located within the Stein Rd. target area. Approximately 90% of the property is actively farmed. The property has available water rights and less than 25% of the property is surrounded by more intensive uses. 5. Greg Ebe • Number of Points: • Type of Farm: • Zoning District: • Parcel Size (acres): • Number of Development Rights • Target Area: 54 Potato & Raspberry Production; Corn Silage,Wheat,Grass R5 40.38 6 Yes The property is located in the North Custer target area on Harksell Rd. in between Delta Line and Sunrise Rds. The quality of the soils, availability of water for irrigation and total acreage make this a viable agricultural property. 6. Herman Joneli • Number of Points: 62.21 • Type of Farm: Dairy Heifers, Grass Silage & Hay • Zoning District: R10 • Parcel Size (acres): 61.21 • Number of Development Rights: 5 • Target Area: No The property is located on East Hemmi Rd. in between Noon and Everson Goshen Rds. The property is comprised of high quality prime soils and over 75% of the property is actively farmed. The property is located in an area with many small farms. C 2005 Applications Whatcom County Agricultural Purchase of Development Rights Program EXHIBIT 1 7. Dale Dickson • Number of Points: 32 • Type of Farm: Dairy • Zoning District: R10 • Parcel Size (acres): 43.96 • Number of Development Rights: 3 • Target Area: No Heifers, Grass Silage & Hay The property is located on East Hemmi Rd. in between Noon and Thiel Rds. The property is comprised of high quality prime soils and over 75% of the property is actively farmed. This property is adjacent to the Joneli property and is located in an area with many small farms. 8. Steve Groen • Number of Points: • Type of Farm: • Zoning District: • Parcel Size (acres): • Number of Development Rights: • Target Area: 23 Dairy Farm & Christmas Ag40 124.9 2 No Tree Production The property is located on Barnhart Rd. between Wiedkamp and Markworth Rds. The property is an operating dairy farm and in addition, the farm has a five acre Christmas tree plot. The property is located in an area with several other farms. 7 y Y` IBroom nor ��NAME %T ail Il MMINIl MIUMMIN1 11 i 7!7 r Id , , s-r f ' r �-ea � ' 'r .�•.S:E�F•� d'�� i I� A9 �, �,j I �! J.! Iq 1 hh IS 1 J :l0ICI :l!l ivi K e l I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 II. PDR PROGRAM OBJECTIVE AND PRINCIPLES....................................................2 III. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA............................................................................................4 IV. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA....................................................................................5 V. OVERVIEW OF PDR PROGRAM PROCEDURES..................................................10 VI. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS............................................................................13 VII. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES FOR ACQUIRING CONSERVATION EASEMENTS................................................................................................................15 Vlll. CONSERVATION FUTURES FUND.....................................................................21 APPENDIXA.................................................................................................................23 Revised and adopted 12-03 10 I. INTRODUCTION These Program Guidelines are authorized under WCC Title 3.25A and serve as rules and procedures for administering the Whatcom County Agricultural Purchase of Development Rights Program. The Guidelines serve two functions: A. To provide an overview of the farmland preservation process for the property owner. Specifically, this information can be found in Section V. B. To establish the rules and operational procedures that the PDR Oversight Committee and the Administrator must follow when operating a Purchase of Development Rights program. 11 II, PDR PROGRAM OBJECTIVE AND PRINCIPLES Responding to the loss of County farmland, Whatcom County Executive initiated the development of a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program in September of 2001. A PDR Advisory Committee comprised of farmers, citizens and conservation organizations were instructed to assist County staff in developing a proposal for County Council consideration. A. Objective In conjunction with other tools for protecting farmland, the Whatcom County Purchase of Development Rights Program will contribute to sustaining the farming enterprise in Whatcom County. B. Principles The PDR Program is to provide a strategic tool to protect critically located County farmland. 1. Contribute to the Preservation of the County's Agricultural Land Base Encourage the retention of a critical mass of agricultural land to sustain the farm -related businesses and activities that are necessary to support the agricultural industry in Whatcom County. The PDR Program emphasis will be: a. Provide a buffer to encroachment of.the agricultural core; b. Consolidate and protect large areas of agricultural land; and C. Address unique and regionally important farming activities outside the agricultural core that are under pressure of development. 2. Develop Effective Program Design Create a voluntary tool for the preservation of productive agricultural land in the County that will: a. Provide farmers with the market based economic value for agricultural land without selling the land; b. Support and promote ongoing agricultural activity by offering an attractive option for farmers and landowners; and C. Provide for ongoing monitoring and enforcement. 2 12 3. Leverage Program Impact and Efficiency Enhance and support a coordinated approach to the preservation of the agricultural land that will: a. Create community support for agricultural preservation initiatives; b. Complement and foster other County programs and policies to preserve farming and agricultural lands; and C. Leverage other public and private fund sources and provide or increase property owner incentives. 3 13 III. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA A. PDR Target Areas Twelve target areas have been identified to receive priority consideration for PDR Program participation. These priority farmlands are located within designated areas of Everson, Beard Road, Ten Mile Road, east Hemmi Road, Laurel, south Custer, north Custer, Stein Road, west Lynden, north Lynden and northeast Lynden, as shown in Appendix A. Preservation of these areas can establish a perimeter of PDR farmlands against development encroachment into large blocks of agricultural lands. B. PDR Program Eligibility Applications for PDR acquisition will be limited to the twelve PDR target areas during the first two selection rounds (over a period of 1 year to 18 months), Following the completion of two rounds, the eligibility criteria will be reviewed to determine whether to purchase land outside the target areas. Two factors will be important in this decision: 1. Availability of funding to expand -the program and 2. Advancement of PDR Program objectives. PDR target areas will continue to receive preference over other farmland through weighted selection criteria. All applicants for PDR Program participation must be within an Agriculture or Rural zoning designation. Properties located in Urban Growth -Areas are ineligible to participate in the program. 4 14 IV. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA All valid applications will be reviewed to determine if the acquisition of development rights will promote the PDR program's goals and priorities. Selection criteria have been developed to guide, but not control, the review and assessment of eligible properties during each selection round. The selection criteria allows up to 120 points. In all selection rounds, valid and accepted offers on eligible properties of greater points shall be considered for purchase with available funds before properties receiving lower scores. The criteria, which will be used to evaluate the applications, are as follows: A. Enlarges or Buffers Preserved Farmland - 30 Points Does farmland provide or enlarge a buffer between farmland and other uses? Priority will be given to farmland providing the largest or contiguous buffers, which help protect the integrity of the farm and farmland area from conflicting non-agricultural use. Maximum Points 6 pts 1. Farmland buffers other agricultural land from direct development pressure. 4 pts 2. Property size greater than or equal to 20 nominal acres. 8 pts 3. Land adjacent to existing farmland conserved by a public property interest or farmland proposed for conservation. a. Adjacent 8 pts b. Within '/4 mile 4-7 pts 6 pts 4. Total size of parcel(s) (nominal acres). a. 40-50 1 pt b. >50-60 2 pts c. >60-80 3 pts d. >80-100 4 pts e. >100-120 5 pts f. >120 6 pts 5 15 6 pts 5. Number of existing development rights offered under current zoning by the applicant for acquisition. a. 1-2 1 pt b. 3 2 pts c. 4 3 pts d. 5 4 pts e. 6 5 pts f. >=7 6 pts B. Long -Term Resource Value - 15 Points To obtain points for long-term resource value, the application should provide information on the farmland's long-term resource value. Evidence of long-term resource value may include, but is not limited to, characteristics such as: 1. Existing infrastructure (i.e. irrigation, drain tile, maintained ditches, electricity, etc.). 1-3 pts 2. Percent of prime soil. 1 pt 3. Percent of parcel farmable. 1-2 pts 4. Active farming. 1 pt 5. Farm conservation plan. 1 pt 6. High (berries, tree fruit, nuts), medium (dairy), low (beef) productivity. 1-3 pts 7. Water rights. 1 pt 8. Other. 1-3 pts 0 16 C. Threat of Conversion - 28 Points Is the farmland threatened by immediate conversion or potential development? 8 pts 1. Potential sale/Platted lots. a. 1 lot 1 pt b. 2 lots 2 pts G. 3 lots 3 pts d. 4 lots 4 pts e. 5 lots 5 pts f. 6 lots 6 pts g. 7 lots 7 pts h. 8 lots or more 8 pts 5 pts 2. Proximity to more intensive uses (e.g. Laurel). (Presumably if a parcel is >75% surrounded by more intensive uses, it is an island and has less benefit to the program). a. >50%-75% 1 pt b. >25%-50% 3 pts G. <25% 5 pts 8 pts 3. Proximity to UGA, incorporated city limits, or rural. Ag zone Rural zone City/UGA Rural Ad'acent 8 4 Within '/ mile 2 2 Citv/UGA Aa Ad'acent 8 8 Within '/4 mile 6 4 7 pts 4. Proximity to high traffic roads. (See attached list) a. Fronts a high traffic road 7 pts b. Within Y4 mile of a high traffic road 4-6 pts C. Within >'/4 to'/2 mile of a high traffic road 1-3 pts 7 17 D. Bargain Sale/Opportunities to Leverage Funds - 15 Points A discounted price or other fund sources allow the County acquisition of development rights at less than full market value: 1. 50% or less of full value. 2. 50% to 65% of full value. 3. 65% to 80% of full value. E. Special Considerations - 12 pts The farmland contains site specific characteristics not included above. 1. Heritage/historical significance. 2 pts 2. The parcel sustains or has the potential to sustain crops with unique soil requirements. 2 pts 3. Farming activity is regionally significant (dairy, raspberries, seed potatoes). 2 pts 4. Multiple conservation values (e.g. viewshed, creeks). 2 pts 5. Multiple conservation values (e.g. public viewshed, creeks). 2 pts 6. Other. F. Bonus Points - 20 pts Within the designated target area, PDR participation by one or more applicants will result in the preservation of a significant amount of the farmland preserved in the target area. 1. 90% or more farmland preserved. 2. 75 to < 90% of farmland preserved. 3. 60 to <75% of farmland preserved. 4. 50 to < 60% of farmland preserved. 8 18 List of High Traffic Roads* State Highway or Major Collector -Rural (as defined by Whatcom County Engineering). State Highway: Guide Meridian Road East Badger Road East Pole Road A. Grandview Road Blaine Road Major Collector -Rural: East Axton Road West Axton Road Birch -Bay Lynden Road Hannegan Road East Smith Road West Smith Road West Badger Road Portal Way Enterprise Road North Enterprise Road West Pole Road Haynie Road Sunrise Road Northwest Drive Vista Drive Hovander Road Mountain View Road Rainbow Road Kickerville Road (part) Lake Terrell Road Everson Goshen Road Hampton Road Van Buren Road H Street Road Sweet Road * This is not a complete list. However, it includes most roads that would apply to the PDR Program. 19 V. OVERVIEW OF PDR PROGRAM PROCEDURES A. Selection Round Announcement Step 1: The County shall begin each selection round by giving notice in one newspaper of general circulation in eacharea where eligible lands are located which may be acquired. The notice shall include the properties eligible to participate in that selection round, the application process and applicable timeframes and extensions. The Administrator may identify each property with potential development rights within the twelve target areas and provide written notification to the property owners. B. Application and Ranking Step 2: Voluntary pre -application screening. Interested property owners may meet with the County PDR Program Administrator (Administrator) to review their eligibility and special circumstances, if any. Step 3: Application. An owner of land eligible for PDR Program participation submits and application for County acquisition of development rights. The application must be submitted on the form provided by the County, on or before the closing of the selection round. Step 4: The Administrator reviews each application for completeness, determines if the subject property meets minimum eligibility criteria and assigns a preliminary score based upon the PDR site selection criteria. Step 5: Upon closing of the selection round, the PDR Oversight Committee reviews PDR Program applications and prioritizes proposed development rights acquisition utilizing the selection criteria. Recommendations for development right acquisition are prepared and forwarded to County Council to approve, deny, or recommend modification. Step 6: County Council confirms, denies or modifies the ordered list of parcels for PDR acquisition and forwards the list to the Administrator for action. Step 7: The Administrator estimates the number of appraisals that can be initiated based on available funds and chooses the top ranked parcels from the County Council's list of parcels. The property owner is notified in writing of eligibility status. 10 20 Step 8: Property owners disputing their ranking may request a reconsideration of their ranking to the PDR Oversight Committee within 14 days after receiving written notice. The Committee shall review the reconsideration request at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Special consideration will be given if applicant modifies the original offer to include a bargain sale. The PDR Oversight Committee may, at its discretion, change the site's rank, recommend the site for subsequent selection rounds, or deny the request. C. Title Step 9: The Administrator initiates a title search. Closing is conditioned on the resolution of all unapproved title exceptions, within the County's sole discretion, which may require the receipt of subordination agreements or payoff letter. D. Negotiation and Appraisal Step 10: The Administrator or designee initiates the informal negotiation process with the property owner. At this time, the property owner may indicate a minimum expected value. However, the application may be denied if the administrator and the Oversight Committee determine the minimum value to be unsupportable. Step 11: The Administrator commissions an appraisal by a County authorized appraiser to appraise the development rights value of the land proposed for development rights sale. The development rights value is the difference between the market value of full ownership of the land excluding buildings, and the agricultural value. Step 12: The appraiser submits the completed appraisal to the Administrator and the Oversight Committee for their review. Step 13: The Administrator or designee meets with the property owner to review the appraisal, state the offer, review the conservation easement provisions, agreement terms and conditions, and to answer the property owner's questions. Step 14: If the property owner believes that the farmland has not been adequately appraised, the owner may, within the time allowed in the selection round schedule, commission an appraisal at the owner's expense. E. Offer to Purchase Easement and Agreement Step 15: A written offer to purchase development rights based on appraised value is made to the property owner following approval by the County Council. Step 16: Within 30 days, the property owner accepts, rejects or makes a counter offer. Counter offers will be reviewed and evaluated by the Oversight Committee and the County's authorized appraiser. 11 21 Step 17: Property owners desiring to sell their development rights sign a Purchase and Sale Agreement. F. Adjacent Property Owner Notification Step 18: Neighboring property owners are notified that adjacent land is in the process of being preserved. G. Approval Step 19: Review materials are presented to County Council for their review and approval, rejection, or recommendation for modification. Step 20: Review materials are, sent to other participating entities for partially or wholly funded conservation easements several days prior to any deadline.. I. Settlement Step 21: Settlement will occur following County Council approval of transaction terms and is contingent upon a title search and any other evidence, such as a land survey, that may be necessary to establish clear title. Step 22: Payment will be in full at time of settlement unless the County and property owner agree to an installment sale. Step 23: Checks are requested from the Finance Manager and settlement is scheduled within a week or two of approval. Federal money is dispersed according to federal regulation. J. Recording Step 24: The conservation easement will be recorded at the County Auditor's office. The County or its designee will monitor the properties under easement at least annually to ensure compliance with the easement. 12 22 VI. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS A. Description A conservation easement is a legally binding document, which is recorded by the County Auditor, forever restricting the property to agricultural and directly associated uses, and for which compensation may be paid. As an easement in gross in perpetuity, restrictions are binding upon the owner and future owners, and run with the land. B. PDR Program Conservation Easements At the time of acquisition of development rights from a participating property, a conservation easement is placed on the property permanently restricting development of the site and protecting/preserving the agricultural values associated with the site. The conservation easement must be signed by both the property owner(s) and the County Executive or his/her designee and recorded with the property records for the property. 1. Conservation Easement Requirements Conservation easements shall be on a foram approved by the Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney and shall meet the following basic requirements: a. The deed shall be in recordable form and contain an accurate legal description setting forth the metes and bounds of the farmland area subject to the easement (See Appendix B); b. Restriction is granted in favor of Whatcom County, or if designated by the organizations as defined in RCW64.04.130; G. Restriction is granted in perpetuity, and shall bind existing and future property owners; and d. Unless specifically provided for, nothing in the restrictions shall be construed to convey to the public a right of access or use of the property, and the owner of the property, his/her heirs, successors and assigns shall retain exclusive right to such access or use subject to the terms of the easement. 2. Filing After the conservation easement is signed and notarized, it must be recorded with the Whatcom County Auditor's Office. 13 23 C. Conservation Easement Conveyance Conservation easements may be either donated or sold, or a combination of both. Conservation Easement Donation a. A donation of a total parcel will not be subject to eligibility except as below in section c. Partial parcel donation shall be considered under the same rule as for development rights sales. Notwithstanding the eligibility of the property, acceptance of a fee interest or partial donation is within the discretion of the County Council. b. Whatcom County will accept voluntary donations or bequests of agricultural development rights as perpetual easements in gross if meeting eligibility criteria (except target area criteria) and within the discretion of the County Council. C. All properties offered for development rights donation must meet the following minimum eligibility criteria: 1. The PDR Oversight Committee will consider each offer on a case by -case basis, considering the property's consistency with current and future land uses, and 2. The farm property must be at least 10 acres in size, and 3. Be in agricultural use or has not been irrevocably devoted to a use inconsistent with agricultural uses, and that has a high potential for returning to commercial agriculture, and 4. Consist primarily of productive agricultural soils (APO soils) and, 5. Cannot be located within an Urban Growth Area. 2. Conservation Easement Sale a. Whatcom County will purchase perpetual conservation easements on qualified properties in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Whatcom County Agricultural Purchase of Development Rights Program, with Federal, State, County, and/or private funds and any combination thereof. b. All properties offered for conservation easement sale must meet minimum eligibility criteria as contained in Section III. 94 24 VII. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES FOR ACQUIRING CONSERVATION EASEMENTS A. Selection Schedule In the first and second selection rounds, eligible farmland within the twelve target areas shall be eligible for purchase. Following the first two selection rounds, the County Council will be determine whether other County farmland will be eligible to participate in the PDR Program. (See Section III A&B). B. Selection Round Announcement Each selection round shall begin by providing notice in one newspaper of general circulation. Application opening and closing dates will be determined by the PDR Oversight Committee. The Committee shall have the discretion to extend selection round deadlines and will provide public notice of the extension. C. Application and Ranking Property owner(s) voluntarily submits an application(s) to the County during a publicized open selection round. The application must be submitted to the County on the form provided by the PDR Program on or before the closing date stated in the relevant selection round notice. Applicants are to include at a minimum: a. Name(s) and address(es) of the property owner(s) of the site; b. Legal description and parcel number(s); C. Copy of the property deed and title; d. Total acreage of farmland to be included in the PDR Program; e. Current land use and APO soils; f. Number of dwelling units; g. Description of the farming operation; h. Other information necessary to evaluate property eligibility; and i. Acknowledgement of intent to grant to Whatcom County a conservation easement in a form provided by the County. 2. The Administrator shall review each application to determine completeness and eligibility. 3. Ulpon closing of the application period, applications meeting all minimum eligibility criteria shall be evaluated and scored by the administrator and Oversight Committee according to the site selection criteria. (See Section 11n 15 25 4. The PDR Oversight Committee shall provide the County Council with a recommended list, ranking all eligible applications for acquisition during the selection round. County Council shall make the final prioritization of the parcels. 5. The Administrator shall then arrange appraisals of eligible farmland applicants in the priority order determined by the County Council. D. Appraisal Appraisals for eligible properties shall be conducted to determine the value of development rights of parcels in the order of its acquisition priority until acquisition funds are expended in the selection round. The appraisals are to be made by an independent appraiser qualified to appraise agricultural land for development rights purchases. An appraiser is deemed qualified if he or she possesses a State of Washington certification as a State Certified General Real appraiser, MAI designation by the Appraisal Institute (or equivalent), and at least five years agricultural lands appraisal experience. Appraisers shall supply a narrative or UAAR form report, which contains information as required by the Uniform Stapdards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and as specified in any contract with the County. 2. An appraisal report is an objective report of market facts. The appraisal report must estimate both the unrestricted fee market value of the land only, excluding the value of buildings, and the agricultural value of the land only, of which the difference is the development rights value. 3. Both values shall be based primarily on an analysis of comparable sales. If comparable sales data is not available for agricultural lands, the appraiser may use local farmland rental values or capitalized production values to determine the agricultural values of the land. 4. A description of the buildings or other improvements shall appear in the appraisal report; however, the buildings will not be valued and therefore will not be considered in determining the development rights value. 5. The appraiser shall report whether the subject property has any land use restrictions, public or private and/or physical attributes, which limit the developmental capability of the land. 6. The appraiser shall be advised that conservation easements are perpetual. The perpetual nature of the easement shall take precedent over any agricultural zoning status. 16 26 7. The appraisal shall be in writing and may be discussed with the owners prior to the submission of written offers. S. If the property owner believes the property has not been adequately appraised, the owner may, within the time allowed in the selection round schedule, request that a review appraisal be made at the owner's expense. This appraisal must be completed in accordance with the guidelines set forth herein. If the review (owner's) appraisal is not completed within the allotted time, the application will be delayed to the following selection round. If a review appraisal is completed, the appraisals will ' be reviewed by the County's Appraiser. The County's Appraiser in consultation with the Program Administrator and the PDR Oversight Committee will accept, modify or reject the review appraisal. The determination of the County's Appraiser is final. 9. The maximum value of development rights purchased by the County shall be no more than the easement value contained in an appraisal report. The easement value is the difference between the farmland's market value and its agricultural value. E. Title and Survey Issues The Administrator shall request a title report confirming that applicant is the owner of the property and has unrestricted legal right to transfer the development rights (i.e. there must be clear title to transfer the property). The title report will be provided to the County Attorney for review. 2. All encumbrances (including but not limited to: liens, mortgages and judgments) against the property must be subordinated, satisfied or removed prior to development rights acquisition. Mortgage and/or lien holder subordination and releases may be required acknowledging that a conservation easement will be placed on the property and subordinating their interest in the property to the deed restriction. 3. At settlement for a County or joint development rights purchase, the PDR Oversight Committee shall provide a title insurance policy issued by a title insurance company authorized to conduct business in Washington State by the Washington State Office of Insurance Commissioner. The cost of such title insurance shall be a cost incident to the development rights purchase and is a reimbursable expense from the County's Conservation Futures Fund. 4. It is the property owner's responsibility to survey (or provide a legal description that meets specific standards) any exceptions from the easement and any graveyards or cellular towers that may be located on the property. It is the property owner's responsibility to provide a legal 17 27 F G. description for any commercial operation on the farm that is not incidental to the overall farming operation, in order to exclude it from the easement. Surveys shall be conducted by a licensed surveyor in accordance with state and federal regulations. Development Rights Value and Purchase Price The maximum value of development rights purchased by the County shall be no more than the easement value contained in an appraisal report. The easement value is the difference between the farmland's market value and its agricultural value. 2. Development rights may only be purchased in perpetuity. Recommendation of Development Rights Purchases by the PDR Oversight Committee The PDR Oversight Committee, in making recommendations concerning applications and purchase offers, shall consider the following: a. Evaluation according to the site selection criteria. b. Consistency with County Comprehensive Plan (Rural and Agriculture zoning designations). C. Cost relative to total allocations and appropriations. d. Proximity to other land subject to agricultural protection easements. 2. Upon receiving the recommendations of the PDR Oversight Committee and the Administrator, the County Council shall review the recommendations and shall take final action to authorize or deny proposed purchase terms and offers. 3. If a farm is approved for development will meet with the property owner and amount of the County's offer. A writ property owner. Written notice shall approved for development rights pur& round. rights purchase, the Administrator review the terms, conditions and en offer will be provided to the also be provided to farmland not ase during the current application 18 28 4. Within 30 days of receipt of a written offer from the County an applicant must indicate in writing which of the following actions they intend to pursue: a. Accept the offer. b. Reject the offer. I . Reject offer outright a. no further action b. participate in next round 2. Submit a counter offer within 90 days of written notice of offer by the County. C. Failure to notify the County within 30 days shall constitute rejection of the offer. 5. If the offer is accepted, the Administrator shall prepare a Purchase and Sale agreement. USDA Funds must be paid as lump sum. The method of payment shall be specified from the options listed below: a. Lump Sum b. Installment Purchase Agreement (IPA) C. Like -Kind Exchange d. Or a combination of the above 6. For development rights purchase utilizing the Installment Purchase Agreement (IPA) program, the County Council at settlement shall provide an opinion of legal counsel that the County's obligations to make installment payments of principal and tax-exempt interest over time are legal, valid, and binding. And that such payments are a general obligation of the County for which its full faith, credit, and taxing power are pledged. Interest paid by the County is exempt from federal income taxes. 7. All Agreements of Sale and Conservation Easements require the County Council's approval. H. Grant of the Agricultural Protection Conservation Easement Before the purchase of development rights can be finalized, a conservation easement in a form approved by the County Attorney and consistent with the policies of the PDR Program guidelines, must be placed on the property permanently restricting development of the site and preserving its agricultural values. 19 29 The principal interest of the County is to ensure that agricultural lands are preserved and subsequently stewarded in a manner that maintains and enhances their farmland values. There may be some instances where there is a public interest in another public entity or non-profit organization to hold the conservation easement, for continued stewardship and protection of the land. The County will consider: The preferences of the donor or seller; 2. Administrative, monitoring, and enforcement issues associated with the conservation easement and the resources available to address these issues; 3. Requirement of Federal, State or County funding sources utilized to purchase development rights. Development Rights Purchase Recommendations/Submission Requirements County Council: Each recommendation for development rights purchases with County funds, State funds, Federal funds or a combination of funds shall be presented to the County Council at a regularly scheduled public meeting. 2. Letters of Notification: Letters of notification for development rights purchases will be sent to adjoining property owners by the Administrator. 3. All eligible applications not selected for PDR Program participation may choose to be reviewed during the next application round or withdrawn. Within 30 days following receipt of written notice from the county, the property owner must notify the administrator in writing requesting review in the next selection round. 20 30 VIII. CONSERVATION FUTURES FUND A. I ntent This fund was established in 1992 to be used solely to acquire right and interests in open space land, farm and agricultural land, and timber land, so as to protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, limit the future use of, or otherwise conserve the property for public use and enjoyment. B. Fund Sources This Conservation Futures Fund is funded by a real property tax applied to all real property within Whatcom County at a rate of six and one -quarter cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation. C. Fund Source Accounts Council shall annually consider an allocation of Conservation Futures Fund to be placed in a Purchase of Development Rights Account. D. Installment Payment Fund 1. The intent of installment payment funds, which are established by the County, is to encumber and invest committed funds for which recipient property owners have elected annual installment payments for a period, which may very according to the wishes of the property owner. 2. The full consideration of any transaction for which installment payments of five years or less have been elected shall be placed in the fund, less the amount of any first installment to be paid at settlement. This amount shall be invested and annual installment payments shall include the interest accrued. 3. Annual installment payments shall be made on or before January 20th of each year. 4. A property owner may enter into an installment Purchase Agreement for fifteen (15) to thirty (30) years at an interest rate to be negotiated between the property owner and the County. The property owner will receive semi- annual interest payments that are tax exempt. Principal will be paid in one lump sum at the end of term. The property owner will also receive a security representing the Installment Purchase Agreement. The property owner may sell or assign this Agreement. 21 31 E. Public Expenditures 1. All public expenditures from the Conservation Futures Fund are subject to approval by Whatcom County Council and will be made in accordance with approved disbursement procedures. 2. Expenditures from the PDR Program Account shall be limited to interests in qualified agricultural land participating in Whatcom County's Agricultural Purchase of Development Rights Program. 3. The annual appropriation to the PDR Program by the County Council shall be available for the calendar year in which the appropriation was made and or the subsequent calendar year. 22 32 APPENDIX A Target Areas Ar • Northaast , an INN Ten Mile Rd. . �J �� •� . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 33 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-302 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office A enda Date Assigned to. - Originator: �P u J V L 0 3 2606 W'HATCOM COUNT 7/11/2006 Introducti Division Nead. Dept. Head: I5 Prosecutor: Purchasirr Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Zon2006-00001, Mushroom Substrate. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance, Planning Commission Motion, Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes. SEPA review required? ( x ) Yes ( ) Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes (X ) NO NO Requested Date: SEPA review completed? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO SUMMAR YSTA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public (rearing, 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.) Application for a text amendment adding a new chapter of Whatcom County Code 20.20.15 (Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities Siting Requirements) to: 1. Require applications for mushroom substrate facilities to be processed as administrative or conditional use permits, 2. Restrict new mushroom substrate production facilities to Heavy Impact Industrial (WCC 20.68), Commercial Forestry (WCC 20.43) and Agriculture (WCC 20.40), 3. Require new mushroom substrate production facilities to comply with buffering and setbacks, 4. Establishes commercial and on farm mushroom production facilities definitions. This ordinance is a companion ordinance to the Health Code — WCC 24 .I2, which addresses design, operation and performance requirements of mushroom substrate production facilities. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNC LACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing andprinting on the Coun 's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/counciG Dn 34 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE # AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 20.15- MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION FACILITIES SITING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 20.40 — AGRICULTURE DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 20.68 — HEAVY IMPACT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, On July 12, 2005, Whatcom County passed Ordinance No. 2005- 057, which added a new chapter to Title 20, the Zoning Code, entitled, Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities: and WHEREAS, On August 1, 2005, the Ostrom Company, owner of a mushroom farm near Everson, Washington, filed a Petition for Review with the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB); and WHEREAS, The Petition for Review alleged that Ordinance 2005-057 - Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities was not in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and plan policies or with the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, A Hearing on the Merits of the Ostrom Petition for Review was held before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board on January 4, 2006; and WHEREAS, A final decision was issued by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board on February 14, 2006; and WHEREAS, The WWGMHB found Ordinance 2005-057 out of compliance with the Growth Management Act and ordered Whatcom County to bring the regulation into compliance with the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to WCC 20.90, proposed zoning text amendments shall be considered; and WHEREAS, A determination of non -significance was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on May 9, 2006; and -1- 35 WHEREAS, Legal notice was published in the Bellingham Herald on, May 11, 2006; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on May 25, 2006, and considered all testimony; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission continued deliberations and made amendments to the proposed text and recommended approval as amended on June 8,2006. The Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendment was published in the Bellingham Herald on May 11, 2006.The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment on May 25, 2006. 2. A determination of non -significance was issued on May 9, 2006, under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 3. Odors from mushroom substrate production have been determined to be an impact to public health. The Whatcom County Board of Health has adopted WCC 24.12 — Mushroom Substrate Production Rules in October of 2004. These rules provide performance, design and operational requirements to provide community protection from the potential adverse affects of mushroom substrate production (Ord No. 2004-054). 4. A companion ordinance to the Mushroom Substrate Production Rules as contained in WCC 24.12 was adopted by County Council July 2005. Ordinance 2005-057 added a new chapter to the zoning ordinance (WCC 20.15 — Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities) and provided locational regulations (zoning district, buffers and setbacks) as well as distinguished two types of mushroom substrate production facilities — commercial and on -farm. 5. On August 1, 2005, the Ostrom Company, owner of a mushroom farm near Everson, Washington, filed a Petition for Review with the Western Growth Management Hearings Board. The Petition for Review alleged that Ordinance 2005-057 - Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities is not in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and plan policies nor with the Growth Management Act. Simultaneously with the Hearings Board Petition for Review, Ostrom's filed a lawsuit in Skagit County Superior Court challenging the legality of both Ordinance 2005-057 and 2004-054. -2 36 6. On October 17, 2005, Whatcom County filed a motion to dismiss several of the claims made in Ostrom's Superior Court Petition. After a hearing held on October 28, 2005 at which several claims were dismissed, the Superior Court case was held in abeyance pending resolution of the Growth Management Hearings Board's determination on Whatcom County's compliance with Growth Management Act requirements. 7. A Hearing on the Merits of the Ostrom's Petition for Review was held before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) on January 4, 2006. 8. A Final Decision and Order was issued by the WGMHB on February 14, 2006 which concluded that Ordinance No. 2005-057, now WCC 20.15 — Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities, fails to comply with RCW 36.70A.060(1), 36.70A.040(3), and 36.70A.020(8). "Adopted development regulations that restrict agricultural activity on designated agricultural resource lands to reconcile agricultural activity with residential and other uses on adjacent lands do not comply with the GMA" Final Decision and Order, Case No. 05-2-0017 at 30. 9. Whatcom County is required to bring Ordinance 2005-057 into compliance with the Growth Management Act within 120 days of the decision date. Compliance is due by June 13, 2006. 70. RCW36.70A.060(1) requires that regulations applied to resource lands "assure that the use of lands adjacent to agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands shall not interfere with the continued use, in the accustomed manner and in accordance with best management practices, of these designated lands for the production of food, agricultural products, or timer, or for the extraction of minerals". As interpreted by the WWGMHB in its Final Decision and Order, Case No. 05-2-0017, this means that additional regulations that are not based on implementing best management practices are not legitimate local government actions and are not consistent with the GMA. 11. Removal of on -farm mushroom substrate production facilities from the requirements of WCC 20.15 -- Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities, incorporating a provision for on -farm mushroom substrate production facilities as an accessory use in the agricultural district, and removing the yardage limitation included in the definition for on -farm mushroom substrate production facilities addresses the issues identified in the WWGMHB Final Decision and Order, Case No. 05-2-0017. -3- 37 CONCLUSIONS The proposed amendment is consistent with Growth Management Act, County Wide Planning Policies, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Final Decision and Order pertaining to Case No. 05-2-0017.. 2. The proposed amendment complies with the approval criteria for amendments as stipulated in WCC 20.90. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance, Title 20, is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. Section 2. 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 park thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. ADOPTED this day of , 2006 ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPR VED as to for Civil Deputy Prosecutor WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Chairperson ( ) Approved () Denied Pete Kremen, Executive Date: IN 1 EXHIBIT A 2 3 4 Chapter 20.15 5 COMMERCIAL MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION 6 FACILITIES 7 Sections: 8 20.15.010 Purpose. 9 20.15.020 Definitions. 10 20.15.030 Applicability. 11 20.15.040 Nonconforming uses and structures. 12 20.15.050 Permits and zoning. 13 20.15.060 Prohibited locations. 14 20.15.065 Prohibited operations. 15 20.15.070 Buffer and setback requirements. 16 20.15.080 Design, development, and operational requirements. 17 20.15.090 Reserved. 18 20.15.100 Reserved. 19 20.15.110 Compliance with land use permit. 20 20.15.120 Permit submittal requirements. 21 20.15.130 Criteria for issuance of land use permit. 22 20.15.140 Reserved. 23 20.15.150 Reserved. 24 20.15.160 Closure of facility. 25 20.15.170 Appeals. 26 20.15.180 Severability. 27 20.15.010 Purpose. 28 The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures and 29 limitations governing the placement and permitting of a4 30 commercial mushroom substrate production facilities. 31 The intent of these regulatiens is to ensure that these farilities are 32 leoated in a manner that nretentS the nounty's natUFal resoi goes , 33 r`e serves nroduGtive anrioi, soils and minimizes adverse UFal 34 human and enviFenmental impacts narthG llarhl neyieus emissions 35 asSGGiated with mUshroom substrate nrorli Gtion eperntiens 36 The production of mushroom substrate is a manufacturing activity 37 which is not dependent upon agricultural or any other soils. To 38 conserve those agricultural soils, commercial mushroom substrate 39 production facilities are not permitted on agricultural lands should 40 41 39 1 In addition, commercial mushroom substrate production facilities 2 should not be located contiguous to areas that have or are 3 expected to have residential development at rural or urban 4 densities. Gnmmerelal mi shmem i bStrate Prod Uetien faoilitie 5 should not be IGGated e-rYesv��rnurGe lands 6 Where applicable, the permit review, approval process, and 7 oversight of the operation shall be coordinated with the Whatcom 8 County health department. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 9 20.15.020 Definitions. 10 (1) "Active area" means any part of a facility -where mushroom 11 substrate production activities are conducted, including but not 12 limited to related areas of feedstock (only excluding straw) storage, 13 leachate and emission collection and treatment devices, and 14 impervious surfaces. 15 (2) "Commercial mushroom substrate production facility" means a 16 facility producing any mushroom substrate for off -site export,. Gr-a 17 faGility With 30,000 ira000 ear mere �+gUaFo fond of. nnFi• nr an. n_ 18 farm rvmushmern substrate PreduGtien facility with a traying volume 19 of 3,260 OF mere c hie yard per month. 20 (3) "Expansion," as it pertains to facilities existing at the effective 21 date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, means an increase in 22 monthly mushroom substrate production over the average 23 production of the three months prior to the effective date of the 24 ordinance codified in this chapter. 25 (4) "Facility" means all contiguous land (including buffers and 26 setbacks) and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements 27 on the land. 28 (5) "Finished substrate" means substrate that has completed the 29 fermentation process and is ready for pasteurization. 30 (6) "Mushroom substrate" means a highly specific, nutrient -rich 31 product prepared from selective organic and inorganic material for 32 the purpose of cultivating mushrooms. 33 (7) "Mushroom substrate production" means any stage of a process 34 where the ingredients necessary for the production of mushroom 35 substrate are assembled, blended, stored or fermented. 6 40 1 (8) "Mushroom substrate production facilities" means "commercial 2 mushroom substrate production facilities" and/or "on -farm 3 mushroom substrate production facilities." 4 (9) "On -farm mushroom substrate production facility" means a facility 5 producing mushroom substrate which is used exclusively on the same 6 parcel or adjoining parcels to grow and harvest mushrooms in compliance 7 with best management practices. Limited off -site shipment may be 8 allowed if such shipment is conducted as authorized under WCC 9 24.12.060(2)(a)(iy). 10 7_ as less an hthan30,000 square foot of ao+iye area and has a fraying , 11 volume of lass than 3,250 nwbio yards per month. 12 (1-0) �"T rayin g v ,L,me" moaTsrtthe volume, eXrrassn d-i1;-sems 13 yaFds nor mo th of mushroom SUbStrates nroei„oord on site ane•d th in , 14 consumed en site by gr.-.uein- shse all mushrooms Anunfinished rd 15 mushroom substrate reGeivohe nonsiderord as nror+luned an 16 s#e-. 17 (44 10) "Well head protection area" means the area (surface and 18 subsurface), designated by the Whatcom County health 19 department, managed to protect ground water based public water 20 supplies. 21 (42 11) "Unfinished substrate" means feedstock that has been pre- 22 wet, but is not yet finished substrate. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 23 20.15.030 Applicability. 24 The requirements of this chapter shall apply to new commercial 25 mushroom substrate production facilities and to the expansion of 26 existing commercial mushroom substrate production facilities. (Ord. 27 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 28 29 20.15.040 Nonconforminq uses and structures. 30 Commercial M-mushroom substrate production facilities in 31 operation as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this 32 chapter, including vested applications for such facilities, that do not 33 conform to the requirements of this chapter are hereby declared 34 nonconforming uses and shall be subject to the provisions of 35 Chapter 20.83 WCC governing nonconforming uses. Any 36 determination made under Chapter 20.83 WCC shall be governed 37 by the definition of expansion in WCC 20.15.020(3) and all 38 applicable requirements of this chapter; provided, that in the event i] 41 1 of any conflict between provisions, the more stringent standard 2 shall apply. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 3 20.15.050 Permits and zoning. 4 All new facilities and facility expansions shall be located and 5 permitted according to the following tables. n 7 (1) Commercial mushroom substrate production facility: Permitted Use Administrative Use Conditional Use HII E:1 .. rmmm ■ r+a—�eM......................`.�a.aa-a��-sr i.iis-risi�a�s-i-.u.�� Perm Mad I Icon - M AG I 10 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 11 20.15.060 Prohibited locations. 12 When reviewing applications for new commercial mushroom 13 substrate production facilities, the approving authority shall not 14 locate mushroom substrate production facilities in the Water 15 Resource Protection Overlay District, Stormwater Special Districts, 16 the Recreation and Open Space District, wellhead protection areas, 17 nor within the 100-year floodplain. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). • .. 1 finished off All rnushFeem OF HRfinished mushroom subStFate site. 22 be PFehibited. (Ord. 00a 0■ 23 20.15.070 Buffer and setback requirements. 24 (1) The commercial substrate production facility's active area shall 25 meet the following minimum buffer requirements: E:3 IA 1 (a) Two thousand six hundred forty feet from the following zoning 2 districts: Urban Residential, Rural Residential, Residential -Island, 3 Rural, Commercial, Gateway Industrial, Light Impact Industrial, 4 Point Roberts Special District, and Point Roberts Transitional 5 Zoning. 6 (b) One thousand feet from parcels located in the Rural Forestry 7 district. 8 The minimum lq offer req iirements may he increased for substrate 9 p 9d_H6tionfanili}ins pmpesed fOr the AnrinAUFal zoning dic}rin} 10 ran he demonstrated that suGh additional buffer is regUiFed to 11 mitigate adimnants An -nearby land uses. 12 (2) The facility's active area shall meet the following minimum 13 setback requirements: 14 (a) Six hundred sivty feet from nronedv linos far an en_farm 15 m h eo H19 +rate nrnduntinn faGility. 16 (5 a) One thousand feet from property lines_ 17 mushroom substrate nrodUGtiGn facility. The minimum 1,000-foot 18 setback requirement may be reduced or eliminated for substrate 19 production facilities proposed for the HII zoning district if it can be 20 demonstrated that such additional setback is not required to 21 mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. 22 (3) Where applicable, the facility shall provide buffers in accordance 23 with the Whatcom County critical areas ordinance. 24 25 mi ishrGnm substrate nrrmduGtien facilities that title, Og_farm 26 27 setback requirements if it Gan he demonstrated that suc;h additional 28 b iffer setbaGL is not to mitigate adverse imnaots on OF required 29 adjacent land ruses and if the Griteria established in, VGQ_ __.R_4_4` G 30 hati-�i-ve hecr; 6airssfied. 31 (5 4) The facility shall be designed to include any other conditions 32 determined necessary during the review process. (Ord. 2005-057 33 Exh. A, 2005). 34 20.15.080 Design, development, and operational requirements. 35 New commercial mushroom substrate production facilities and the 36 expansion of existing commercial mushroom substrate production 7 43 1 facilities shall be designed, developed, and operated in accordance 2 with the provisions of Chapter 24.12 WCC, Mushroom Substrate 3 Production Facility Rules. These are minimum requirements and 4 shall be in addition to any other requirements, including those 5 imposed in a project review process, which apply in the district 6 where the facility is located. 7 In the event of a conflict between a provision of this chapter and a 8 general requirement of this title, a provision of Chapter 24.12 WCC, 9 or a requirement imposed during the project review process, the 10 more stringent provision shall govern. 11 The following requirements shall also be met: 12 (1) The facility shall be designed, built and operated to meet the 13 stormwater and drainage provisions of WCC 20.80.630, 20.80.632, 14 20.80.633, and 20.80.634. 15 (2) The facility shall be designed, built and operated in accordance 16 with applicable local, state, and federal ordinances and laws, 17 including but not limited to WCC Title 24 and Whatcom County's 18 SEPA ordinance. 19 (3) The applicant shall show evidence of adequate water availability 20 to support the proposed facility. 21 (4) The facility shall be designed, located and operated subject to 22 any other conditions determined necessary to mitigate potential 23 adverse impacts identified during the review process. 24 Nothing herein shall limit the county's enforcement authority or 25 remedies set forth in this title or elsewhere in law or equity for 26 violations of this chapter or land permits issued pursuant to this 27 chapter. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 28 20.15.090 Reserved. 29 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 30 20.15.100 Reserved. 31 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 32 20.15.110 Compliance with land use permit. 33 If a commercial mushroom substrate production facility is operating 34 in violation of its land use permit conditions and the owner/operator 35 does not resolve the violation within 30 days, or other timeframe 10 1 approved by the hearing examiner, the land use permit may be 2 suspended or revoked. 3 To avoid the suspension or revocation of the facility's land use 4 permit, the owner/operator must demonstrate compliance with this 5 chapter, the land use permit itself, and all other permits and 6 approvals, including but not limited to the following: 7 (1) Chapter 24.12 WCC, Mushroom Substrate Production Facility 8 Rules; and 9 (2) Local and state air quality and noise level requirements. (Ord. 10 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 11 20.15.120 Permit submittal requirements. 12 (1) Prospective applicants for commercial mushroom substrate 13 production these facilities described in this chapter are required to 14 comply with Chapter 24.12 WCC, Mushroom Substrate Production 15 Facility Rules, and obtain a health department permit. A joint pre- 16 application consultation with Whatcom County planning and 17 development services land use division and Whatcom County 18 health department staff is required prior to formal submittal of the 19 land use application. The purpose of the pre -application 20 consultation is for the applicant to provide the county with an 21 overview of the project proposal and for the county to explain the 22 steps involved in the review process and general permit submittal 23 requirements for both the land use and health department permits. 24 (2) The following items shall be submitted to Whatcom County 25 planning and development services for any new application or 26 application for expansion of a commercial mushroom substrate 27 production facility before a land use permit is issued: 28 (a) A complete land use permit application. 29 (i) The permit application shall include: 30 (A) An engineering report/plan and specifications that address 31 the design and operational standards of Chapter 24.12 WCC, Mushroom 32 Substrate Production Facility Rules. 33 (B) A vicinity map having a minimum scale of 1:24,000 34 showing the area within one mile of the property boundaries of the facility 35 in terms of existing and proposed manmade or natural features that may 36 impact or be affected by the operation of the facility and the location of 37 any identified critical areas. 11 45 1 (C) A site plan which includes at a minimum, a scale drawing 2 of the facility showing property lines, required buffers and setbacks, 3 critical areas, site topography and existing drainage patterns, the 4 locations and sizes of the straw and feedstock storage areas, all other 5 active areas, material processing areas, fixed equipment, buildings with 6 function identified, stormwater and leachate collection devices, access 7 roads, and other specifications determined during the review process. 8 (b) A complete SEPA checklist. 9 (3) If deemed necessary by the land use administrator, additional 10 information may be required following a review of the initial permit 11 application submittal. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 12 20.15.130 Criteria for issuance of land use permit. 13 In addition to all other requirements set forth in this shaper and title, 14 and any other controlling laws and ordinances, new applications or 15 applications for expansion of an existing commercial mushroom 16 substrate production facility must show verification by the Whatcom 17 County health department that the proposal complies with Chapter 18 24.12 WCC, Mushroom Substrate Production Facility Rules, as 19 evidenced by either verification of an approved, or approvable 20 health department permit before a land use permit is issued. (Ord. 21 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 22 20.15.140 Reserved. 23 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 24 20.15.150 Reserved. 25 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 26 20.15.160 Closure of facility. 27 The owner/operator of a commercial mushroom substrate 28 production facility shall notify the Whatcom County planning and 29 development services director by certified U.S. mail at least 60 30 days in advance of abandonment or discontinuation of operation. 31 The owner/operator shall comply with the closure plan approved by 32 Whatcom County health department. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 33 20.15.170 Appeals. 34 The hearing examiner shall have the authority to decide, in 35 conformity with this chapter, appeals from any order, requirement, 36 permit decision or determination made by an administrative official 37 in the administration or enforcement of this chapter where more 12 1 than one interpretation is possible; provided, that such appeal shall 2 be filed within 14 days of the action being appealed. The hearing 3 examiner shall hear appeals under this chapter in the same manner 4 as those appeals he has authority to hear under WCC 5 20.92.210(2). 6 Any such appeal shall be reviewed de novo by the hearing 7 examiner as to the scope of review and the standard of review. 8 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 9 20.15.180 Severability. 10 Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or 11 phrase of this regulation be declared unconstitutional or invalid for 12 any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the 13 remaining portions of this regulation. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 14 15 Agriculture District — 20.40 16 20.40.100 Accessory uses.* 17 18 .108 Composting and mulching facilities other than commercial 19 mushroom GOMPOGtiRg substrate production facilities, if the use is 20 ancillary to the primary agriculture use, when in compliance with 21 federal and state water quality standards. When the primary 22 purpose of the mushroom composting is to service off -site 23 locations, it shall not be considered a farm operation for the 24 purposes of Chapter 14.02 WCC, Right to Farm Ordinance. 25 (1) .109 On -farm Mushroom substrate production (WCC 26 20.15.020(9)), when substrate is used soley on -site for the 27 growing and harvesting of mushrooms, and in compliance with 28 best management practices and in compliance with WCC 24.12. 29 —Mushroom Substrate Production Facility Rules. Limited off -site 30 shipmentmay,�be allowed if: � suGh+/�shhJ�iI.,m`,ent 08 l�Y1P1f"luGteIi a 31 ,� 32 a. sample sized quantities, in less than 1 cubic yard 33 quantities, that may be shipped off -site for analytical 34 purposes; and 35 b. equal exchanges of limited quantities of finished 36 substrate, soley between facilities owned by the same 37 operator, for substrate quality testing purposes. Such 38 exchanges will be conducted only following prior notification 39 of the public by the Health Department, with prior approval of 13 47 I the Director of Public Health and will be substantiated by 2 proper shipping documentation. 3 4 .10810 Home occupations, when in compliance with the following: 5 (1) The occupation or profession shall be carried out wholly within 6 the principal or accessory buildings; and 7 (2) Not more than two persons outside the immediate family shall 8 be employed in the home occupation. (Ord. 2003-029 § 1 (Aft. A 9 § 14), 2003; Ord. 2001-020 § 1 (Exh. 1 § 1), 2001; Ord. 2001-012 10 § 1, 2001; Ord. 98-018 § 1, 1998; Ord. 96-056 Aft. A § 11, 1996; 11 Ord. 92-079, 1992; Ord. 89-10, 1989; Ord. 88-93, 1988; Ord. 88-29, 12 1988; Ord. 88-13, 1988; Ord. 87-23, 1987; Ord. 87-12, 1987; Ord. 13 87-11, 1987; Ord. 86-42, 1986). 14 *Code revisers note: The amendments of Ordinance 2005-039 concerning mushroom 15 composting, extending amendments from Ords. 2004-053, 2004-027, 2003-050, 16 2003-027, 2002-068, 2002-061 and 2002-033, expired October 24, 2005. Refer to 17 Chapter 20.15 WCC for current provisions concerning mushroom substrate 18 production facilities. 19 HEAVY IMPACT INDUSTRIAL (HII) DISTRICT - 20.68 20 20.68.130 — Administrative approval uses. 21 .131 Commercial mushroon substrate production limited to the 22 Cherry Point Industrial Area and pursuant to the requirements as 23 contained in WCC 20.15.020(2) (Commercial Mushroom 24 Substrate Production Facilities). 25 26 27 14 IN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, REASONS FOR ACTION & RECOMMENDATIONS AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 20.15- MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION FACILITIES SITING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 20.40 — AGRICULTURE DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 20.68 — HEAVY IMPACT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, On July 12, 2005, Whatcom County passed Ordinance No. 2005- 057, which added a new chapter to Title 20, the Zoning Code, entitled, Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities: and WHEREAS, On August 1, 2005, the Ostrom Company, owner of a mushroom farm near Everson, Washington, filed a Petition for Review with the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB); and WHEREAS, The Petition for Review alleged that Ordinance 2005-057 - Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities was not in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and plan policies or with the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, A Hearing on the Merits of the Ostrom Petition for Review was held before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board on January4, 2006; and WHEREAS, A final decision was issued by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board on February 14, 2006; and WHEREAS, The WWGMHB found Ordinance 2005-057 out of compliance with the Growth Management Act and ordered Whatcom County to bring the regulation into compliance with the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to WCC 20.90, proposed zoning text amendments shall be considered; and WHEREAS, A determination of non -significance was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on May 9, 2006; and WHEREAS, legal notice was published in the Bellingham Herald on, May*11, 2006; and 2 WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed 3 amendments on May 25, 2006, considered all testimony and continued to 4 deliberate the matter at their next regular meeting on June 8, 2006. 5 6 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 7 8 THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENTERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF 9 FACT, REASONS FOR ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION: 10 11 12 FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 13 14 1. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendment 15 was published in the Bellingham Herald on May 11, 2006.The Whatcom 16 County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text 17 amendment on May 25, 2006 and continued their deliberations to June 8. 18 19 2. A determination of non -significance was issued on May 9, 2006, under the 20 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 21 22 3. Odors from mushroom substrate production have been determined to be 23 an impact to public health. The Whatcom County Board of Health has 24 adopted WCC 24.12 — Mushroom Substrate Production Rules in October 25 of 2004. These rules provide performance, design and operational 26 requirements to provide community protection from the potential adverse 27 affects of mushroom substrate production (Ord No. 2004-054). 28 29 4. A companion ordinance to the Mushroom Substrate Production Rules as 30 contained in WCC 24.12 was adopted by County Council July 2005. 31 Ordinance 2005-057 added a new chapter to the zoning ordinance (WCC 32 20.15 — Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities) and provided 33 locational regulations (zoning district, buffers and setbacks) as well as 34 distinguished two types of mushroom substrate production facilities — 35 commercial and on -farm. 36 37 5. On August 1, 2005, the Ostrom Company, owner of a mushroom farm 38 near Everson, Washington, filed a Petition for Review with the Western 39 Growth Management Hearings Board. The Petition for Review alleged 40 that Ordinance 2005-057 - Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities is 41 not in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and plan policies 42 nor with the Growth Management Act. Simultaneously with the Hearings 43 Board Petition for Review, Ostrom's filed a lawsuit in Skagit County 44 Superior Court challenging the legality of both Ordinance 2005-057 and 45 2004-054. 46 2 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 6. On October 17, 2005, Whatcom County filed a motion to dismiss several of the claims made in Ostrom's Superior Court Petition. After a hearing held on October 28, 2005 at which several claims were dismissed, the Superior Court case was held in abeyance pending resolution of the Growth Management Hearings Board's determination on Whatcom County's compliance with Growth Management Act requirements. 7. A Hearing on the Merits of the Ostrom's Petition for Review was held before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) on January 4, 2006. 8. A Final Decision and Order was issued by the WGMHB on February 14, 2006 which concluded that Ordinance No. 2005-057, now WCC 20.15 -- Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities, fails to comply with RCW 36.70A.060(1), 36.70A.040(3), and 36.70A.020(8). "Adopted development regulations that restrict agricultural activity on designated agricultural resource lands to reconcile agricultural activity with residential and other uses on adjacent lands do not comply with the GMA" Final Decision and Order, Case No. 05-2-0017 at 30. 9. Whatcom County is required to bring Ordinance 2005-057 into compliance with the Growth Management Act within 120 days of the decision date. Compliance is due by June 13, 2006. 10. RCW36.70A.060(1) requires that regulations applied to resource lands "assure that the use of lands adjacent to agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands shall not interfere with the continued use, in the accustomed manner and in accordance with hest management practices, of these designated lands for the production of food, agricultural products, or timer, or for the extraction of minerals". As interpreted by the WWGMHB in its Final Decision and Order, Case No. 05-2-0017, this means that additional regulations that are not based on implementing best management practices are not legitimate local government actions and are not consistent with the GMA. 11. Removal of on -farm mushroom substrate production facilities from the requirements of WCC 20.15 -- Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities, incorporating a provision for on -farm mushroom substrate production facilities as an accessory use in the agricultural district, and removing the yardage limitation included in the definition for on -farm mushroom substrate production facilities addresses the issues identified in the WWGMHB Final Decision and Order, Case No. 05-2-0017. 01 51 2 CONCLUSIONS 3 4 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with Growth Management Act, County 5 Wide Planning Policies, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and the Western 6 Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Final Decision and Order 7 pertaining to Case No. 05-2-0017.. 8 9 2. The proposed amendment complies with the approval criteria for amendments as 10 stipulated in WCC 20.90. 11 12 13 RECOMMENDATION 14 15 Based upon the above findings and conclusions, Planning Commission recommends 16 adoption of this amendment as presented in Exhibit A. 17 18 19 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 20 21 NO. ww� III"'�, 24 David F'fiter, Chairperson 25 26 O O( 39 Date 29 30 *� Wr A�J:- Hal H. Hart, Secrrrett�ary — & / �� V (0 Date 31 Vote taken at a regularly scheduled Planning 32 Commission meeting. 33 34 Commissioners voting: 35 36 JOHN BELISLE, JOHN LESOW, DAVE PROS, DAVID HUNTER, KEN MANN, 37 RON ROOSMA. 38 39 Ayes: 6, Nays: 0, Motion carried to adopt the above Findings of Fact and 40 Reasons for Action and Recommendations. 41 42 ABSENT MEMBERS: JOHN STEENSMA, RABEL BURGE, GEOFF MENZIES 4 52 1 EXHIBIT A 2 3 Chapter 20.15 4 COMMERCIAL MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION 5 FACILITIES 6 Sections: 7 20.15.010 Purpose. 8 20.15.020 Definitions. 9 20.15.030 Applicability. 10 20.15.040 Nonconforming uses and structures. 11 20.15.050 Permits and zoning. 12 20.15.060 Prohibited locations. 13 20.15.065 Prohibited operations. 14 20.15.070 Buffer and setback requirements. 15 20.15.080 Design, development, and operational requirements. 16 20.15.090 Reserved. 17 20.15.100 Reserved. 18 20.15.110 Compliance with land use permit. 19 20.15.120 Permit submittal requirements. 20 20.15.130 Criteria for issuance of land use permit. 21 20.15.140 Reserved. 22 20.15.150 Reserved. 23 20.15.160 Closure of facility. 24 20.15.170 Appeals. 25 20.15.180 Severability. 26 20.15.010 Purpose. 27 The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures and 28 limitations governing the placement and permitting of at4 29 commercial mushroom substrate production facilities. 30 :r_�rZmn::r_ra_TmnGsmrrsr.r_s�ss:�:Trr�n 35 The production of mushroom substrate is a manufacturing activity 36 which is not dependent upon agricultural or any other soils. To 37 conserve those agricultural soils, commercial mushroom substrate 38 production facilities are not permitted on agricultural lands_. should 39 he limiter) in evtent and +n nrneduGtie�n only fear an_ei�i+e mu hreem rn�rrrnzca--er�c�c c� rrcr ry-prwuvcrvrr-vrrr'� 40 faaffl: 5 53 35 The production of mushroom substrate is a manufacturing activity 36 which is not dependent upon agricultural or any other soils. To 37 conserve those agricultural soils, commercial mushroom substrate 38 production facilities are not permitted on agricultural lands_. should 39 he limiter) in evtent and +n nrneduGtie�n only fear an_ei�i+e mu hreem rn�rrrnzca--er�c�c c� rrcr ry-prwuvcrvrr-vrrr'� 40 faaffl: 5 53 1 In addition, commercial mushroom substrate production facilities 2 should not be located contiguous to areas that have or are 3 expected to have residential development at rural or urban 4 densities. 5 should not he IOnnted OR resoUFGe lands. 6 Where applicable, the permit review, approval process, and 7 oversight of the operation shall be coordinated with the Whatcom 8 County health department. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 9 20.15.020 Definitions. 10 (1) "Active area" means any part of a facility where mushroom 11 substrate production activities are conducted, including but not 12 limited to related areas of feedstock (only excluding straw) storage, 13 leachate and emission collection and treatment devices, and 14 impervious surfaces. 15 (2) "Commercial mushroom substrate production facility" means a 16 facility producing any mushroom substrate for off -site export;� _ea 17 facility with ,uare feet of a-v+riofe "YGn' OF an on_ 18 farm mi S11FOnm S bStrate nr9rluntinn fnnility with a ♦Fayinn mall me 19 of 3,250 or more Gubin YaFd0 ner month 20 (3) "Expansion," as it pertains to facilities existing at the effective 21 date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, means an increase in 22 monthly mushroom substrate production over the average 23 production of the three months prior to the effective date of the 24 ordinance codified in this chapter. 25 (4) "Facility" means all contiguous land (including buffers and 26 setbacks) and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements 27 on the land. 28 (5) "Finished substrate" means substrate that has completed the 29 fermentation process and is ready for pasteurization. 30 (6) "Mushroom substrate" means a highly specific, nutrient -rich 31 product prepared from selective organic and inorganic material for 32 the purpose of cultivating mushrooms. 33 (7) "Mushroom substrate production" means any stage of a process 34 where the ingredients necessary for the production of mushroom 35 substrate are assembled, blended, stored or fermented. 6 54 1 (8) "Mushroom substrate production facilities" means "commercial 2 mushroom substrate production facilities" and/or "on -farm 3 mushroom substrate production facilities." 4 (9) "On -farm mushroom substrate production facility" means a facility 5 producing mushroom substrate which is used exclusively on the same 6 parcel or adjoining parcels to grow and harvest mushrooms in compliance 7 with best management practices. Limited off -site shipment may be 8 allowed if such shipment is conducted as authorized under WCC 9 24.12.060(2)(a)(iv). 12 (IQ) " raying volume" means the total volume, expressed in r„hir 13 YaFds pee month of mushroom substrate nroduGed on site and than 14 rnnsumed on site by nhrnnmc. Any unfinished 15 Fnushrnnm substrate roraivorl shall be reRride Fe : ar, nrnrl, Ged on 16 64e- 17 (44-10) "Well head protection area" means the area (surface and 18 subsurface), designated by the Whatcom County health 19 department, managed to protect ground water based public water 20 supplies. 21 (4-2 11) "Unfinished substrate" means feedstock that has been pre- 22 wet, but is not yet finished substrate. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 23 20.15.030 Applicability. 24 The requirements of this chapter shall apply to new commercial 25 mushroom substrate production facilities and to the expansion of 26 existing commercial mushroom substrate production facilities. (Ord. 27 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 28 29 20.15.040 Nonconforming uses and structures. 30 Commercial t-mushroom substrate production facilities in 31 operation as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this 32 chapter, including vested applications for such facilities, that do not 33 conform to the requirements of this chapter are hereby declared 34 nonconforming uses and shall be subject to the provisions of 35 Chapter 20.83 WCC governing nonconforming uses. Any 36 determination made under Chapter 20.83 WCC shall be governed 37 by the definition of expansion in WCC 20.15.020(3) and all 38 applicable requirements of this chapter; provided, that in the event 7 55 1 of any conflict between provisions, the more stringent standard 2 shall apply. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 3 20.15.050 Permits and zoning. 4 All new facilities and facility expansions shall be located and 5 permitted according to the following tables. Z 7 (1) Commercial mushroom substrate production facility: Permitted Use Administrative Use Conditional Use HII ■. — .... . Te S 729M Permitted Use AG pp� 10 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 11 20.15.060 Prohibited locations. 12 When reviewing applications for new commercial mushroom 13 substrate production facilities, the approving authority shall not 14 locate mushroom substrate production facilities in the Water 15 Resource Protection Overlay District, Stormwater Special Districts, 16 the Recreation and Open Space District, wellhead protection areas, 17 nor within the 100-year floodplain. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 19 ■ . .nrsrn:�rrrrrsa:�is:rtra. - 20 -d OF unfinished - site. All FnushFOOM 21 substrate pFedUGtiGn not authorized pursuant to thiS GhapteF shall 22 be prohibited. .. .. (04 23 20.15.070 Buffer and setback requirements. 24 (1) The commercial substrate production facility's active area shall 25 meet the following minimum buffer requirements: M I (a) Two thousand six hundred forty feet from the following zoning 2 districts: Urban Residential, Rural Residential, Residential -island, 3 Rural, Commercial, Gateway Industrial, Light Impact Industrial, 4 Point Roberts Special District, and Point Roberts Transitional 5 Zoning. 6 (b) One thousand feet from parcels located in the Rural Forestry 7 district. 8 The minirn„m buffer requirements may he innreased fed substrate 9 1✓,nrnedWGt19R facilities nrnnnsedl fnr the ARriAllltl lral zoning district if if wvvcr 10 Gan he demonstrated that SUGh additional buffer is required to 11 mitigate adverse imnants nn nearby land uses- 12 (2) The facility's active area shall meet the following minimum 13 setback requirements: 14 (a) COX h, indred six4y feat from Property lines- fnr an nn_farm 15 16 (b a) One thousand feet from property lines_ fed a cemmeMial 17 substrate faGility. The minimum 1,000-foot 18 setback requirement may be reduced or eliminated for substrate 19 production facilities proposed for the HII zoning district if it can be 20 demonstrated that such additional setback is not required to 21 mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. 22 (3) Where applicable, the facility shall provide buffers in accordance 23 with the Whatcom County critical areas ordinance. 24 25 `4) NGtwithstandina any mbar nrnVisinns in this chapter Grin this- title, on_farm mi eshroom s„hs-trate nrcd,,ctinn facilities that ore 26 nonGenforming shall he eligiblefior a variance from buffer er 27 setback ren„irements_if_it ran be demonstrated that se,eh additional 28 buffer setback in net required to mitigate ad.eerne imnnnts an 29 OF adjacent land uses and if the nriteria established in tiAlrc 2n 94 1'7!1 30 aa}uv� cr�ucur�rrvrrca-�rr�-v-v�sv�rco� have been satisfied] 31 (a 4) The facility shall be designed to include any other conditions 32 determined necessary during the review process. (Ord. 2005-057 33 Exh. A, 2005). 34 20.15.080 Design, development, and operational requirements. 35 New commercial mushroom substrate production facilities and the 36 expansion of existing commercial mushroom substrate production E 57 1 facilities shall be designed, developed, and operated in accordance 2 with the provisions of Chapter 24.12 WCC, Mushroom Substrate 3 Production Facility Rules. These are minimum requirements and 4 shall be in addition to any other requirements, including those 5 imposed in a project review process, which apply in the district 6 where the facility is located. 7 In the event of a conflict between a provision of this chapter and a 8 general requirement of this title, a provision of Chapter 24.12 WCC, 9 or a requirement imposed during the project review process, the 10 more stringent provision shall govern. 11 The following requirements shall also be met: 12 (1) The facility shall be designed, built and operated to meet the 13 stormwater and drainage provisions of WCC 20.80.630, 20.80.632, 14 20.80.633, and 20.80.634. 15 (2) The facility shall be designed, built and operated in accordance 16 with applicable local, state, and federal ordinances and laws, 17 including but not limited to WCC Title 24 and Whatcom County's 18 SEPA ordinance. 19 (3) The applicant shall show evidence of adequate water availability 20 to support the proposed facility. 21 (4) The facility shall be designed, located and operated subject to 22 any other conditions determined necessary to mitigate potential 23 adverse impacts identified during the review process. 24 Nothing herein shall limit the county's enforcement authority or 25 remedies set forth in this title or elsewhere in law or equity for 26 violations of this chapter or land permits issued pursuant to this 27 chapter. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 28 20.15.090 Reserved. 29 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 30 20.15.100 Reserved. 31 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 32 20.15.110 Compliance with land use permit. 33 If a commercial mushroom substrate production facility is operating 34 in violation of its land use permit conditions and the owner/operator 35 does not resolve the violation within 30 days, or other timeframe 10 1 approved by the hearing examiner, the land use permit may be 2 suspended or revoked. 3 To avoid the suspension or revocation of the facility's land use 4 permit, the owner/operator must demonstrate compliance with this 5 chapter, the land use permit itself, and all other permits and 6 approvals, including but not limited to the following: 7 (1) Chapter 24.12 WCC, Mushroom Substrate Production Facility 8 Rules, and 9 (2) Local and state air quality and noise level requirements. (Ord. 10 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 11 20.15.120 Permit submittal requirements. 12 (1) Prospective applicants for commercial mushroom substrate 13 production these facilities described in this chapter are required to 14 comply with Chapter 24.12 WCC, Mushroom Substrate Production 15 Facility Rules, and obtain a health department permit. A joint pre- 16 application consultation with Whatcom County planning and 17 development services land use division and Whatcom County 18 health department staff is required prior to formal submittal of the 19 land use application. The purpose of the pre -application 20 consultation is for the applicant to provide the county with an 21 overview of the project proposal and for the county to explain the 22 steps involved in the review process and general permit submittal 23 requirements for both the land use and health department permits. 24 (2) The following items shall be submitted to Whatcom County 25 planning and development services for any new application or 26 application for expansion of a commercial mushroom substrate 27 production facility before a land use permit is issued: 28 (a) A complete land use permit application. 29 (i) The permit application shall include: 30 (A) An engineering report/plan and specifications that address 31 the design and operational standards of Chapter 24.12 WCC, Mushroom 32 Substrate Production Facility Rules. 33 (B) A vicinity map having a minimum scale of 1:24,000 34 showing the area within one mile of the property boundaries of the facility 35 in terms of existing and proposed manmade or natural features that may 36 impact or be affected by the operation of the facility and the location of 37 any identified critical areas. 11 59 I (C) A site plan which includes at a minimum, a scale drawing 2 of the facility showing property lines, required buffers and setbacks, 3 critical areas, site topography and existing drainage patterns, the 4 locations and sizes of the straw and feedstock storage areas, all other 5 active areas, material processing areas, fixed equipment, buildings with 6 function identified, stormwater and leachate collection devices, access 7 roads, and other specifications determined during the review process. 8 (b) A complete SEPA checklist. 9 (3) If deemed necessary by the land use administrator, additional 10 information may be required following a review of the initial permit 11 application submittal. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 12 20.15.130 Criteria for issuance of land use permit. 13 In addition to all other requirements set forth in this chaper and title, 14 and any other controlling laws and ordinances, new applications or 15 applications for expansion of an existing commercial mushroom 16 substrate production facility must show verification by the Whatcom 17 County health department that the proposal complies with Chapter 18 24.12 WCC, Mushroom Substrate Production Facility Rules, as 19 evidenced by either verification of an approved, or approvable 20 health department permit before a land use permit is issued. (Ord. 21 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 22 20.15.140 Reserved. 23 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 24 20.15.150 Reserved. 25 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 26 20.15.160 Closure of facility. 27 The owner/operator of a commercial mushroom substrate 28 production facility shall notify the Whatcom County planning and 29 development services director by certified U.S. mail at least 60 30 days in advance of abandonment or discontinuation of operation. 31 The owner/operator shall comply with the closure plan approved by 32 Whatcom County health department. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 33 20.15.170 Appeals. 34 The hearing examiner shall have the authority to decide, in 35 conformity with this chapter, appeals from any order, requirement, 36 permit decision or determination made by an administrative official 37 in the administration or enforcement of this chapter where more 12 60 1 than one interpretation is possible; provided, that such appeal shall 2 be filed within 14 days of the action being appealed. The hearing 3 examiner shall hear appeals under this chapter in the same manner 4 as those appeals he has authority to hear under WCC 5 20.92.210(2). 6 Any such appeal shall be reviewed de nova by the hearing 7 examiner as to the scope of review and the standard of review. 8 (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 9 20.15.180 Severability. 10 Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or 11 phrase of this regulation be declared unconstitutional or invalid for 12 any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the 13 remaining portions of this regulation. (Ord. 2005-057 Exh. A, 2005). 14 15 Agriculture District — 20.40 16 20.40.100 Accessory uses.* 17 18 .108 Composting and mulching facilities other than commercial 19 mushroom GOMposting substrate production facilities, if the use is 20 ancillary to the primary agriculture use, when in compliance with 21 federal and state water quality standards. When the primary 22 purpose of the mushroom composting is to service off -site 23 locations, it shall not be considered a farm operation for the 24 purposes of Chapter 14.02 WCC, Right to Farm Ordinance. 25 (1) .109 On -farm Mushroom substrate production (WCC 26 20.15.020(9)), when substrate is used soley on -site for the 27 growing and harvesting of mushrooms, and in compliance with 28 best management practices and in compliance with WCC 24.12. 29 —Mushroom Substrate Production Facility Rules. Limited off -site 30 shipment may beallowed if: s� Gh shi�e,.nt is Gend �^t��v 31 autih' or'-z uigde y --Y'IrfGG 24�1r2.060(2)(a) ' . 32 a. sample sized quantities, in less than 1 cubic yard 33 quantities, that may be shipped off -site for analytical 34 purposes; and 35 b. equal exchanges of limited quantities of finished 36 substrate, soley between facilities owned by the same 37 operator, for substrate quality testing purposes. Such 38 exchanges will be conducted only following prior notification 39 of the public by the Health Department, with prior approval of 13 61 I the Director of Public Health and will be substantiated by 2 proper shipping documentation. 3 4 .14910 Home occupations, when in compliance with the following: 5 (1) The occupation or profession shall be carried out wholly within 6 the principal or accessory buildings; and 7 (2) Not more than two persons outside the immediate family shall 8 be employed in the home occupation. (Ord. 2003-029 § 1 (Aft. A 9 § 14), 2003; Ord. 2001-020 § 1 (Exh. 1 § 1), 2001; Ord. 2001-012 10 § 1, 2001; Ord. 98-018 § 1, 1998; Ord. 96-056 Att. A § 11, 1996; 11 Ord. 92-079, 1992; Ord. 89-10, 1989; Ord. 88-93, 1988; Ord. 88-29, 12 1988; Ord. 88-13, 1988; Ord. 87-23, 1987; Ord. 87-12, 1987; Ord. 13 87-11, 1987; Ord. 86-42, 1986). 14 *Code reviser's note: The amendments of Ordinance 2005-039 concerning mushroom 15 composting, extending amendments from Ords. 2004-053, 2004-027, 2003-050, 16 2003-027, 2002-068, 2002-061 and 2002-033, expired October 24, 2005. Refer to 17 Chapter 20.15 WCC for current provisions concerning mushroom substrate 18 production facilities. 19 HEAVY IMPACT INDUSTRIAL (HII) DISTRICT - 20.68 20 20.68.130 — Administrative approval uses. 21 .131 Commercial mushroon substrate production limited to the 22 Cherry Point Industrial Area and pursuant to the requirements as 23 contained in WCC 20.15.020(2) (Commercial Mushroom 24 Substrate Production Facilities). 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 14 C•A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 Call To Order: The meeting was called to order, by Whatcom County Planning Commission Chairperson, David Hunter, in the Northwest Annex Conference Room at 6:34 p.m. Roll Call: Ron Roosma, John Belisle, John Steensma, David Hunter, Ken Mann and Geoff Menzies. Staff Present: Hal Hart, Troy Holbrook, Kraig Olason, Royce Buckingham — Prosecutor's Office, Jeff Hegedus -- Health Department and Becky Boxx. Director's Dialog Hart: The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program is before you for review. I believe the County Council will be looking at this issue in July. It appears it is focusing on four areas. It is very clearly focusing on is Lummi Island and the Lummi Tribal area. There is a need to rebuild the ferry. That would be a significant cost. There is a focus on Birch Bay, which is our fastest growing urban growth area outside of Sudden Valley. The third area of focus is Lake Whatcom. The fourth area is the Bellingham urban growth area. I would suggest that at some point we ask Joe Rutan, from County Engineering, to speak to you. Last night at the Birch Bay Steering Committee meeting we reminded them there is a lot of permitting going on right now. Currently we have 22 subdivisions in process and some mixed uses with condominiums and other projects moving forward. There is an incorporation study that has not been funded as of yet. There is on going coordination of all of the projects going on out there between developers and the County and multiple departments. It is really a private and public partnership we are getting into to build two main systems, the transportation system and the stormwater system. We are wanting to work with the City of Blaine because of the Lincoln Street project and because Blaine is accelerating their look at the UGA. Commissioner Comments There were no comments Open Session for Public Comment Michael Chivario: I am here as a board member representing the organization Responsible Development. Our organization was started a little over a year ago in response to the potential development known as Chuckanut Ridge or the 100 Acre Woods. We are opposed to that development. I have distributed a video for you on that topic. After we had been organized for a while we realized that our vision had to expand to the entire City then out to the out to the entire county because of the issues that affected Chuckanut Ridge affected the whole county. We realized that the short sighted planning and permitting process that threatened Chuckanut Ridge also threatened the livability of all of Whatcom County and we started to see a bigger picture. What we have done over the past year, as an organization, is we have challenged the development of Chuckanut Ridge, legally, through public meetings and through public testimony to the City Council. We have brought to town a noted planner, Eben Fodor. I have left a copy of his report for you. We believe we helped to hurry the resignation of Bellingham's former Planning Director. What we are for is for responsible development. We are not anti -development. 63 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 On behalf of the board of Responsible Development I want to thank you for serving on this Commission. 1 note that it is often worse than thankless when you have to endure the criticism of the citizens whom you serve. The board of Responsible Development has unanimously voted to oppose the expansion of Bellingham to Smith Road as approved by the Bellingham City Council. Our position is in keeping with four principles which guide our vision for the future of Whatcom County. These principles are concurrency, adequate impact fees, critical areas preservation and a tiered building permit allocation system. By concurrency we mean pay as you go. Developments must pay for or build their infrastructure requirements as they build and not dump millions of dollars of cost burdens on taxpayers long into the future. As you know our County Executive emphasized concurrency in his state of the County address this week. It appears that Whatcom County is going to have to hold the line against the City of Bellingham this year. Adequate impact fees help to insure that costs are born by developers for impacts that they can not build themselves such as schools. An example of this is explained in the Eben Fodor study. The importance of the environment and critical areas to our quality of life and indeed to our future survival can not be overstated. Surveys must be done first to determine according to the best available science. Tiered permitting spreads growth more evenly over time to help prevent boom and bust cycles. We can also use this permitting to set priorities for construction of affordable homes. Building proposals that include an adequate percentage of affordable units according to local income data could meet the demand by local folks who need them. These proposed projects could be approved before those that don't meet affordability demand. We see urban villages as an alternative to expanding the UGA. Much has been said in recent years about urban villages but we are not much closer to creating them in our new developments, at least not in the City of Bellingham. The idea of building where the transportation, commercial, park and school infrastructure is within walking distance or easy public transit access is a good idea. Sprawling out into the undeveloped lands north of Cordata doesn't make sense when you haven't made real progress in infilling the existing urban areas with true urban villages. Down town, Old Town, and Fairhaven are examples of locations where urban villages can be made workable. Let's not destroy our downtown again just as it is beginning to have a renaissance. We can preserve our existing neighborhoods and make them better with the urban village concept without sprawling into another traffic and land destroying nightmare. Jack Petree, Bellingham: Regarding the previous speaker I have been asked to do an analysis of Eben Fodor's report. He seems to have forgotten that nearly half of the students in the Bellingham School District live outside of Bellingham. At the last meeting I was surprised that at least three different commissioners mentioned Bellevue and what Bellevue has accomplished over the past several years in terms of growth. It must be admitted that Bellevue has done an extraordinary job but I wondered why all the attention on Bellevue at the last meeting. I asked around and found out that a letter had been given to you discussing Bellevue. I was provided a copy of that letter and have given you an analysis on that. Bellevue is in the middle of two million people, while we are in the middle of two hundred thousand people and we are isolated so there are differences in the towns. This needs to be recognized. Bellevue's downtown is almost exactly the same size as Bellingham's projected downtown. I assumed, in the analysis, that Ms. Kirsch, except in one place where she was factually in error, that all of her figures were correct. I figure that Bellevue added 128 units downtown per year over the past several years. The methodology Bellingham just passed requires Bellingham to add 219 units per year for the next 15 years. This means Bellingham has to grow at a rate 171 percent the rate of Bellevue in order to meet its projected growth. Downtown Bellevue houses five units per gross acre. There are six people per gross acre living downtown which amounts to 1.16 persons per unit. If that were applied to Bellingham we would have to grow at 337 units per year or 263 percent the rate that Bellevue has grown at over the last 20 years in order to meet just what Bellingham says it can. You have all seen pictures of Bayview Towers which is 23 stories and 124 units. The downtown core will have to have 16 of those to meet its residential targets and that doesn't even begin to address the job targets for downtown. GP and Old Town need 25 more of those 23 story buildings in order to support the residential units projected for it. There is not a developer in the X RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 region who will tell you with a straight face that these kinds of accommodations could be met. Bellingham has met that, Bellingham has passed that and now people are saying Bellingham isn't doing enough infill. Give me a break. This leads to the letter writers major error which is that there was a comment made that 75 percent of the growth will be shoved out into the fringe, well you have read the numbers and in actuality about 80 percent of the new growth is projected to occur inside the UGA and the Bellingham city limits. 75 percent of that growth will take place inside the City limits. Bellingham has accepted a lot of infill. It has accepted far more than it is capable of taking and to not recognize that is disingenuous. Hunter: Since I noticed that tonight we have had two people comment on the Bellingham UGA I wonder if we want to think about not entertaining more public comment about that until that issue comes back to us. There will be another presentation from staff about the land supply analysis and proposals of how to deal with that. There will be another opportunity for public comment. I understand why people want to talk to us about it but I'm not sure we are really registering much at this point. The Commission will continue to take comments on this issue at it's open sessions. Approval of Minutes of April 27, 2006 Mann moved to approve the minutes as written. Belisle seconded. Motion carried. Public Hearing File: ZON2006-00001 - Mushroom Substrate Text amendments required for compliance with Case No. 05-2-0017. Changes are required to accommodate agricultural protections mandated by the Growth Management Act as clarified by the WWGMHB. In general, changes required include: modifying and renaming Chapter 20.15 —Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities to Commercial Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities, removing references to on -farm mushroom substrate production facilities within the Agriculture District from Chapter 20.15 and modifying certain definitions; adding a new section to Chapter 20.40 — Agriculture District to allow on -farm mushroom substrate production as an accessory use; incorporating a reference in Chapter 20.68 — Heavy Impact Industrial for commercial mushroom substrate production as an administrative use. Kraig Olason presented the staff report. I think the staff report pretty well incorporates the findings and the basis for the change that is being proposed. What we have is a proposal that brings the code 20.15 into compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) as required by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) under case number 05-2-0017. The proposal maintains a distinction between on -farm and commercial mushroom substrate production. It requires commercial facilities to be located in Heavy Impact Industrial zones (HII). On -farm facilities can be located in the agricultural zone. It continues to reference Whatcom County Code 24.12 Mushroom Substrate Production Facility Rules. This ordinance provides direction regarding the design and operating standards for substrate production facilities and is the Health Department's authority. We initially passed ordinance 2004-054 in October 2004. That was the Health Department's Mushroom Substrate Production Facility rules. You may recall later on that we had a hearing as well with the Planning Commission on 20.15 which is the companion document to the Health Department Code. It was eventually passed in July 2005 under ordinance 2005-057. The zoning ordinance addressed siting, facility placement and buffering of the facility as well as total yardage allowed for production of on -farm substrate production. The Health Department provided design and operational standards. 65 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT lar Meeting May 25, 2006 On August 1, 2005 the Ostroms Company filed a petition for review with the WWGMHB on Title 20.15. Simultaneously the filed a lawsuit. There was a hearing before the Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB) and they issued the final decision on February 14, 2006. Basically what their determination was that the County failed to conserve agricultural lands by requiring the buffering and the setback and some of the other restrictions that we placed on designated agricultural lands. This is a tandem effort with the Health Department. Some of the Title 20 language you are reviewing tonight references the Health Code. One of the references has to do with some off -site shipment from on -farm substrate production facilities. The allowance for that is essentially to address the need to utilize substrate from time to time to test against substrate from another farm. In this case this is addressing an Ostrom's issue where they take material from one farm to another in the event that they have some problems with producing the substrate or the mushrooms. They would test what the source of that is. Exhibit A of the staff report is the text amendment proposal. It basically looks at striking agricultural on - farm production from Title 20.15. It was moved into 20.40, the agricultural section, as mushroom substrate production is accessory to the production of mushrooms. Mushroom production has been allowed outright in Title 20.40 throughout this discussion. What we have in our agricultural zone is the requirement in reliance on Best Management Practices (BMPs). Those are the practices that employed by industry to produce their products with the least amount of nuisance complaints that they can. Those are typically developed by industry. You have in your packet a number of letters that have been received. We have a letter from the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) addressing our regulations as incorporated in the proposal. They are very supportive of what we produced. We have letter from Zender, Thurston which we received this afternoon that has some concerns. Also in your packet are a number of letters associated with the environmental review of this. If you note in the findings we did have a SEPA determination of non -significance issued. The comments period I believe closes today or tomorrow. I believe the comments address the Title 20 changes as well as the Health Department's changes. We have not received an appeal on these at this time. Mann: By moving the on -farm production down into the accessory use category is it no longer governed by the Health Department ordinance? Olason: No, the Health Department ordinance still provides a review and requires a number of conditions for operation. They have a design and operations standards included in 24.12. They are modified from the original but they are still substantial. There are some changes in when the requirements for going indoors take place. There is a phased process. Mann: In the 20.15 section, for commercial substrate, you have a lot of references to the Health Department ordinance and specifics on operation, water quality, permitting, location, etc. and in the accessory uses there is just one line that pretty much says it's okay. There are no references. Olason: There is a reference to a section about the off -site. You are right though that if you read what the GMHB case stated it is that we really aren't in a position to regulate with additional requirements on designated agricultural land for agricultural operations beyond that they comply with BMPs. Hunter: I don't know that I agree with that. I would interpret the language referencing BMPs as saying we couldn't write out these requirements ahead of time based solely on a concern about the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 surrounding public's concern about the odors that if we were going to have these things it would need to be based on BMPs and that is a little different. Olason: It is a little different unless you look at the genesis for BMPs. They are not typically drawn up by the County Planning Department. They are drawn up by industry, the USDA and other agricultural groups working on what is typically done in the industry and what is there best efforts at reducing the odors and other nuisances the extent they can. The gist is, if you look back at what the GMHB's case said and what we are looking to to guide our directions is that we aren't to get over regulatory within designated agricultural land. It almost melds the right to farm ordinance with designation of agricultural land. We have had our attorney review this, the Council's attorney has reviewed this and we are trying to complete this process and move. 1 think what we have done here, if there is a question about it, is complied with what every other agricultural operation is expected to do and we were reminded of that in this hearings case. Mann: I noticed when you were before the GMHB they said you were unable to determine the source for BMPs for growing mushrooms. Is there any change in that? Olason: What I do know is that there are some areas in Pennsylvania that actually have a conservation district with a mushroom farm planning background that works with substrate producers and they have some recommendations they provide. The industry itself hasn't provided us with anything at this time. Hunter: Would we interpret that as meaning if there are no BMPs that we don't have any basis for establishing any rules? Olason: What this gets down to is if there is a complaint about odor or a nuisance complaint about the operation the test for the operator is that when they are taken to court, or there is an enforcement action they have to show that they are doing what the industry does. The onus is somewhat on the industry to show that they aren't doing something that is really out of line with everyone else is the industry does. If they can show that it's the case then they are presumed to be operating within the bounds of the typical operation. This is the way it has worked for years. Typically if they do run up against some real problems the industry often will work with State and Federal agencies to come up with practices that are standardized and acceptable. It's not typically a county Planning Department that does that. Hunter: It seems like that is a catch 22. it seems like if there are no BMPs they can do whatever they want. Olason: Not without having to show that it's in compliance with other people in the industry. At this point we aren't in a position to write up BMPs for the mushroom industry. I think it's also important to recall that we have, with the Health Department Ordinance, a great deal more control over this subject than we would have otherwise so when we look at these companion documents the basis for the Health Department ordinance is a health issue. The basis for our ordinance is really looking at what is allowed in agricultural land and what constitutes a nuisance. What the GMHB has said is that the fact that it's a problem for adjacent land owners, in some cases, is really not the issue for us to get into on designated agricultural land so that's what we are responding to. Menzies: Is there any evidence, anywhere else, that this industry has developed BMPs that minimize impacts to people that live nearby? Olason: I think that if there are situations where they are brought into some sort of a suit they would have to show that they are operating in a manner that is acceptable or typical. I'm not familiar with any. I know the Northwest Clean Air Authority (NWCAA) has some authority over this but when you start 67 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 6 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 looking at agricultural practices there are some exemptions. These can be under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and it's pretty clear in this case that our role is designating and protecting agricultural land to make sure that our other rules don't limit or overly restrict what can be done on them. That is the test we are trying to meet. Gillies, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): Staff is right. My experience with BMPs is basically with the dairy industry. We have a 25 to 30 year history with industry, government and the public working together to agree that a set of practices or rules is acceptable. By acceptable I mean it has to be acceptable to the industry and to the person that affected. It has to work and it has to be economically feasible to install. I think you can take those guidelines and apply it to other types of industries. Within NRCS our job is to work with people to protect resources including soil, water, animals, plants and air. I will say that air emission and the air part of what I described is probably the new kid on the block for us too. We have some standards for air emissions. I haven't seen a lot that has really given me, at my level, great guidance on how to develop some of these management practices. Regarding mushrooms people need to come together and figure out what will work best. Best may be a misnomer, Sometimes it's just better. Hunter: I am curious as to whether the Planning staff has had any opportunity to do any real research to discover whether there has, in fact, been litigation regarding BMPs, specifically with regard to substrate production? Olason: It's not readily available if there is anything out there. We have done some searching. I have talked to people at Penn State, who do a lot of this, and what they have told me is that aeration is the most important thing that helps eliminate odors. They typically have other issues, such as runoff, and like anything else where you have organic materials you have to contain it. I have a report from the Pennsylvania Conservation District and I can tell you it's not nearly as detailed and restrictive as the Health Department ordinance that we are going to be modifying here. We probably have some of the most restrictive ordinances in the country. It's always been a problem having two companion ordinances working their way through the process. Our focus tonight is to look at nuisance abatement through buffering and some other things. Mann: I think what would make me feel better about it is if there were more direct links in the accessory uses section to the Health Department ordinance. Olason: They are different authorities. I think what you have to keep in mind is that we come at this through a land use regulatory control where the Health Department is coming at it based on what is going to cause impacts to human health. They have way more latitude to provide prescriptive requirements than we do. Mann: In the proposed 20.15 you do reference 24.12 continuously. Olason: But in that case we weren't instructed to limit our requirements. Mann: I didn't see in the GMHB decision that we couldn't have some Health Department control over something in agricultural land just like we have it over industrial lands. Olason: In this case the Health Department ordinance is an overlay, not zone specific. If you read the Health Department ordinance and it says certain things then you are subject to thus and such, which it does, than you are under it. We don't have to double reference everything in Title 20. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 7 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 Mann: Then how come you did in 20.15? Olason: Because 20.15 had more restrictive items all the way around. We weren't instructed to change 20.15 as it related to industrial zoning. What we was simply stripped the on -farm agriculture related references from 20.15. Mann: I thought the only part they really took an issue with was the setbacks and buffer requirements, not necessarily the permitting and operational requirements. Olason: Permitting and operational requirements really are part and parcel to what BMP adherence is. If you adhere to BMPs those are the standards. That's what they are saying. Their saying you can't go beyond that. A lot of the right to farm ordinance is kind of gray. We've had several cases come back. That's how it's being determined what's acceptable. Roosma: I see you changed the buffer requirements. Was there some input into that? Olason: We took out the buffer requirements. Roosma: I thought it now said 1000 feet. Olason: The only section that we deal with buffering is within 20.15. We didn't change that section. Roosma: In 20.15.070 you have stricken 660 and made it 1,000 feet. Olason: Anything relating to on -farm we took out. Mann: For on -farm facility would there be any buffer requirement? Olason: Just the setbacks for buildings. Menzies: Are the facilities automatically inspected on an annual basis? What drives that permit system? Hegedus: The County ordinance on mushroom substrate production requires all new facilities to be under permit but it does make allowances for existing facilities of which we have two. Basically the Health ordinance consists of a set of operating standards, design standards, permitting requirements and performance standards. One of the requirements is that the Health Department have access to facilities for inspection at all times. Menzies: Are there routine inspections or what would prompt the Health Department to inspect a facility? Hegedus: Facilities must submit an operating plan and have to get a permit. We would then do routine and annual inspections to renew the permit and to make sure they were operating as per the operating plan. The fee for the permit allows for 20 hours of time for inspections. Menzies: So it's not complaint driven? Hegedus: Correct. Mann: Does that go for the on -farm accessory uses as well as the commercial? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 Hegedus: This pertains to all new and existing facilities. There are some exemptions. We have a tiny facility that is not required to submit an operating plan and be under permit but we go out there and work with them. As a result of the litigation and the GMHB ruling Council has been in settlement discussion and they have instructed the Health Department to submit some amendments to ordinance. There are some circumstances which an existing facility can do an expansion and not have to submit an operating plan or be under permit. They still have to meet the performance standards which include meeting BMP requirements. Mann: Of which there are none. Hegedus: We don't consider that there are none. There are none that are standardized. We do consider that the industry does operate with some consistency and some expectation of performance. Menzies: Is there any kind of publication that describes BMPs that you can review to apply? Hegedus: There are a lot of guidance documents that we look through. We would rely on NRCS for their expertise. We are less concerned that they aren't standardized. Steensma: If I wanted to grow my own mushrooms and got one half to one yard of substrate at what point would I have to get a permit? Hegedus: If you have less than 80 cubic yards of materials on site you would not have to get'a permit. You would not have to submit an operating plan and you would not be subject to the design standards. However you would be required to meet all of the performance standards, which means that you can't pollute ground, air or water. You would have to follow the BMPs and you have to let the Health Department on site at any time. Steensma: Even to grow my own mushrooms? Hegedus: No, only if you are a commercial operation. Steensma: If 1 sell one to my neighbor am I then commercial? Hegedus: Yes. Menzies: For clarification new facilities are permitted but for existing facilities what is the rule? Hegedus: All new facilities must be under permit and submit an operating plan and be subject to none of the exemptions of this ordinance. Existing facilities need to be under permit if they do an expansion, generally. However if they do an expansion subject to certain requirements and capacity limits then they have less applicability to the design and operating standards. Hunter: It appears that the County has decided to look at substrate production, even when it's being done just to supply the on -site purposes, as needing special attention, that it is different in some way from general farming practices because we have set out a whole different set of rules. One of those rules has to do with performance standards. Where do performance standards come from? Hegedus: In our industry the use of performance standards is quite common, for example in the solid waste industry. If you operate a landfill you are subject to certain exemptions if you don't pollute ground water, surface water, the soil or the air. The Environmental Health division of the Health Department 70 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE g WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 does also use performance standards and what we do is allow the jurisdictional authorities to be the determiner of whether those performance standards are being met. Hunter: How do we devise a set of performance standards for this industry? Hegedus: We did not devise the performance standards. The performance standards are existing laws and what we are saying is if you are in compliance with the existing laws, concerning the pollution of ground water, as determined by the DOE, we will allow you to have an exemption. However if you are not in compliance with that jurisdiction's requirements that exemption will no longer apply. Hunter: So the performance standards are general standards that apply to everybody who works agricultural land? Hegedus: No, these performance standards, in this ordinance apply only to mushroom substrate production. These are quite different from BMPs. Hunter : I know they are not the same thing. Olason: I think the distention here is that the Health Department works under a different authority. That is where they can lay out the performance requirements based on their authority to protect public health. Our authority is really to address nuisance. We aren't really out there to dictate, through the zoning code, what is going to be acceptable air issues. That is really what this gets down to. What we were trying to do was not cross that boundary and we aren't in a position where if we had a great list of BMPs we could reference that we wouldn't reference them. The problem is we aren't in the position to be authors of BMPs. The Health Department may be in a better position to help establish that through their authority based on the efforts of maintaining limited emissions for health purposes. As this evolves we may be at the forefront of that. We are trying to look at this from health standpoint rather than a good neighbor standpoint. Belisle: As a farmer performance standards are imposed upon me by the WSDA, by EPA, by ESA, by the Health Department, etc. I have a huge number of performance standards that I have to adhere to in order to exist. BMPs give me a way to live with those people. Menzies: I think it's interesting that what we have under the performance standards section, 24.12.030, that it says conform with industry standard best management practices as defined in 24.12.020 and as approved by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. It seems like we don't really know what those BMPs are. Hegedus: We do have a fair amount of expertise with these kinds of issues. Even though it's not standardized locally or nationally we do rely on that expertise. Mann: As it's written in the accessory uses that is regulated by 24.12 despite not being referenced? Hegedus: We don't really separate out accessory use. We regulate all substrate production. Olason: If it would make people feel more comfortable we could certainly have a broader reference back to 24.12 in that section of accessory use. Menzies: Page 6, of the Health ordinance, refers to sample sized quantities. That is not defined. It also refers to exchanges of limited quantities of substrate. How do you define that? 71 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 10 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 Hegedus: Sample size usually means about a garbage bag full which is sent to a lab for analysis, once a week maybe. The one existing facility we have that exchanges material once a year or every two years they have a bad batch. What they like to do is ship part of that batch to their other facility to see if it the batch or if it is the grow room. If the batch that they transport grows at the other location they know they have to quickly do something with the environment they are trying to grow the mushrooms in. If the batch doesn't grow it gives them information. They have to give prior notice and document that it didn't go off site and be sold to someone else. We consider this to be perfectly acceptable. Mann: Would that be a complaint driven process if they didn't let you know in advance. Hegedus: Then they would not be in compliance and they would potentially loose their exemptions and would potentially have to go under permit and be subject to all operating and design standards so there is really no incentive to risk that. Hunter: Well, there might be an incentive. Let's just say, theoretically, that a business that owned a mushroom farm here in Whatcom County, that also did substrate production also owned a business in Canada and the substrate production turned out to be heavily regulated in one area and there seemed to be some freedom in another area so you begin to think to yourself maybe I'll send up some of my substrate, that I produced here, to my other business in Canada. It turns out I'm going to need to test a lot of it. How, in fact, can it ever be regulated? Hegedus: By this ordinance. It gives us full access for inspection, full access for shipping documentation, they have to do prior notification and this really is very tight language to give a regulatory authority the best possible opportunity to see if they are using substrate on site or off site. If they are using it off site they are now subject to the full force of the ordinance. That is the best that we can do as an oversight agency. Hunter: There is another thing you can do which is just not allow it. Menzies: When I look at this the question is is there a cap on the number of shipments? Hegedus: They have to give prior notification. They have to work with the Health Department. We consider that adequate. Menzies: Is this an issue? Hegedus: We don't feel it is. We feel that we will manage this aspect of the operation. We feel they deserve to be able to do this to run their business. Olason: We did have an issue emerge pertaining to off site shipment. It has to do with a reference in 20.40.111 where we talk about referencing the agricultural code back to 24.12 in the section about off site shipment. What we have discovered is that the Health Department ordinance is limiting off site shipment under 24.12.060(2) up to 3,200 yards. Our issue, as a land use authority, is that the definition of on farm is that you use it on farm so we want to include some clarifying language under 109 that basically states that all off site shipment, regardless of yardage, totals would be in compliance with 24.13.060(2)(a)(iv). It is our intention that this limitation be clear. The hearing was opened to the public. Charlene French, Ferndale: I live between the Smith Road and Slater Road across the street from what was IMS. Between April 1999 and August 2002 there were over 796 complaints to Northwest Air Pollution about the IMS composting. I realize they have changed their name now but that's what I knew 72 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT ular Meeting May 25, 2006 them as. Since the facility has closed I might have called Northwest Air Pollution once or twice, on an odor problem. We could not use our yard. We could not open up windows or doors. My grandkids did not like coming over to grandma's house to play outside because it stunk. 1 had a hard time working in my yard. It caused emotional and health issues. My stomach would know up and I had a hard time breathing the stench. When Northwest Air Pollution would come out they knew me on a first name basis. I called the Health Department at the time and they couldn't do anything. They said it was up to Northwest Air Pollution. I think they have changed some things in the mean time. The other day Greg called and he said that there was this meeting tonight and would I like to go? I said yes and guess what? My patio door is open, my windows are open and I have been working in my yard. don't want them to go through the hell we did. I know first hand the impact of living by a mushroom composting facility. It is awful. The odors are obnoxious. You really can't believe it. It's really bad. I would like to read a statement from Dawn Vesper of the Whatcom County Health Department. "We formally assessed that there is a hazard to the population from intermoderate level of exposure to the odor consisting of hydrogen, sulfide and ammonia." I would like to say that other farm products don't make you sick like mushroom substrate. Please reconsider the SEPA DNS that you issued on mushroom substrate. I had Northwest Air Pollution on my speed dial. That's kind of embarrassing. Please be careful. They say one thing and do other things. Christopher Street, representative of the Ostrom operation: We are based in Lacy and on Goodwin Road. I appreciated Mrs. French's comments. I have never meet her but I am familiar with her name through the IMS facility and people I know, both regulatory and in the industry, that were related to that particular facility. do take a minor issue, which isn't personal, it's just trying to be objective. That was an issue very different from what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about a health issue here, we are talking about a zoning issue and the ramifications of the GMHB result. The IMS issue isn't a fair comparison here. IMS was not sited in the manner that the Ostrom facility is currently which is on agricultural land. Isn't wasn't anywhere near the scale of the Ostrom facility. It was three to four times larger, sited in a high residential to moderate residential zone and of course the impacts were going to be more significant. I appreciate the sentiment that she expresses. I don't take issue with people who don't like the smell. It's been my life and I don't mind it. It's our bread and butter but it isn't something that necessarily makes people sick by itself. want to offer a couple of comments to help clarify the BMP and performance standard issue although I think Jeff Hegedus did a very good job. There have been no formal industry BMPs relating to the production of mushroom compost in the U.S. industry. Most of it has related to the storage and disposal of spent substrate. This has risen out of the mushroom industry and Penn State University, where the majority of the mushrooms in the country are produced. There is a section in that BMP that we have adopted as part of our operating plan both in Lacey and Everson. Our expectation and hope is based on the requirements of both the zoning and the health ordinances that the NRCS will look at that operating plan and determine it's significance and relevance to what it is that both this commission and the community, as well as the industry is seeking to have. They are different performance standards and BMPs, but one arises out of the other and there is an incremental increase in the requirements as Jeff pointed out in the health ordinance that relate to what is required for a facility in terms of design and operating standards as you grow that business on the site that you are at. A site that's as small as we are, in terms of our industry, doesn't typically have a lot there but BMPs really relate to some of the fundamentals of the operation. If you understand anything about growing mushrooms you would know that it's a very specific crop and requires very specific handling techniques of all the raw materials. This includes everything from your 73 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 sourcing, approval, rejection of raw materials at the gate to how you handle that crop at the end of the growing cycle, conduct a post crop sterilization, and dispose of the spent substrate. It has everything to do with your processes, your procedures, and the documentation that you take to support that. I know, for instance, members of the community here who have done a significant amount of research which support the statement that the mushroom crop is a highly documented crop. You have to know exactly what you are doing every step of the way because it's a high capital crop, there are a lot of significantly different processes that are involved and if you don't track it with documentation you loose control of where that crop will go. You have to remember it's a living, dynamic thing and it wants to do what it wants to do. The controls on growing mushrooms are very, very severe and if you don't employ those controls you end up with an economic result that is less than optimum and you probably don't have a crop value that allowed you to make a profit on that particular crop. We are a year around operation. The crop cycle runs about 12 weeks from the day we break a bale of wheat straw to the day we post -op sterilize. A lot of significant processes happen in between those dates and you have to control them very regularly with a real restrictive severity. think the NRCS and the Health Department will be entirely satisfied with the operating plan and the BMPs that we come up. It includes everything from effluent control, with the requirements that the DOE and Health Department would have, an odor management plan, an odor response plan and everything think the community would be concerned about. I would like to see our discussion come back to the issue of the zoning ordinance because the Health ordinance will come up in the future. Mann: If these ordinances go through as they are more or less proposed now and you would be limited to on farm substrate production at the Everson facility what would be your plan for that facility? Street: We have no plans to grow it. We did at one time, as the community knows but we have no plans now. We have intentions to modernize the facility. It's a very old, tired physical structure. Anything we do there to modernize would be designed to also improve the crop production processes. Composting, for instance, would be something we choose to put air under certain portions of to try to accelerate the process which means you have less material committed to a cycle at any one time. It really means less ambient background odor being created. Anything we try to do to produce a good odor profile tends to produce a good compost that makes an economically viable crop. The are no plans to expand the facility. Steensma: What do you do with the spent substrate? Is there any odor to it and where does it go? Street: There is no odor initially if it comes out of the sterilization chamber and gets tipped from the trays and picked up within a couple of days. The caveat would be if the vendor does not come and retrieve the material and its been able to sit in the hot sun there can be odor from that. Quite honestly at our Lacy facility, which is many times more significant in terms of it's size and volumes and we are very heavily encroached around, that is our more significant odor issue. Steensma: Where does it go? Street: There is a vendor here who has been taking that material for many, many years. He is in the garden soil business in the Everson area. Steensma: So you don't put it on your own land? Street: No. Steensma: Is there any reason that you are sitting on agricultural soils other than you are getting away with it and it's cheaper than someplace else? 74 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT ular Meeting May 25, 2006 Street: It's farmland and mushroom growing is farming. Steensma: Mushroom growing is farming but you could do it on a rooftop in New York City. Street: With a lot of difficulty. Steensma: But you're not using the soil. Street: No, we don't grow the crop in the soil. Steensma: You don't use the soil for anything? Street: Yes. Patrick Mulany, Seattle: I am an attorney at Foster, Pepper. 1 was Ostrom's council before the GMHB. To answer the question that was just asked about not using the soil that issue was addressed by the GMHB and they found that both the mushroom production and the substrate production, on -farm, were agricultural activities that were subject to the GMA. It would be similar to a dairy farm in saying that the cows inside the barn don't really use the soil or a chicken farm, where the chickens are inside, and don't use the soil. That is how that issue is legally handled. In the GMHB decision the basis is that agricultural land is for agricultural uses and the County can't require the agricultural land to buffer itself from incompatible uses. As you said there is BMP and the way that was addressed in this ordinance was by the use of the companion Health Department ordinance with the performance standards and the design standards. There is an increasing requirements for existing farms and any expansions that includes having a plan, using specific ricking technologies, aeration, and finally going indoors as the facility expands. Also there are requirements under 24.12.030(1)(c)(d) that require control of excessive process odors and control of nuisance odors. As Mr. Street said there is no specific document you can to and say these are the BMPs but those are the performance standards and they are linked to specific industry activities that are used to control odor as the facility is expanded. Greg Barlean, Everson: Since this BMP thing bleeped up here I would like to make one comment. When this first began I contacted Dr. Allen Stuart, at Penn State University, and talked to him about BMPs for substrate production. He knew I was going to quote him and he told me I could. What he told me that was the open air windrow substrate production, on an aerated floor or not on an aerated floor, does not make any difference. It doesn't meet the minimum standard for pollution control anywhere in North America today. What our Health Department has done, in that ordinance rewrite that they have, is to allow this archaic facility, out there on Goodwin Road, to expand using a technology that isn't even close. I don't know who is going to get in trouble for that. I don't know if it's going to be the Health Department or the neighbors. Our attorney, Bob Carmichael, is normally here but he had a prior commitment so I am here. Our group is here tonight to present three basic arguments. One, you don't have to make the drastic changes that are being promoted in the ordinances. Two, if you do the County will loose all control over this problematic industry. Three, the price that will eventually be paid is liable to be way higher than you might imagine. This industry and these problems have cropped up in jurisdiction after jurisdiction and it's big trouble. if Mr. Street was honest and accurate with what he said in that he doesn't want to ship any substrate off site then why are all of these changes being put in the ordinance to allow limited off site shipping for testing and this and that? Just consider that. 75 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 14 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 am going to touch on the five key points that our attorney put in the letter you have before you. One, the authority for the GMHB decision. I'm not even going to address that. It refers to some RCWs that are referred to later in the decision. I am not an attorney but I understand the basis of how it works. Two, the principal finding of on -farm substrate production as an agricultural activity. I have no problem with that. It's a good finding but it would make our ordinance vulnerable to parameters for BMPs. For example buffers and setbacks have to be justified by BMPs and the County failed to provide any justification under BMPs, although the Hopewell group had supplied a great deal of information. We provided a 660 page booklet and two of the chapters in that booklet were dedicated specifically to justifying the buffers and setbacks. BMPs seems to be an elusive term for all parties involved. Three, the County is free to limit substrate production for off site use to zero if it wants to. The GMHB not only didn't address it they basically said that it's out of the realm and off site substrate production was not an agricultural activity and thus not subject to the provisions and the BMPs. Five, compliance required. This is the key one. This is the one we have the greatest concern about. According to our attorney all that has to be done is the County has to make an active effort to find the BMPs for the buffers and setbacks to justify those lengthy, deep and wide buffers and setbacks. Apparently the County is not politically motivated to go down that road but we certainly can provide it and we are willing and able to do that. What we are asking is for you guys to consider one or two of the alternate drafts that we brought forward to you. Menzies: What is your biggest concern with shipping off site? Barlean: The fate of the substrate really doesn't have a lot to do with our concerns. Our major concerns are that substrate production, whether it's used for on site or off site, produces high levels of sulfide gases and a number of other health effects. In the pragmatic sense our concern is that this market is wide open, as you folks know, for somebody to build a large substrate production facility and ship it off site. This is the draw, the discrepancy in rules between our two adjoining jurisdictions. We are a little more lenient for farm operations and more willing to put up with the odors and the runoff, etc. Mann: Does their operation now create a serious odor problem for all of the neighbors? Barlean: Yes, from time to time on whatever days they do the flipping. It's all part of it. Basically the operation, as it exists today, is how it has historically been for all of these years and nobody is complaining. It's okay. You know what it is. The current problem with the water runoff is a serious matter and we are working on that with the DOE. Mann: So your main concern is that they are going to use this off site shipping as a loophole to commercial substrate production and sell if off site in the agricultural land? Barlean: Yes. The GMHB said it pretty clearly that the agricultural lands should be dedicated for agricultural activities and commercial substrate production is not an agricultural activity. Mann: This language does restrict, 100 percent, commercial substrate production for off site selling to the Heavy Impact Industrial zone. Barlean: How do you define commercial? If commercial is that you ship one yard off site then yes it restricted to off site use. If you consider on farm substrate production as an accessory use to mushroom farming and then you define off site shipping as an accessory to the growing operation then MET RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 15 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT ular Meeting May 25, 2006 opens the door. What has happened in 20.15 is they have taken on farm substrate production completely out of the ordinance then they have taken off site shipping and made it accessory to on site farming. Basically if you do that you take the off site shipping out of the ordinance also. Hunter: I'm not sure that I agree with your interpretation of the language. Mann: I understand your fears about this being a massive loophole but when I look at it closely I don't see how they could really get around it. Barlean: Let's say you increase production 25 percent outright with an open air facility. That's allowed in the Health Department ordinance. You are allowed to ship a limited amount of that off but you have to notify the Health Department and other things. It says it has to be for testing purposes only but what does that mean? Menzies: According to the previous discussion it means a garbage bag size of substrate. Barlean: Let me tell you what happened. These guys began shipping off site illegally in the summer of 2002. It took the neighbors a full week to track the truck. We were told by the Planning Department what we had to do in order to file a complaint. We set up the cars, we watched, we had radios and it took a full week to document that they were shipping off site illegally. Who is going to monitor all of this? We wouldn't be here if we thought this was just going to be for a load or two a year. Hunter: The part that was confusing to me was the change that they have made to 20.40, which is the accessory uses, provides that on farm mushroom substrate production, when substrate is used solely on site for the growing of mushrooms, and in compliance with BMPs, limited off site shipment may be allowed if such shipment is conducted as authorized under WCC 24.12. 060(2)(a)(iv). The rest of that language, under 24.12, is not the relevant language. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that this created a loophole for the production of substrate for off site use. I see some anxiety with regard to the language in (a) and (b). I'm not sure I understand what there is in the arrangement as it's been set up right now that creates loopholes. Do you see something special beyond what we understand? Barlean: Well if it had on there, say two loads a year, one load a month and the stocks were monitored by the Health Department it would be okay or just take it out of the ordinance. 18 months ago ordinance 24.12 was passed. It requires the Health Department to bring Ostroms under permit and to this day they have never been brought under permit. Hunter: If we were to lift the language from (2)(a)(iv)(A)(B) and put it here instead of it saying limited off site shipment may be allowed if shipment.... then use this language. Then it wouldn't be dependent on the Health Ordinance at all. You sound like you are afraid that the language in the Health Ordinance is going to change in some way that may make this not matter anymore. Barlean: I just know the history and I just know that these guys didn't go through all this effort and go through all this legal maneuvering to do nothing. They have an objective. I don't know what it is but suspect it has something to do with manufacturing substrate and sending it to B.C. To answer you question I don't think anything to do with off site shipping should have been in the Health Department ordinance to begin with. That is a zoning issue. Catherine Hanowell, Everson: I live immediately south of the mushroom farm and I have talked to this group before and explained that this agricultural land that is still being farmed. This family has been there for 50 years. It's like one agricultural use versus another agricultural use, the person who lives on their farm versus the people who don't live on their farm. It's a tension in the community that exists. 77 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 16 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 What you have been discussing is very important to me and I understand you to say that the zoning ordinance, specifically 20.40.100 Accessory uses, that you understand there is a tie to the Health ordinance in this particular spot. You understand the nervousness about what limited shipping means and there are some options you are looking at in terms of tightening that up and perhaps bringing it over to the zoning ordinance so it's explicit there. Ken Ryan, Everson: I think what Greg is trying to say is that you take that original ordinance and see what they struck in that ordinance, especially the limited off site shipping. I don't think they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a little bit of testing. They did it to make money. I have lived in the Everson area for 31 years, having moved here in 1975. 1 witnessed the former Mt. Baker Mushroom Farm being built in 1979. None of us objected or complained back then about the occasional odors. When we were before you last month off site shipping of mushroom substrate was soundly rejected by this commission for which we are grateful. Mr. Belisle said something inflammatory which I feel needs to be addressed. He said that people don't like to live near farms because they are noisy and smelly. Nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to our community. Our community is not a golf course community that used to be a farm with houses around it. Our community is not a gravel pit that is now a man made lake with houses around it. Ours is an established very rural community. We have several people that have lived there their entire lives. One woman has lived in the same house, on the Mack Road, since 1926. We value living in a farming community and value supporting our farmers. We have experienced the odor of pea viners and the raw potato diggers. Cows, silage, fans, tractors, and trucks are all part of why we live here. Personally I am in heaven living in this environment. The proposed mushroom substrate ordinance, with its provision for allowing limited off site shipping we believe threatens to ruin the values of our community. If the mushroom substraters wanted to manufacture substrate from on site farming we are all for that but a tiny mushroom farm adjacent to a large substrate facility is a recipe for disaster. Since we uncovered the substraters very secret plans to pour a football field size slab of concrete to turn mushroom substrate outdoors without a conditional use permit we have feared that the values of our rural farming community is at great risk. There is a huge difference between silage, cow manure, and typical farm nuisances. Mushroom substrate, which the Health Department acknowledges can make you feel sick. If off site shipping was not allowed in the ordinance passed last year and was never legal before that why would we allow it now? I was one of those people chasing trucks up to Canada. I brought photos and video and handed it to the person from the Planning Department who originally gave them permission to pour this football field slab. He said we will start enforcement immediately. We never saw it. Every time we called they told us it's on the stack. Hunter: So far it sounds to me that the primary concern is that as a result of the changes that have been made the mushroom farms have been perhaps given a loophole to allow them to do a lot of shipping of substrate for other purposes. Ryan: It opens a little door for them which is what they need. Scott Smith, Whatcom County: I am the neighbor that is most adjacent and I must confess I have had great neighbors with the mushroom farm over the 20 some years that I have been there. They have always been helpful when it snowed. They would bring in their loaders and dig us out. Their buildings have grown over time. They have always been small but over time they have continued to grow with more growing rooms, bigger machines and pretty soon air conditioners. My Sundays our not very complementary to a quiet Sunday afternoon with no noise, however we are living with that. If growth NQ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 17 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 wasn't taking place I don't think we would be here right now having this meeting if there wasn't something more going on. The vague language that has come across in 24.12 bothers me. First of all you have seen quickly that the BMPs are in the definitions. It means operating standards, schedules of activities, maintenance procedures, use of engineering controls, other common practices utilized within the industry to protect human health and the environment. Is this enough? It left me feeling like it's not. I am looking for a stronger definition of BMPs. Everything surrounds this definition. Are there BMPs out there? With research I think so. As we move on to 24.12.030, Performance Standards, I am concerned about control nuisance odors to minimize migration. That language was changed from prevent unreasonable migration. The question minimize from prevent, why did that take place? It left me thinking something is going on. E was deleted entirely, which essentially dismissed conformity to BMPs. This was approved by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. 24.12.060, Design Standards, my concern is the wording of sample size quantities that may be shipped off site for testing purposes. Do they do that now? Quantify what sample size quantities is. Is it a truck load, a big truck load or a little truck load? The other language that concerns me says expand the capacity to produce substrate over the production level up to 50 percent. They were already given 25 percent so does this now make it 75 percent? What does pre -condition heaps mean? Hunter: To clarify for you, we aren't going to be addressing the Health Department code except as it's been incorporated by this. Olason: 24.12 does apply broadly to the accessory use. What Commissioner Hunter is talking about is this specific section that we tie directly to that is a limitation that clarifies that in the case of off site shipment, the simple distinction was originally if they shipped off site they were commercial. If they used on site they were on farm. The question came up the because we do have a grower that does this swap, occasionally, they didn't want to be prohibited outright from that or be prohibited from operating where they were. The commercial definition, if you go back to 24.12, says clearly that you can't ship off site. We used to have some other limitations. If you go back to the old code we used to say if you were over 3,200 yards you would be commercial. Now we have the clear distinction of on site or shipping off site. The reality of the situation is that this is a need of an operation that has been underway from some time. If this operation did not do anything different and maintained itself as a grandfathered use they have shipped off site already. They have established that as a standard practice as part of the test to see where their problem is with the growing medium. All this is trying to do is accommodate that reality. Steensma: The Health Ordinance is kind of a moving target. Can we attach ourselves to something that's changing like that? Olason: The question has come up why don't we have this in our own code? One of the issues is we are the Planning Department. We aren't out there investigating solid waste dumps and the kind of standards trained health officials are working with daily. The expectation here is that they would have a lot more expertise than we would have to determine whether it's a realistic needed request to do this swap. We felt that the important thing for us to do is try to deal with land use issues and have the Health Department deal with the performance issues. This one does cross the line a little bit. The Health Department is the one that holds the permit so they have the authority to pull the permit in the event that someone wants to ship off site. Harold Swanson, Everson: I am so delighted to hear how tightly controlled and carefully documented mushroom growing is. I have a long background in quality systems. It would be better if some of these systems addressed the production of substrate as well as the growing of the mushrooms themselves. One of the best ever descriptions of a quality system is also one of the simplest, doing right things right. 79 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 18 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 It doesn't how well you do a job if it's the wrong job. Here we have a situation where a lot of time and effort and thought and agonizing went into writing the original 20.15. It has stood the test put to it by the GMHB in every way except one. They took issue with the buffers and setbacks. What they did was to invite the County to justify the buffer and setback requirement by introducing BMPs. Failing that what other options were there? Either modify that part and that part only or else challenge the GMHB in court. Why fix what ain't broke? Is the County willing to come up with justification for the buffer and setback requirements? if not, why not? If not, than what can be done? Change it. Why do anything else? I will also say that I share the concern that i have heard being expressed about loose language. How much is a limited amount? Am I allowed to park my car at a meter a limited amount over the time the red flag drops? I don't think so. Any lawyer I have ever known, who was worth his salt, has felt strongly that he would rather take an unfavorable ruling or an unfavorable law rather than leave things vague and up in the air. We can ask no better. Diane Ruiz, Everson: I live with my husband and five children. My grandmother raised her five children at this residence now I have the blessing of raising my five children who are the ages of 5 through 13 where I spent much of my own time growing up. I am asking that you would do everything in your power to keep the current law in place as much as possible. The health of my family is at stake. My girlfriend recently came over and as she stepped out my back door in disgust she asked me what died? was embarrassed to say that was the smell from the mushroom farm. It especially concerns me about what I have read on hydrogen sulfate. Its smell can not be used as an indicator of gas being present. Now smell can actually indicate a high concentrate of hydrogen sulfate rather than its absence. I am going to give you a copy of an article that I think demonstrates pretty clearly that the mushroom compost is a health threat and that it should not be done close to neighbors. Part of the article says "Mushroom compost gas killed teenager" This was dated Thursday, February 2, 2006. "A summer job helping mushroom compost ended in a tragedy for a young student when he died from hydrogen sulfate poisoning. Justin, 14, arrived in Ireland in the summer of last year to join his mother. The teenager was helping a local man collect the compost from the mushroom factory when he was overcome by fumes and died. Justin was loading rotten compost from the mushroom factory onto the back of his lorry to be spread around the farms in the area but the youth suddenly collapsed and died in the vehicle. Witnesses said there was a strong smell, like rotting eggs coming from the waste. Dr. Deborah Condrell, who conducted the post mortem, said she found more than enough hydrogen sulfate in the body to kill the teenage and he had died from suffocation caused by the poisonous gas. The mushroom comets was also tested and found to contain hydrogen sulfate and that was the source of the gas. The Health and Safety authorities said there appeared to be serious issues to be addressed in relation to this case. What happened was a tragedy. We will have to take a serious look at what happened. That might mean looking at the process and systems on mushrooms farms. What was worrying was that what happened did so in the open air and not in a sealed production unit or container." Please limit the amount of mushroom substrate production that you allow in the field directly across from my family. Rebecca Ruiz, Everson: I would like to tell you something about my family. My grandmother was born on the Goodwin and her grandparents came here before Washington was a state. She and my great grandfather went to Hopewell School. We live in her house on her old dairy farm next to the mushroom farm. We have been here a lot longer than the mushroom farm has been. What's worrying me the most about all that is going on is, I don't understand everything perfectly, I know it can be harmful. We moved over here a couple of years ago, after my grandma died, and after that my little sister got allergies, my mom got allergies and I got sports asthma. None of us had anything before that. I personally think that it could have something to do with the mushroom farm because all of my life 1 have grown up on farms and have been around chickens, horses, goats, cows and everything there is and the smell never bothered me at all. The smell of the mushroom farm isn't what bothers me as much it's that I start feeling sick and I have to rest for a couple of hours because I don't feel right. Later on I will hear my :1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 19 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 parents talking about how the mushroom farm smells bad then I realize that's probably what it is. Also what scares me is that my little brothers, sisters and me all run out in the open fields and the woods right next to the farm. Like my mom said even if you can't smell it there can be gases there that can be hurting you. Even in the wintertime, when it's not hot out, and we can't smell it we can still be getting hurt. Darrel Alwood, Everson: I live just adjacent to the mushroom farm. I distributed a letter which I will touch on. Our neighborhood believes that an air mushroom substrate operation is putting our community at risk from the avian flu. We understand that you are deliberating about allowing mushroom companies to produce mushroom substrate for off site shipping. We implore you to not allow the company to do this because ultimately we fear that it will mean that there will be a greater volume of substrate produced at the plant. We feel that even the amount of chicken manure needed to sustain their current on site manufacturing operation puts our community at risk. Neither the volume nor the processing of feed stocks are monitored closely. I am assuming that is the Health Department's responsibility. We feel that we need clear, specific, precise ordinances to protect the health of our community. Ostrom's open air substrate production facility creates a venue for the spread of avian flu virus. It was confirmed by the Director of the Whatcom County Health Department, in December 2005, and the Washington State Department of Agriculture that "a significant quantity" of manure used to produce mushroom substrate at the Everson plant is imported from poultry farms in British Columbia. Poultry farms in the area in B.C., from which the manure is shipped have had two avian flu situations in the past two years. In 200417,000,000 poultry were killed because they were infected with the avian flu virus. Again this fall an additional 60,000 poultry in Chilliwack were killed because of another avian flu virus incident. This is very close to the Canadian border. Having B.C. or any chicken manure imported into our neighborhood, with any type of avian flu virus in it, is of great concern to us. As stated in the U.S. Department of Labor's OSHA website "In an agricultural setting animal manure containing influenza virus can contaminate dust and soil causing an infection when the contaminated dust is inhaled. Contaminated farm equipment, feed, cages, or shoes can carry the virus from farm to farm. The virus can also be carried on the bodies and feet of animals such as rodents. The virus can survive, at cool temperature, for at least three months. In water the virus can survive for up to 40 days at 72 degrees fahrenheit. It can survive for more than 30 days at 32 degrees fahrenheit. For a highly pathogenic form studies have shown that a single gram of contaminated manure can contain enough virus to infect one million birds. In other words the avian flu virus can be found in any manure at any site. We would like to see it limited from transport. Mann: In the letter from the Department of Agriculture they say that poultry waste is processed at 63 degrees celsius for 30 minutes. Is that enough to kill the virus? Alwood: Some of us have been studying that and did review various articles and there is a range from up to 180 degrees. Some articles say 173 degrees will kill it. From what we understand and what we studied my understanding is that the processing of the manure that comes out of B.C. is not to that limit. It's not enough to kill the avian flu virus. Cheri McKay, Everson: I am embolden by one of the Commissioner's articles that he put out not to long ago and I am going to take his advice. I am going to realize that I don't have to know all of the terms, I don't have to understand it all but I don't have to fall for this is what the law requires us to do and there are no other options. I appreciate that advise from him and I want to submit the option supporting the buffers and setbacks. Require that it is the best management practices. Agriculture has a tough go of it. BMPs are reasonable. Please do not defer to us. Defer to the resource. I understand what the GMHB said and I agree with it. I also respect Mr. Olason's work, however I must say I spent a few hours and I came up with some BMPs for environmental protection in the mushroom farm community. I will submit them all to you for the record. Some of the examples say to maintain maximum setback distances between the substrate preparation operation and other land uses or residences. Select a site that RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 provides suitable separation from sensitive receptors. Separate the facilities from sensitive areas such as wetlands, streams, drinking water sources, occupied residences, etc. One of the documents from Penn State says "Situations vary widely. There are no universally applicable rules, there are however many generally valid principals. Setback considerations consider the size and type of operations of the facilities covered by the setbacks, proposed site methods for applying waste, local vegetation, prevailing winds, weather patterns, etc." This is all of the stuff we have been saying for four years. You can't just plug a number in. I don't think it was a good idea in the original ordinance. You have to look at something site specific. Another idea is going to the special use permit like the mineral resource lands did. It is kind of like a conditional use permit but you can take out the preferences and the neighborhood concerns and just get down to what most of us care about which is the environment. If you take care of the air and water you are going to take care of us. I called the Natural Resource Conservation Service today. I didn't call the local branch I called one up. They wanted to know why I wasn't calling the local branch. I told them that at this time I was more comfortable speaking to a superior office because I had a simple question. I told them we have a proposed ordinance and I read to them what it says. I asked if they are going to be approving BMPs? They said no way. They give advice. It is a voluntary program that they are under. They help people to decide what is best for them. When Mr. Street says that the Natural Resource Conservation Service will determine the significance and relevance of their BMPs and they will be entirely satisfied with their plan that doesn't matter because they don't have any authority. Ms. McKay submitted several books relating to intensive agriculture to the County for their library. Kim Ferringer, Whatcom County: I have lived here for over 40 years. I was originally going to talk about off site substrate use but that seems like it has been pounded pretty good. I was sent here with a bunch of quotes to point out how substrate production for off site use was not an agricultural use of land but it seems like that has been taken as a given. I will give a quote from the GMHB who stated in their final decision that "Apparently both parties agree that substrate production for off site use is not an agricultural activity and therefore not protected." My fear is again like Mr. Hunter's scenario previously that this language is vague. The concern is what is limited quantities and the fact that they have to notify the Health Department it doesn't say they have to seek permission they measly have to notify. I don't think anyone is concerned about garbage sack fulls. 1 think it's entirely possible they would try to get away with shipping more than that or producing substrate at another facility they own for off site use. I have more concerns about enforcement because if lawyers love ambiguity then I think some bureaucrats love it too because it's sort of an excuse for inaction. Royal Sefton, Whatcom County: When Mr. Hunter mentioned ambiguity and law, yes attorneys love it. was in law enforcement for 22 years and had to deal with it on a daily basis. Attorneys live to have laws that are so vague that they can hide behind any provision in that law and do whatever they want. Mr. Belisle you talked about BMPs. Your definition has to do with what you do in Whatcom County along with a bunch of other farmers that do the same thing. We are talking about an industry that has one site in the County. I don't know of any other sites, other than the one in Lacey, that exists in the State of Washington. Where are BMPs going to come from? They definitely aren't going to come from the local people. They are going to come from someone living in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, California or Canada. We don't live in any of those places. I think what we have to look at here is also the fact that the people that want to tell us what they are doing are the people that are potentially going to make a profit. They are going to tell the Health Department that they have to ship off site because it didn't work so we are going to send it to our other farm. They have already proven that they are shipping off site to Canada for a profit. Who is going to check on this? They didn't check on them when they were doing stuff illegally in 2002. It was up to the neighborhood association to catch them and prove it. Even after :IA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 21 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 they proved these things nothing was done. There was no enforcement action taken. They got a slap on the hand. I think that is what we are dealing with here. They are an industry that is going to push the envelope as far as they can every chance you give them. Whatever is done here is going to have to be codified to the point there is no wiggle room. If they can ship off site I believe it's going to have to say they can ship off site x number of pounds per year, no more. If they try to ship to ship more they get busted for doing it and they loose their protection. If they ship it to another farm that belongs to them is there going to be any provision to actually prove they own that farm? I have a piece of land next to me that someone wants to turn into a worm farm. The guy doesn't even own. It's owned by some people who live in British Columbia. They don't mention these things but we are going to pay the price. I have to be concerned with my well being contaminated, I have to breath air that may potentially have carcinogens in them and the avian flu. I live down wind from Ostroms. They are spreading bird manure on the ground, which dries, and that stuff is blowing in my direction. I really empathize with people that have small children because they are a lot more susceptible as are older people. We are letting the fox run the henhouse and that's a dangerous proposition. A short break was taken. Lamar McKay, Everson: I have been a house mover for 20 years and I want to take a load somewhere I go in and get a permit. That is something you might want to think about. Hunter: You get a permit from whom? McKay: I go down and get a permit to move a wide load from the City of Bellingham, the County or the State. Ed Norakowski, Everson: 1 have lived in Bellingham for 34. The last three and a half years we have lived in Everson. We retired to live out in the country in the fine, clean air. Both the wife and I have bad lungs. We use oxygen in the evening. Last summer there were times we had to get up and leave because the smell was too bad. My wife is also loosing her eyesight. She is legally blind. The Swedish Eye Institute, in Seattle, said they have only seen her and one other case that has been caused by chicken and pigeon droppings. This is from being raised in the south. With these nitrates and all it's a great concern for us. Jean Westgate, Everson: I live less than a mile from the mushroom farm. There has been a lot of discussion about BMPs tonight. If there are indeed no BMPs as regards mushroom substrate management in Washington why can't Whatcom County take a leadership role and create unambiguous language to establish BMPs here? Canada saw fit to do this, right across the border, 10 miles away from Ostroms. Why can't Whatcom County do the same thing? We need to protect our community. We are a large community tucked away. I have lived there over 33 years which was before any mushroom farm existed. I am very impressed with this board and your integrity and the questions you have asked. Mann: Did you say Canada has BMPs? Westgate: Canada has laws concerning mushroom substrate, to my knowledge. They have required their mushroom substrate production to be indoors. That may be one of the reasons this is being shipped to Canada because they can't have the outdoor production. Jane Lowe -Webster, Everson: This is sort of in line with what Jean was saying. My concern is that in the language of definition of commercial mushroom substrate production facilities. I am concerned that strikes the language about off site shipping. I know you have talked about it. It apparently states that farms owned by the same operator are allowed to ship back and forth between themselves. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 22 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 As Jean was saying Canada does have strict indoor regulations for substrate production. When the neighbors tracked Ostrom trucks, years ago, they found the trucks at a warehouse with stacks of Ostrom boxes of mushrooms in those warehouses in Canada. If the same owner can ship between each other, if Ostroms were acquired by a B.C. company, or Ostroms were to sell their facility in Everson to a B.C. company, could they then ship freely back and forth between themselves and are then basically facilitating B.C. manufacturers of substrate and B.C. mushroom growers to bypass their own strict regulations of indoor production at the expense of Whatcom County residents? Elizabeth Vocart, Everson: I live in a house built in 1910. It's been there before a lot of the buildings around there. You probably know this but whenever you ask for a clarification in ordinance that is signal that the clarification written down and made. If you are asking a question a lawyer can ask a question. I am very concerned about this because I thought all these proposed ordinances were reviewed by the County attorneys before they even came forward. When I see something that even I could look at and question this is why I don't trust the County. What's going on? We've got all of these lawyers sitting over here and these are basic law points. 1 am very concerned about that. I'm also concerned about the concept the farm and defining what does farm ownership mean. I mean this should have been dealt with before now. I shouldn't be doing this. I am also very concerned about the off site shipping. Kraig said that he felt a standard had been established. It hasn't been established at all. They have been operating, they say, since 1928. They shipped off site to Everson because of a problem, they said, in 1999. That is 73 years that they managed to produce mushroom substrate without having to go to another farm. They deal with all the time, I'm sure. Why all of a sudden do you have to have this? You don't. I have been around farms all my life. My husband has masters degree in agriculture so if anyone says this is just city people this is not true. Karen Heggery, Sumas: I agree with Greg and Ken Ryan and all they have said in the past. We are tolerant, right now, of the aroma on the certain days that we get it already and we are all concerned if it expands we will have it on a daily basis. We are concerned how this will affect our social lives, our families and how we conduct ourselves on a daily basis. Another concern I have is doesn't stand to reason that if our neighbors tracked these people a few years back and documented what they were doing as breaking the law and shipping off site and up to Canada that they have lost that status as a trusted business? What's to say they won't do it again? hope you take that into consideration. Prior notice came up earlier. Does that mean prior notice is used as an international term or is that domestic? Because if it's an international term and they are talking prior notice then it's obvious they are going to Canada anyway. I am not familiar with all of the actual terms but I am hoping this huge shipping off site terminology goes to prohibited and not limited for a lot of the reasons you have heard tonight. Hunter: I'm not sure what you mean by prior notification being domestic or international. Heggery: I have a little bit of knowledge of what prior notice means on an international basis from my job. I know what prior notice means to be able to cross the border with FDA or agricultural goods. There is a law in place that you have to have prior notice prior to shipping commercial goods across the border. Is prior notice the same as prior notification because where I see it in the letterhead that I work with it just says prior notice? Is that the same as prior notification? John Serfozo, Everson: I have lived in the area for the past 30 years. I want to comment on some things that were said by several people, including Scott Smith. Before that I would like to comment on something that was said by the council for Ostrom's. Mr. Steensma had made the statement mushrooms could be grown on a rooftop in New York City. I'm not a farmer but I'm not aware of cattle that eat cement nor am I aware of cattle that wander around mushroom substrate to find what they eat. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 23 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 Cattle are usually happier when they are roaming around in a large field so I don't think there is a comparison there. Scott Smith brought up something that I would like to leave you with. You may have noticed an air of distrust here. From our point of view Ostroms has not always been disingenuous. would like you to concentrate on the fact that the ordinances used to be very strong saying such things as prevent now it say minimize. Perhaps you can make it say something like severely minimize. Bob Ford, Everson: I am new to the area but not new to farming. We have raised pigs, chickens, horses, you name it. As a business man in the past I know there are rules and regulations a business is aware of prior to them running the business and if not they are still liable to follow the rules. I have been amazed at how many rules the Ostrom Mushroom Farm has broken willing. It seems to me that not very much gets done about it. Most recently somebody turned them in for outdoor burning. It wasn't me but I heard about it. I did see the burning because I live next door. It was a huge pile. I am just a resident but I know that the rules say that I can have a four foot by four foot pile of brush. Not rubbish or trash, or anything but brush. There's.had to be 40 by 40. Did they get a permit? No. It was illegal outdoor burning. They were cited. If they had cited me it would have been a $1,000 fine and I would have to have paid the whole thing. They were cited a $1,000 fine but it was negotiated down to $500. 1 don't understand how they get away with so much. Another example is we have called to have the air quality tested but they are under manned. We have called to have their water tested because some years ago they were in tremendous violation for fecal coliform that was way off of the charts. What were they told to do? Sample their own water. Now wait a minute. That's great for me. When I bought the place they told me to get a sample of water and bring it in and have it tested. Why? Because I am drinking it. But now they get to test their own water? Take their own sample? I want to know who is watching the store. It really concerns me. We pay the Health Department, we pay for air quality control and the DOE with our taxes. We need these things written out clearly. Three years were spent on those good ordinances. Why do they need to be changed? Why were they changed? I want in writing that they aren't going to increase the size of their place. Bob Carmichael, Bellingham: I am here on behalf of the Hopewell Neighborhood Association. I did submit something in writing which I would like to add a couple of points to. One of them is that it would be a useful starting point to start with the original ordinance that the County passed. The original ordinance was only found to be out of compliance in small respects. Rather than trying to make more significant changes one of the easiest things to do is to eliminate the reference to buffers and setbacks. The reference to these isn't something that necessarily would have to come out. I'm sure you have looked at this with respect to BMPs. BMPs are a very difficult thing to figure out at this point. It's maybe one of the most important parts of the Board's decision to say that BMPs are something that can apply to these kinds of activities. BMPs are really the last safeguard that exists for citizens that live near one of these facilities. To simply push that aside because we don't know what it means is not a responsible approach to take. It is something that we hope this Commission will take seriously. One of the means that the County has used in the past with respect to high impact sorts of activities is to require a permit. For example with mineral resource land designations. Mushrooms have the potential for the same kinds of impacts. If there was a requirement that BMPs have to be followed in order to get a special use permit or some kind of conditional use permit that would be a protection for the neighbors that doesn't exist right now. The last comment is the one that is most important to the group and that is to maintain the line of no off site shipping which the GMHB very clearly said is not an agricultural activity. Renee Brannik, Everson: From what I have learned there are a couple of County Council members who are historically very concerned about water quality, salmon streams, etc. When I hear things like chicken poop being in our water that concerns me in the fact that those particular Council members RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 24 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 against what we stand for. We elected you with a lot of trust so I am asking you to do the right thing instead of the political thing. Hunter: Just so you know, we are Commissioners and you will have a chance to speak to the Council. Kay Lowery, Everson: We have 38 acres of farmland. We just purchased another piece of property behind us. We are the original Goodwin homestead. We are directly across the field from the Ostrom farm. We have documentation that there has been no inorganic type of activity on our fields for over 10 years, maybe 20. We are in the process of becoming certified organic. I watch my field, because we hay it, we have llamas, we sell our hay, it's very good hay, a lot of horse people like it, it's very top of the line hay. I watch my fields every day in the summer and I can tell where the water is coming from basically. We have two springs in our field. The water comes from Swift Creek which Ostrom's farm is right next to. I know that my water, even though I don't have the hydrology test to prove it, comes from that creek, flows across their field, goes to our farm, down the hill and comes around the corner. You can see, as the field dries out, where the water is coming from. Massey Road has a certified salmon creek. The ditch is salmon. The water from the mountain is basically going across Ostroms. Anything that comes off of their substrate production is going to effect my organic field and the creek that is along Massey which is all salmon. don't understand how you join your club. In my mind if you have ever read Animal Farm the farmers are looking like pigs to me. I am sorry but I really don't understand how the County has been allowed, for the last three or four years, to sell us down the river. I don't understand why, when across the border, they have set the standards of the industry for mushroom farms to go inside. They have biofilters and they can control all of the noxious stuff that comes off of the substrate production. I don't understand why our county has become the dumping ground of the world. Ben Shannon, Everson: My wife and I moved here about a year ago and a half ago from Watsonville, California which is mushroom country. We came up here for fresh air and we ended up in mushroom country. You have to do everything in your power to close any of the loopholes. These things were in the processed of being dismantled for a reason. Mr. Street has claimed he is trying to fix up a old mushroom farm but this is organized business. This is corporate America and corporate mushroom farming. They are all connected. As people have said they would not have gone to these lengths to just fix up a little country farm. There is something ulterior here. Dave Bader: I am owner and operator of Environmental Health Services. I have been an environmental consultant in Whatcom County for 25 years. I was asked by the Ostrom Company to respond to the findings of fecal coliform in a sample that was collected at their farm. I did prepare a report which I submitted to the DOE which is available for viewing. What took place was an inspector from the DOE went out to a puddle on the surface of the ground and collected a sample of water on the surface. It had 30,000 fecal coliform in it. If you go to any farmland where you put chicken manure down or cow manure you will have millions of fecal coliforms on the surface of the ground. They made the assumption that because it was on the surface of the ground that there is a potential for this contamination to be in the groundwater. I thought it was maybe a long shot, at best because we apply manure all over the grounds of Whatcom County, have been doing it for a long time and will continue to do so. The ground water doesn't necessarily just get contaminated just because you have fecals on the surface. At this particular location they have a very good, very deep restricting layer of clay. It is borne out by the wells that are on the property and by the testing that took place that showed that the ground was clean. The idea that the fecal coliform was on the surface of the ground, so what? You have to look at the :: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 25 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 hydrology of that property, you have to look at the soils and then you look at the ground water and you will find that it's clean groundwater. This site is not causing groundwater contamination. The other thing that was brought up was the issue of avian flu. l think you should really ask the Health Department to respond to that tonight because they did do research about and put together some good information and they have actually written a letter about it. I think it's important that people shouldn't be unduly concerned. I go out to that area and there are chicken manure piles all over because people apply it to land. It's not just Ostroms that brings in chicken manure. Menzies: Normally if you have a manure pile that is exposed the BMP would be to cover it. It really surprises me that the DOE would go out and sample from stagnant water. Bader: It surprised me as well. Menzies: Has there been any surface water quality monitoring program that has been associated with this operation? Bader: The dry manure is stored under cover. When it's being used it's applied at a very precise rate to the straw. They don't want to loose manure. The runoff would be considered very weak. It goes into a lagoon and from there it goes into the fields. It travels a very long distance across this field on top of very thick clay. We went out with a soil scientist from WSU to demonstrate this contiguous clay layer. When you get down to about 1,500 feet away, or so, there is actually a sand bearing zone where the water goes into the ground. By the time it gets there the fecal coliforms of 30,000 and I tested them down here at less than one so we are getting tremendous stripping of this fecal coliform. Steensma: Someone said they are bringing in manure from Canada. Is this true? Hegedus: I received a copy of the letter that was read to you and I did respond to the complainant in writing on the issue of the avian influenza. Ostrom's gets its dry chicken manure from Canby, Oregon, not Canby B.C. where we have had outbreaks of avian influenza which has been a tremendous blow to the industry. There have been no known outbreaks in Canby, Oregon. We understand the concern but the reality is we have many generators and many users of chicken manure across the country. Ostrom currently uses chicken manure and if they expand they will also use it. The additional potential for an outbreak is questionable. When we went to the documentation from Pennsylvania on this issue we found that there was good evidence that the process of preparing the chicken manure for delivery to the end users had a high probability of killing the virus. This is an issue that the Health Department is aware of. We have been working on it and we have responded to the community. On the ground water issue even though the Department of Ecology regulates the surface and groundwater code the Health Department did go out to investigate because of our concern. What we found was a lagoon with eight acres of constructed wetlands designed to treat what they call "goody water" which does have a high level of coliform. We did not find any evidence of surface water leaving that constructed wetlands and the area where it infiltrated at the end of the wetland was in single digit coliform. It then infiltrates into the ground and gets treated just like a drainfield. The down gradient drinking well showed no evidence of contamination. The Department of Ecology's concerns are over the potential for contamination. They don't have any evidence of such. It is an issue that is being managed. Steensma: I'm all for buying, growing and shopping local. Is there something magical about the chickens in Canby, Oregon? Can't we get the manure locally? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 26 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 Bader: This is dried and processed in a specific way. You can't use just any chicken manure. Sue Ford, Everson: I live right next to the mushroom farm. We have a letter from the Washington State Department of Agriculture which says they get the chicken manure from Canada. We have a pond on our property and when it rains the pond fills up and starts running off of the property. It goes down into a ditch, under the road, into another ditch which then goes under the road to our property which then goes into our pond. We had ours tested and we were told not to go in it and to not let our animals drink from it. I'm sorry but they aren't taking care of it. The hearing was closed to the public. The worksession was continued to June 8, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Council Chambers. The Commission directed staff to look at the BMPs in more detail, especially the information provided to them by the public that evening. Mann: There were a lot of comments about the lack of enforcement. If enforcement is so lax I'm not really sure what difference having limited shipments will make. I would like more information about the enforcement process. Olason: I know there is a question about whether or not those shipments were illegal. I think the rules were pretty vague at that time. We will look into it. Menzies: The part that I have a lot of concern with is the section that talks about sample size quantities and limited quantities. I have a real concern about this language. It doesn't seem to be very concise. I would like to have some better understanding of what it means. Olason: Is the Commission comfortable with the link with the Health Department code? Hunter: I think what you are struggling with here is the unavoidable confusion about what can be addressed and what can not. I think what Commissioner Menzies is looking for requires are taking the language out of the proposed Health Department code and putting it into our code with some changes. Olason: Would it be acceptable to have them maintain their review of that? Menzies: The way this is written right now it would be my inclination to change the wording so that anything produced on site needs to be used on site. Hunter: It seems to me that we haven't heard anything so far that is asking you to try and create language which places upon the Planning Department the burden of oversight on this issue. I do think you are going to be required to consider the possibility of taking some language and putting it into our code. Olason: I think it's important to remember that in the original ordinance the GMHB did provide a fairly strong response to us. There was a lot of discussion tonight about going back to that language. We can't do that. Hunter: I have reviewed the findings and I don't see the findings as you see them. I see them saying that the regulation in the ordinance on the location of farm practices is not based on BMPs but on kinds of complaints that may face many essential agricultural activities. The buffers and setbacks are not linked to BMPs. Whatcom County did not ascertain and document BMPs. I am quite confident that the 94 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 27 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting May 25, 2006 language they are using here is an invitation for us to try to establish a basis for doing these or other things on the basis of BMPs. If we could justify these things on BMPs the same ordinance would past muster. Olason: I would ask that as you go home this evening and think about this you look at the wording where the GMHB really spells out that we have overstepped our authority. If you go back and look at buffers and the idea that you would establish buffers based on BMPs the purpose behind the buffer is to limit the impact on adjacent neighbors. Hunter: I don't think we know that. It may be that BMPs don't support buffers. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Minutes prepared by B. Boxx. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: David Hunter, Chair Hal H. Hart, A.I.C.P., Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2006 Call To Order: The meeting was called to order, by Whatcom County Planning Commission Chairperson, David Hunter, in the Northwest Annex Conference Room at 6:34 p.m. Roll Call: Staff Present: Director's Dialog Open Session for Public Comment Approval of Minutes File: ZON2006-00001 - Mushroom Substrate Text amendments required for compliance with Case No. 05-2-0017. Changes are required to accommodate agricultural protections mandated by the Growth Management Act as clarified by the WWGMHB. In general, changes required include: modifying and renaming Chapter 20.15 —Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities to Commercial Mushroom Substrate Production Facilities; removing references to on -farm mushroom substrate production facilities within the Agriculture District from Chapter 20.15 and modifying certain definitions; adding a new section to Chapter 20.40 — Agriculture District to allow on -farm mushroom substrate production as an accessory use; incorporating a reference in Chapter 20.68 — Heavy Impact Industrial for commercial mushroom substrate production as an administrative use. Olason: We had several issues come up at the last meeting that I would like to follow up on. I would like our attorney to talk to you about the GMHB case and also the settlement agreement. We will also need to spend some time on BMPs. David Bricklin: I would like to start out by mentioning some time constraints we are operating under. The GMHB decision, which found the ordinance partially in conflict with the GMA requirements, spcifies that the County had to take corrective action by June 13, 2006. Obviously the County is not going to be able to comply with that. We are making a request of the GMHB to grant the County an additional 45 days. Even with that there is not a lot of time so we would encourage this body, and the County Council, to move forward to comply with the timeline as well as the GMHB decision. There is a settlement agreement that the County has executed with Ostrom's. It doesn't fully resolve this matter but it establishes a framework or process for the potential resolution of the matter. The draft ordinances that were presented to you were also presented to the County Council as well as Ostrom's. They both agreed that a process would be followed that would involve taking public comment, recommendations from the Planning Commission and so forth. In the event that the County Council, after it took in all of that information, if the County Council adopted an ordinance substantially like the one that was presented to you then Ostrom's would agree not to pursue its claims against the County. These would be claims for damage and unconstitutional actions. By entering into this settlement agreement the County did not commit to adopting these ordinances. They could not agree to do that because the only way the County can adopt an ordinance is after following a proper public process so the County has left open the possibility that when all is said and done the draft ordinance is not appropriate. In that case the County Council reserves the right to do something different. If after that public process the Council decides to adopt an ordinance substantially like the ones attached to the agreement then Ostrom's has agreed, in that event, that it's claims will go away. I want to emphasize that while the settlement agreement document wasn't publicly available until very recently the draft ordinances are the very documents that were publicly noticed many weeks ago and are the basis for all the public comment at the last hearing. •X RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June S, 2006 At the public hearing one of the concerns we heard was that while the ordinance would generally preclude off site shipment of mushroom substrate that the exceptions were a loophole that would be taken advantage of and there would not be adequate enforcement which would lead to all sorts of export off the farm. I guess the notion is that there would be a great expansion in the volume of production on the Ostrom's farm. The fact is that under the draft ordinance if there is an expansion on the farm, so they exceed 3,200 yards, they would have to go indoors. It wouldn't matter if they were using the substrate on or off of the farm. I think this would be a huge victory for the community that has been seeking that kind of remedy all along. Further the ordinance provides that if there is an expansion for any reason, but less than the 3,200 yard trigger, there are additional management practices that Ostrom's would have to use to further reduce the impacts of the production. There was criticism that the exceptions that would allow some off site shipment were worded to vaguely. I think some members of the Planning Commission echoed some of those concerns. I believe you will hear from staff tonight that there are some proposals on how to tighten up some of that language. I would note that the language already includes one provision that staff thought was very important which is that the off site shipment has to be preceded by notice to the staff that the shipment is going to occur. This is not a situation where Ostrom's can just on their own start exporting material and wait to see if anyone notices. If they didn't give the notice they are in violation. That is significant because under the ordinance, as drafted, the County has a huge hammer that they didn't have under the previous ordinance. If a grandfathered in non -conforming use is found to be violating this ordinance they are immediately put under the requirements that apply to a new use. They would loose their grandfathered status and a new use has to be indoors. I would think this would be a huge disincentive for them to play games with the exemption. There was also concern voiced over the County's failure to enforce under the previous ordinance. I will let staff respond to that. I will come back to the point that if you are Ostrom's you would not want to count on the staff not enforcing because if they are caught just once they would loose the grandfathered exemption. I don't know that enforcement has been an issue in the past as it's been described by some. Even if it is, I don't think under this ordinance you are going to see anyone taking liberties with the exemptions. There was a question from the Chair about how to read the decision of the GMHB and whether they were really saying that buffers and setbacks were precluded or whether they were saying that the County had not justified them by demonstrating that they were consistent with BMPs. My reading of the ordinance is the same as the Chairpersons. The GMHB was not laying down a bright line rule that you could in no case ever impose buffers or setbacks but rather they were saying that there was not evidence in this record that they had been justified as a BMP. I think you will hear from staff that it's still staffs position that they can't justify buffers and setbacks by reference to BMPs. The staff and I have received volumes of information from the public in just the last few days in an effort to demonstrate that buffers and setbacks can be justified as a BMP. Our review of that information suggests to us that we are still not in a position where we can justify it on that basis. It's not to say that it couldn't be if the County had the resources and was willing to devote months and months and lots of money convening experts from a variety of fields to try to put together a set of BMPs. The County doesn't have the resources to embark on that kind of effort so we have to look elsewhere. There has been some reference to the fact that in B.C. there are setback requirements but that is in urban areas. The other principle BMP that has been discussed is the requirement to go indoors. There the County has adopted that as a requirement for any new facility. The issue is then how do you apply that to an existing facility? Do you just say that existing facilities have to meet that requirement or do you take into account that additional issues are involved where you have an existing facility and the County took that into account? Frankly, I thinks it's a policy judgment. The GMA authorizes counties to adopt BMPs to regulate agricultural uses in agricultural zones but it doesn't require it and it certainly doesn't address 91 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2006 how you would apply those BMPs to a pre-existing use. The County has applied the BMPs here and say if there is any expansion above 3,200 yards you have to comply with the same standards that are applied for new uses. For an existing facility, of this sort, the County made a judgment call that indoor facility requirement would not be required. If you expand but you don't expand up to the threshold there are additional practices that you have to have to implement although stopping short of being required to go indoors. Olason: We have not had the time to go through all of the material and summarize it. I think it's really a question of whether the Planning Commission is comfortable with the concept of BMPs. I think it's important to recognize how they are used in practice. As someone who has worked with NRCS and conservation districts on farm plans, which we require in this ordinance, BMPs are tailored to the property. They are established to have a wide range of options so that when you look at a given site you can make the best of that site. BMPs are not practices that establish an absolute ceiling on the use. In the case we are looking at if you look at some of the information that you have seen it will talk about where possible, preferred use, etc. They aren't regulations. What's difficult about BMPs is that when we work, at our level, as regulators we have standards and clear code requirements. We work to be able to test against those, measure them and apply them. In the realm of farm plans, where you are working with individual operators, your goal is typically working towards stewardship concepts and trying to get people to voluntarily do better. It is a graduated process that happens over time. If you follow the dairy industry in Whatcom County, for example, what is now commonplace was a battle at one point. It is a matter of incremental change. When we look at BMPs as a subject area it's not a static list. It is a changing process. If you go through the material that was provided to you there is a lot of good information in there. Research isn't necessarily a BMP. You will find regulations, some standards of practice and some guidelines. Those all help us determine what would be better as a means to operate this farm. 1f you go back to the Health Department ordinance it requires a BMP based farm plan. Even indoor usage isn't necessarily a BMP, it's a requirement. In our code it's a standard we put into the health code. When we start looking at how we address existing versus new we can't treat BMPs as code. We have to look at the site and apply the correct and preferred combination of techniques. Staff really feels that incorporating the farm plan requirement does get at what we are talking about in terms of evaluating what is being proposed and addresses a great deal of the concerns that people have. The other thing we did was try to take a crack at the language under 20.40.109. We incorporated some language to address two items. One was the uncomfortableness people had with the language of off site shipping. The other was to put a more global requirement that clearly stated that the substrate production for on farm use had to comply with 24.12. l think the compliance issue is pretty clear now. 24.12 is an overlay of any operation that would occur as an accessory use. Under sample size quantities we included some numbers. I was under the impression these would be satisfactory but I think there still may be some concern about it. We included a quantity size for the off site sampling and then to put some sort of bracket on total volume for any 12 month period. We chose the numbers based on some conversation and maybe we were hasty. Chris Street, representing Ostrom's: Regarding the sample size and to put it into perspective, we analyze all the raw materials we use for assembling the compost and any other nutrient we have out there for the mushroom crop. Those are handbag sized samples that we simply carry to our Lacey facility. There is no exposure to anybody or anything with those so I don't think anyone should be concerned about that. The point I really want to emphasize is the exchanges come about because we have two facilities with distinctly different systems in them. We produce different kinds of substrate in both facilities. As would be the case with any mushroom farm that is operating multiple growing sites you can get a very different response in your crop based on the type of compost you produce. We have had a small number of examples in the recent years where we have had pathogenic infections. They haven't been human health issues but crop fungi infections. We had a very serious infection at the 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2006 Lacey farm that caused us months and months of delay trying to resolve the issue. In 2003 the entire region developed a caprinous infection. It was devastating to the industry. We spent untold weeks trying to adjust formulas of compost to see if we couldn't modify the nitrogen to try to mollify this persistent pest and we just couldn't seem to make it happen. The time frame with the crop between compost and receiving mushrooms on the bed is approximately a nine week cycle so if you are going down a wrong path you won't know that for up to nine weeks. It was exchanges with our Everson facility that showed us where the problem was. This infection almost killed the business and took us almost a year to resolve. The reason we have struggled so hard to keep the ability to exchange is so that if and when we come into problems like that we have the ability, between our own operations to do that. The key point is less in how many times you would do it or how many yards of compost, the point is you are never making one more yard at either facility. We prefer not to be held to a cap if possible. The exchange is really a cultural issue of study and research as opposed to a loophole to ship it somewhere else. We are precluded from that anyway because of the way the ordinance reads. We aren't going to go against that and be put out of business. I understand the concern but it's not reality from the perspective that we see it. Belisle: Is there a problem with the proposed limit of 1,600 cubic yards per year? Street: It's only a problem if we happen to get an infection like the one we had previously. 1,600 yards is equivalent to four transfers. We could exhaust that in one week. From the perspective of odor it's not really going to change that. Belisle: You made the statement that you don't make any extra compost. Street: We don't have the capacity to do that. We don't make any extra because it is a living biomass that is on a time clock so it would go to waste. Since 1999 we have done this exchange three times. This isn't something that goes on and on Lesow: Regarding your letter of June 3`d to the Planning Commission, you indicate that Ostrom's will meet the Canadian BMPs and that your operation coincides with the BMPs of which you have listed five. My questions is do these BMPs coincide with the ones you have tailored for this ordinance? Olason: We haven't really tailored a specific list. There is a wide range of BMPs that could be suggested. That is what the exercise of developing a farm plan is for. It's going to be part and parcel to the application for any substrate producer that comes forward with a request to start a new farm and it's a requirement for Ostrom's at this point. Lesow: Do you see a need for more for Ostrom's or anybody else? Olason: It depends on the site. The companion health ordinance that is going to be required to be complied with looks at all the issues. I think over time there will be an increase in expectation. That is typical of the industry and expected by the community. What we are looking at in the health ordinance goes above and beyond a typical farm plan that NRCS would develop for anybody. Street: It is our intention to work hand in hand with NRCS to develop formal BMPs that relate to our site. Mann: Why did you sue the County? Street: The issue was we didn't think it was appropriate to look at an existing facility and establish setbacks and buffers that we were already way out of compliance with. That legally put us in a legal box 93 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2046 where we couldn't hammer a nail into the facility without putting the whole facility under a glass bubble We didn't think that was fair or reasonable. Belisle: BMPs accomplish the same thing but they are done in very different ways in different areas. Street: Ostrom's attends the Regional Biocycle Conferences when they come around. The primary reason for that is to develop relationships with regulatory authorities and understanding where the technologies are going. Some of the things they talk about are transparency, good community relationships and having community members partnering with the industry to develop odor management plans. This has been Ostrom's intended strategy, both here and in Lacey. We think the community has done an excellent job driving the ordinances to what they are and think they have really achieved more than they should have, in some ways, but they have done a fine job. It's time to stop and work together on this. We hope to be there for a long time but we don't want antagonistic relationships with the neighbors. Hunter: Would you be comfortable with language which says there will be no net increase or decrease of substrate in either facility that is involved in that exchange? Street: Absolutely. I think that would be essential to the ordinance. Belisle: We have heard a lot about the shipments to Canada. Can you tell us your side of it? Street: Our involvement with B.C. really was an economic model that we felt, partly, was going to enable Ostrom's to survive in this marketplace. The B.C. industry continues to be a rapidly growing industry. Ostrom's, if it's growing well, is about a 13 million pounds a year producer of fresh mushrooms. The B.C. industry, right now, is probably between 75 million and 80 million pounds. When we were shipping substrate there it was about a 50 million pound supplier. There are about 35 to 45 operating mushroom farms up there. They all used to grow for Money's Mushrooms. They made all their compost in an open air facility in Surrey. They thumbed their nose at the community which galvanized the community and they were forced to relocate. When they began looking for a new site they came here first which didn't work so they ended up in Hope, B.C. with an indoor compost facility. At our Lacey facility we invested quite a few million dollars into an indoor facility. Despite all of our years of growing and composting knowledge it changed the dynamics of the compost significantly. All of the historical experience we had didn't help us oversee that gap and experience. Our yields and our profits were severely curtailed to the point where we weren't profitable most of the time and in fact we still aren't a lot of the time. To try and keep our customer base we had to come up with a source of pounds. In B.C. the industry had fractioned away from Money's and the different family groups split off and formed family groups. There were five different groups. They also weren't growing well because they were only able to buy their source of compost from Money's. We felt our survival was going to be based on expansion based pounds. We knew those pounds were coming to our market place and it seemed like a rational opportunity to buy those pounds, have them harvested by us and deliver them to our customers at our price. The problem was the only way we could do that was to supply them with an efficacious compost which we tried desperately to do. The indoor compost was highly problematic and it's a long haul from Lacey to B.C. We tried it for about three months. We shipped from Lacey for about two and one half years with varying levels of compost. What we did was ship the conventional compost, which was at Everson with compost we brought from Lacey. Ultimately it didn't survive. It also formed the basis for the expansion project that everyone here knew that we put together and got permitted for. That would have given us at least the volume of compost that Lacey and Everson used in aggregate but at that time what we were needing to supply into B.C. For us it seemed like sound business and we designed that facility to where it would have all the odor abatement and environmental abatement strategies. As we built the volume out of there we could have added a roof structure, fans, etc. The RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 6 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2006 economic model failed in B.C. and of course the community was not happy with it. We weren't interested in doing business in a community that was really unhappy with us. Olason: Commissioner Hunter recommended removing reference to the yardage and have a prior notification agreement. Is that what the Commission would like? Mann: What's involved in the shipping notification? Hegedus: We need to know what is being shipped, how many yards, how long will it go on, how are they going to load and off load trucks, etc. Olason: Would you know who the shipping company would be? Hegedus: Yes. There is a severe disincentive for marketing substrate for off site use. That disincentive is the fact that they will no longer be exempt from being under permit and going indoors. That penalty applies not just to off site shipments for profit. In 24.12 they also have caps on total amount they can produce. They are at about 1,700 yards now. If they expand 25 percent, subject to certain conditions, they can't go beyond that. Olason: it's important to note too that they have a certain number of buildings and square footage and they stack the pallets up as high as they can so if they are adding 25 percent more and aren't building a building then there is a clue. Where is it going? Mann: Given the mountain of information we got from the neighborhood regarding BMPs do you feel like you could have made an argument to the GMHB about tying BMPs to setbacks? Olason: The information that I saw that had specific language about setbacks was regulatory most of the time or it was guidance documents for confined animal feeding operations (CAFO). We talked about that previously. Part of the problem with setbacks and BMPs is that it's different to site something new and you would have more options with BMPs siting a new operation than you do in addressing the issues of an existing operation. Here we are looking at an agricultural zone and an agricultural use. If you go back to the GMHB case while they eluded to using BMPs if you start looking for those BMPs generally what you are finding are standards and they aren't necessarily in the U.S. A lot of those standards were developed under other laws. BMPs are generally more voluntary or at least variable. That's where we really have a problem and it's a tough sell and frankly we have spent a lot of time on this and we don't really feel, based on the other language that we have included in the health ordinance, that we would be able to better where we are right now. The question about buffers and setbacks isn't over. If someone came in with a new proposal part of what they have to do is develop a farm plan with that proposal. It doesn't preclude us from suggesting and requesting them to look at that as a component of siting. While we don't have a list of BMPs it works both ways. We do have the opportunity to introduce that, particularly when there is a choice to consider in siting that property. The problem we have had is there is a big difference between BMPs and code requirement. Hegedus: The Health Department never considered going indoors as an industry standard BMP. We saw it as a very stringent regulatory requirement in the form of an engineering control. We see a difference between engineering controls and BMPs. Hunter: My problem with all of the material that has been provided for me, and I have not been able to read all of it, is that it seems to be very site specific. I have to look at each one to see if the same problems that the BMPs were designed to deal with are problems we have here. When we look at the 95 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 7 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2006 B.C. problems those are in urban areas to some extent so when we talk about buffers there I am quite confident the rules that have been set up are because their neighbors are quite close and there are a lot of them. That seems to not be true here. There are neighbors but they live within an area that is zoned farm and that the same expectations can't be had nor does it make sense to require the same things. I am left with the same problem I had last time except that I am less convinced now that we would be able to provide sufficient BMP justification for particular things, such as buffers, that in principle I like but I'm not sure I can get over the GMHBs review of it again. I don't know that I have enough information to support that. Roosma: Can we just say they have to do BMPs and not really say what they are? Like a dairy farm that has been in existence for 100 years BMPs evolve continuously as new technology is developed. Olason: That's kind of the idea behind referencing them as BMPs because they aren't static. The other thing that is inherent in the concept is that you maintain. It's one thing to get a farm plan but it's another to keep it up to date and maintain the operation under that current farm plan. Belisle moved to accept the staff report with the additional language referring to WCC 24.12, add language to 20.40.100(1)b such as: exchanges of equal or like substrate, and remove the reference to 1,600 cubic yards. Roosma seconded. Hunter: I would like to hear from the Hopewell community's attorney. I got the feeling, after looking at the information provided to us by the people you represent and staff, that to some extent BMPs are site specific and they do represent practices that make sense within the context of the environment in the work is being done. While it might seem, at the superficial level, that the B.C. system is pretty close to Ostrom's that it might make sense for the same kinds of rules to apply but there are some real differences. Do you disagree with that? Bob Carmichael: l heard what you said earlier and I think it's a valid point that you make. I have not reviewed all of the information that my clients have submitted to you. I do understand there is some information from the DOE regarding best available technology (BAT). I would suggest that this is an evolving area of the law. I understand staff's position and their reluctance to take on any more risk than they have to and wanting to be super safe in the sense that they don't want to have any kind of grounds for challenge before the GMHB with respect to BMPs. The GMHB used the term BMPs but I suspect they would also invite information on BAT that could justify standards. I would suggest that information that has been submitted and that you have not been able to review yet, that you at least look at some of that, specifically the information from DOE. My clients have been hard at work trying to get some of this information to you in an accelerated time frame but we are going to be living with the results of these ordinances for a long time. Another thought is the possibility of having an administrative approval for this kind of activity. In other words instead of just saying it's a permitted use have the activity subject to an administratively approved permit subject to compliance with what the code requires for that permit. What that does then is enables some of the site specific review so appropriate conditions can be put into place. That is the kind of model that is in place presently for surface mining. Hunter: I assume you are interested in this because of putting this in accessory uses and no longer having to get a conditional use permit. Carmichael: That would be part of the reason but not the only one. The site specific nature of the activity is one of the reasons as well. •T RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2006 Hunter: So maybe any new application to develop a substrate production facility be required to have administrative approval? Carmichael: Yes, or any expansion of an existing facility. One of the other concerns is I'm not sure I understand the rational for eliminating a limitation of cubic yards per year. It would seem to me that if unfinished substrate were brought in in certain quantities to the facility that unfinished substrate could be finished and then shipped off site in exchange for more unfinished substrate of the same quantity and that would allow for the production of mushroom substrate on site and shipments going off site without any limitation on quantity. I don't want to jump to conclusions but it would seem to me that it could result in a production facility. The other point I would make is there is an elimination of a prior definition of traying volume that was in the original ordinance which was defined as a total volume expressed in cubic yards per month of mushroom substrate produced on site and then consumed on site by growing mushrooms. The last sentence of the definition said any unfinished mushroom substrate received shall be considered as produced on site. That goes to the issue of it's unfinished on site and then it's going to be leaving or be turned into finished substrate on site then it's going to be considered as produced on site. That definition is being stricken. Under 20.40.100(1)a there should be some limitation on the less than one cubic yard as well. How often are these things required to be shipped off site? I think given the potential for odors and the difficultly of monitoring these kinds of things the more that you can tie down the regulations to something concrete and objective in terms of numbers the easier it's going to be to enforce and the more protection the neighbors will feel they have in place. Hunter: Is there a market for sending off unfinished substrate? My initial suspicion is the only substrate that would be shipped for commercial purposes would be finished substrate because that is what the other places want. I am of the opinion that there is a clear distinction between finished and unfinished substrate. If what we said that not only will the exchange be of like amount but like condition. I think the concern is that the number amount would limit them if they have a problem. Belisle: Are you trying to tie BMPs and BAT together into one package or are they separate? Carmichael: I think they are distinct concepts but I'm not convinced that BAT requirements would not be something that the GMHB would accept. In my opinion BAT requirements, for this particular kind of activity, would be something that the GMHB would look at very seriously. Hunter: What is the difference between a conditional use permit and a requirement for administrative approval? Olason: The primary difference is that administrative approval doesn't require a public hearing and it's done by staff based on criteria. Hunter: Why is that a problem? Olason: Looking at what the GMHB said in our case that was not really the basis for the decision so we took it out. I don't know that there's necessarily a problem with administrative approval. I guess the question would be for existing facilities why we would need one because they are already there? 97 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE g WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2006 Hunter: Mr. Carmichael is proposing that we have a requirement for administrative approval for expansion of current facilities. My sense is that to some extent you have set up a whole set of criteria for doing that. Olason: You have to look at what are we going to gain by administrative review? We already have a permit requirement for the health side so what is it at the land use level that we are going to gain by having an additional permit and an additional hearing to review this proposal? The administrative approval is appealable and it does require notice to the neighborhood. The other thing is there could be SEPA requirements for the building itself or fill and grade permits so there would be some notice there as well. The question comes back to if it's allowed in the agricultural zone as a use what are we gaining by putting this as an administrative review? Mann: Could we have some kind of approval process for going over 1,600 yards? Olason: Under the Health code it states: exchanges of limited quantities of substrate solely between facilities owned by the same operator for substrate quality testing purposes. They have to justify that's what it is for. Someone has to make a decision that it's legitimate and not some sort of scam. Mann: I think the advantage of requiring some kind of approval over 1,600 yards would keep it simple enough that someone could look at it. Is prior notification the same as approval? Olason: Yes. Mann: Could we change notification to approval if they are the same thing? Belisle: Approval might not be the right word. Hegedus: What we are doing as they provide notification is making sure that it is for testing purposes. We put a lot of language in here about on site versus off site usage. To require approval at every micro step of the business' operation is not our intent here. Mann: I wouldn't see that as a micro step if this 1,600 yards is maybe once every 10 years disastrous event where they had to ship a lot of stuff off site. Hegedus: I don't need to go to the business and get the full details of the nature of the infection and make a technical decision about whether it is what they need to do and approve it or not approve it. What I need to do is find out that they are going to be doing a shipment and that the shipment should be done well so it doesn't add an odor to the site. It should be limited in quantity and should have some documentation that verifies we are having oversight. In the end I should find out what they gained from the exchange. Mann: So you would be comfortable having no cap? Hegedus: As a health official I am not in favor of having a cap. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 10 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2006 Hunter: If we had language which said something like: exchanges of limited like amounts and types of substrate solely between the facilities would you expect that you would get notification both of the shipping off and the acceptance of material? Hegedus: Yes. Hunter: Would they also have to tell you what they are sending? Hegedus: I would send staff out to the site during the shipment and work with the business to understand what was going on. Belisle: I would think that running trucks back and forth wouldn't make a lot of sense. Hegedus: It would be expensive. Hunter proposed a friendly amendment to 20.40.109(1)b. to read: Exchanges of limited like amounts and types of substrate solely between facilities owned by the same operator for substrate quality testing purposes. Such exchanges will be conducted only following prior notification to the Director of Public Health and will be substantiated by the proper shipping documentation. Belisle: I have problems with that first line. I don't quite understand it. Why not leave limited out? Hunter: Because I don't think the language creates any harm and creates some further sense of comfort for the community. Belisle: Limited has no definition. Hunter: So what? There's a lot of words in here that don't have any definition. Roosma: For the people who have to enforce it what does it mean? Belisle did not accept the friendly amendment. Belisle amended his motion to read: Equal exchanges of finished substrate solely between facilities owned by the same operator for substrate quality testing purposes. Such exchanges will be conducted only following prior notification to the Director of Public Health and will be substantiated by proper shipping documentation. Roosma accepted the amendment. Hunter: For testing purposes they might want to send unfinished substrate back and forth. Do you think you would? Street: We would only send finished material. Mann made a friendly amendment to 20.40.108 to read: Composting and mulching facilities other than semmeMiat mushroom substrate production facilities,... Mann: There is no reason to have to word commercial in there. Olason: The reason it's in there is when we originally had the interim ordinance there were a number of places where commercial was inserted as not being allowed. 99 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2006 Belisle did not accept the friendly amendment. Vote on motion to accept the staff report with the change to 20.40.109(1)b. to read: Equal exchanges of finished substrate solely between facilities owned by the same operator for substrate quality testing purposes. Such exchanges will be conducted only following prior notification to the Director of Public Health and will be substantiated by proper shipping documentation. Ayes -- Belisle, Roosma; Nays — Hunter, Lesow, Mann, Pros; Abstain — 0; Absent -- Burdge, Menzies, Steensma. Motion failed. Hunter moved to accept the staff report with the change to 20.40.109(1)b. to read: Exchanges of limited quantities of finished substrate solely between facilities owned by the same operator for substrate quality testing purposes. Such exchanges will be conducted only following prior notification to the Director of Public Health and will be substantiated by proper shipping documentation. Lesow seconded. Mann: I still can't vote for this because I feel that with all the work that has been done by the community on this I feel like they aren't going to be able to sleep for weeks if we don't have some kind of upper limit on this. Olason: We could consider two things that might help. One would be that we could have the Health Department notify the community when such occurrence would happen. The other could be other than notification we could change the term to approval. Hegedus: The Health Department would be happy to notify the public whenever an exchange of materials took place. We could maintain a list of interested parties. Lesow: How much more work, in terms of time invested, to get approval rather than just notify? Hegedus: Approval is something I am willing to do. I will put that in my ordinance if it provides the reassurance necessary. I don't think it will take much longer to provide approval rather than notification. Roosma: The substrate doesn't have a long shelf life so we need some input from them on fast they would have to get approval. Street: We would probably have several weeks to give notice before we would give any consideration to transport. Mann proposed a friendly amendment to read: Equal exchanges of limited quantities of finished substrate solely between facilities owned by the same operator for substrate quality testing purposes. Such exchanges will be conducted only following prior notification to the public and prior approval by the Director of Public Health and will be substantiated by proper shipping documentation. Hunter and Lesow accepted the amendment. Carmichael: There has been a request by my clients to reword 20.40.100(1) to read: On -farm mushroom substrate production (WCC 20.15.020(9), when substrate is used solely on -site for the rowing and harvesting of mushrooms,... Under the definition change line 3 to read: ... grow and harvest mushrooms. Roosma: Why would you grow mushrooms and not harvest them? 100 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Regular Meeting June 8, 2006 Hunter: Why would we care? If it makes them feel more comfortable let's add it. I would make that a friendly amendment. Lesow accepted the friendly amendment. Carmichael: We do appreciate the struggles you have gone through to deal with this difficult issue. feel like you understand how important it is to the community. My clients have a grave concern about not having a cap. Roll Call Vote — Ayes: Belisle, Hunter, Lesow, Mann, Pros, Roosma; Nays — 0; Abstain — 0; Absent: Burdge, Menzies, Steensma. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Minutes prepared by B. Garney. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Chair Hal H. Hart, A.I.C.P., Secretary 101 HWATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-298 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council O tce Agenda Date Assigned to: 7/11/06 Intro Ori inwor: 7125106 Finance Division Head: �� _ w' fY' ' ,C_. 'E Committee; V JI I I L O 3 2006 Council Dept. Head: t I Prosecutor: YHAT{"COUNTY �� s,paas l01 � Purchasin /B et: UNCIL Executive: LIM TITLE OR DOCUMENT: 2006 Supplemental Budget Request #10 ATTACHMENTS. Ordinance, Memoranda & Budget Modification Requests SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT 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.) Supplemental #10 requests funding from the General Fund. (1) To appropriate $33,296 in Non Departmental to fund transfers to Administrative Services for two new FTE positions in Facilities. (2) To appropriate $68,750 in Non Departmental to fund transfers to the Flood Fund for Bertrand Watershed Improvement District and NSEA work crewprojects. (3) To appropriate $7,005 in Parks & Recreation to fund shared roof replacementproject for the Sumas Community Center. (4) To appropriate. $5,077 in the Sheriff s Office to fund supplies to deal with meth labs. From the Whatcom County Jail Fund: (5) To appropriate $247,790 to fund one-time start-up costs for the Interim Jail From the Jail Construction Project Fund. (6) To appropriate $2,260,000 to fund construction costs from municipal contributions From the Flood Control Zone District Fund. (7) To appropriate $129,265 to fund Marine Resources project from grant proceeds (8) To appropriate $50,000 to fund Bertrand Watershed Improvement District project (9) To appropriate $18,750 to fund work crew for Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association. (10) To appropriate $88,500 to fund Centennial Clean Water Fund grant project From the Administrative Services Fund. (11) To appropriate $14,773 to AS -Facilities to fund additional custodian position. (12) To appropriate $18,523 to AS -Facilities to fund additional maintenance technician position. COMMITTEEACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. W SPONSORED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: Executive INTRODUCTION DATE: 7/11/06 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDMENT NO. 10 OF THE 2006 BUDGET WHEREAS, the 2005-2006 budget was adopted November 9, 2004; and, WHEREAS, changing circumstances require modifications to the approved 2005-2006 budget; and, WHEREAS, the modifications to the budget have been assembled here for deliberation by the Whatcom County Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the 2005- 2006 Whatcom County Budget Ordinance #2004-059 is hereby amended by adding the following additional amounts to the budgets included therein: Expenditures Revenues Net Effect General Fund Non -Departmental 102,046 0 102,046 Parks 7,005 0 7,005 Sheriffs Office 6,077 (5,077) 0 Total General Fund 114,128 (5,0771 109,051 Whatcom County Jail Fund 247,790 0 247,790 Jail Construction Project Fund 2,260,000 (2,260,000} 0 Flood Control Zone District Fund 286,515 2$6 515 0 Administrative Services Fund 33,296 33 296 0 Total Add'I Supplemental 1.729 (2.584.8$8) In addition, Exhibit B to the 2005-2006 Budget Ordinance entitled "Authorized Positions" should be amended to include the following FTEs: Add a .7 FTE Planner I grant -funded position in the Flood Fund Add a 1 FTE Custodian in AS -Facilities Add a 1 FTE Maintenance Technician in AS -Facilities ADOPTED this day of , 2005. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Chair of the Council ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, County Executive Date: I:\BUDGET\SUPPLS\2006_Suppl\Supplementa1 #10.doc 103 WHATCOM COUNTY Summary of the 2006 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 10 Net Effect to Fund Increased Balance Expenditure (Increased) (Increase) Department/Fund Description Decrease Revenue Decrease General Fund To fund transfer to Administrative Services for Non -Departmental new positions. 33,296 - 33,296 To fund Flood Fund transfers for Bertrand Watershed Improvement District project and NSEA Non -Departmental work crew project. 68,750 - 68,750 To fund shared roof replacement - Sumas Parks Community Center 7,005 - 7,005 To fund supplies to deal with meth labs from grant Sheriffs Officeproceeds- . 5,077 5,077 - Total General Fund 114,128 (5,077) 109,051 Whatcom County Jail To fund one-time start-up Fund costs for Interim Jail. 247,790 - 247,790 o un —construction cos s Jail Construction Project from municipal Fund contributions. 2,260,000 (2,260,000) - Flood Control Zone District Fund To fund Marine Resources Flood Control Zone District proiect from grant proceeds. 129,265 129,265 To fund Bertrand Watershed Improvement Flood Control Zone District District project. 50,000 50,000)To fund work crew for Nooksack Salmon Flood Control Zone District Enhancement Association. 18,750 18,750 To fund Centennial Clean Flood Control Zone District lWater Fund grant project. 88,500 88,500 - Total Flood Control Zone District Fund 286,515 (286,515) - Administrative Services Fund To fund additional custodian Facilities osition 14,773 14,773 - o un additional maintenance technician Facilities position. 18,523 (18,523) - Total Administrative Services Fund 33,296 (33,296) - Total Add'I Supplemental 2.941.729 (2.584.888) 356,841 104 Supplemental Budget Request Srarus: Pending Non -Departmental Sups 11D # 360 Fund 1 Cost Center 4530 Originator. M Caldwell Expenditure Type: One Time Year 1 2005 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. Funding for new AS -Facilities positions X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($33,296) 8351.507 Op Trf Out - AS $33.296 Request Total $0 1a. Description of request. To provide funding for new AS -Facilities custodian and maintenance technician positions. See Supplemental ID #s 330 & 351. 9b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: General Fund fund balance. Thursday, June 29, 2006 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 105 Supplemental Budget Request stags: Pending. Non -Departmental Supp'I JD # 351 Fund 1 Cost Center 4530 Originator. M Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 1 2005 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Funding for Bertrand WID and NSE,4 projects X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($68,750) 8351 Operating Transfer Out $68,750 Request Total $0 1a. Description of request: To fund transfers to the Flood Fund for the Bertrand WID stream gage installation and monitoring project ($50,000) and the NSEA Conservation Corps work crew project ($18,750). See related Flood Fund supplementals. 9b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: General Fund fund balance. Thursday, June 29, 2006 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 106 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Parks & Recreation Supp7la # 942 Fund 1 Cost Center 6002 Originator: Rob Bunnett Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2006 Add'I FTE ❑ AddI Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Shared Roof Replacement - Sumas Community Center X 5-r�Cy Depa ent H a Si natu a (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 7060 Repairs & Maintenance $7,005 Request Total $7,005 la. Description of request. The current Sumas Senior Center Lease Agreement between the Parks & Recreation Department and the City of Sumas establishes a joint responsibility to fund major replacements or repairs to the City owned facility, including roof replacement. The roof is now over 15 years old and needs to be replaced. The total cost of the project is $14,010.70 with the Whatcom County half share totaling $7,005.35. The lease runs through 2015. 9b. Primary customers: The customers are elderly Sumas residents. The Sumas Senior Center operates three days per week, serving approximately 4,100 people each year. 2. Problem to be solved. The roof needs to be replaced to prevent damage to the facility used for Senior Center and other community activities. 3a. Options /Advantages: The City of Sumas has been a partner with the Parks & Recreation Department for many years. The City provides the space for Senior Center activities rent free, with the Parks & Recreation Department only having to contribute towards utilities. The Parks & Recreation Department would be hard pressed to operate a Senior Center in Sumas if it had to lease space at market rates. 3b. Cost savings: The Parks & Recreation Department is saved the cost of having to rent a commercial facility in Sumas. Shared replacement and repairs have been minimal. 4a. Outcomes: The Senior Center will continue to operate without disruption. The roof will be replaced and is guaranteed for 40 years. 4b. Measures: The project will be measured by the successful completion of the roof replacement and through annual Senior Center attendance of 4,100 participants. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: The City of Sumas has put the Roof Replacement contract out to bid. Once approved, the City's Utilities Superintendent will supervise the construction project. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: Rod Fadden Utilities Superintendent City of Sumas Wednesday, May 24, 2006 Rpr Rp1 Sapp! Regular 107 Supplemental Budget Request Parks & Recreation Status: Pending 5upp'1 !D # 342 Fund 9 Cost Center 6002 Originator: Rob Bunnett Rob Bunnett Recreation & Senior Services Manager Parks & Recreation Department 6. Funding Source: We are requesting support from the County General Fund Wednesday, May 24, 2006 Rpt: Rpt Ruppl Regular CITY OF SU AS P.O: BOX 9 SI MMS, WASHINGT9N 94Z95 PHONE (MO) 999-5711 FAX (360) 9SM955 EMAIL: info@cityofsumas:com MAYOR - ROBERT "BOB" BROMLEY Rob Bunnett Recreation/Senior Services Mgr. Whatcom Co. Parks & Recreation 3373 Mt, Baker Highway Bellingham, WA 98226-9522 RE: Community Center Roof Replacement Dear Mr. Bunnett, CLERK -TREASURER - GERI LEWIS This letter is being written in response to your request for information regarding the roof replacement for the Sumas Community Center. The center was built in 1990, so the roof is certainly inline to be replaced. I have secured three bids and we have selected the lowest bidder, Mt. Baker Roofing. Their bid was a total of $14,010.70 including sales tax. That would make your half portion $7,005.35 and the City would also be paying that same amount. The current agreement between the Whatcom County and the City of Sumas for maintenance of the center, spells out in #19 that these types of major repairs will be the `joint' responsibility of the City and the County. Enclosed please find a copy of the lowest bid. If you need further information, please feel free to call me at city hall. Sincerely, l� Rod Fadden, Utilities Superintendent City of Sumas RF:gl encl 109 APR-20-2006 THU Ol :07 Ply MT BAKER ROOFING INC FAX NO. 360 733 Ol 82 P, Ol Mt. Baker Roofing, Inc. MTBAKRIO5 5MI.. 3950 Hc)mtr Rd. Bc11ingham, WA 98226 Phone 360-738-0191 Fax 360•'733N1192 ReRoof - Proposal U Brain. ^ Homy##: Work # f 1 C:el1# iti une: . Dates; �d 1 t `i 20 lnoludes We Hereby submit specifications and estimates for: sarety-7 anchors ❑ We wili not be responsible for damage of oxisting *{- skylights that are not -•�.• ----L �"�. __ . #t . "�.._ being replaced. ❑ Cost will he extra for additional layers - -- - .. _.. _�____---.._..._....._ ............... that cannot be LA) ! 0 determined at bid time l= �� . _ .without dernaging _ roof. ❑ Any art as that we tiro not able to 447� delerTninc if there is solid sheathing will be chttrgrd @ time and mmcrial- ❑ Special items0 3 t—. Tax is not included in this price and is mWitionAL Mt. n4ker Rooting, Inc. Authorized 8jgnfttulre NOTEi This proposal tray be withdrawn by us if not accepted witlxi days. Any permits needed are the responsibility of the Homeowner. Mt. liaker Roofing, Inc. tlas a five year Utbor Warranty for material~ that we install. 'i'emvo Alt nuierial is guarantee to be as ip4dficd. All work to he eamplt:letl in n wodtmalilike niwner aceori�14q to standard PM, ofiee% AnyabhTations or 40.160 6 from ahnvo specifimdoils invuhing extra cost will he executed only apnn written orders, And will Ueconir aN uxtra charge over and ahoyc the peov. listed alcove. Owner t+ to any fur, and other necessary litstkl ante relatitut ro casualty danuge to the propcny- Oir workers era fully covered byW orkmael's Cuff1pr- A60u Instuance. Any tjkpola arising under title gg►oundnt shill hu rxsoleed in "41atcom County Wnslvrhrox It id dw prevailing party shill be esititkd rs, at aw rll arattarney's re es avid ccWs- Mt, &kcr 90011nT, Ire!, it rey1>0116bie FOr 01dy dtC Products that YK Install, Payment shall be as follows: Payment shall be made within 30 days ofjob completion. Any past due shall bear interest rato at 1.5% per month- A Lion shall be placed on the property for any unpaid balance over 40 days. By its signature hereunder Owner or its authorized agent acknowledges and agrees to the payment terms listed above. The undersigned warrants it is the legal owner ofthe property on which the work is to be performed; or has legal authority to sign this agreement ou behalf of the owner. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL: The prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted by Owner or its authorized agent. Signature Date _ signature Date C APR-20-2006 12:03PM TEL)360 733 019E FD)CITY OF 5UMA5 PACE:001 R=98% 19. Joint responsibilities of the CITY, COUNTY/WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: a. Major replacement or repairs to the building, grounds, or a major physical alteration of the plant would include roof replacement, major building renovat-ion,. complete exterior or interior painting, replacement of floor covering,. etc. These items must be mutually agreed to before the work is to commence. The cost will be shared equally by the CITY and the COUNTY. b.. The cost of all utilities other than telephone (i.e. heat, lights, sewer, water, etc.) shall be allocated based on the number of days a week the building is used by the Sumas Senior Citizens' Group. If used on a three day per week schedule, the COUNTY shall be responsible for. 3/7 of the total of these expenses. The CITY shall be responsible for the remaining 4/7. If there is any variation from this formula in actual use of the community center by days ' or portions of days, then appropriate alterations -in said formula for sharing the costs shall be made based on actual use. If the CITY would rent out the building after the Sumas Senior Citizens' Group have completed one of their regular scheduled days to another group, the utilities billing will be credited on the last quarter of the calendar year. The Sumas Senior Citizens' Group will be responsible to keep the center clean and rentable at the end of their scheduled days. The same responsibility of keeping the center clean and rentable would apply to the CITY after a group rents the building. DATED this day of # Zr, +-9-8-9r. WHATCOM COUNTY Shirley Van 2!anten, County Executive Sumas Senior Citizens' Activity Center Agreement —Page 4. 111 WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ERIF «h BILL ELFO SHERIFF OUMF FFIC PUBLIC SAFELY BUILDING 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225-4078 June 21, 2006 TO: Pete Kremen, County Executi e FROM: Sheriff William Elfo / RE: Supplemental CAREY JAMES UNDERSHERIFF JEFF PARKS CHIEF DEPUTY KEVIN MOYES CHIEF DEPUTY WENDY JONES CHIEF OF CORRECTIONS OECEIVE® JUN 2 3 2C96 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE The Whatcom County Sheriffs Office has received funding from the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission (copy of memorandum of understanding attached) in the amount of $5,077.00. This funding is to be used to purchase equipment and/or supplies to deal with the growing meth labs found in Whatcom County. SHERIFF CORRECTIONS 112 (360) 676-6650 (360) 384-5360 FAX: (360) 738-2494 (360) 676-6848 (360) 384-3291 FAX: (360) 738-2480 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Sheriff Operations Supp 1 !D # 5 Fund 1 Cost Center 2970 Originator Marvetfe Gwinner Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2006 Add'i FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Equipment and/or supplies to deal with meth labs Department geaNignature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Descrlptfon Amount Requested 4334.0112 Meth Investigation Equipment ($5,077) 6320 Office & Op Supplies $5,077 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. We have received a memorandum of understanding from the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Center in the abount of $6,077,00, This money will be used to purchase equipment and/or supplies to deal with meth labs. 9b. Primary customers: Citizens of Whatcom County 2. Problem to be solved: 3a. Options / Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for, 6. Funding Source: The funding Is provided by the state legistlature and passed on to the Criminal Justice Training Center. Wednesday, June 21, 2006 ,Rtpt: ,Rtpr Suppl Regular 113 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WASHINGTON STATE.CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING CENTER 190101sT Ave. South Burien, Washington 98148 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, hereinafter referred to as "CJTC" and the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor". CJTC is a Washington State agency. IT IS THE PURPOSE OF -THIS AGREEMENT to provide funding to the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office for equipment and/or supplies to deal with meth labs. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: 1. Items will be purchased by. the -Contractor that have been approved by CJTC.(See Attachment A — Equipment/Supply List). 2. The Agreement period will be from 5/15/06 to 5/l/07. 3. The maximum amount of expenditures allowed is $5077.00 (includes tax). 4. Contractor must submit for reimbursement to CJTC not later than 5/1/07. Reimbursement invoice will include copies of purchased equipment/ Supply invoices. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT. Whatcom County Sheriff s'Office Z' Bill Oft, S riff Date 114 Washington State Criminal Justice Training Center D Ze Approved as to form: Prosecuting Attorney Date Whatcom County Pete'Kremen, County Executive Date 115 Attachment A First Aid Kit (advanced wBP & Stethoscope) $375.00 Eyewash Station 75.00 Gun Shot Trauma Kit 55.00 Canopies (stand alone, 2) 400.00 Extension cords (2, 100', 2 25', 2 pigtails 100.00 Flood Lights, 2 160.00 Generator 650.00 Folding Tables, 4 80.00 Steel Shelving System 300.00 Dry Erase'Board 50.00 Chairs (4 folding) 80.00 Flashlights 340.00 Various hand tools and tool chest 300.00 Tools (shovel, axe, sledge, bolt cutters) 150.00 Tools, first responder, machete, saw 55.00 Interior trailer wiring 100.00 Storage cases 618.00 Rubber Made storage 125.00 Jump starter 135.00 Sharps gloves 425.00 Delineators, 8 110.00 Sub Total $4,683.00 Tax -393.38 TOTAL $5,076.38 116 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Jail Supp't ID # 354 Fund 118 Cost Center 118100 Originator: Wendy Jones Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2006 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Work Center One -Time Costs X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($247,790) 6140 Overtime $10,400 6320 Office & Op Supplies $61,794 6370 Medical Supplies $13,146 6510 Tools & Equip $32,307 6720 Telephone $100 6860 Equipment Rental $4,000 7190 Other Miscellaneous $2,500 7410 Equipment -Capital Outlay $85,500 7420 Computer -Capital Outlays $38.043 Request Total $0 la. Description of request: This supplemental request is to fund the one-time expenses associated with opening the Whatcom County Sheriffs Office Jail Work Center. This project is on -time according to the construction schedule, and some items will need to be ordered several months in advance, in order to have them available when the Work Center opens. A complete fist is attached to this request. 'lb. Primary customers: Staff and Offenders working and being housed at the Work Center 2. Problem to be solved. The new Work Center is a facility that will be holding 155 offenders. We need to outfit and supply the facility with those items needed to make it operational. Most of these expenditures were anticipated when the original budgeting was done for the facility_ . As we have refined the items needed to bring the facility on-line, there have been some additions. Some of the larger items will need to be ordered several months in advance, and we need to make sure that we have spending authority when the items are ordered and/or delivered. 3a. Options /Advantages: The option would have been not to build the work center. Since the decision was made to go forward with this project, the supplies /equipment needs to be provided. 3b. Cost savings: The Jail's Asset Coordinator will continue to price out items, to see if any further savings are available for the items contained on the attached list. 4a. Outcomes: A timeline will established listing when supplies need to be on -sight. This timeline will then detail the date the items need to be ordered in order to arrive by their use date. Utilizing a supply -chain business model, Friday, June 30, 2006 Rpt: Rpt Suppi Regular 117 Supplemental Budget Request Jail Status: Pending Supp'!1D # 354 Fund 118 Cost Center 118100 Originator. Wendy Jones the goal will be to have items arrive as needed, with minimal space needed for storage. The timeline will utilize the Master list as its base, and is in process currently. A master list will be used to make certain that all items are ordered, checked when they arrive and placed into County inventory when appropriate. The Master list is substantially completed, but will be editable as needed. 4b. Measures: Continual review of the Master supply list by the Asset Manager and monthly review by the Jail Administrative Lt. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: This supplemental will impact the following departments: Public Works, Equipment services: Facilitating the purchase of the vehicle needed to transport foodilaundry between the main jail and work center. Information technology: Facilitate purchase and installation of the Picture link capture station and the automated fingerprinting system, and setting up new work stations. ADS -Facilities: Coordinate and Facilitate a number of different items, including installation of things such as clocks, electronics, hardware. 5b. Name fhe person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: Public Works: Eric Schlehuber Information Technology: Perry Rice ADS -Facilities: Mike Russell and Joe Fisher Mr. Schlehuber will be responsible for getting the vehicle. He has already been seeking out vehicles and researched the price. Mr. Rice, Russell and Fisher have been involved with the Work Center as it has gone through the construction process, and will continue in their current roles. 6. Funding Source: The funding source for this supplemental is the Fund Balance for the Jail. Finance has reported there is a sufficient balance in the fund balance to meet this funding request. Friday, June 30, 2006 Apt: Rpt Suppi Regular 118 ONE TIME EXPENDITURES, JAIL WORK CENTER 118100 Start up cost (One time expenditures) 2006 III 15 cas: eeded #ate 6140 Moving costs 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000 6140 Inmate Transfer 240.00 10 $ 2,400 aml0-40� 6320 Mattress 25"x75" 46.95 150 $ 7,043 6320 Blankets 16.69 338 $ 5,641 6320 Sheets 5.86 187 $ 1,096 6320 Towels 2.55 300 $ 765 6320 REDS -tops -bottoms 21.93 300 $ 6,579 6320 Sandals 2.74 188 $ 515 6320 Property bins, in -cell 8.65 188 $ 1,626 6320 Property bins, property rm 4.94 188 $ 929 6320 Files/supplies custody 1.24 188 $ 233 6320 Tables wl seating 543.00 38 $ 20,634 6320 Seating, multi -purpose room 40.74 16 $ 652 6320 Floor matts 12.00 12 $ 144 6320 Clocks 45.00 15 $ 675 6320 -in, out boxes, forms storage 418.00 1 418 6320 Ink Stamps 300.00 1 $ 300 6320 Shredder - new sgt 50.00 1 $ 50 6320 Large "whiteboards" 45.00 3 $ 135 6320 Emergency Evac. Hoods 37.95 26 $ 987 6320 Collapsible chair 550.00 1 $ 550 6320 laptop projector 1,200.00 1 $ 1,200 6320 cow tags 1 188 $ 188 6320 laundry bags 3.42 100 $ 342 6320 Maglights/flashlights 8 97.75 782 6320 trays/cups/spoons 21.14 400 8456 6320 serving pieces 200 1 200 6320 serving pans 600 1 600 6320 Trash cans (large rubbermaid) 55.00 11 $ 605 6320 Body fluid clean-up kits 20.00 10 $ 200 6320 Industrial mops $ 18.72 4 $ 74.88 6320 Jail dust mops $ 56.88 2 $ 113.76 6320 Brooms $ 14.95 2 $ 29.90 6320 Spray bottles $ 1.95 16 $ 31.20 6370 First Aid Kits 100.00 3 $ 300 6370 Files/supplies medical 1.24 150 $ 186 6370 Exam table 2000 1 2000 6370 Exam Light 300 1 300 6370 Exam Stool 150 1 150 6370 Scale 300 1 300 6370 Soap Dispenser 30 2 60 6370 AED Unit 2800 1 2800 6370 Otoscope 200 1 200 6370 B/P Cuff 100 1 100 6370 Stethoscope 225 1 225 6370 Eye Chart 15 1 15 6370 Thermometer 100 1 100 6370 Blood glucose meters 1 strips 100 1 100 119 ONE TIME EXPENDITURES, JAIL_ WORK CENTER 6370 Instrument tray stand 220 1 220 6370 Biohazard Can 220 1 220 6370 Sharps Wall Unit 20 1 20 6370 SM Med Refrigerator 500 1 500 6370 Sundry Jars 50 1 50 6370 First aid kits 200 1 200 6370 shelving 500 2 1000 6370 Drug Books 250 1 250 6370 Assessment book 50 1 50 6370 Desk/chair/computer 2200 1 2200 6370 File Cabinet 400 1 400 6370 Files 600 1 600 6370 Office Supplies 600 1 600 r 6510 Television 19" 129.00 12 $ 1,548 6510 -reception work station/desks 400.00 3 $ 1,200 6510 -office chairs 400.00 3 $ 1,200 6510 -telephone headset 200.00 1 $ 200 6510 -file cabinet- 300.00 2 $ 600 6510 Break room table 250.00 1 $ 250 6510 Break room seating 49.00 8 $ 392 6510 Break room appliance 940.00 1 $ 940 6510 TVNCRIDVD combo. 500.00 1 $ 500 6510 Tac Locker 200.00 3 $ 600 6510 Records storage shelving 500.00 9 $ 4,500 6510 Records/Assets cart 200.00 1 $ 200 6510 Library shelving 400.00 1 $ 400 6510 Work Crew Supervisors Desks 200.00 6 $ 1,200 6510 Work Crew Supervisors Chairs 100.00 2 $ 200 6510 Digital camera 300.00 1 $ 300 6510 Key Cabinet - large 1,600.00 1 $ 1,600 6510 dateltime stamp 300.00 1 $ 300 6510 digital audio recorder 150.00 1 $ 150 6510 property room shelving 200.00 18 $ 3,600 6510 Medication cart 1,500.00 1 $ 1,500 6510 Taser locker - single 56.00 1 $ 56 6510 minimal protective gear 200.00 3 $ 600 6510 grip restraint 179.95 1 $ 180 6510 taser 900.00 1 $ 900 6510 band -it stun system 800.00 1 $ 800 6510 seating 33.60 10 $ 336 6510 Chairs for visiting 'guests' 30 12 360 6510 desk 250 1 250 6510 file cabinets 200 2 400 6510 storage cabinets/cases 500 2 1000 6510 cold food transport 750 2 1500 6510 Utility carts (dirty laundry) $ 270 $ 5 $ 1,350 6510 Utility racks (clean laundry) $ 200 $ 3 $ 600 6510 Folding tables $ 200 $ 3 $ 600 6510 Janitorial cart $ 130 $ 2 $ 260 6510 Mop bucketwl Wringer $ 118 $ 2 $ 235 120 ONETIME EXPENDITURES, JAIL WORK CENTER 6510 Radio Base Station $ 1,500 $ 1 $ 1,500 6720 Admin Sgt Cell Phone 100.00 1 $ 100 1 6860 Moving costs 4,000.00 1 $ 4,000 000 7190 Technology transfer 2,500.00 1 $ 2,500 2 00 7410 picturelink capture station 36,000.00 1 $ 36,000 7410 Hot food transpofrt 3200 3200 2 6400 7410 step van 38000 1 38000 7410 large refrigerator for main jail 5100 1 5100 USE 8 F 0 7420 livescan 32,743.00 1 $ 32,743 7420 Computer work stations 1,200.00 4 $ 4,800 7420 printer for larry 250.00 1 $ 250 7420 Jitas Printer 250.00 1 $ 250 121 WHATCOM COUNTY Executive Office 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA 98225 MEMORANDUM TO: County Council Members FROM: Dewey Delser, Deputy Administrator RE: Supplemental Budget Request DATE: June 29, 2006 Dewey Desler Deputy Administrator We are requesting final budgetary authority for the construction of the interim jail facility. We may fund these final construction costs from three or more different fund sources, but at this point the Administration is proposing a loan from the General Fund to the Jail Construction Fund. It is anticipated that the General Fund loan would be repaid from contributions made by cities in Whatcom County participating in the County/City Jail Investment Program. Should any city choose not to participate, their anticipated contribution would be covered by revenue from the Corrections Sales Tax. Please contact Dewey Desler at extension 50124, if you have any questions or concerns regarding this request. Encl. 122 Department: Requested By: WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET MODIFICATION REQUEST AS -Finance M Caldwell The following budget modification is requested: Budget Transfer * X Budget Supplemental ** SOURCE: (Accounts to transfer from or funding source for supplemental) 333100.4337 Intergovernmental Revenues $ (2,260,000) ACCOUNTS TO INCREASE: 333100.7350 Buildings & Structures PURPOSE OF TRANSFER OR SUPPLEMENTAL: Record municipal contributions to minimum security jail project. Authorized By: Department'Head: Executive's Office: Date Posted: Date: Date: $ 2,260,000 kf-clmisclformslbud mad 123 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E, Director Memorandum TO: The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive and Honorable members of the Whatcom County Council FROM: Kirk Christensen, Stormwater Managerf DATE: June 26, 2006 Bruce M. Roll, Ph.D., M.P.H. Assistant Director ADMINISTRATION CIVIC CENTER ANNEX 322 N. Commercial Street, Suite 210 Bellingham, WA 98225 Phone # (360) 676-6692 Fax # (360) 676-6863 www.comhatcomma.us RE: Supplemental. Budget Request for the MRC (Marine Resources Committee) Since the establishment of the MRC, this program has grown substantially, and Public Works has acted as the County's lead in marine issues. Increased public awareness has necessitated an increase in staff involvement and activities. To facilitate this, Public Works requests a supplemental budget to fund a Planner 10.7 FTE position to support MRC activities including monitoring, community outreach, and special projects. The attached funding request also outlines the adjustments needed to give the MRC budget authority in 2006. The funding source for supplemental request is a grant agreement between Whatcom County and the Department of Ecology for the MRC. These funds can be directed to staff resources to support the MRC. The MRC's programs have influenced activities of other County departments such as Health and Planning and Development, as well as State department agencies such as Health, Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, and Natural Resources. Much of the effort expended by the MRC has served to benefit the general public in addition to private industry (commercial and sports fishermen, boaters, kayakers, shellfish harvesters, scientists, builders, industry, and recreational users) all the while assisting in the preservation of water quality, shorelines, and marine ecosystems and populations. Thank you for your consideration of this request and please feel free to contact me at extension 50209 should you have any questions. 124 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Public Works g o5 5ozStormwater Supp'r ID 9 357 1 Fund 169 Cost Center 17 Originator. • Kirk Christensen Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2006 Add'I FTE © Add'i Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Marine Resources X 6�30� 6 Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested q 33 3 CZM Aquatic Resource Mg ($129,265) 6110 Regular Salaries & Wages $26,000 6290 Applied Benefits $13 600 6630 Professional Services $89,665 Request Total $0 1 a. Description of request: These services are intended to provide non -regulatory, voluntary, incentive -based services that support the restoration and preservation of marine resources in Whatcom County. This Supplemental Budget Request will provide a Planner 10.7 FTE for monitoring, community outreach, and special projects that support the Marine Resources Committee (MRC). This position will work with the Senior Planner- Marine Resources to implement priority projects identified by the Marine Resources Committee. The request will also provide for additional priority marine resources projects as identified by the MRC. These projects focus on clam enhancement, rockfish dive surveys, and identification and implementation of nearshore restoration projects. 1 b. Primary customers: Advisory committees: Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee, Northwest Straits Commission Commercial fishermen, sports fishermen, boaters, kayakers, shellfish harvesters, scientists, builders, industry, recreational users. Whatcom County departments: Planning and Development Services, Health Department, WSU Extension, Public Works, Executive's Office, Parks and Recreation, and the County Council. 2. Problem to be solved: A broad range of people use and interact with the marine environment: commercial fishermen sports fishermen, boaters, kayakers, shellfish harvesters, scientists, builders, industry, recreational users, and many others. Marine systems and resources, flora and fauna and the habitats upon which they depend are a vital and integral part of our existence in Whatcom County. However, these resources have been threatened by water quality problems in freshwater sources, shoreline modification, a general lack of knowledge and understanding about marine ecosystems and populations, and other factors. In 1998, Congress established the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative in response to declines in marine life and habitat. This initiative led to the establishment of the Northwest Straits Commission and seven Marine Resources Committees, including the Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee. Since the establishment of the Marine Resources Committee, this program has grown substantially. The committee implements community outreach, data collection and compilation, and special marine restoration and protection projects to benefit the Whatcom County community. The County receives over Friday, June 30, 2006 Rpt: Rpr Suppl Regular 125 Supplemental Budget Request S1alus: Pending Public Works Stormwater Supp'! ID # 357 ' Fund 169 Cost Center 169117 Originator. Kirk Christensen $80,000 through DOE grant agreements on an annual basis on behalf of the committee. In 2006, a grant amendment providing an additional $92,000 is being offered to each of the committees. A significant portion of these funds can be directed to staff resources to support the committee. Since the creation of Public Works Water Resources (now Stormwater) in 1999, Public Works has acted as the County's lead in marine issues. Public Works Stormwater has provided technical and scientific expertise and administrative support for the Marine Resources Committee, as well as the two Shellfish District Advisory Committees. It is critical that the County maintain a role in coordinating marine restoration activities, staffing the marine resources committees, providing public education on marine protection and restoration issues, and providing technical assistance for marine assessment, protection, and restoration projects. 3a. Options / Advantages: Since 1999, Public Works has provided technical and administrative support for the Marine Resources Committee. This supplemental budget request will continue to provide dedicated resources to an established program and recognize the need for additional resources to accommodate a program that has grown. To date, these efforts have resulted in a greater community awareness of marine issues, softshore techniques being used for beach restoration, enhanced nearshore assessments, and many other projects. Without the additional staff request, Public Works will not be able to adequately support a growing program and a portion of the above -referenced programs would be eliminated or transferred to another County department. Department heads from Planning and Development Services and the Health Department have supported and recommended that these services be provided by Public Works. 3b. Cost savings: Marine resources are an integral component of Whatcom County's character. Declining populations, habitat, and water quality affect tribal, commercial, and recreational fishermen and shellfish harvesters. In addition, healthy marine resources are vital to recreational use within the community. The Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee is part of a regional effort to protect and restore marine resources. This effort receives federal funding on an annual basis. 4a. Outcomes: Coordination and Community Outreach: During 2006 and 2007, this staff position will assist with several marine coordination and community outreach projects. Implementation of committee projects for marine resources protection and restoration requires coordination with community members, the Northwest Straits Commission, and various local and state agencies. This supports access to marine data, community outreach, and on -the -ground restoration projects. Monitoring and Special Projects: During 2006 and 2007, this staff position will support the implementation of special projects to collect data on critical rockfish habitat, clam populations, and water quality in shellfish growing areas and to develop stewardship programs to protect these resources. In addition, this position will assist with the identification of priority nearshore areas for protection and restoration and implementation of restoration and enhancement projects. 4b. Measures: Increased involvement and awareness of marine issues by community members, specifically the number of volunteers participating in marine surveys, water quality monitoring and outreach projects. Identification of critical rockfish habitat in Whatcom County. This information will be provided to the co - managers for consideration in the development of management plans for these sensitive species. Establishment of a clam enhancement program. Water quality and diminishing populations or sizes of clams affect tribal, commercial, and recreational harvest of clams. Through this program, community members will become involved in stewardship programs resulting in improved water quality and harvest practices. Identification of priority nearshore restoration and protection sites. This will provide the framework for Friday, Jurre .30, 2006 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 126 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Public Works Stormwater Supp'l 1D # 357 Fund 169 Cost Center 169117 Originator: Kirk Christensen future projects to improve and protect Whatcom County's marine nearshore habitat. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: The programs supported by this position will influence activities of the County's Health and Planning & Development Services departments. The Marine Resources Committee coordinates with these departments as needed to integrate programs. State agencies, such as Departments of Health, Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, and Natural Resources will be requested to participate in activities where they have influence. Examples include state owned aquatic lands, fish and shellfish data, and assessment of water quality data utilized for shellfish area classifications. The Port and Cities will be sought as project partners for proposed projects in their jurisdictions. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. Shoreline Management Plan - Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Shellfish Area Classification - State Department of Health Rockfish Management Plans - WDFW and Tribes 6. Funding Source: Grant funds form the Department of Ecology Friday, June 30, 2006 Rpt. Rpt Suppl Regular 127 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. Director MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council Bruce M. Roil, Ph.D., M.P.H. Assistant Director ADMINISTRATION CIVIC CENTER ANNEX 322 N. Commercial Street, Suite 210 Bellingham, WA 98226 Phone # (360) 676-6692 Fax # (360) 676-6863 www.comhatcomma.us RECEIVE® J U N 2 7 2006 From: Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, Public Works— PE rE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE Date: June 26h, 2006 RE: Supplemental Request for the Bertrand WID and Nooksack Salmon Association The purpose of this supplemental is to fund two projects; 1) Stream gauging and water quality monitoring in the Bertrand Watershed and, 2) funding for Washington Conservation Corp work crew (October through December 2006) for the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association. Bertrand 97D Monitoring This work involves the installation of stream gages at two locations in the Bertrand Watershed and associated monitoring for the Bertrand Watershed Improvement District. Currently the Bertrand WID lacks information that describes stream flows and water quality in Bertrand Creek. This work will provide for the collection of stream flow and water quality information in support of the efforts of the WID. This work is supported by the Bertrand WID and other partners (Department of Ecology, Tribes, PUD # 1 and Whatcom County) who are engaged in the development of instream flow related activities in this area. The total cost for this activity is $50,000. Nooksack Samson Enhancement Assoccation Funding for a Washington Conservation Corp work crew (October through December 2006) for the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA). For a number of years the county has sponsored a WCC work crew for NSEA. This crew is instrumental in the implementation of salmon recovery in the county and over the past 6 years has completed over a hundred projects that support salmon recovery efforts. The total cost for this work is $18,750. It is important to emphasize that both of these projects implement key elements of the WRIA I Watershed Management and Salmon Recovery plans. It is recognized that this work will begin in 2006 and continue into 2007. The 2006 project costs are requested in this supplemental budget and costs for 2007 will be proposed during the 2007/2008 budget request. The funding source for this work is General Fund 001. Thank you for your consideration of this request and please feel free to contact me at 50693 if you have questions. 128 Supplemental Budget Request Status. Pending Public Works Administration SLpp'! 1D # 359 Fund 169 Cost Center 169117 Originator. Bruce Roll Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2006 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Bertand Watershed Improvement District X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 6630 Professional Services $50,000 8301.4530 Op Trf In - Non -Departmental ($50.000) Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Stream gage installation at two locations in the Bertrand Watershed and associated monitoring for the Bertrand Watershed Improvement District. 1b. Primary customers: Bertand Watershed Improvement District 2. Problem to be solved: Currently the Bertrand WID lacks information that describes stream flows and water quality in Bertrand Creek. This work will provide for the collection of stream flow and water quality information in support of the efforts of the WID. This work is supported by the Bertrand WID and other partners (Department of Ecology, Tribes, PUD # 1 and Whatcom County) who are engaged in the development of instream flow related activities in this area. 3a. Options/ Advantages: The Bertrand WID lacks the funds needed to implement this work. . 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: Stream gages would be installed in 2006 and data collection initiated. These gages would be part of the long term management strategy for the Bertrand WID. In addition, water quality data would be collected for such parameters as fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, and temperature. Together this information is needed to better understand the effectiveness of management strategies in the Bertrand Watershed. 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencles: Yes, Planning and Develop Services will need to consider this work in the context of their work related to the implemenation of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: General Fund 001 Thursday, June 29, 2006 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 129 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Public Works Flood Control Zone District supp71O # 362 Fund 169 Cost Center 169117 Originator: Bruce Roll/M Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 1 2005 Add1 FTE ❑ Add1 Space ❑ Priority 9 Name of Request: NSEA Work Crew X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs. Object Object Description Amount Requested 6630 Professional Services $18,750 8301.4530 Op Trf In - Non -Departmental ($18 750) Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Funding for a Washington Conservation Corp work crew (October through December 2006) for the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA). 1b. Primary customers: Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association 2. Problem to be solved: For a number of years the county has sponsored a WCC work crew for NSEA. This crew is instrumental in the implementation of salmon recovery in the county and over the past years has completed over fifty projects that support salmon recovery efforts. 3a. Options /Advantages: NSEA lacks the funds needed to implement this work. 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: WCC work crews would perform work related to salmon recovery beinging in October of 2006. This funding would support the WCC work crew for a period of three months during which time they would be completing various salmon recovery projects in the county. 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Yes, Planning and Develop Services will need to consider this work in the context of their work related to the implemenation of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: General Fund Thursday, June 29, 2006 Rpt: Rpt Suppi Regular 130 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Public Works Water Resources Supp'l ID # 363 1 Fund 169 Cost Center 169117 Originator. Kirk Christensen/M Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 1 2005 Add'[ FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Centennial Clean Water Fund grant project X Department Head Signature (Required on Hare! Copy Submission) Date Casts: Object Object Description Amount Requested 4334.0310 DOE Water Quality Monitoring ($88,500) 6510 Tools & Equip $50,000 6630 Professional Services $35,000 6780 Travel-Educrrraining $3.600 Request Total $0 1 a. Description of request: In 2002 Whatcom County received a Centennial Clean Water Fund grant to implement a Water Quality Monitoring Project (grant agreement No. G0300021). The purpose of the project was to develop and begin implementation of a long-term water quality monitoring program for Water Resource Inventory Area 1 in Whatcom County. The program included 6 major components: water quality monitoring; monitoring program coordination; public involvement and stewardship; reporting; on -going updates and program review; and funding. Implementation of tasks associated with these components is on -going and is scheduled for completion in August 31, 2006. The purpose of this supplemental budget request is to obtain the remaining grant funds needed to complete this work. A total of $88,500 is requested. The funds will be used as follows: Professional services for writing water quality report (Herrera Environmental Consultants - County Contract No. 200605001) - $35,000. Equipment purchase for storm event monitoring - $50,000 Miscellaneous (training, travel, printing, books) - $3,500 1b. Primary customers: Agencies and citizens of Whatcom County utilizing and/or interested in water quality information. 2. Problem to be solved. This program assists in filling data gaps related to water quality and supports recommended actions in the adopted 2005 WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan - Phase I. 3a. Options /Advantages: Hiring the consultant to assist with report writing will provide additional County staff time to support other needs. The monitoring equipment will be available to assist with pending Lake Whatcom tributary monitoring needs thus reducing overall program costs. The equipment will also be available over time to support needs in other geographic areas in the County. 3b. Cost savings: Refer to question "6". 4a. Outcomes: Complete implementation of the Water Quality Monitoring grant requirements. 4b. Measures: Friday, June 30, 2006 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 131 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Public Works Water Resources Supp7ID # sss Fund 169 Cost Center 169117 Originator. Kirk Christensen/M Caldwell Report on ambient monitoring program; Update of existing monitoring programs; Stewardship support including a pilot telemetry site; Newsletter; Equipment availability to support future monitoring needs; and Summary of grant and funding opportunities 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Completing implementation of the grant components will require support and coordination with a number of organizations/governments including Public Utility District No. 1, City of Bellingham, Lummi Nation, Nooksack Tribe, Conservation District, Watershed Improvement District, Department of Ecology, and Western Washington University. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: Sue Blake is the program lead for implementation of tasks associated with the grant. 6. Funding Source: Centennial Grant $88,5000 DOE Friday, June 30, 2606 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 132 OM CO WHATCOM COUNTY �s. °tip ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES �s r=a<. Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 c* QSHIN�+�O Bellingham, WA 98225-4083 DDesler@co.vvhatcom.vva.us DEWEY G. DESLER Director MEMO TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Michael Russell, Facilities Manager f''G k) DATE: June 8, 2006 RE: Budget Supplemental Request FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Lottie Street Annex 316 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225-4010 Facilities@co.whatcom, wa. u s MICHAEL RUSSELL Facilities Manager AS -Facilities Management is requesting two (2) additional FTEs, one custodian and one facilities maintenance technician. The County is now occupying new building space at the Central Plaza location with the new Jail Work Center anticipated to open in October. With this additional square footage plus the increase in County staff over the past few years, these additional staff members are necessary to maintain a minimal level of service. Funding for these positions is being requested from the Administrative Services Fund. Please contact Michael Russell at extension 50575 if you have any questions or concerns. Enclosures Administration Facilities Management Finance/Accounting Human Resources Information Services County Residents (360) 676-6717 (360) 676-6746 (360) 676-6734 (360) 676-6802 (360) 676-7684 (360) 398-1310 1 33 Fax (360) 676-6775 Fax (360) 676-6789 Fax (360) 738-4553 Fax (360) 738-2521 Fax (360) 676-7727 TTY (360) 738-4555 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Administrative Services Facilities Management upp r r� # sso� Fund 507 Cost Center 50710 Originator: Michael Russell Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2006 �Add'I FTE W �Add'll Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. x Depcirtment Vjh� d Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object 6110 Object Description Regular Salaries & Wages Amount Requested $9,432 I 6210 — Retirement �— $491 6230 Social Security 76245 -- 6255 Medical Insurance — — _ Other H&W Benefits __- — I _ — $3.325 $532 6259 Worker's Comp-Interfund � $224 I �$47 6269Unemployment-Interfund L Request Total WY $14,773 1a. Description of request. FTE - Custodian lb. Primary customers: Whatcom County staff and public 2. Problem to be solved: The County is adding space at the Central Plaza Building and new Minimum Security Jail and Triage Facility. The custodial staff is presently cleaning 241,000 sq ft with each custodian doing roughly 24,000 sq ft per night. With the addition of another 29,000 sq ft to the inventory and the additional county employees occupying these spaces its become necessary to hire additional cleaning staff. 3a. Options !Advantages: no other options 3b. Cost savings: There are no cost savings to this change 4a. Outcomes: better service to county staff and the public by providing adequate cleaning service to the additional square footage the county is acquiring. 4b. Measures: outcomes will be based upon the service provided to the occupants of the additional square footage acquired for County use 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: all county departments 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: General Fund ��.��.xw�.,n�.-��_f�.�x..�.n�:.,�.�-�•�-nr�,.r�:�----•.�.�„�.�_.r_,a:,,�-".-�,.._z.,�-,.u..=_x�r«=-.�.�..,r.z,..s,�-.,�.,s«a.r..-f.:.,�.,�,.��:.A:�_-.�_� Tbursday, June 08, 2006 Rpr: Rpr Supp! Regular 134 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Administrative Services Facilities Management suppllD # s- Fund 507 Cost Center 50710 Originator: Michael Russell Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2006 Add'I FTE V Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Facilities Maintenance Technician X rtment HeAd Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs. Object — Object Description Amount Requesfed ,, 6110 Regular Salaries 8 Wages $12,048 6210 Retirement — $628 6230 Social Security $922 i 6245 Medical Insurance �- $3,325 6255----------- Other H8W Benefits ------------- � -----------$532 6259 Workers Comp-Interfund $1,008 6269 Unemployment -Inter -fund $60 y 1' Request Total -- --- — — - - $18,523 -4 1a. Description of request: FTE - Facilities Maintenance Technician 1b. Primary customers: Whatcom County staff and public 2. Problem to be solved. The County is adding space at the Central Plaza Builidng and the new Minimum Security Jail I Triage Facility it has become necessary to hire additional staff to provide maintenance and service to these additional areas. 3a. Options /Advantages: no other options 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: There are no cost savings to this change 4b. Measures: better service to county staff and the public by providing maintenance and service for the additional square footage acquired for County use 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: all County departments 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: General Fund �_i[-J»[ya�rt-.[yv....t.t �t /Ni�n.taLSL_na�.t[-ti.v_[nsl f��[ J3s+a�x_a�x�v�L:H.WtiR¢v[�-.�4[4�nV�+¢WL�L'.[m�wacae��if/uxs�_�[�Lt��>Lzrc�h-+�S�.x`�1'xs�-vCyC::W�ias'�aLrto Thursday, June 08, 2006 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 135 WHATCOM COUNTY CO UNCIL AGENDA BILL No. 2 0 0 6 - 29 9 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: 7111106 Intro Originator: �z n �n -; ^• j f7 �_ ( ; 1 ,_ y' U 0 3 M 6 JUL Division Head: 7125106 Finance Committee; Council Dept. Head: Prosecutor: �Yrl��'� ;, 0UNC11L Purchasix ud t: 3� O Executive: Yk i I I TITLE 19FDOdUMENT. Interfund Loan for Interim Financing of the "atcom County Interim Jail and Alternative Corrections Center ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes (X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT 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.) This Ordinance requests that a loan be made from the Whatcom County General Fund to the Whatcom County Interim Jail and Alternative Corrections Center Construction Fund in the amount of $2,260,000. COMMITTEEACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION• Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing andprinting on the Coun 's website at: www.co.w1zatcom.wa.us/counci1 136 INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: County Executive DATE: July 11,2006 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR INTERIM FINANCING OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNTY INTERIM JAIL AND ALTERNATIVE CORRECTIONS CENTER WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council has approved the construction of the Whatcom County Interim Jail and Alternative Corrections Center (Corrections Center); and, WHEREAS, $2,260,000 of the funding for the Corrections Center is projected to be contributed by the cities within Whatcom County pursuant to the proposed County City Jail Investment program and, WHEREAS, the interlocal agreements between Whatcom County and the Cities are in the process of being approved and executed, and WHEREAS, interim financing is necessary to complete the Corrections Center; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that a loan shall be made from the Whatcom County General Fund (fund 1) to the Whatcom County Interim Jail and Alternative Correction Center Construction Fund (fund 333) in the amount of $2,260,000 at a rate of 3% annual interest compounded annually, with payment of accrued interest plus principal due on or before July 1 st 2007. Repayment shall be made from contributions from Cities participating in the County City Jail Investment program. In the event one or more cities elect not to participate in the County City Jail Investment program the loan will be repaid from Whatcom County Jail fund (fund 118) or the loan will be converted by action of the county council to capital contribution from the Whatcom County General Fund (fund 1). ADOPTED this day of , 2006. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: !` Civil Deputy Prsia utor Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Chair ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Pete Kremen, Executive Date: Page 1 137 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. Zoos 304 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Crawford 7/3/2006 7/25/2006 Finance/Council Division Head: Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasin lBud et: &ecutive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Resolution regarding the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT 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.) Resolution regarding the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at: www.co.whalcom.wa.uslcouncil. 138 PROPOSED BY: Crawford SPONSORED BY: Consent INTRODUCED: July 25, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. REGARDING THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE WHEREAS, Whatcom County is home to five land border crossings and a long sea border with British Columbia, Canada; and WHEREAS, the Douglas and Pacific Highway crossings are the third largest crossings on the US/Canada border for both vehicle and truck traffic; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County's economy is substantially reliant on its tourism and retail sector, both of which are significantly tied to Canadian traffic; and WHEREAS, the Canada -United States border relationship is unique with more than 300,000 business people, tourists and regular commuters traveling between Canada and the United States every day, and more than $1.2 billion in two-way trade each day; and WHEREAS, Washington State and British Columbia have a common interest in maintaining a secure and open border between Canada and the United States, as the Pacific Northwest's economy depends on such factors; and WHEREAS, in December 2004, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which will require all U.S. and Canadian citizens to have a passport or other accepted secure document that establishes the bearer's identity and nationality to enter or re-enter the United States by January 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, under the current WHTI proposal, this requirement will apply to all air and sea travel to or from Canada beginning on December 31, 2006, and will be extended to all U.S.-Canada land border crossings after December 31, 2007; and WHEREAS, WHTI, as currently outlined, will negatively impact trade, tourism, and the daily lives of citizens in border regions like Whatcom County, and across both countries; and 139 WHEREAS, on several occasions, letters have been sent from this region by businesses, political leaders, trade groups, and many others to the U.S. Secretary of State and the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security to encourage the U.S. Government to adopt a flexible and reasonable approach in implementing WHTI which would meet security imperatives while minimizing the negative impact on border crossings by legitimate travelers; and WHEREAS, numerous governors, premiers, U.S. and Canadian legislators, and bi-national regional forums, including the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), have expressed similar views with regard to WHTI; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council recognizes that border communities, and business, travel and tourism industries have expressed legitimate concerns about the implementation of the WHTI. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Whatcom County Council requests that the United States Government conduct an economic and social analysis of the anticipated impact of WHTI on cross -border trade, tourism and local community activities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council will undertake an active campaign coordinated with other interested parties and organizations; including the Business for Economic Security, Trade and Tourism (BESTT) Coalition, to urge Congress to delay the implementation of WHTI. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council urges the United States Government to revise the terms of the implementation of WHTI, based on the findings of the analyses, and in collaboration with the Government of Canada, states and provinces, to ensure that the border between Canada and the United States remains open to the free and fair flow of trade. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council encourages all governments to pursue collaborative actions at the local, regional and national levels to minimize the impact that WHTI will have on travelers, communities, tourism and industries. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council is extremely concerned about. the erosion of civil liberties that is represented by WHTI and its implementation, and expresses its preference that Congress reconsider its December 2004 approval of the legislation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council urges the United States Government and the Government of Canada to fully explore, in close consultation with states and provinces, options with regard to the implementation of WHTI, including timelines, terms, technologies, transition measures and alternative identity documentation. 140 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council encourages member communities to become engaged in the efforts to address WHTI, most notably by joining the BESTT Coalition; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Canada, the U.S. Secretary of State and the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, the Canadian Minister of Public Safety and the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the respective U.S. and Canadian Ambassadors, the US Conference of Mayors, the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Homeland Security Committee, the House International Relations Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, and members of the Congressional delegation for Washington state. APPROVED this day of , 2006. ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Prosecutor WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Council Chair 141 WHA TCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-311 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator 7194106 a== b T r}l 7125/06 Finance/Coup Division Head. +� p O J U L ! Z006 WHATCOM COUNTY Dept. Head: Prosecutor. Purchasin / et: 8 7114106 COUNCIL Executive:We.LtLj,A)7/f4(, TITLE Off DO UMENT. Award of Bid 06-78 live Scan Units ATTACHMENTS, Memos from Finance and the Jail SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( } Yes ( x) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (x ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT 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.) Whatcom County Jail is requesting approval to award to the low bidder for the purchase two live scan finger print units. Two bids were received and the low bidder is Identix, Inc. The total cost for this purchase is $65, 547.30. This is a planned purchase and funds exist in their budget for the unit to be installed in the Jail. A request for approval of funds for the unit to be installed in the new Work Center is in Supplemental Budget #10. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. 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. ii 142 WHATCOM COUNTY . ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA 98225-4083 DDesler@co.whatcom.wa.us DEWEY G. DESLER Director DATE: 12 July 2006 TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager SUBJECT: Award of Bid 06-78, Live Scan Fingerprint Equipment FINANCE ACCOUNTING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 503 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 Finance@co.wh atcom.wa. us BRAD BENNETT Manager BACKGROUND Bids were duly advertised for the supply two live scan booking stations with integrated full hand scanners to be used by the Jail. Two bids received and are noted below. 10ENTIX CROSSMATCH Prlo facht _ -Price for ` .2 Price Each.:. Price for 2 . Ten Printer Live Scan Unit w/ Console 24,292.00 57,584.00. 27,000.00 54,000.00 Interface Programming for local & state connections 704.00 10,500.00 24I7 Maintenance & Tech Support Included 8,500.00 Traini ng 5,400.00 6,300.00 Printer for return notifications Not required 1,080.00 Printer for finger print forms 2,890.00 5,780.00 3,610.00 Subtotal 60,468.00 83,890.00 8.4% Tax 5,079.30 7,046.76 Total 65,547.30 90,936.76 The Jail would like to award to the low bidder, Identix in the amount of $65,547.31. -this equipment is from the same company as the Jail's current system and is within their anticipated cost allocation. FUNDING The funding for the unit to go in the Jail was approved in the current budget. The second unit is for installation in the new Work Center and the request for approval of funds is in Supplemental Budget Request #10. 1 concur with the recommendation. Administrative Services Finance Manager Approved as Recommended: County Executive Date of Council Action Administration Facilities Management Finance/Accounting Human Resources Information Services County Residents 143 (360) 676-6717 (360) 676.6746 (360) 676-6734 (360) 676-6802 (360) 676-7684 (360) 396-1310 Fax (360) 676-6775 Fax (360) 676-6789 Fax (360) 738-4553 Fax (360) 738-2521 Fax (360) 676-7727 T1Y (360) 738.4555 WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: 07/11/2006 TO: Chris Mohnkem, Purchasing Coordinato4ub--C� FROM: Wendy Jones, Chief of Corrections RE: Request for bid approval for bid 06-78. Fingerprinting live scanner Please allow this memo to serve as the request to approve awarding the bid for the purchase of 2 automated fingerprint scanners to Identix Inc_ for an amount not to exceed $65,547.30. The bid placed by Identix Inc. was $25,449.91 less than the one submitted by the other bidder. Additionally, we currently have Identix machines in the jail, and should be able to further reduce the cost to the County by reducing the training component of the bid. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 50470. Thank You. 144 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006--312 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: (� � /i R Paula J. Cooper, P.E. 4lab rL1 �i_' � � IJ L= '' July 25, 2006 Finance, Council Division Head: // % PaulaJ. Cooper, P.E. 1 0 U 18 2006 DeFMons �Wo �f n. P.E. f a. Jo J L Prosecutor: 0_1 6 Daniel L. Gibson I'f 91i OO N Y WH TCOM COUNTY Purchasin /Bud et: i� i!. CIf COUNCIL Executive: 7/4 0 �P TITLE dV DOCUMENT Contract for Services for GIS Roll Development ATTACHMENTS Memo from Jeff Monsen SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO NO Re uested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public bearing, you "lust provide the language for use its the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) -The attached agreement is for development of GIS routines to automate the generation of assessment rolls for the various special districts, including subzones, diking and drainage districts. COMMITTEE ACTION..- COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: 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.uslcouncil. 145 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 322 N. Commercial Street Bellingham, WA 98225 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Coucil FROM: Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director` Jeffrey Monsen Director RECEIVED J U L 1 � 2006 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE RE: GIS Roll Development Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech / KCM, Inc. DATE: July 7, 2006 Enclosed are two (2) originals of a Professional Services Agreement between Whatcom County Public Works River and Flood Division and Tetra Tech / KCM, Inc. for your review and signature. ■ Requested Action Public Works respectfully requests that the County Executive, following approval by the County Council, enter into a contract for the sum of $34,340.00 (not to exceed) with the selected consultant, Tetra Tech / KCM, Inc. for the development of GIS routines to automate the generation of assessment rolls for the various special districts, including subzones, diking and drainage districts. ■ Background and Purpose Historically, calculations for Special District Assessment Rolls required manually referencing parcel information, district boundary maps, benefit zone ratings, and/or other factors as applicable to determine the basis for each parcel assessment. "rhe process involved updating the rolls throughout the year or in some cases just prior to the beginning of each year to reflect the parcel changes due to segregations, combinations, deletions, or valuation adjustments as applicable. Prior to each year an assessment roll spreadsheet was developed for submittal to the County Treasurer for the upcoming year assessment collection. This manual process has proven to be cumbersome, time-consuming, inefficient and at times somewhat inaccurate. However, GIS and digital mapping capability provides an opportunity to generate the Special District Assessment Rolls more efficiently and accurately with a minimum of manual input. The purpose of this contract is to obtain professional services to assist the Public Works River and Flood Division in developing automated Special District Assessment Rolls for each District using GIS and digital mapping technology. ■ Funding Amount and Source The proposed agreement is for an amount not to exceed $34.340. The contract will be funded using Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) funds. The FCZD has adequate budget The proposed agreement is for an amount not to exceed $34.340. The contract will be funded using Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) funds. The FCZD has adequate budget authority for this expenditure. The consultants were chosen in accordance with County purchasing requirements, utilizing the County's Request for Qualifications #05-74. Please contact Paula Cooper at extension 50525, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement, Encl. 147 WHATCOM CO UNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. � d0(a O'7 00(0 Originating Department: Public Works — River & Flood Division Contact Person: Paula Coo er Contractor's Name: KCM, Inc. dba Tetra Tech / KCM, Inc. Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment to an Existing Contract? Yes X No Yes No If an Amendment, previous number(s): Is this a renewal? Yes No X Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract amt If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15,000 or a Bid is more than and any prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $_34,340. 00 memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more This Amendment Amount: than $10,000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an $ agenda bill and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Total Amended Amount: Executive with supporting memo for approval. Scope of Services Development of automated routines within GIS to generate special district assessment rolls. Nature of Contract Amt. ( Check one) Fixed Amount Not to Exceed x_ Open Ended Term of Contract. 0 712610 6 --12131106 Expiration Date: 12131106 Renewal Option Yes _ No _x_ Last Renewal Expires: Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: Contract Routinz Steps & Sienoff.` [sign or initiall [indicate date transmitte 1. Prepared by:_Travis Bouma Date_6-22-06 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed. _Daniel L. Gibson Date_07/07/06 [electronic] 3. AS -Finance reviewed: bbennett 02 Date _07/14/06___[electronic] 4. Corrections made: PJCooper Date _7/13/06___felectronic] hard copyprinted 5. Attorney signoff Daniel L. Gibson Date_07/13/06_ 6. Contractor signed. Date_7/13/06 7. Submitted to Exec Oj]ice Date %-/q -0(o (summary via electronic; hardcopies] 8. Reviewed by DCA Date 9. Council approved (if necessary) 10. Executive signed: H. Contractor Original Returned to dept; 12. County Original to Council Date Date Date Date this form may need to expand to more than one page 148 Whatcom County Contract No. C;Q,jNTy ®RI-61-N AL CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT GIS Roll Development KCM, Inc. dba Tetra Tech 1 KCM, Inc. , hereinafter called Contractor, and Whatcom County, hereinafter referred to as County, agree and contract as set forth in this Agreement, including: General Condifions, pp. 3 to 7 , Exhibit A (Scope of Work), pp. 8 to 9 Exhibit B (Compensation), pp. 10 to 10 Exhibit C (Certificate of Insurance). Copies of these items are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 26th day of July , 2006, and shall, unless terminated or renewed as elsewhere provided in the Agreement, terminate on the 31st day of December , 2006. The general purpose or objective of this Agreement is to: develop GIS routines for generation of special district assessment rolls, as more fully and definitively described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The language of Exhibit A controls in case of any conflict between it and that provided here. The maximum consideration for the initial term of this agreement or for any renewal term shall not exceed $ 34,340 . The Contract Number, set forth above, shall be included on all billings or correspondence in connection therewith. Contractor acknowledges and by signing this contract agrees that the Indemnification provisions set forth in Paragraphs 11.1, 21.1, 30.1, 31.2, 32.1, 34.2, and 34.3, if included, are totally and fully part of this contract and have been mutually negotiated by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement this day of 2006. CONTRACTOR: KMC, ljdb ra ech ! KCM, Inc. Anthony M. Me one, Vice President STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) COUNTY OF ss. �� ) On this\-23 day of'Sv\ 2006, before me personally appeared dba Tetra TechIKCM, In . tl who executed the above instrument and who BLIC Contract for Services Agreement GIS roll development CHEOL L. 6PREA $TAtF- OF WA H[NGT0N My OOMRWSrON EXP{RES 05-09-01 �t6me known to be the Vice President of KCM, Inc. nowt ed to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. �� and for the State of Washington resiin at a. My commission expires o Page 1 v 1.0 149 WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for App oval: / (51: Jeffrey Mon An, Public Works Direct& Date A roved as to form: Daniel Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney Date Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of , 20 before me personally appeared Pete Kremen, to me known to be the Executive of Whatcom County, who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at . My commission expires CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: KCM Inc. dba Tetra Tech 1 KCM Inc, (Type in Name of Contractor/Firm) Anthony M. Melone, Vice President (Type in Name & Title of Signatory Authorized by Firm Bylaws, if applicable) Address: 1420 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 600 (Corporate Office Seattle, Washington 98101 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 264 Stanwood WA 98292 Pro'. M r. office location Contact Name: Chris Hansen Contact Phone: 360-629-0242 Contact FAX: 360-629-0714 Contact Email: chris.hansen aOtetratech.com Contract for Services Agreement G1S roll development Page 2 v 1.0 150 GENERAL CONDITIONS Series 00-09: Provisions Related to Scope and Nature of Services 0.1 Scope of Services: The Contractor agrees to provide to the County services and any materials as set forth in the project narrative identified as Exhibit "A", during the agreement period. No material, labor, or facilities will be furnished by the County, unless otherwise provided for in the Agreement. Series 10-19: Provisions Related to Term and Termination 10.1 Term: Services provided by Contractor prior to or after the term of this contract shall be performed at the expense of Contractor and are not compensable under this contract unless both parties hereto agree to such provision in writing. The term of this Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties; provided, however, that the Agreement is in writing and signed by both parties. 10.2 Extension: Not Applicable 11.1 Termination for Default: Not Applicable 11.2 Termination for Reduction in Funding: Not Applicable 11.3 Termination for Public Convenience: The County may terminate the Agreement in whole or in part whenever the County determines, in its sole discretion, that such termination is in the interests of the County. Whenever the Agreement is terminated in accordance with this paragraph, the Contractor shall be entitled to payment for actual work performed at unit contract prices for completed items of work. An equitable adjustment in the contract price for partially completed items of work will be made, but such adjustment shall not include provision for loss of anticipated profit on deleted or uncompleted work. Termination of this Agreement by the County at any time during the term, whether for default or convenience, shall not constitute breach of contract by the County. Series 20-29. Provisions Related to Consideration and Payments 20.1 Accounting and Payment for Contractor Services: Payment to the Contractor for services rendered under this Agreement shall be as set forth in Exhibit "B." Where Exhibit "B" requires payments by the County, payment shall be based upon written claims supported, unless otherwise provided in Exhibit "B," by documentation of units of work actually performed and amounts earned, including, where appropriate, the actual number of days worked each month, total number of hours for the month, and the total dollar payment requested, so as to comply with municipal auditing requirements. Unless specifically stated in Exhibit "B" or approved in writing in advance by the official executing this Agreement for the County or his designee (hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Officer") the County will not reimburse the Contractor for any costs or expenses incurred by the Contractor in the performance of this contract. Where required, the County shall, upon receipt of appropriate documentation, compensate the Contractor, no more often than monthly, in accordance with the County's customary procedures, pursuant to the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "B." 21.1 Taxes: The Contractor understands and acknowledges that the County will not withhold Federal or State income taxes. Where required by Slate or Federal law, the Contractor authorizes the County to withhold for any taxes other than income taxes (i.e., Medicare). All compensation received by the Contractor will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service at the end of the calendar year in accordance with the applicable IRS regulations. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to make the necessary estimated tax payments throughout the year, if any, and the Contractor is solely liable for any tax obligation arising from the Contractor's performance of this Agreement. The Contractor hereby agrees to indemnify the County against any demand to pay taxes arising from the Contractor's failure to pay taxes on compensation earned pursuant to this Agreement. Contract for Services Agreement GIS roll development Page 3 v 1.0 151 The County will pay sales and use taxes imposed on goods or services acquired hereunder as required by law. The Contractor must pay all other taxes, including, but not limited to, Business and Occupation Tax, taxes based on the Contractor's gross or net income, or personal property to which the County does not hold title. The County is exempt from Federal Excise Tax. 22.1 Withholding Payment: In the event the County's Administrative Officer determines that the Contractor has failed to perform any obligation under this Agreement within the times set forth in this Agreement, then the County may withhold from amounts otherwise due and payable to Contractor the amount determined by the County as necessary to cure the default, until the Administrative Officer determines that such failure to perform has been cured. Withholding under this clause shall not be deemed a breach entitling Contractor to termination or damages, provided that the County promptly gives notice in writing to the Contractor of the nature of the default or failure to perform, and in no case more than 10 days after it determines to withhold amounts otherwise due. A determination of the Administrative Officer set forth in a notice to the Contractor of the action required and/or the amount required to cure any alleged failure to perform shall be deemed conclusive, except to the extent that the Contractor acts within the times and in strict accord with the provisions of the Disputes clause of this Agreement. The County may act in accordance with any determination of the Administrative Officer which has become conclusive under this clause, without prejudice to any other remedy under the Agreement, to take all or any of the following actions: (1) cure any failure or default, (2) to pay any amount so required to be paid and to charge the same to the account of the Contractor, (3) to set off any amount so paid or incurred from amounts due or to become due the Contractor. In the event the Contractor obtains relief upon a claim under the Disputes clause, no penalty or damages shall accrue to Contractor by reason of good faith withholding by the County under this clause. 23.1 Labor Standards: The Contractor agrees to comply with state and federal requirements, as applicable, pertaining to payment of wages and working conditions, in accordance with RCW 39.12.040, the Prevailing Wage Acl; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Davis -Bacon Act; and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act providing for weekly payment of prevailing wages, minimum overtime pay, and providing that no laborer or mechanic shall be required to work in surroundings or under conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to health and safety as determined by regulations promulgated by the Federal Secretary of Labor and the State of Washington. Series 30-39: Provisions Related to Administration of Agreement 30.1 Independent Contractor: The Contractors services shall be furnished by the Contractor as an independent contractor, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to create a relationship of employer -employee or master -servant, but al[ payments made hereunder and all services performed shall be made and performed pursuant to this Agreement by the Contractor as an independent contractor. The Contractor acknowledges that the entire compensation for this Agreement is specified in Exhibit "B" and the Contractor is not entitled to any benefits including, but not limited to: vacation pay, holiday pay, sick leave pay, medical, dental, or other insurance benefits, or any other rights or privileges afforded to employees of the County. The Contractor represents that he/shelit maintains a separate place of business, serves clients other than the County, will report all income and expense accrued under this contract to the Internal Revenue Service on a Schedule C, and has a tax account with the State of Washington Department of Revenue for payment of all sales and use and Business and Occupation taxes collected by the State of Washington. Contractor will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents or employees from any loss or expense, including, but not limited to, settlements, judgments, setoffs, attorneys' fees or costs incurred by reason of claims or demands because of breach of the provisions of this paragraph. 30.2 Assignment and Subcontracting: The performance of all activities contemplated by this agreement shall be accomplished by the Contractor. No portion of this contract may be assigned or subcontracted to any other individual, firm or entity without the express and prior written approval of the County. 30.3 No Guarantee of Employment: The performance of all or part of this contract by the Contractor shall not operate to vest any employment rights whatsoever and shall not be deemed to guarantee any employment of the Contractor or any employee of the Contractor or any subcontractor or any employee of any subcontractor by the County at the present time or in the future. 31.1 Ownership of Items Produced: All writings, programs, data, public records or other materials prepared by the Contractor and/or its consultants or subcontractors, in connection with performance of this Agreement, shall be the sole and absolute property of the County. The Contractor shall not be held Contract for Services Agreement GIS roll development Page 4 v 1.0 152 liable for any claim or cause arising from third party usage of the materials, or from the County's use of the materials beyond the scope of the intent of this agreement. 31.2 Patent/Copyright Infringement: Contractor will defend and indemnify the County from any claimed action, cause or demand brought against the County, to the extent such action is based on the claim that information supplied by the Contractor infringes any patent or copyright. The Contractor will pay those costs and damages attributable to any such claims that are finally awarded against the County in any action. Such defense and payments are conditioned upon the following: A. The Contractor shall be notified promptly in writing by the County of any notice of such claim. B. Contractor shall have the right, hereunder, at its option and expense, to obtain for the County the right to continue using the information, in the event such claim of infringement, is made, provided no reduction in performance or loss results to the County. 32.1 Confidentiality: The Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, and their employees shall maintain the confidentiality of all information provided by the County or acquired by the Contractor in performance of this Agreement, except upon the prior written consent of the County or an order entered by a court after having acquired jurisdiction over the County. Contractor shall immediately give to the County notice of any judicial proceeding seeking disclosure of such information. Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officials, agents or employees from all loss or expense, including, but not limited to, settlements, judgments, setoffs, attorneys' fees and costs resulting from Contractor's breach of this provision. 33.1 Right to Review: This contract is subject to review by any Federal, State or County auditor. The County or its designee shall have the right to review and monitor the financial and service components of this program by whatever means are deemed expedient by the Administrative Officer or by the County Auditor's Office. Such review may occur with or without notice and may include, but is not limited to, on -site inspection by County agents or employees, inspection of all records or other materials which the County deems pertinent to the Agreement and its performance, and any and all communications with or evaluations by service recipients under this Agreement. The Contractor shall preserve and maintain all financial records and records relating to the performance of work under this Agreement for three (3) years after contract termination, and shall make them available for such review, within Whatcom County, State of Washington, upon request. Contractor also agrees to notify the Administrative Officer in advance of any inspections, audits, or program review by any individual, agency, or governmental unit whose purpose is to review the services provided within the terms of this Agreement. If no advance notice is given to the Contractor, then the Contractor agrees to notify the Administrative Officer as soon as it is practical. 34.1 Proof of Insurance: The Contractor shall carry for the duration of this Agreement general liability and property damage insurance with the following minimums: Property Damage per occurrence - $500,000.00 General Liability & Property Damage for bodily injury- $1,000,000.00 A certificate of such insurance, that also identifies the County as an additional insured, is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 34.2 Industrial Insurance Waiver: With respect to the performance of this agreement and as to claims against the County, its officers, agents and employees, the Contractor expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees and agrees that the obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided in this agreement extend to any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the Contractor. This waiver is mutually negotiated by the parties to this agreement. 34.3 Defense & Indemnity Agreement: The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the County, its appointed and elective officers and employees, from and against all loss or expense, including, but not limited to, judgments, settlements, attorneys' fees and costs by reason of any and all claims and demands upon the County, its elected or appointed officials or employees for damages because of personal or bodily injury, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person or persons and on account of damage to property, including loss of use thereof, to the extent such injury to persons or damage to property is due to the negligence or other fault of the Contractor, its subcontractors, its successor or assigns, or its agents, servants, or employees, the County, its appointed or elected officers, employees or their agents. It is further provided that no liability shall attach to the County by reason of entering into this contract, except as expressly provided herein. 35.1 Non -Discrimination in Employment: Contract for Services Agreement GIS roll development Page 5 v 1.0 153 The County's policy is to provide equal opportunity in all terms, conditions and privileges of employment for all qualified applicants and employees without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, or veteran status. The Contractor shall comply with all laws prohibiting discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, or veteran status, except where such constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification. Furthermore, in those cases in which the Contractor is governed by such laws, the Contractor shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed, and treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, or veteran status, except where such constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification. Such action shall include, but not be limited to: advertising, hiring, promotions, layoffs or terminations, rate of pay or other forms of compensation benefits, selection for training including apprenfloeship, and participation in recreational and educational activities. In all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by them or on their behalf, the Contractor shall slate that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color religion, sex or national origin. The foregoing provisions shall also be binding upon any subcontractor, provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply to contracts or subcontractors for standard commercial supplies or raw materials, or to sole proprietorships with no employees. 35.2 Nan -Discrimination in Client Services: Not Applicable 36.1 Waiver of Noncompetition: Contractor irrevocably waives any existing rights which it may have, by contract or otherwise, to require another person or corporation to refrain from submitting a proposal to or performing work or providing supplies to the County, and contractor further promises that it will not in the future, directly or indirectly, induce or solicit any person or corporation to refrain from submitting a bid or proposal to or from performing work or providing supplies to the County. 36.2 Conflict of Interest: If at any time prior to commencement of, or during the term of this Agreement, Contractor or any of its employees involved in the performance of this Agreement shall have or develop an interest in the subject matter of this Agreement that is potentially in conflict with the County's interest, then Contractor shall immediately notify the County of the same. The notification of the County shall be made with sufficient specificity to enable the County to make an informed judgment as to whether or not the County's interest may be compromised in any manner by the existence of the conflict, actual or potential. Thereafter, the County may require the Contractor to take reasonable steps to remove the conflict of interest. The County may also terminate this contract according to the provisions herein for termination, 37.1 Administration of Contract: This Agreement shall be subject to all laws, rules, and regulations of the United States of America, the Stale of Washington, and political subdivisions of the State of Washington. The Contractor also agrees to comply with applicable federal, state, county or municipal standards for licensing, certification and operation of facilities and programs, and accreditation and licensing of individuals. The County hereby appoints, and the Contractor hereby accepts, the Whatcom County Executive, and his or her designee, as the County's representative, hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Officer, for the purposes of administering the provisions of this Agreement, including the County's right to receive and act on all reports and documents, and any auditing performed by the County related to this Agreement. The Administrative Officer for purposes of this agreement is: Jeff Monsen, public Works Director 322 North Commercial Bellingham, WA 98225 37.2 Notice: Except as set forth elsewhere in the Agreement, for all purposes under this Agreement except service of process, notice shall be given by the Contractor to the County's Administrative Officer under this Agreement. Notice to the Contractor for all purposes under this Agreement shall be given to the address provided by the Contractor herein above in the "Contractor Information" section. Notice may be given by delivery or by depositing in the US Mail, first class, postage prepaid. Series 40-49: Provisions Related to Interpretation of Agreement and Resolution of Disputes 40.1 Modifications: Either party may request changes in the Agreement. Any and all agreed modifications, to be valid and binding upon either party, shall be in writing and signed by both of the parties. Contract for Services Agreement GIS roll development Page 6 v 1.0 154 40.2 Contractor Commitments, Warranties and Representations: Not Applicable 41.1 Severabili : If any term or condition of this contract or the application thereof to any person(s) or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions or applications which can be given effect without the invalid term, condition or application. To this end, the terms and conditions of this contract are declared severable. 41.2 Waiver: Waiver of any breach or condition of this contract shall not be deemed a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. No term or condition of this contract shall be held to be waived, modified or deleted except by an instrument, in writing, signed by the parties hereto. The failure of the County to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of this Agreement, or to exercise any option herein conferred in any one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such, or any other covenants or agreements, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 42.1 Disputes: a. General: Differences between the Contractor and the County, arising under and by virtue of the Contract Documents, shall be brought to the attention of the County at the earliest possible time in order that such matters may be settled or other appropriate action promptly taken. Except for such objections as are made of record in the manner hereinafter specified and within the time limits stated, the records, orders, rulings, instructions, and decisions of the Administrative Officer shall be final and conclusive. b. Notice of Potential Claims: The Contractor shall not be entitled to additional compensation which otherwise may be payable, or to extension of time for (1) any act or failure to act by the Administrative Officer or the County, or (2) the happening of any event or occurrence, unless the Contractor has given the County a written Notice of Potential Claim within ten (10) days of the commencement of the act, failure, or event giving rise to the claim, and before final payment by the County. The written Notice of Potential Claim shall set forth the reasons for which the Contractor believes additional compensation or extension of time is due, the nature of the cost involved, and insofar as possible, the amount of the potential claim. Contractor shall keep full and complete daily records of the work performed, labor and material used, and all costs and additional time claimed to be additional. C. Detailed Claim: The Contractor shall not be entitled to claim any such additional compensation, or extension of time, unless within thirty (30) days of the accomplishment of the portion of the work from which the claim arose, and before final payment by the County, the Contractor has given the County a detailed written statement of each element of cost or other compensation requested and of all elements of additional time required, and copies of any supporting documents evidencing the amount or the extension of time claimed to be due. d. Arbitration: Not Applicable 43.1 Venue and Choice of Law: In the event that any litigation should arise concerning the construction or interpretation of any of the terms of this Agreement, the venue of such action of litigation shall be in the courts of the State of Washington in and for the County of Whatcom. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 44.1 Survival: The provisions of paragraphs 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 , 21.1, 22.1, 30.1, 31.1, 31.2, 32.1, 33.1, 34.2, 34.3, 36.1, 40.2, 41.2, 42.1, and 43.1, if utilized, shall survive, notwithstanding the termination or invalidity of this Agreement for any reason. 45.1 Entire Agreement: This written Agreement, comprised of the writings signed or otherwise identified and attached hereto, represents the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior oral statements, discussions or understandings between the parties. Contract for Services Agreement G1S roll development Page 7 vto 155 EXHIBIT "A" (SCOPE OF WORK) Introduction Tetra Tech/KCM will work with County staff to develop an Arc GIS-based application for calculating land - based fees for four sub -zones and approximately twenty-two special districts. The objective is to automate the fee calculation process using Geoprocessing tools and a graphic user interface (GUI) for ArcView. The application is intended for non -technical users and will offer menus, buttons, and windows -based controls for operating the script. The application will be built upon the following assumptions: • The County will provide its own ArcView licenses in order to use the custom application • Changes to the layers involved (parcels, sub -zone, and district boundaries) are performed by appropriate County staff • The application automates procedure from the overlay process (parcels with sub -zones and district polygons) to the actual processing of fees using the formulas provided by the County • The County will provide information related to tax exemptions and other special circumstances that affect the standard fee calculation process. The application will meet the following specifications: • Operate on an ArcView 9.X license without requiring the use of ArcInfo • Geoprocess layers using ModelBuilder • Offer user -controlled fee parameters via a GUI (rather than script -level) • Allows the user to choose which layers to target for Geoprocessing • Export a simple fee sheet for each assessment sub -zone and district (compatible with Excel) Geographic Coverage The application will be tailored to work specifically within Whatcom County and its sub -zones and special flood control districts. Task 1: Develop Test for Acme/VanZandt Sub -zone and One Special District Before full application design, Tetra Tech will develop the back -end Geoprocessing and fee calculation procedures in ArcView for the Acme/VanZandt (AVZ) sub -zone and a select special district. We will use GIS layers provided by the County to simulate a fee calculation exercise for the AVZ subzone and a representative special district within the ModelBuilder/ GIS environment. We expect this effort to directly contribute to the development of the other fee calculation models. Results will be reviewed by both consultant and County staff. A meeting will be held to review results and tune the processing methodology. Task 1 Completion Date: July 28, 2006 Task 2: Application Development Once the back -end processing method for the two test areas is accepted, Tetra Tech will compile the remaining models and assemble a GUI, including a series of user forms, to allow for simple interactive use of the scripts. This process will include two (2) peer review meetings of the GUI to ensure a comfortable look and feel to the application. Task 2 Completion Date: August 23, 2006 Contract for Services Agreement GIS roll development Page S v 1.0 156 Task 3: Installation, On -site Testing, Training, and Support Once the GUI is accepted by the client, Tetra Tech will assist in installation of the application at the County offices. We will ensure the application runs on the County's existing ArcView platform. A two-part user manual will be developed for the application. One will be a general manual for all end - users. The second part will be a technical description of the system architecture, including pertinent information for advanced users of the system. An eight (8) hour on -site training will be provided. The details of training are to be determined; however, it may be helpful to do a general training workshop (-2 hours) for all potential end -users with the remainder of the day reserved for advanced technical training to County GIS staff. Budget reserved for general support and maintenance of the application is used as the Client sees fit. This may include continued training, application enhancements, or tuning of the processing methodology. Activities under the support task are limited to only budget available. Task 3 Completion Date: September 20, 2006 Contract for Services Agreement GIS roll development Page 9 v 1.0 157 EXHIBIT "B" (COMPENSATION) STAFF PERSON HOURS BUDGET Task 1 Develop Test for AVZ Sub -zone and One Special District RC 58 $5,800 CH 12 $1,500 Total 70 $7,300 Task 2 Application Development RC 120 $12,000 CH 16 $2,000 Total 136 $14,000 Task 3 Installation, On -site Testing, Training, and Support Installation RC 8 $800 Develop Manual RC 32 $3,200 Training RC 8 $800 Ongoing Support* RC 80 $8,000 Total 128 $12,800 Expenses Mileage 540 0.44 $237.60 Total Budget $34,337.60 *Work performed under the Ongoing Support subtask will be at the request of Whatcom County. Tetra Tech/KCM Rate Schedule RC = Richard Chase: $100.00/hr. Application programming and development CH = Chris Hansen: $125.00/hr. General oversight of project, project planning and strategic coordination, contract/employee/budget management, product quality control REIMBURSEMENT FOR NON -LABOR ITEMS Items for which there is no extra charge: In-house reproduction In-house network and computers Domestic long distance telephone and fax Items which are reimbursable at cost with no markup: Courier service and express mail incurred directly for the project Out -sourced reproduction sevices All travel expenses and subsistence required for the project (not to exceed General Service Administration rates for the area) Items reimbursable at cost plus 5% mark-up Materials purchased specifically for the project Contract for Services Agreement GIS roll development Page 10 v 1.0 158 WHATCOM .COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL No. 2006-31.3 CLEARANCES initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to. Originator. James P. Karcher, P.E. ! 7113106 _ J U L 18 2006 7125106 Finance, Council Division Head: Jae Rutan, P.E. !3 O6 De t. Head: Je Monsen, P.E. 1# �7 I Db Prosecutor: Daniel Gibson ' A f�� n+n � n � I `� � f y �f J ls O U Purchasin /Bud et: BrPMENT. 1 � k f COUNCIL Executive: Pete Kr emen/ -0 C, TITLE OFDO• Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement for the design phase of Hampton Road; Mormon Ditch Bridge #261 Replacement Project CRP #904016 ATTACHMENTS: 1: Memo 2. Contract Information Sheet 3.. Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? O Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? { ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT 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.) Public Works respegMly requests that the County Executive, upon approval by the Whatcom County Council, enter into a contract with KPFF in the amount of $395,250.00 for the design phase of the Hampton Road, Mormon Ditch Bridge #261 Replacement Project; CRP #904016. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing andprinting on the Coun 's website at: www. co. whatcom. wa. uslcouncil. WHATCOM COUNTY GOM CDIVISION OF ENGINEERING {o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT s� 0 JOSEPH P. RUTAN, P.E. r , County Road Engineer/Assistant Director JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. 2011 Young St., Suite201 Director gB�rNpt° Bellingham, WA 98225-4052 Phone: (360) 715-7450; (360) 676-6707 R E C 0.. I :13§O1.j�451 Memo J U L 14 2006 To: The Honorable Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive, and PETE OUNTYKRE"� EN Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council From: Joseph P. Rutan, P.E. Assistant Director/County Road Engine Date: July 13, 2006 Re: Hampton Road Mormon Ditch Bridge #261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; FA No. BRS•-8063(001) Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement Enclosed are two (2) originals of a Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement between KPFF Consulting Engineers (KPFF) and Whatcom County (Agency) for your review and signature. Requested Action Public Works respectfully requests that the County Executive, upon approval by the Whatcom County Council, enter into a contract with KPFF in the amount of $395,250.00 for the design phase of the Hampton Road, Mormon Ditch Bridge #261 Replacement Project CRP #904016. Background and Purpose Whatcom County has been awarded Federal BRAC funds for the replacement of the Mormon Ditch Bridge #261 on Hampton Road. This Standard Consultant Agreement will enable KPFF to move forward with design for the replacement of Mormon Ditch Bridge #261. The Hampton Road Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project appears as item 13 on the 2006 Annual Construction Program. Funding Amount and Source Whatcom County has been awarded an estimated $405,000 of Federal BRAC funds towards preliminary engineering for bridge design efforts on the Hampton Road, Mormon Ditch Bridge #261 replacement project CRP #904016. No local match is required for the bridge and approach design; however, road realignment and right-of-way acquisition are not covered by the Federal BRAC funds. Differences from Previous Contract None, this is a new agreement. Please contact Jim Karcher at extension 50633, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of these agreements. 160 IACRP CURRENT PROJECT54Hampbn Rd Wmion nth Bridge 2619040%AConsuhant1211-OontradMemo b Kremen.doc WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT .INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. a00007oo5 Ori inatin Department: Public Works Engineering Contact Person: James P. Karcher, PE, Design/Construction Manager, x50633 Consultant's Name: KPFF Consulting Engineers Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment to an Existing Contract? Yes X No Yes No If an Amendment, previous number(s): Is this a renewal? Yes g No X Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract amt If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is more than and any prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $ 395,250.00 memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more This Amendment Amount: than $10, 0040, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an $ N/A agenda bill and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Total Amended Amount: Executive with supporting memo for approval. $ N/A Scope of Services Public Works respectfully requests that the County Executive, upon approval by the Whatcom County Council, enter into a contract with KPFF in the amount of $395,250.00 for the design phase of the Hampton Road, Mormon Ditch Bridge #261 Replacement Project; CRP #904016. Nature of Contract Amt: (Check one) Fixed Amount _ Not to Exceed _X Open Ended _ Term of Contract: Expiration Date: December 31, 2009 Renewal Option Yes No X Last Renewal Expires: Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: 1. Prepared by: Holly Otis 2. Attorney reviewed: 7&rj,1'e4 3. AS -Finance reviewed.--bbennett 4. Corrections made: 5. Attorney signoff.• 6. Contractor signed: c/ 7. Submitted to Exec Offrce 8. Reviewed by DCA- 9. Council approved (if necessary) 10. Executive signed: 11. Contractor Original Returned to dept; 12. County Original to Council Date [electrom Date 714/06 electrons Date (electronic Date Date - Date 7-1 q -o6 Isummary Date Date Date Date Date hard copy printed via electronic, hardcopies] this form may need to expand to more than one page 161 COUNTY ORIGINAL WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT NO. o s Consultant/Address/Telephone LocalAgency KPFF Consulting Engineers Standard Consultant 1601 5th Avenue, Suite 1601 Seattle, Agreement g WA 98101 Phone: (206) 622-5822 Fax: 622-8130 (206) ® Architectural/Engineering Agreement ❑ Personal Services Agreement Agreement Number Project Title And Work Description Hampton Road Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project is to Federal Aid Number replace the existing bridge spanning Kamm Creek with a new bridge while improving the roadway Agreement Type (Choose one) width, vertical/horizontal alignments and traveling ❑ LumpSum safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Lump Sum Amount $ DBE Participation ® Cost Plus Fixed Fee Overhead Progress Payment Rate % ❑ Yes ® No _ % — Federal ID Number or Social Security Number Overhead Cost Method ® Actual Cost 91-0755897 Do you require a 1099 for'IRS? Completion Date El Actual Cost Not To Exceed _ % ® Yes ❑ No December 31, 2009 ❑ Fixed Rate % Fixed Fee $ 27,256.20 El Specific Rates Of Pay Total Amount Authorized $ 359,31$.92 ❑ Negotiated Hourly Rate Management Reserve Fund $ 35,931.08 ❑ Provisional Hourly Rate Maximum Amount Payable $ 395,250.00 ❑ Cost Per Unit of Work Index of Exhibits Exhibit "A" - Scope of Work Foehibit"B" DBRPaFtieipoien Fc-r- WSvni, NvT KC-avjy- q Exhibit "D" - Payment (by Agreement Type) Exhibit "E" - Consultant Fee Determination Exhibit "F" - Breakdown of Overhead Cost Exhibit "G" - Subcontract Work/Fee Determination Exhibit "H" -Title VI Assurances Exhibit "I" — Payment Upon Termination of Agreement Exhibit "J" — Alleged Consultant Design Error Procedures Exhibit "K" — Consultant Claim Procedures f rK COV&r-ty ItJ 5"?e, 140 EAtibiE « 1`6ik WDO',. Wc1 P6-&ui9,&p P't Exhibit "M" — Certification Documents THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , between the Local Agency of Whatcom County , Washington, hereinafter called the "AGENCY" and the above organization hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT'. 162 DOT Form 140-oa9 EF Page 1 of 8 Revised 6/05 WJTNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires to accomplish the above referenced project, and WHEREAS, the AGENCY does not have sufficient staffto meet the required commitment and therefore deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistance of a CONSULTANT to provide the necessary services for the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that he/she is in compliance with the Washington State Statutes.relating to. professional registration, if applicable, and has signified a willingness to furnish Consulting services to the AGENCY, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performance contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows: General Description of Work The work under this AGREEMENT shall consist of the above described work and services as herein defined and necessary to accomplish the completed work for this PROJECT. The CONSULTANT shall furnish all services, labor, and related equipment necessary to conduct and complete the work as designated elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. II Scope of Work The Scope of Work and projected level of effort required for this PROJECT is detailed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. III General Requirements All aspects of coordination ofthe work of this AGREEMENT with outside agencies, groups, or individuals shall receive advance approval by the AGENCY. Necessary contacts and meetings with agencies, groups, and/or individuals shall be coordinated through the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall attend coordination, progress and presentation meetings with the AGENCY and/or such Federal, State, Community, City or County officials, groups or individuals as maybe requested by the AGENCY. The AGENCY will provide the CONSULTANT sufficient notice prior to meetings requiring CONSULTANT participation. The minimum required hours or days notice shall be agreed to between the AGENCY and the CONSULTANT and shown in Exhibit "A." The CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly progress.report, in a form approved by the AGENCY, which will outline in written and graphical form the various phases and the order of performance of the work in sufficient detail so that the progress of the work can easily be evaluated. The CONSULTANT, and each SUBCONSULTANT, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The CONSULTANT, and each SUBCONSULTANT, shall carry out applicable requirements of49 CFR Part26 in the award and administration ofUSDOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the CONSULTANT to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this AGREEMENT that may result in the termination of this AGREEMENT. Participation for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), if required, per 49 CFR Part 26, or participation of Minority Business Enterprises (MBE), and Women Business Enterprises (WBE), shall be shown on the heading of this AGREEMENT. IfD/M/WBE firms are utilized, the amounts authorized to each firm and their certification number will be shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. If the Prime CONSULTANT is a DBE firm they must comply with the Commercial Useful Function (CUF) regulation outlined in the AGENCY'S "DBE Program Participation Plan". The mandatory DBE participation goals of the AGREEMENT are those established by the WSDOT'S Highway and Local Programs Project Development Engineer in consultation with the AGENCY. All Reports, PS&E materials, and other data furnished to the CONSULTANT by the AGENCY shall be returned. All electronic files, prepared by the CONSULTANT, must meet the requirements as outlined in Exhibit "C." All designs, drawings, specifications, documents, and other work products, including all electronic files, prepared by the CONSULTANT prior to completion or termination of this AGREEMENT are instruments of service for this PROJECT, and are the property of the AGENCY. Reuse by the AGENCY or by others, acting through or on behalf of the AGENCY of any such instruments of service, not occurring as a part of this PROJECT, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the CONSULTANT. 163 Paae2of8 IV Time for Beginning and Completion The CONSULTANT shall not begin any work under the terms of this AGREEMENT until authorized in writing by the AGENCY. All work under this AGREEMENT shall be completed by the date shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under completion date. The established completion time shall not be extended because of any delays attributable to the CONSULTANT, but may be extended by the AGENCY in the event of delay attributable to the AGENCY, or because of unavoidable delays caused by an act of GOD or governmental actions or other conditions beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. A prior . supplemental agreement issued by the AGENCY is required to extend the established completion time. V Payment Provisions The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered.under this AGREEMENT as provided in Exhibit "D" attached hereto, and by reference made part of this AGREEMENT. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work. The CONSULTANT shall conform to all applicable portions of 48. CFR Part.31. A post audit may be performed on this AGREEMENT. The need for a post audit will be determined by the State Auditor, WSDOT External Audit Office and/or at the request of the AGENCY'S PROJECT Manager. VI Sub -Contracting The AGENCY permits sub -contracts for those items of work as shown in Exhibit "G" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. Compensation for this sub -consultant work shall be based on the cost factors shown on Exhibit "G." The work of the sub -consultant shall not exceed its maximum amount payable unless a prior written approval has been issued by the AGENCY. All reimbursable direct labor, overhead, direct non -salary costs and fixed fee costs for the sub -consultant shall be substantiated in the same manner as outlined in Section V. All sub -contracts shall contain all applicable provisions of this AGREEMENT. With respect to sub -consultant payment, the CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable sections of the Prompt Payment laws as set forth in RCW 39.04.250 and RCW 39.76.011. The CONSULTANT shall not sub -contract for the performance of any work under this AGREEMENT without prior written permission of the AGENCY. No permission for sub -contracting shall create, between the AGENCY and sub -contractor, any contract or any other relationship. A DBE certified sub -consultant is required to perform a minimum amount of their sub -contracted agreement that is established by the WSDOT Highways and Local Programs Project Development Engineer in consultation with the AGENCY. VII Employment The CONSULTANT warrants that they have not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the AGENCY shall have the right to annul this AGREEMENT without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from the AGREEMENT price or consideration or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. Any and al I employees of the CONSULTANT or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required of the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, shall be considered employees of the CONSULTANT only and not of the AGENCY, and any and all claims that may arise under any Workmen's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a 164 Page 3of8 third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT'S employees or other persons while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall not engage, on a full- or part-time basis, or other basis, during the period of the contract, any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been, at any time during the period of the contract, in the employ of the United States Department of Transportation, or the STATE, or the AGENCY, except regularly retired employees, without written consent. of the public employer of such person. VIII Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this contract, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest agrees to comply with the following laws and regulations: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC Chapter 21 Subchapter V Section 2000d through 2000d-4a) Federal -aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 USC Chapter 3 Section 324) Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC Chapter 16 Subchapter V Section 794) Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 USC Chapter 76 Section 6101 et seq.) Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-259) American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC Chapter 126 Section 1210I et. seq.) 49 CFR Part 21 23 CFR Part 200 RCW 49.60.180 k In relation to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the CONSULTANT is bound by the provisions of Exhibit "H" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT, and shall include the attached Exhibit "H" in every sub -contract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. IX Termination of Agreement The right is reserved by the AGENCY to terminate this AGREEMENT at any time upon ten (10) days written notice to the CONSULTANT. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the AGENCY other than for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT as shown in Exhibit "1" for the type of AGREEMENT used. No payment shal I be made for any work completed after ten (10) days following receipt by the CONSULTANT of the Notice to Terminate. If the accumulated payment made to the CONSULTANT prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due when computed as set forth herein above, then no final payment shall be due and the CONSULTANT shall immediately reimburse the AGENCY for any excess paid. If the services of the CONSULTANT are terminated by the AGENCY for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, the above formula for payment shall not apply. 165 In such an event, the amount to be paid shall be determined by the AGENCY with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the CONSULTANT in performing the work to the date of termination, the amount of work originally required which was satisfactorily completed to date of termination, whether that work is in a form or a type which is usable to the AGENCY at the time of termination, the cost to the AGENCY of employing another firm to eomplete the work required and the time which may be required to do so, and other factors which affect the value to the AGENCY of the work performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances shall payment made under this subsection exceed the amount, which would have been made using the formula set forth above. If it is determined for any reason that the CONSULTANT was not in default or that the CONSULTANT'S failure to perform is without the CONSULTANT'S or it's employee's default or negligence, the termination shall be deemed to be a termination for the convenience of the AGENCY. In such an event, the CONSULTANT would be reimbursed for actual costs in accordance with the termination for other than default clauses listed previously. In the event of the death of any member, partner or officer of the CONSULTANT or any of its supervisory personnel assigned to the PROJECT, or dissolution of the partnership, termination of the corporation, or disaffiliation of the principally involved employee, the surviving members of the CONSULTANT hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this AGREEMENT, if requested to do so by the AGENCY. This subsection shall not be a bar to renegotiation of the AGREEMENT between the surviving members of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, if the AGENCY so chooses. In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph, should the surviving members of the CONSULTANT, with the AGENCY'S concurrence, desire to terminate this AGREEMENT, payment shall be made as set forth in the second paragraph of this section. Payment for any part of the work by the AGENCY shall not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of any remedies of any type it may have against the CONSULTANT for any breach of this AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT, or for failure of the CONSULTANT to perform work required of it by the AGENCY. Forbearance of any rights under the AGREEMENT will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future act or omission by the CONSULTANT. X Changes of Work The CONSULTANT shall make such changes and revisions in the complete work of this AGREEMENT as necessary to correct errors appearing therein, when required to do so by the AGENCY, without additional compensation thereof. Should the AGENCY find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work or parts thereof changed or revised, the CONSULTANT shall make such revisions as directed by the AGENCY. This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as herein provided under Section XiV. XI Disputes Any dispute concerning questions of fact in connection with the work not disposed of by AGREEMENT between the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY shall be referred for determination to the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer, whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding on the parties of this AGREEMENT; provided, however, that if an action is brought challenging the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer's decision, that decision shall be subject to de novo judicial review. If the parties to this AGREEMENT mutually agree, disputes concerning alleged design errors will be conducted under the procedures found in Exhibit "J", and disputes concerning claims will be conducted under the procedures found in Exhibit "K". XII Venue, Applicable Law, and Personal Jurisdiction In the event that either party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, the parties hereto agree that any such action shall be initiated in the Superior court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located. The parties hereto agree that all questions shall be resolved by application of Washington law and that the parties to such action shall have the right of appeal from such decisions of the Superior court in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Superior court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located. 166 Page 5 of 8 XIII Regal Relations The CONSULTANT shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be done under this AGREEMENT. This contract shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold the AGENCY and the STATE and its officers and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the CONSULTANT'S negligence or breach of any of its obligations under this AGREEMENT; provided that nothing herein shall require a CONSULTANT to indemnify the AGENCY or the STATE against and bold harmless the AGENCY - or the STATE from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the AGENCY or the STATE, their agents, officers and employees; and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the CONSULTANT'S agents or employees; and (b) the AGENCY or the STATE, their agents, officers and employees, this indemnity provision with respect to (1) claims or suits based upon such negligence (2) the costs to the AGENCY or the STATE of defending such claims and suits shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the CONSULTANT'S negligence or the negligence of the CONSULTANT'S agents or employees. The CONSULTANT'S relation to the AGENCY shall be at all times as an independent contractor: The CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The CONSULTANT specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the CONSULTANT'S own employees against the AGENCY and; solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the CONSULTANT specifically waives any immunity. under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. Unless otherwise specified in the AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall be responsible for administration of construction contracts, if any, on the PROJECT. Subject to the processing of a new sole source, or an acceptable supplemental agreement, the CONSULTANT shall provide On -Call assistance to the AGENCY during contract administration. By providing such assistance, the CONSULTANT shall assume no responsibility for: proper construction techniques, job site safety, or any construction contractor's failure to perform its work in accordance with the contract documents. The CONSULTANT shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the AGREEMENT, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the STATE. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. Excepting the Worker's Compensation insurance and any Professional Liability insurance secured by the CONSULTANT, the AGENCY will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The CONSULTANT shall furnish the AGENCY with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the AGREEMENT. The AGENCY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen (14) days of the execution of this AGREEMENT to the AGENCY. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT'S professional liability to the AGENCY shall be limited to the amount payable under this AGREEMENT or one million ($1,000,000) dollars, whichever is the greater, unless modified by Exhibit "L". in no case shall the CONSULTANT'S professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 167 The AGENCY will pay no progress payments under Section V until the CONSULTANT has fully complied with this section. This remedy is not exclusive; and the AGENCY and the STATE may take such other action as is available to it under other provisions of this AGREEMENT, or otherwise in law. XIV Extra Work A. The AGENCY may at any time, by written order, make changes within the general scope of the AGREEMENT in the services to be performed. B. If any such change causes an .indrease or decrease in the estimated cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this AGREEMENT, whether or not changed by the order, or otherwise affects any other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall make an equitable adjustment in the (1) maximum amount payable; (2) delivery or completion schedule, or both; and (3) other affected terms and shall modify the AGREEMENT accordingly. . C. The CONSULTANT must submit any "request for equitable adjustment", hereafter referred to -as "CLAIM", under this clause within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the AGENCY decides that the facts justify it, the AGENCY may receive and aet upon a CLAIM submitted before final payment of the AGREEMENT. D. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the CONSULTANT from proceeding with the AGREEMENT as changed. E. Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of paragraphs (A) and (B) above, the maximum amount payable for this AGREEMENT, shall not be increased or considered to be increased except by specific written supplement to this AGREEMENT. XV Endorsement of Plans If applicable, the CONSULTANT shall place their endorsement on all plans, estimates, or any other engineering data furnished by them. XVl Federal and State Review The Federal Highway Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation shall have the right to participate in the review or examination of the work in progress. XVII Certification of the Consultant and the Agency Attached hereto as Exhibit "M-1(a and b)" are the Certifications of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, Exhibit "M-2" Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions, Exhibit "M-3" Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying and Exhibit "M-4" Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Exhibit "M-3" is required only in AGREEMENTS over $100,000 and Exhibit "M-4" is required only in AGREEMENTS over $500,000. XVIII Complete Agreement This document and referenced attachments contain ail covenants, stipulations, and provisions agreed upon by the parties. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and the parties shall not be bound by or be .liable for, any statement, representation, promise or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as an amendment to this AGREEMENT. XIX Execution and Acceptance This AGREEMENT may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The CONSULTANT does hereby ratify and adopt all statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the proposal, and the supporting material submitted by the CONSULTANT, and does hereby accept the AGREEMENT and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof. Page 7 of 8 In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year shown in the "Execution Date" box on page one (1) of this AGREEMENT. BY no-0 ' r \. (M(-V& BY Consultant David K.. McMullen, P.E See Attached Signature Sheet Agency ❑Vhatcom Courtty 169 DOT Form 140.089 EF Revised 6105 Page 8 of 8 WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for Appro : ;L&)'DC Department Director Pj Nate Ap roved as to form: ! Prosecuting Attorney Date Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM On this day of , 20 —, before me personally appeared Pete Kremen, to me known to be the Executive of Whatcom County, who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Slate of Washington, residing at My commission expires CONTRACT 1 CONSULTANT INFORMATION: Protect: Hampton Road Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; FA No. BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant: KPFF Consulting Engineers Contact — David K. McMullen, PE Address: 1601— 511, Avenue, Suite 106 Seattle, WA 98101 Contact Phone: (206) 622-5822 Contact FAX: (206) 622-8130 170 Hampton Rd 1 Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-80$3(001) Prime Design Consultant- KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project boundaries are from the city limits of Lynden, Washington to approximately one -quarter mile south of Kamm Creek along Hampton Road. The existing bridge consists of 4-spans totaling approximately 125 feet. The bridge carries two lanes with a total width of 24 feet curb -to -curb. The precast concrete "bathtub" superstructure is supported on timber piles. The south approach is 37 feet wide and has two horizontal curves. The north approach is 28 feet wide and comes downhill out of the City of Lynden. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The goal of the Hampton Road Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement project (CRP No. 904016) is to replace the existing bridge spanning Kamm Creek with a new bridge while improving the roadway width, vertical/horizontal alignments and traveling safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed bridge will be approximately 140 feet in length and have a curb -to -curb width of 40 feet. The bridge will carry a roadway consisting of two traffic lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks. PROJECT TEAM The project team is made up of the following firms: Owner Prime Consultant Structural Engineering Civil Engineering Environmental Services Water Resources Engineering Right -of -Way Plan Geotechnical Engineering Right -of -Way Acquisition SCOPE OF WORK Whatcom County KPFF Consulting Engineers KPFF Consulting Engineers KPFF Consulting Engineers Widener and Associates WEST Consultants Pacific Surveying and Engineering PanGEO, Inc. Universal Field Services, Inc. (RNV Acquisition service will be added when the R/W requirements are better defined.) The project will be divided in to a design phase and a construction support phase. The project design phase is scheduled to begin in early May 2006, and continue through January 2008. The design will include the completed and approved plans, specifications and engineer's estimate (PS&E), the required permits and the right-of-way acquisition necessary for the project. Right-of-way acquisition is not included in this contract, but will be added at a later date when the right-of-way needs are better defined. The construction support phase will start immediately following the completion of the design phase and continue through construction of the bridge and the completion of a load rating for the new bridge structure. Hampton Rd 1 Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work PHASE ;: DESIGN PHASE The overall objective of this design phase will be to determine the most efficient span at the project site, from both an economic and construction standpoint, while adhering to all project constraints. Item No. 1.0 — Project Management and Administration Task No. 1.01 Project Work Plan KPFF will provide a work plan to the design team outlining the project objectives, organization of the team, lines of communication, and deliverables. Task No. 1.02 Project Schedule A project design schedule will be created in Microsoft Project that spans from the notice -to -proceed to the advertising of the project for contractors' bids. Specific milestones will include the plans, specifications and engineer's estimate completion at 30 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent, and 100 percent. The schedule will be updated on a monthly basis. Task No. 1. 03 Subconsultant Agreements KPFF will prepare sub -consultant contracts for PanGEO, Inc., Widener and Associates, Universal Field Services, Pacific Surveying and Engineering and WEST Consultants. Task No. 1.04 Progress Reports A progress report form will be provided to each subconsultant. This form will be filled out on a monthly basis and submitted with the invoice for the work described in the progress report. KPFF will then compile the reports into a single document to be submitted to the County with the associated monthly invoice. Task No. 1.05 Invoices Subconsultants are to prepare monthly invoices for work completed. KPFF will compile the invoices into a single document to be submitted to the County. Task No. 1.06 Team Meetings The design team will meet to discuss project issues, schedule, progress, and general coordination of effort as needed. Team meetings will take place to discuss the work plan, arid the 30 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent, and 100 percent PSE submittals. -2- 172 Hampton Rd 1 Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work Task No. 1.07 Team Coordination KPFF will perform general coordination and be the main point of contact for the multidiscipline team. KPFF will collect and disseminate information for the team. This includes Friday check -in emails and Information Request forms. Task No. 1-08 Design Criteria The design team will establish the project design criteria. The design criteria when complete will be disseminated to the team. Deliverables • Project work plan • Project schedule with monthly updates • Monthly progress reports and invoices • Team meeting (Assume six) • Design Criteria Document Item No. 2.0 — Coordination with Public and Other Stakeholders KPFF would be happy to participate in any community involvement forums, but understand that the County will take the lead on this task. At this time, we have included time for KPFF to attend one meeting and to prepare two large visual aids for the County's use. Deliverables • Two (2) large visual aids Item No. 3.0 — Existing Site Conditions The design team will review the County inspection reports, existing bridge plans, and other material provided by the County. This information will be confirmed and additional information gathered with a site visit by a representative from each team member to the project site. Deliverables • One site visit by each discipline to verify existing information gathered. Item No. 4.0 — Land Surveying Services It is assumed that the County will provide all of the land surveying services required for the project. The survey will include locations of utilities, surface features, drainage corridors, and roadway and bridge features. The survey will also include locating test pits and borings and any wetland delineations. -3- 173 Hampton Rd I Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work KPFF will create a base map that includes locations of road right-of-way and record locations of adjoining property boundaries. It is assumed that the County will provide the information necessary for the base map. KPFF will provide the base map in AutoCAD 2000i with Land Development Desktop Version 2i software. To assist the County in their survey, the design team will provide a list of survey items needed for each subconsultants task. Deliverables List of survey needs from each design team member. • Project base map Item No. 5.0 — Geotechnical Analysis PanGEO will provide the geotechnical engineering support for the project. Tasks include the following: Task No. 5.01 Existing Data Review Obtain and review readily available surface and subsurface information, including geologic data from various sources, including the U.S. Geologic Survey and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Task No. 5.02 Site Visit Perform a site visit to locate and mark exploration locations in the field. PanGEO will contact One -Call a utility locating service to provide utility clearances before our proposed exploration effort. Task No. 5.03 Site Reconnaissance Perform a site reconnaissance that includes observation of surface conditions and two cone penetration tests to depths of approximately 200 feet located at or near the proposed abutments. Truck- and/or track -mounted equipment will be used and closure of one lane of traffic will likely be required. PanGEO will subcontract traffic control including flagging. Task No. 5.04 Engineering Analysis Perform engineering analysis based on the information obtained from the site visit and site reconnaissance. -4- 174 Hampton Rd 1 Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRs-8063(00i) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work Task No. 5.05 Draft Geotechnical Report Prepare a Draft Geotechnical Report containing the results of our geotechnical study to support preparation of the PS&E, including descriptions of surface and subsurface conditions, and a site plan showing exploration locations and other pertinent features. Summary exploration logs, charts, and graphs indicating laboratory test results will also be included. The results of our engineering evaluations and preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations pertaining to the following items will be presented: • Allowable and ultimate bearing resistances for at most two types of driven piling, and anticipated settlements of foundation elements for the new bridge. • Geotechnical design criteria for the bridge, including seismic design requirements and liquefaction hazard analysis (if applicable). • Recommendations for approach embankment and/or retaining wall design, including global stability evaluation, if needed (it is assumed a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Plan retaining wall.) • Constructability issues and concerns. Task No. 5.06 Final Geotechnical Report Prepare a Final Geotechnical Report incorporating responses to comments from the project team and Whatcom County. Task No. 5.07 Project Management Provide project management of the geotechnical tasks and attendance at design team meetings. It is assumed that not more than two meetings, in addition to the kick-off meeting identified above, will be required. Deliverables • Draft Geotechnical Report (Three copies) • Final Geotechnical Report (Three copies) Please note that the scope of work proposed above does not include evaluation of chemical or hazardous material properties of soil and groundwater, special handling or disposal, or the potential presence of wetlands on the site. -5- 175 Hampton Rd 1 Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPPP Exhibit A - Scope of Work Item No. 6.0 — Hydraulic and Scour Analysis WEST Consultants will investigate the hydraulics and scour associated with replacing the bridge over Kamm Creels. This study involves performing a hydraulic analysis, calculating scour depths, evaluating abutment and bank protection measures, and preparing documentation to meet the needs and requirements of the project and permits. The following tasks are based on the assumption that the existing roadway elevation will not change. Task No. 6.01 Obtain and Review Existing Information Whatcom County and their consultant have developed a hydraulic model of the entire Nooksack River below Deming using the Full Equations (FEQ) computer model. The model encompasses Kamm Creek and its floodplain but is not yet detailed enough in this area for use in evaluating the bridge replacement. WEST Consultants should build on this work as it becomes available. WEST Consultants shall coordinate with Whatcom County to review the existing FEQ model and its corresponding hydrology, and obtain and review other important information, including geomorphic data (reports and aerial photos). Task No. 6.02 Hydraulic Analysis WEST Consultants shall develop a HEC-RAS 1-dimensional steady flow model to use in evaluating any impacts from the bridge replacement. Peak flow and the corresponding downstream stage from the FEQ model will be used to establish downstream boundary conditions for the HEC-RAS model (as discussed in the February 2"', 2006 meeting with the County). The County will provide from the FEQ model flow and stage data for calibration events (up to three will be modeled) as well as for the 100-year event. Cross -sections for the model will be developed by using Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data for the overbank area and surveyed data for the channel. The cross section layout will correspond as much as possible with the cross- section layout from the FEQ model. The layout also will include at least an additional five cross -sections to be surveyed near the bridge (upstream and downstream of the bridge face, and three additional locations to be determined). The surveyed cross -sections shall include at least the entire floodplain width. The County shall provide existing bridge station and elevation data or a survey shall be conducted to collect this data. -6- 176 Hampton Rd I Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work A second model geometry describing proposed bridge configurations (up to a maximum of 3) shall be developed, and all these conditions simulated to assess the following: • Maximum water surface profiles for the 100-year flood • Velocities • Channel characteristics • Backwater rise • WEST Consultants assumes that any proposed bridge replacement design will not significantly affect project hydrology (otherwise results from the FEQ model may change). Task No. 6.03 Site Geomorphic Review WEST Consultants shall use and evaluate existing geomorphic information (any existing studies and aerial photos) to evaluate the potential for significant migration of the channel in the bridge reach. This will not be a detailed review. The review is intended to quickly assess the potential for channel migration, and the need for mitigation. Task No. 6.04 Scour and Abutment Protection WEST Consultants shall evaluate the various design alternatives using HEC-18 guidelines (Federal Highway Association, 1992) to determine what scour potential exists. WEST Consultants shall consider channel degradation during flood events, contraction scour at the bridge opening, and pier scour using the CSU equation (HEC-18). Abutment riprap shall be sized using HEC-11 and other appropriate criteria and a conceptual design developed. Task No. 6.05 Document Results WEST Consultants shall prepare a Bridge Hydraulics and Scour Report for the preferred bridge alternative. The report shall describe the impacts of the recommended bridge opening on hydrology and hydraulics, including design recommendations for scour elevations and streambank erosion protection. Deliverables • Bridge Hydraulics and Scour Report (Four copies) -7- 177 Hampton Rd 1 Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work Item No. 7.0 — Environmental Services Widener and Associates will prepare the Biological Assessment (assuming informal consultation), Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (DARPA), Wetland Delineation Report, Wetland Mitigation Plan, Section 106 Compliance, Farmlands Assessment, and a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Environmental Compliance Section (ECS) to assess the potential impacts of the proposed improvements. The County will provide assistance in locating the wetland mitigation site. Widener and Associates will also provide assistance and coordination to the County in obtaining the local permits as needed. The project documentation will be developed following WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines (LAG).. Task No. 7.01 Data Collection Collect available documentation concerning the project activities, existing habitat data, soils surveys, species distribution data, and other pertinent biological, cultural and design information. Task No. 7.02 Section 106 Cultural and Historic Resources Prepare an "area of potential effect" letter and map based on the project footprint for submittal to WSDOT for approval. Conduct a cultural resources assessment in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to identify archaeological or historical resources that may be adversely affected by the proposed construction. It is assumed that the project will not adversely impact Section 106 properties. Task No. 7.03 Species and Habitat Information Obtain current species and habitat information from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and WDNR. Make telephone contacts with the appropriate resource agency staff for input on species occurrence, habitat use, and potential impacts. Task No. 7.04 Field Reconnaissance Conduct a field reconnaissance to investigate onsite habitat conditions, dig and evaluate test pits, evaluate suitable plants for mitigation, and make other observations related to project impact evaluations. Task No. 7.05 Wetlands Widener and Associates shall identify, delineate and document wetlands in the project area using the appropriate methods described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), Wetlands Research, Technical Report Y-87-1, January 1987. The area is assumed to be less than 0.25 acres. The area to be delineated shall be -8- 178 Hampton Rd 1 Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRs-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work identified in coordination with the design team and the County. The County shall complete the surveying of the wetland boundaries. Task No. 7.06 Farmlands Assessment Existing farmlands will be identified and analyzed in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 and subsequent FHWA guidance. If required under the Act alternatives will be evaluated and Form AD 1006 will be completed and submitted to the Soil Conservation Service. Task No. 7.07 Environmental Permits Widener and Associates will prepare and coordinate the JARPA Application and the NPDES permit application (If disturbed area exceeds 1 acre). As part of this work, the consultant will be responsible for assembling and organizing all necessary environmental permit applications to a standard acceptable to the permitting agencies. Anticipated permits include the following: • USACE Section 404 Permit • DOE NPDES Permit and 401 Water Quality Certification • WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval Task No. 7.08 Biological Assessment Prepare a draft BA addressing listed species, proposed species, and critical habitat. The BA shall include a project description, a list of species, a description of the species and their habitat, an analysis of project effects, and conservation measures. The work also includes attending a pre -BA meeting and developing and responding to comments. Task No. 7.09 Draft Documents • Prepare a draft Biological Assessment. • Prepare a draft APE map and letter for Section 106 coordination. • Prepare a draft Cultural Resources Assessment (If required) • Prepare a draft Farmlands Assessment • Prepare a draft Wetland Mitigation Plan. • Prepare a draft Wetland Delineation report, based on the information from the previously listed tasks. The report shall identify the boundaries of potentially impacted wetlands and assess each wetlands function and value. Provide the draft Wetlands report for the County to review. • Prepare a draft ECS form. • Prepare a draft Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application (JARPA). Task No. 7.10 Final Documents Revise the Biological Assessment, DARPA, APE map and letter, Cultural Resource Assessment, Farmland Assessment Wetland Delineation Report, and Wetland Mitigation Plan as appropriate and provide four copies of each -9- 179 Hampton Rd / Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; SR5-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work to the County and one copy to KPFF for the project files. Respond to comments from the WSDOT and the resource agencies in regards to the reports. Deliverables • Draft and final APE map and letter (Draft - 3 copies, Final - 5 copies) • Draft and final Cultural Resources Assessment (Draft - 3 copies, Final - 5 copies) • Draft and final Farmland Assessment (Draft - 3 copies, Final - 5 copies) • Draft and final Biological Assessment (BA) (Draft - 3 copies, Final - 5 copies) Draft and final JARPA (Draft - 3 copies, Final - 5 copies) • Draft and final Wetland Delineation Report (Draft - 3 copies, Final - 5 copies) • Draft and final Wetland Mitigation Plan (Draft - 3 copies, Final - 5 copies) • Draft and final ECS form (Draft - 3 copies, Final - 5 copies) Item No. 8.0 -- Surface Water Hydraulics KPFF shall determine the water quality requirements for the project with the County staff based on current Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) standards and guidelines. Drainage basin delineations will be performed and design water quality flows and volumes determined. A preliminary design will be prepared to address collection, conveyance and treatment. KPFF shall develop a Draft Hydraulics Report. The report will provide the necessary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to complete the preliminary (30 percent) design, including conveyance, water quantity and water quality treatment. Contents of the report shall include project description, summaries of all analyses and design activities (including any assumptions used), identification of sensitive areas within the project limits, and detailed hydraulic design recommendations and conclusions, based on the guidelines of the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual and Hydraulics Manual. KPFF shall finalize the Hydraulics Report, a comprehensive report containing the technical information and analyses necessary to evaluate the project for compliance with stormwater requirements. The document will contain supporting calculations for the drainage and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) design, an assessment of downstream impacts, identify sensitive areas within the project limits and will explain how the proposed treatment complies with (WSDOT) requirements. Format shall be based upon WSDOT guidelines. KPFF shall prepare plans and profiles for the stormwater conveyance system and the water quality/quantity treatment facilities. Plans will be prepared in conformance with Whatcom County standards. Drainage design will be based on the WSDOT technical requirements for redevelopment. -10- 180 Hampton Rd 1 Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work Item No. 9.0 — Right -of -Way Plan Preparation Right-of-way plans shall be developed by Pacific Surveying and Engineering (PSE) using the English coordinate units of US Survey Feet and in the NAD 83/91 Project Datum. PSE shall perform the following major work elements to develop the right-of-way plans: PSE shall research the County's existing right-of-way plans, contract plans and records, General Land Office records, Department of Natural Resources records, records of surveys, plats, short plats, Whatcom County's right-of-way maps, Whatcom County Assessor's, Auditor's, and Commissioner's files, well information, septic information, and control survey information from County's Geographical Services. • PSE will perform field surveying to determine PLSS corners, County control, creek meander lines, and record monuments along Right -of -Way. • PSE shall define and reference the right-of-way centerline using all monuments, sectional (Public Land System) corners, and GPS points located within the vicinity of this project to determine the section, right-of-way, centerline, and parcel geometry. • PSE shall define parcel lines using the title reports, deeds, and survey information. Identify all discrepancies between adjoining property lines, including overlaps and gaps between the legal and physical boundaries. Perform map checks and area summaries for each parcel. • PSE will record a survey map, which will be used as support documentation for the RIW plan. • The preliminary right-of-way plan shall be submitted for County review. Two sets of full-size drawings will be submitted for the preliminary right-of-way review. The County will review the right-of-way plans within 20 working days. PSE shall incorporate the County's comments into an updated 90 percent right-of-way plan set for resubmission to the County. Three sets of half-size drawing and two sets of full-size drawings will be submitted for the 90 percent submittal. -11- 181 Hampton Rd / Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; SRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work Item No. 10.0 — Utilities The Consultant shall determine locations of existing utilities through County provided surveys and review of as -built documentation obtained from the utility companies. Potholing requested by the Consultant shall be coordinated with the Owner's Project Design Engineer. The Owner will be responsible for coordinating with the utility companies to perform the required potholing. The Consultant shall prepare a plan identifying utility locations and anticipated impacts related to the project, and provide to the Owner sufficient information to secure relocation agreements. It is assumed that the relocation of existing utilities, if necessary, will be performed by the utility owner. Preparation of Utility Plans is not included in this scope. Item No. 11.0 — Plans, Specification and Estimate Documentation and Review Submittals KPFF shall confirm existing roadway classification, establish the relevant design criteria, and develop alternatives for the horizontal and vertical alignment. The alternatives will be evaluated and a preferred alignment shall be selected. Any design deviations from the standard design criteria set forth by the County Road Standards, Surface Water Design manual, or WSDOT Design Manual will be identified and an explanation prepared to justify our recommendation for the deviation. Deviation reports (maximum of 4 deviations) will be prepared by the KPFF as needed and will be completed to a level acceptable to WSDOT. The bridge design will take place in two phases. The first phase will be a concept study. The goal of the concept study is to research the possible project alternatives and then narrow these alternatives down to the preferred alternative. The second phase will take the preferred alternative from the conceptual design stage through the design and development of complete PSE. Task No. 11.01 Conceptual Design Alternatives During conceptual design, KPFF will study two structural systems for replacing the existing four -span timber supported structure over Kamm Creek. The first alternative will investigate the use of a 140-foot long single span structure, which provides the required hydraulic opening while avoiding significant changes to the vertical alignment of the road. The second alternative will look at multi -span bridges with intermediate pier(s). The goal of this system is to minimize superstructure depth and utilize cost effective superstructure systems while improving the hydraulics through the bridge. -12- 182 Hampton Rd / Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work All bridge and foundation design shall be per current WSDOT and AASHTO LRFD standards. WSDOT design standards shall control over AASHTO. Based on the concept design results, KPFF will work with the County to arrive at a preferred bridge replacement option. Items to assist in the selection include estimated cost and constructability. Task No. 91.02 Develop 30 Percent PSE • Develop design criteria • Develop preliminary channelization including lane lines, centerline, edgeline, match points, crosswalks, stop bars, curb radius, curb ramps • Base map • Conceptual layout of detention/water duality • Conceptual layout of waterfsewer • Identification of potential developments within the project boundaries • Conceptual planting plan including tree placement and species • Finalize bridge geometry and provide cross sections at abutments and center pier. • Develop a preliminary construction -sequencing plan for roadway, walls, and bridge construction. • Perform preliminary structural design for the bridge superstructure and substructure. • Prepare 30 percent level drawings showing bridge plans, profiles, and typical sections. • Perform conceptual structural designs for each wall. Structural design work will include development of wall systems. • Prepare 30 percent level drawings showing wall plans, profiles, and typical sections. • Perform one -day field verification of key design issues to insure that office layout is compatible with actual site conditions. • Draft geotechnical and hydraulic reports • List of required permits • Estimate of material quantities and construction costs -13- 183 Hampton Rd I Monson Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work Task No. 11.03 Develop 60 Percent PSE • Prepare draft environmental documents including SEPAINEPA, BA, JARPA, etc. Submit draft within 2 weeks after receiving the 30% review comments from the County. • Incorporate County's comments from the 30 percent submittal and bring drawings to the 60 percent level of completion. • Finalize design and calculations for walls and bridge structures. • Finalize drainage system layout including profiles, pipe sizes, detention/water quality details • Finalize drainage report • Finalize hydraulic/scour report • Finalize geotechnical report. • Prepare draft project specifications from County provided contract document. • Update the engineer's cost estimate including backup documentation for the calculation of each material quantity and cost. Submit 60 percent cost estimate to County for WSDOT to set Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals. • Finalize right-of-way takes and move forward with property acquisition and relocation (if necessary) • Identify any design deviations Task No. 11.04 Develop 90 Percent PSE • Incorporate County's comments from the 60 percent submittal and bring drawings to the 100 percent level of completion. • Finalize environmental documents including SEPAINEPA, BA, JARPA, etc. • Finalize special provisions and contract document • Finalize the engineer's cost estimate with backup documentation -14- 184 Hampton Rd J Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant -KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work Task No. 11.05 Drawing List Anticipated drawings for the 30%, 60% and 90% review plan sets: • Cover Sheet • Plan and Profile • Typical Roadway Section • Roadway Details • Roadway Sections • TESC Plan • TESC Details • TESC Notes • Planting and Wetland Mitigation Plan • Utility and Drainage Plan • Drainage Plan and Profile • General Notes and Abbreviations • Bridge Plan and Elevation • Demolition Plan • Construction Sequence • Foundation Layout • Pile Details • Pier 1 Plan and Elevation • Pier 1 Wingwalls • Pier 2 Plan and Elevation • Pier 2 Wingwalls • Pier 3 Plan and Elevation • Pier 3 Wingwalls • Framing Plan • Typical Section • Bearing Details • Girder Details I • Girder Details II • Diaphragms • Deck Slab Reinforcement • Sidewa[k/Traffc Barrier Details • Utility Hangers and Blockouts • Approach Slab • Rebar List -15- 185 Hampton Rd / Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant- KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work Task No. 11.06 Special Provisions KPFF will take the lead in compiling the complete project specification document ready for reproduction. The County will be responsible for providing to KPFF the following sections for inclusion in the document: • Bid Procedures and Conditions • Division 1 - General Requirements • Contract Forms KPFF will provide the following: • Amendments to the Standard Specifications • General Special Provisions (GSP) • Bridge Special Provisions (BSP) • All Divisions except Division 1 • Division 4 — Bases • Division 6 — Structures • Division 8 — Miscellaneous Construction • All special provisions Task No. 11.08 Engineer's Estimate KPFF will compile quantities and unit costs for bid items that correspond to the project specifications and plan set. These quantities and costs will be updated for each submittal and will include backup documentation for each item quantity and the associated cost. Deliverables 30 Percent PS&E Submittal: 0 30% level plan set (3 sets — 11x17, 1 set — 22x34) o Draft geotechnical report (3 copies) o Draft hydraulic/scour report (3 copies) -o Base Map (3 copies) o List of needed permits (3 copies) o Estimated quantities and associated costs (3 copies) 60 Percent PS&E Study Submittal: 0 60% level plan set (3 sets — 11x17, 1 set — 22x34) o Draft specifications (3 copies) o Final geotechnical report (3 copies) o Final hydraulic/scour report o Estimated quantities and associated costs (3 copies) o Draft right-of-way plan (3 copies) o Drainage report (3 copies) o Draft SEPAINEPA, BA, DARPA, etc. (3 copies) o Response to County 30% comments (3 copies) -16- 186 Hampton Rd / Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work 90 Percent PS&E Study Submittal. 0 90% level plan set (3 sets — 11 x17, 1 set — 22x34) o Final specifications and contract documents (3 copies) o Estimated quantities and associated costs, including backup documentation (3 copies) o Final right-of-way plan (3 copies) o Final SEPAINEPA, BA, JARPA, etc. (5 copies) o Response to County 60% comments (3 copies) 100 Percent PS&E Submittals: o Stamped mylar plan set (1 set — 22x34) o Stamped bond plan sets (2 sets — 11x17, 2 sets — 2204) o Contract document (2 copies) o Estimated quantities and associated costs, including backup documentation (2 copies) o All backup structural calculations and documentation (2 copies) o Electronic copy of contract (1 cd) o Electronic copy of plan set in AutoCad (1 cd) Written responses to all County review comments will be provided with each follow up submittal (i.e. 60%, 90% and 100% submittals) Item No. 12.0 — Aesthetic Design and Landscaping Task No. 12.01 Aesthetics and Landscaping Given the proximity of the Kamm Creek project to the City of Lynden and local residents, landscaping may be required for the bridge and roadway construction. KPFF will work with the County to meet aesthetic and landscaping requirements. PHASE 2 — CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES Item No. 13.0 — Construction Support Services Task No. 13.01 Bid Questions and Requests for Information (RFI) KPFF will assist the County in answering questions from contractors during the advertising of the project. With every project a variety of issues are raised from contractor initiated construction recommendations to RFIs. KPFF will respond to the contractor's RFIs as required. This item includes the necessary office time and document preparation to respond to these requests. 17- 187 Hampton Rd 1 Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant -KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work Task No. 13.02 Shop Drawing Review KPFF will provide construction submittal and shop drawing review for the follow items: • Construction sequence plan • Demolition plan • Girders — shop drawings, erection plan • Concrete mixes • Bearing pads • Utility hangers and bracing • Reinforcing steel for the bridge • Walls and traffic barrier • Formwork and falsework • Concrete approaches • Request for approval of materials (RAM) KPFF's geotechnical subconsultant PanGEO will provide on -site inspection for the pile installation. Tasks to include: • On -site pile inspection o Pile book o Bearing determination o Equipment approval o Pile material approval Task No. 13.03 Site Visits This scope assumes a total of three site visits including a preconstruction meeting and two visits to answer structural questions and check progress of construction. Task No. 13.04 Load Rating In order to provide the County with a baseline rating for the new Kamm Creek Bridge structure, KPFF will perform rating calculations and complete a Bridge Rating Summary. The load rating will be done in accordance with WSDOT Bridge Design manual criteria. The design will use six vehicles for the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) rating and one vehicle for Load Factor Design (LFD) rating to comply with the. National Bridge Inspection Standards. Deliverables • RF1 responses • One marked up copy of each shop drawing reviewed • Site visits and question responses • Load rating will consist of one set of load rating calculations and one Bridge Rating Summary sheet. -18- 188 Hampton Rd / Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant -KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work ASSUMPTIONS • The replacement bridge is anticipated to be a single span bridge approximately 140 feet in length spanning the boundaries of ordinary high water. • BRAC has slated the bridge to consist of a precast concrete girder superstructure supported on pile foundations. • All construction work other than removal of the existing bridge will be concentrated outside the boundaries of ordinary high water. There will be no in -water foundations. • No detention will be required. • Stormwater will be handled through a filter strip or something similar. • It is anticipated that construction staging will utilize the closed roadway surface and remain out of the flood plain. • Removal of the existing bridge will require the extraction of timber piles that are located within Kamm Creek. • No hazardous, dangerous, or contaminated soil/groundwater will be encountered on or within the project limits. Should any of these materials be encountered, addressing the situation will be extra work. • The analyses, design, plans, specifications, and estimate prepared as part of the Project will be in English units. • The Biological Assessment will require informal consultations • The project will not adversely impact any Section 106 properties. • The project will require a Nation Wide 404 permit from the Crop. • The project will impact less than .25 acres of wetlands. • In water work will occur during the in water work window as identified by WDFW. • All boring for the preliminary engineering will occur within the roadway and not within the OHWM or any wetlands. • The BA will be prepared based on 2005 guidance issued by WSDOT • The scope of work includes responding to one round of comments form Whatcom County on each report and one round of comments form WSDOT on the on the BA. The County will perform the following tasks: • The County will perform topographic survey to County standards for the bridge and abutments extending in each direction from the bridge abutments as needed to provide sufficient topographic information to support the design. • Obtain necessary local permits including environmental and construction permits. -19- 189 Hampton Rd 1 Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project CRP No. 904016; BRS-8063(001) Prime Design Consultant - KPFF Exhibit A - Scope of Work • Purchase any additional right-of-way. • Coordinate the design of improvements with WSDOT, FHWA, Utilities, property owners, and other stakeholders. • Prepare the required boilerplate contract for KPFF's use in developing the contract document. • Advertise the project for selection of a contractor. • Provide construction administration and inspection. -20- 190 Exhibit D-2 Payment (Cost Plus a Fixed Fee) The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed work and services rendered under this AGREEMENT as provided hereinafter. Such payment shal l be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the work specified in Section II, "Scope of Work." The CONSULTANT shall conform to all applicable portions of 48 CFR Part 31. A. Actual Costs: Payment for all consultipg services for this PROJECT shall be on the basis of the CONSULTANT'S actual cost plus a fixed fee. The actual cost shall include direct salary cost, overhead, direct non -salary costs, and fixed fee. 1. Direct Salary Costs: The Direct Salary Cost is the direct salary paid to principals, professional, technical, and clerical personnel for the time they are productively engaged in work necessary to fulfill the terms of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall maintain support data to verify the direct salary costs billed to the AGENCY. 2. Overhead Costs: Overhead Costs are those costs other than direct costs, which are included as such on the booksof the CONSULTANT in the normal everyday keeping of its books. Progress payments shall be made at the rateshown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under "Overhead Progress Payment Rate." Total overhead paymentshal l be based on the method shown in the heading of the AGREEMENT. The two options are explained as follows: . a. Fixed Rate: If this method is indicated in the heading of the AGREEMENT the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT for overhead at the percentage rate shown. This rate shall not change_ during the life of the AGREEMENT. b. Actual Cost: If this method is indicated in the heading of the AGREEMENT the AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT the actual overhead costs verified by audit, up to the Maximum Total Amount Payable, authorized under this AGREEMENT, when accumulated with all other Actual Costs. A summary of the CONSULTANTS cost estimate and the overhead computation is shown in Exhibit "E" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. When an Actual Cost method is used, the CONSULTANT (prime and all sub -consultants) will submit to the AGENCY within six (6) months after the end of each firm's fiscal year, an overhead schedule in the format required by the AGENCY (cost category, dollar expenditures, etc.) for the purpose of adjusting the overhead rate for billing purposes. It shall be used for the computation of progress payments during the following year and for retroactively adjusting the previous year's overhead cost to reflect the actual rate. DOT Form 140.089 EF Exhibit D-2 Revised 6105 191 Failure to supply this information by either the prime CONSULTANT or any of their sub -consultants shall cause the AGENCY to withhold payment of the billed overhead costs until such time as the required information is received and an overhead rate for billing purposes is approved. The AGENCY, STATE and/or the Federal Government may perform an audit of the CONSULTANT'S books andrecords at any time during regular business hours to determine the actual overhead rate, if they so desire. 3. Direct Non -Salary Costs: Direct Non -Salary Costs will be reimbursed at the Actual Cost to the CONSULTANT. These charges may include, but are not limited to, the following items: travel, printing, long distance telephone, supplies, computer charges and fees of sub -consultants. Air or train travel will be reimbursed only to economy class levels unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall comply with the rules and regulations regarding travel costs (excluding air, train, and rental car costs) in accordance with the AGENCY'S Travel Rules and Procedures. However, air, train, and rental car costs shall be reimbursed in accordance with 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 31.205-46 "Travel Costs." The billing for Direct Non -Salary Costs shall include an itemized listing of the charges directly identifiable with the PROJECT. The CONSULTANT shall maintain the original supporting documents in their office. Copies of the original supporting documents shall be supplied to the AGENCY upon request. All above charges must be necessary for the services provided under this AGREEMENT. 4. Fixed Fee: The Fixed Fee, which represents the CONSULTANT'S profit, is shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT under Fixed Fee. This amount does not include any additional Fixed Fee, which could be authorized from the Management Reserve Fund. This fee is based on the Scope of Work defined in this AGREEMENT and the estimated person -hours required to perform the stated Scope of Work. In the event the CONSULTANT enters into a supplemental AGREEMENT for additional work, the supplemental AGREEMENT may include provisions for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The Fixed Fee wiI I be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of work completed by the CONSULTANT and reported in the Monthly Progress Reports accompanying the billings. Any portion of the Fixed Fee earned but not previously paid in the progress payments will be covered in the final payment, subject to the provisions of Section IX entitled "Termination of Agreement." 5. Management Reserve Fund: The AGENCY may desire to establish a Management Reserve Fund to provide the Agreement Administrator with the flexibility to authorize additional funds to the AGREEMENT for allowable unforeseen costs, or reimbursing the CONSULTANT for additional work beyond that already defined in this AGREEMENT. Such authorization(s) shall be in writing and shall not exceed the lesser of $100,000 or 10% of the Total Amount Authorized as shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The amount included for the Management Reserve Fund is shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. This fund may not be replenished. Any changes requiring additional costs in excess of the Management Reserve Fund shall be made in accordance with Section XIV, "Extra Work." 192 Maximum Total Amount Payable: The Maximum Total Amount Payable by the AGENCY to the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT shall not exceed the amount shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The Maximum Total Amount Payable is comprised of the Total Amount Authorized, and the Management Reserve Fund. The Maximum Total Amount Payable does not include payment for Extra Work as stipulated in Section XIV, "Extra Work." No minimum amount payable is guaranteed under this AGREEMENT. B. Monthly Progress Payments: The CONSULTANT may submit billings to the AGENCY for reimbursement of Actual Costs plus the calculated overhead and fee on a monthly basis during the progress of the work. Such billings shall be in a format approved by the AGENCY and accompanied by the monthly progress reports required under Section III, "General Requirements" of this AGREEMENT. The billings will be supported by an itemized listing for each item including Direct Salary, Direct Non -Salary, and allowable Overhead Costs to which will be added the prorated Fixed Fee. To provide a means of verifying the billed salary costs for CONSULTANT employees, the AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may consist of recording the names, titles, salary rates, and present duties of those employees performing work on the PROJECT at the time of the interview. C. Final Payment: Final Payment of any balance due the CONSULTANT of the gross amount earned will be made promptly upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the work under this AGREEMENT, contingent upon receipt of all PS&E, plans, maps, notes, reports, electronic data and other related documents which are required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT. Acceptance of such Final Payment by the CONSULTANT shall constitute a release of all claims for payment, which the CONSULTANT may have against the AGENCY unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the AGENCY by the CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said Final Payment shall not, however, be a bar to any claims that the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTANT or to any remedies the AGENCY may pursue with respect to such claims. The payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and at the time of final audit, all required adjustments will be made and reflected in a final payment. In the event that such final audit reveals an overpayment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT will refund such overpayment to the AGENCY within thirty (30) days of notice of the overpayment. Such refund shall not constitute a waiver by the CONSULTANT for any claims relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY of overpayment. The CONSULTANT has twenty (20) days after receipt of the final POST. AUDIT to begin the appeal process to the AGENCY for audit findings. D. Inspection of Cost Records: The CONSULTANT and their sub -consultants shall keep available for inspection by representatives of the AGENCY, STATE and the United States, for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this AGREEMENT and all items related to or bearing upon these records with the following exception: if any litigation, claim or audit arising out of, in connection with, or related to this contract is initiated before the expiration of the three (3) year period, the cost records and accounts shall be retained until such litigation, claim, or audit involving the records is completed. 193 Exhibit E-1 Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet (Lump Sum, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Per Unit of Work) Project: Hampton Road Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project Direct Salary Cost (DSC): Classification Man Hours Rate = = Cost Principal 40.0 X 50.00 $ 2,000.00 Project Manager 462.0 X 47.00 21,714.00 Senior Engineer II Design Engineer II CAD Drafter Project Coordinator 1,140.0 X 56.0 X 618.0 X 66.0 X X X X 40.00 30.00 30.00 20.00 Total DSC = $ Overhead (OH Cost -- including Salary Additives) OH Rate x DSC of 1.3683 % x $ 90,854.00 Fixed Fee (FF): FF Rate x DSC of .3 % x $ 90,854.00 Reimbursables: Itemized Subconsultant Costs (See Exhibit G): Grand Total Prepared By: KPFF Consulting Engineers Date: DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit E-1 Revised 6105 45,600.00 1,680.00 18,540.00 1,320.00 90,854.00 124,315.53 27,256.20 2,200.00 114,693.19 359,318.92 April 23, 2006 194 Exhibit E-2 Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet (Specific Rates of Pay) Fee Schedule Hourly Overhead Profit Rate Discipline or Job Title Rate @ 1.3683 % @ .3 % Per Hour Principal 63.11 86.35 18.93 168.40 Project Manager 57.75 79.02 17.33 154.09 Project Coordinator 30.29 41.45 9.09 80.82 Technical Specialist 57.75 79.02 17.33 154.09 Senior Engineer I 36.96 50.57 11.09 98.62 Senior Engineer lI 45.86 62.75 13.76 122.37 Design Engineer I 29.07 39.78 8.72 77.57 Design Engineer H 31.80 43.51 9.54 84.85 CAD Drafter 32.41 44.35 9.72 86.48 Administration 28.53 39.04 8.56 76.13 Intern 14.70 20.11 4.41 39.22 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit E-2 Revised 6/05 195 Exhibit G-2 Breakdown of Subconsu{tants Overhead Cost Account Title $ Beginning Total % of Direct Labor Direct Labor 211,772.00 100.00% Overhead Expenses: FICA 4,829.00 2.28% Unemployment Health/Accident Insurance 6,711.00 3.17% Medical Aid & Industrial Insurance HolidayNacationlSick Leave 17,280.00 8.16% Commission/Bonus/Pension 19,250.00 9.09% Total Fringe Benefits 48,070.00 22.70% General Overhead: State B&O Taxes 12,748.00 6.02% Insurance 13,076.00 6.17% Administration & Time Not Assignable 67,986.00 32.10% Printing, Stationery & Supplies 459.00 0.22% Professional Services 29,462.00 13.91 % Travel Not Assignable 18,987.00 8.97% Telephone & Telegraph Not Assignable 11,427.00 5.40% Fees, Dues & Professional Meetings Utilities & Maintenance 22,066.00 10.42% Professional Development Rent Equipment Support Office, Miscellaneous & Postage 93,982.00 44.38% Total General Overhead 270,193.00 127.59% Total Overhead (General + Fringe) 318,263.00 150.29% Overhead Rate (Total Overhead 1 Direct Labor) 150.29% DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-2 Revised 6105 196 Exhibit G Subcontracted Work The AGENCY permits subcontracts for the following portions of the work of this AGREEMENT: DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G Revised 6105 197 Exhibit G-1 Subconsultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet Project: Hampton Road Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project Direct Salary Cost (DSC): Classification Man Hours Rate = Cost Project Manager 124.0 X 47.00 $ 5,828.00 Project Biologist 416.0 X 29.00 12,064.00 X X X X X X X Total DSC $ 17,892.00 Overhead (OH Cost -- including Salary Additives) OH Rate x DSC of 1.50 % x $ 17,892.00 - 26,838.00 Fixed Fee (FF): FF Rate x DSC of .3 % x $ 17,892.00 = 5,367.60 Reimbursables: Itemized = 5,917.00 Grand Total = 56,014.60 Prepared By: Widener Date: April 23, 2006 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-1 Revised 6/05 Exhibit G-2 Breakdown of Subconsultants Overhead Cost Account Title $ Beginning Total % of Direct Lager Direct Labor 211.,772.00 100.00% Overhead Expenses: FICA 4,829.00 2.28% Unemployment Health/Accident Insurance 6,711.00 3.17% Medical Aid & Industrial Insurance HolidayNacation/Sick Leave 17,280.00 8.16% Commission/Bonus/Pension 19,250.00 9.09% Total Fringe Benefits 48,070.00 22.70% General Overhead: State B&O Taxes. 12,748.00 6.02% Insurance 13,076.00 6.17% Administration & Time Not Assignable 67,986.00 32.10% Printing, Stationery & Supplies 459.00 0.22% Professional Services 29,462.00 13.91% Travel Not Assignable 18,987.00 8.97% Telephone & Telegraph Not Assignable 11,427.00 5.40% Fees, Dues & Professional Meetings Utilities & Maintenance 22,066.00 10.42% Professional Development Rent Equipment Support Office, Miscellaneous & Postage 93,982.00 44.38% Total General Overhead 270,193.00 127.59% Total Overhead (General + Fringe) 318,263.00 150.29% Overhead Rate (Total Overhead 1 Direct tabor) 150.29% DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-2 Revised 6/05 199 Exhibit G-9 Subconsultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet Project: Hampton Road Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project Direct Salary Cost(DSC): Classification Man Hours Rate = Cost Principal 6.0 X 54.43 $ 326.58 Senior Engineer 24.0 X 41.29 990.96 Senior Geologist 34.0 X 33.78 1,148.52 Staff Engineer 34.0 X 28.15 957.10 Clerical 4.0 X 16.89 67.56 X X X X Total DSC = $ 3,490.72 Overhead (OH Cost -- including Salary Additives) OH Rate x DSC of 1.3641 % x $ 3,490.72 = 4,761.69 Fixed Fee (FF): FF Rate x DSC of .30 % x $ 3,490.72 = 1,047.22 Reimbursables: Itemized = 5,278.00 Grand Total Prepared By: PaaGEO Inc. DOT Farm 140-089 EF Exhibit G-1 Revised 6105 - 14,577.63 Date: April 23, 2006 200 EXHIBIT G-2 PanGEO, Inc. Overhead Schedule 2005 Proposed Adjusted Description Amount Adj. Ref. Amount % Direct Labor Costs $452,234 $30,738 S482,972 General Overhead Expenses Direct Nonsalary Costs $277,126 -S277,126 A s0 0.00% Indirect 0tlicers Salaries 59,738 -31,659 B 28,079 5.81% Indirect Administrative Wages 23,374 -403 B 22,971 4.76% Indirect Technical Salaries 66,583 -544 B 66,039 13.67% Bonuses 162,240 -63,400 C 98,840 20.46% SEP-IRA Contribution 168,751 168,751 34.94% MrdicaVDentalInsurance 84,127 84,127 17.42% Payroll Taxes 53,793 -139 53,653 11.11% Advertising 1,828 -1,828 A,B 0 0.00% Amortization Expense I -1 A 0 0.00% Bank Service Charges 61 61 0.01% Computers 8,904 8,904 1.84% Contributions 0 0 0 0.00% Depreciation Expense 576 576 0.12% Dues & Subscriptions 2,837 2,837 0.59% Employee Morale 2,416 -882 B 1,534 0.32% Employee Recruitment 1,261 1,261 0.26% Equipment Rental 1,773 1,773 0.37% Equipment Lease 21 21 0.00% Field Supplies 1,122 1,122 0.23% Fumi Lure and Fixtures ¢ $500 737 737 0.15% Gilts 0 0 A 0 0.00% General Liability Insurance 500 500 0.10% Professional Liability Insurance 31,861 31,861 6.60% Licenses and Permits 1,228 1,228 0.25% Office Supplies 3,125 3,125 0.65% Postage and Delivery 1,214 1,214 0.25% Printing and Reproduction 108 108 0.02% Professional Development 1,407 1,407 0.29% Professional Fees 488 488 0.10% Reference (Books/Mapslete.) 342 342 0.07% Rcnt 15,285 15,285 3.16% Repairs 472 472 0.10% Section 179 Depreciation Expenses [1,026 11,026 2.28% B & O Taxes 29,245 29,245 6.06% Property Taxes 1,676 1,676 0.35% Telephone 10,039 10,039 2.08% Entertainment 2,691 -2,329 A 363 0.08% Meals/Travel 8,313 -695 B 7,628 1.59% Utilities 1,535 1,535 0.32% Total General Overhead Expenses $1,037,925 -$378,995 $658,830 136.41% Overhead Rate 229.49% 136.41% References A Unallowable amounts removed per various FARS cites. B Advertising and public relations costs unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-1(d). C Adjustment for WSDOT Bonus Policy. Maximum allowable amount is 15% of total allowable overhead. 201 Exhibit G-1 Subconsultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet Project: Hampton Road Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project Direct Salary Cost(DSC): Classification Man Hours Rate = Cost Project Manager 40.0 X 37.68 $ 1,507.20 Survey Technician 30.0 X 25.96 778.80 Survey Coordinator 26.0 X 25.96 674.96 2-Person Survey Crew 40.0 X 42.50 1,700.00 Survey Crew Chief 8.0 X 23.50 188.00 CAD Technician 88.0 X 24.00 2,112.00 Senior CAD Technician 24.0 X 38.28 918.72 Project Surveyor 56.0 X 38.28 2,143.68 Professional Land Surveyor 4.0 X 37.68 150.72 Total DSC = $ 10,174.08 Overhead (OH Cost -- including Salary Additives) OH Rate x DSC of 1.63 % x $ 10,174.08 -- 16,583.75 Fixed Fee (FF): FF Rate x DSC of .3 % x $ 10,174.08 = 3,052.22 Reimbursables: Itemized = Grand Total = 29,810.05 Prepared By: Pacific Surveying and Engineering Date: April 23, 2006 DDT Farm 140-089 EF Exhibit G-1 Revised 6105 202 Exhibit C-2 Breakdown Of Subconsultants Overhead Cast Account Title ; $ Beginning Total % of Direct Labor Direct Labor i � 870,386.00- 100 Overhead Expenses: FICA 97 803.00 11.23 Unemployment 22-438.00 2.57 Health/Accident Insurance 57q_ Medical Aid & Industrial Insurance 7,457.00 0 : 85 Holiday/Vacation/Sick Leave 88,497.00 , 10.16 Commission/Bonus/Pension 29,318.00 3.36 . Total Fringe Benefits 8 General Overhead: State B&O Taxes 58,943.00. 6.77 Insurance 48 415.00 _ 5.56 Administration & Time Not Assignable 399,990,00. 44.34 Printing, Stationery & Supplies 17 , 384. -.:00- : 1.99 Professional Services 29, 355.00 3.37 Travel Not Assignable 48 143.00 5.53 Telephone & Telegraph Not Assignable 25, 884.00 2.97 Fees, Dues & Professional Meetings 11,166.00 1.28 Utilities & Maintenance 30,544-00 , I 3.50 Professional Development 18 471.00. 2.12 Rent 132,609..00 i 15.23 Equipment Support 19.55_— Office, Miscellaneous & Postage I 84,242.00 9.67 Total General Overhead j 1, 061, 373.00 121.94 Total Overhead (General -+- Fringe) .00 ` 163.42 415 Overhead Rate (Total Overhead / Direct Labor) 163.42 % 203 Exhibit G-1 Subconsultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet Project: Hampton Road Mormon Ditch Bridge No. 261 Replacement Project is to Direct Salary Cost (DSC): Classification Man Hours Rate — Cost Principal 0.0 X 56.34 $ 0.00 Project Manager 26.0 X 54.20 1,409.20 Senior Engineer 22.0 X 43.40 954.80 Staff Engineer 70.0 X 27.99 1,959.30 CADD/Technician 12.0 X 22.95 275.40 Administrator 16.0 X 16.83 269.28 X X X Total DSC = $ 4,867.98 Overhead (OH Cost -- including Salary Additives) OH Rate x DSC of 1.5942 % x $ 4,867.98 = 7,760.53 Fixed Fee (FF): FF Rate x DSC of .3 % x $ 4,867.98 = 1,460.39 Reimbursables: Itemized - 202.00 Grand Total = 14,290.91 Prepared By: West Consultants Date: April 23, 2006 DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit G-1 Revised 6105 204 EXHIBIT G-2 WEST Consultants, Inc. Overhead Schedule 2003 Reported Adj. Allowable Description Costs Ref. Costs % Direct Labor Base $1,723,983 ($547,338) A $1,196,647 20,002 0 Overhead Expenses Overhead/Office Salaries $185,338 $472,117 B $657,455 54.94% Officers Salaries 162,276 (162,276) C 0 0.00% Payroll Taxes - Office 17,202 17,202 1.44% Payroll Taxes - Direct Labor 139,089 139,089 11.62% Vacation/Holiday/Sick Pay 0 237,498 B,C 237,498 19.85% Excess Time Adjustment 0 (20,002) 0 (20,002) -1.67% Advertising 13,486 (13,486) F 0 0.00% Auto & Truck Expense 34,218 (15,477) F,L 18,741 1.57% Bank Service Charges 859 859 0.07% Benefits, Employee 20,467 (20,467) G,H 0 0.00% Contract Labor 410,849 (410,099) L 750 0.06% Contributions 725 (725) K 0 0.00% Depreciation 79,140 D 79,140 6.61% Dues & Subscriptions 15,079 15,079 1.26% Equipment Rental 8,486 8,486 0.71% hisurance - Group Medical 180,625 180,625 15.09% hisurance - Liability & W/C 55,597 55,597 4.65% Insurance - Life 3,015 3,015 0.25% Eriterest/Finance Charges 44,393 (44,393) 1 0 0.00% Legal & Accounting 42,426 (2,250) P 40,176 3.36% License & Fees 3,253 3,253 0.27% Lodging 27,592 (21,956) L 5,636 0.47% Meals 18,334 (13,662) L 4,672 0,39% Meetings 45,750 (881) H 44,869 3.75% Miscellaneous 24,644 (20,046) F,G,H 4,598 0.38% Office Supplies 24,393 (5,209) F,G,H 19,184 1.60% Penalty/Late Fees 677 (677) J 0 0.00% Postage & Freight 13,880 (2,685) E.L 11,195 0.94% Printing 5,298 (2,037) L 3,261 0.27% 401(k) Profit Sharing 2,286 2,286 0.19% Relocation 21,986 21,986 1.84% Rent 329,280 (84,128) M 245,152 20.49% Page 2 205 EXHIBIT G-2 WEST Consultants, Inc. Overbead Schedule 2003 Reported Adj. Allowable Description Costs Ref. Costs % Repair & Maintenance Storage & Security Taxes -.Business Taxes - Property Telephone Training Travel Utilities Total Overhead Expenses Overhead Rate 11,035 3,307 17,973 4,344 53,949 (3) 6,319 34,771 (26,618) 2,801 $2,065,142 ($157,462) 119.79% 11,035 0.92% 3,307 0.28% 17,973 1.50% 4,344 0.36% F 53,946 4.51% 6,319 0.53% L 8,153 0.68% 2,801 0.23% $1,907,680 159.42% 159.42% References A Officer chargeable+OH chargeable -Direct non chargeable. B OH direct -OH holiday/vacn/sicic+Direct non chargeable -Direct holiday/vacn/sick. C Officer chargeable -Officer holiday/vaen/sicic. D Section 179 assets reported at cost. Used CPA prepared GAAP depreciation schedule and reported under depreciation E Postage for holiday gifts unallowable per 31.205-14. F Advertising unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-1(f). G Gifts unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-13. H Entertainment unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-14. I Interest and finance costs unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-20. 7 Penalties unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-15(a). K Contributions Unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-8. L Project related costs unallowable in overhead per 48 CFR 31.202(a). M Excess rent unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-36(b)(3). N Personal auto usage unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-6(m)(2). O Uncompensated overtime adjustment per DCAA 6-410 and 48 CFR 37.115. P Fees in excess of $250 for preparation of federal income tax return unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-41(b)(1), 48 CFR 31.201-6(d), and WSDOT Overhead Policy. Page 3 206 Exhibit H Title VI Assurances During the performance of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest agrees as follows: 1. Compliance with Regulations: The CONSULTANT shall comply with the Regulations relative to non-discrimination in federally assisted programs of the AGENCY, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as th�REGULATIONS"), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this AGREEMENT. 2. Non-discrimination: The CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed during the AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin in the selection and retention of sub -consultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The CONSULTANT shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the REGULATIONS, including employment practices when the AGREEMENT covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the REGULATIONS. Solicitations for Sub -consultants, Including Procurement of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiations made by the CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a sub -contract, including procurement of materials or leases of equipment, each potential sub -consultant or supplier shall be notified by the CONSULTANT of the CONSULTANTS obligations under this AGREEMENT and the REGULATIONS relative to non-discrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin. 4. Information and Reports: The CONSULTANT shall provide all information and reports required by the REGULATIONS or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by AGENCY, STATE or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such REGULATIONS, orders and instructions. Where any information required of a CONSULTANT is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to fumish this information, the CONSULTANT shall so certify to the AGENCY, STATE or the FHWA as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. Sanctions for Non-compliance: In the event of the CONSULTANTS non-compliance with the non-discrimination provisions of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall impose such AGREEMENT sanctions as it, the STATE or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: Withholding of payments to the CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT until the CONSULTANT complies, and/or; Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the AGREEMENT, in whole or in part DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit H Revised 6105 207 Incorporation of Provisions: The CONSULTANT shall include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (5) in every sub -contract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the REGULATIONS, or directives issued pursuant thereto. The CONSULTANT shall take such action with respect to any sub -consultant or procurement as the AGENCY, STATE or FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for non-compliance. Provided, however, that in the event a CONSULTANT becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub -consultant or supplier as a result of such direction, the CONSULTANT may request the AGENCY and the STATE enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the AGENCY and the STATE and, in addition, the CONSULTANT may request the United States enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. Exhibit I Payment Upon Termination of Agreement By the Agency Other Than for Fault of the Consultant (Refer to Agreement, Section IX) Lump Sum Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made shall total the same percentage of the Lump Sum Amount as the work completed at the time of termination is to the total work required for the PROJECT. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any authorized extra work completed. Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT which when added to any payments previously made, shall total the actual costs plus the same percentage of the fixed fee as the work completed at the time of termination is to the total work required for the Project. In addition, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for any authorized extra work completed. Specific Rates of Pay Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual hours charged at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT plus any direct nonsalary costs incurred at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT. Cost Per Unit of Work Contracts A final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual units of work completed at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT. DOT Form 14M89 EF Exhibit Revised 6/05 209 Exhibit J Alleged Consultant Design Error Procedures The purpose of this exhibit is to establish a procedure to determine if a consultadt; alleged design error is of a nature that exceeds the accepted standard of care. In addition, it will establish a uniform method for the resolution and/or cost recovery procedures in those instances where the agency believes it has suffered some material damage due to the alleged error by the consultant. Step I — Potential Consultant Design Error(s) is Identified by Agencjs Project Manager At the first indication of potential consultant design error(s), the first step in the process is for the Agency's project manager to notify the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer regarding the potential design error(s). For federally funded projects, the Region Highways and Local Programs Engineer should be informed and involved in these procedures. (Note: The Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer may appoint an agency staff person other than the project manager, who has not been as directly involved in the project, to be responsible for the remaining steps in these procedures.) Step 2 - Project Manager Documents the Alleged Consultant Design Error(s) After discussion of the alleged design error(s) and the magnitude of the alleged error(s), and with the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineefs concurrence, the project manager obtains more detailed documentation than is normally required on the project. Examples include: all decisions and descriptions of work; photographs, records of labor, materials and equipment. Step 3 — Contact the Consultant Regarding the Alleged Design Error(s) If it is determined that there is a need to proceed further, the next step in the process is for the project manager to contact the consultant regarding the alleged design error(s) and the magnitude of the alleged error(s). The project manager and other appropriate agency staff should represent the agency and the consultant should be represented by their project manger and any personnel (including sub -consultants) deemed appropriate for the alleged design error(s) issue. Step 4 — Attempt to Resolve Alleged Design Error with Consultant After the meeting(s) with the consultant have been completed regarding the consultads alleged design error(s), there are three possible scenarios: It is determined via mutual agreement that there is not a consultant design error(s). If this is the case, then the process will not proceed beyond this point. It is determined via mutual agreement that a consultant design error(s) occurred. If this is the case, then the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer, or their representatives, negotiate a settlement with the consultant. The settlement would be paid to the agency or the amount would be reduced from the consultants agreement with the agency for the services on the project in which the design error took place. The agency is to provide H&LP, through the Region DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit d Revised 6105 210 Local Programs Engineer, a summary of the settlement for review and to make adjustments, if any, as to how the settlement affects federal reimbursements. No further action is required. There is not a mutual agreement regarding the alleged consultant design error(s). The consultant may request that the alleged design error(s) issue be forwarded to the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer for review. If the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer, after review with their legal counsel, is not able to reach mutual agreement with the consultant, proceed to Step 5. Step 5 — Forward Documents to Highways and Local Programs For federally funded projects all available information, including costs, should be forwarded through the Region Highways and Local Programs Engineer to H&LP for their review and consultation with the FHWA. H&LP will meet with representatives of the agency and the consultant to review the alleged design error(s), and attempt to find a resolution to the issue. If necessary, H&LP will request assistance from the Attorney Generals Office for legal interpretation. H&LP will also identify how the alleged error(s) affects eligibility of project costs for federal reimbursement. If mutual agreement is reached, the agency and consultant adjust the scope of work and costs to reflect the agreed upon resolution. H&LP, in consultation with FHWA, will identify the amount of federal participation in the agreed upon resolution of the issue. If mutual agreement is not reached, the agency and consultant may seek settlement by arbitration or by litigation. 211 Exhibit K Consultant Claim Procedures The purpose of this exhibit is to describe a procedure regarding claim(s) on a consultant agreement. The following procedures should only be utilized on consultant claims greater than $1,000. If the consultant claim(s) are a total of $1,000 or less, it would not be cost effective to proceed through the outlined steps. It is suggested that the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer negotiate a fair and reasonable price for the consultaf claim(s) that total $1,000 or less. This exhibit will outline the procedures to be followed by the consultant and the agency to consider a potential claim by the consultant. Step 1 — Consultant Files a Claim with the Agency Project Manager If the consultant determines that they were requested to perform additional services that were outside of the agreement's scope of work, they may be entitled to a claim. The first step that must be completed is the request for consideration of the claim to the Agenc j+s project manager. The consultant's claim must outline the following: • Summation of hours by classification for each firm that is included in the claim; • Any correspondence that directed the consultant to perform the additional work; • Timeframe of the additional work that was outside of the project scope; • Summary of direct labor dollars, overhead costs, profit and reimbursable costs associated with the additional work; and • Explanation as to why the consultant believes the additional work was outside of the agreement scope of work. . Step 2 — Review by Agency Personnel Regarding the Consultants Claim for Additional Compensation After the consultant has completed step 1, the next step in the process is to forward the request to the Agency's project manager. The project manager will review the consultarlis claim and will met with the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer to determine if the Agency agrees with the claim. If the FHWA is participating in the projeces funding, forward a copy of the consultants claim and the Agency's recommendation for federal participation in the claim to the WSDOT Highways and Local Programs through the Region Local Programs Engineer. If the claim is not eligible for federal participation, payment will need to be from agency funds. If the Agency project manager, Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer, WSDOT Highways and Local Programs (if applicable), and FHWA (if applicable) agree with the consultant claim, send a request memo, including backup documentation to the consultant to either supplement the agreement, or create a new agreement for the claim. After the request has been approved, the Agency shall write the supplement and/or new agreement and pay the consultant the amount of the claim. Inform the consultant that the final payment for the agreement is subject to audit. No further action in needed regarding the claim procedures. DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit K Revised 6105 212 If the Agency does not agree with the consultants claim, proceed to step 3 of the procedures. Step 3 — Preparation of Support Documentation Regarding Consultants Claim(s) If the Agency does not agree with the consultants claim, the project manager shall prepare a summary for the Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer that included the following: • Copy of information supplied by the consultant regarding the claim; • Agency's summation of hours by classification for each futn that should be included in the claim; • Any correspondence that directed the consultant to perform the additional work; • Agency's summary of direct labor dollars, overhead costs, profit and reimbursable eosts associated with the additional work; • Explanation regarding those areas in which the Agency does/does not agree with the consultant's claim(s); • Explanation to describe what has been instituted to preclude future consultant claim(s); and • Recommendations to resolve the claim. Step 4 — Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer Reviews Consultant Claim and Agency Documentation The Director of Pubic Works or Agency Engineer shall review and administratively approve or disapprove the claim, or portions thereof, which may include getting Agency Council or Commission approval (as appropriate to agency dispute resolution procedures). If the project involves federal participation, obtain concurrence from WSDOT Highways and Local Programs and FHWA regarding final settlement of the claim. If the claim is not eligible for federal participation, payment will need to be from agency funds. Step 5 — Informing Consultant of Decision Regarding the Claim The Director of Public Works or Agency Engineer shall notify (in writing) the consultant of their final decision regarding the consultants claim(s). include the final dollar amount of the accepted claim(s) and rationale utilized for the decision. Step 6 — Preparation of Supplement or New Agreement for the Consultants Claim(s) The agency shall write the supplement and/or new agreement and pay the consultant the amount of the claim. Inform the consultant that the final payment for the agreement is subject to audit. 213 I hereby certify that I am representative of the firm of Exhibit M-I(a) Certification Of Consultant David McMullen KPFF Consulting Engineers Project No. Local Agency and duly authorized whose address is 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101 and that neither I nor the above firm I here represent has: (a) Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) to solicit or secure the AGREEMENT; (b) Agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out this AGREEMENT; or (c) Paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above CONSULTANT) any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with, procuring or carrying out this AGREEMENT; except as hereby expressly stated (if any); I acknowledge that this certificate is to be available to the Washington State Department of . Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation in connection with this AGREEMENT involving participation of Federal -aid highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. 5 2A 0(o Date Signature DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M•1(a) 214 Revised 6105 Exhibit M-1(b) Certification Of Agency Official I hereby certify that I am the AGENCY Official of the Local Agency of Whatcom County Washington, and that the consulting firm or its representative has not been required, directly or indirectly as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this AGREEMENT to: (a) Employ or retain, or agree to employ to retain, any firth or person; or (b) Pay, or agree to pay, to any firm, person, or organization, any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind; except as hereby expressly stated (if any): I acknowledge that this certificate is to be available to the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in connection with this AGREEMENT involving participation of Federal -aid highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. Date Signature DOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit M-1(b) Revised 6105 215 Exhibit M-2 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters -Primary Covered Transactions I. The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its .principals: A. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily . excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; B. I Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission or fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statues or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; C. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(B). of this certification; and D. Have not within a three (3) year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default. II. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. Consultant (Firm): KPFF Consulting Engineers 524o(P (Da ) LW'ftt-M/WL (Signatuesident or Authorized Official of Consultant DOT Form -89 EF Exhibit M-2 Revised 0216 Exhibit M-3 Certification Regarding The Restrictions of The use of Federal Funds for Lobbying The prospective participant certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge.and belief, that: 1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an off cer or employee of any Federal agency, a member of.Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, Ioan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts which exceed $100,000 and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Consultant (Firm): KPFF Consulting Engineers ( ate) (Signature) President or Authorized Official of Consultant DOT Form sex 6-059 EF Exhibit M-3 Exhibit M-4 Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data (as defined in section 15.401 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and required under FAR subsection 15.403-4) submitted, either actually or by specific identification in writing, to the contracting officer or to the cxr contracting officer's representative in support of HAMFre'd KD ffiox o Vink BRp4 Z41 Yer+4 are accurate, complete, and current'as of July 1, 2004 **. This certification includes the cost or pricing data supporting any advance agreements and forward pricing rate agreements between the offeror and the Government that are part of the proposal. Firm KPFF Consulting Engineers Name David K. McMullen, P.E. Title Associate Date of Execution*** J� 12.g OG * Identify the proposal, quotation, request for price adjustment, or other submission involved, giving the appropriate identifying number (e.g., RFP No.). ** Insert the day, month, and year when price negotiations were concluded and price agreement was reached. *** Insert the day, month, and year of signing, which should be as close as practicable to the date when the price negotiations were concluded and the contract price was agreed to. DOT Form sed 0-OBS EF Exhibit M-0 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-314 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assign to, Originator: 07125106 Finance/Coon Eric L. Schlehuber L•� a P V. 17 L Division Head: Eric L. Schlehuber: Dept. Head: Jeffrey M. Monsen rj J U L 18 2006 Prosecutor: Daniel L. Gibson INHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL COUNCIL li Purchasing/Budget: Brad Bennett bb 7110106 Executive: �� Pete Kreme / TITLE OP DQ UMENT. Contract Extension for Truck and Tanker Vehicle Petroleum Fuel Service The purpose of the Contract Extension is to continue providing for lire purchase and delivery of fuel far use on Whatcom County equipment and vehicles. Contract will be extended from September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007. ATTACHMENTS: Memo and Contract Amendmtent SEPA review required? ( } Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a (tearing? ( } Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( } Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date: S UMMAR Y S TA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language far use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Approval and authorization for the County Executive to enter into a contract renewal with Reisner Distributor, Inc. for the purposes ofpurchasing and delivering fuel to be used in Whatcom County equipment and vehicles. Regular delivery service oftruck and trailer loads will be F.0.B. Whatcom County Central Shop, 901 West Smith Roam Tank wagon deliveries will be used for delivery of fuel for usage on the Whatcom County Ferry (Whatcom Chief at Gooseberry Point} and at Silver Lake Park in Maple Falls. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution 200309017, 200309017-1, 200309017 2 Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at: www.co.whatconi.wauslcouncil. it 219 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 322 N. Commercial Street, Suite 210 Bellingham, WA 98225 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council Eric L. Schlehuber, PW Equipment Services Manager Jeffrey M. Monsen, PW Director Jeffrey M. Monsen, P.E. D i rector RECEIVEr J U L 17 2006 PFEKREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE Truck and Tanker Vehicle Petroleum Fuel Service Contract — Renewal July 10, 2006 ■ Requested Action Enclosed are two (2) contract extensionlrenewal originals in the amount of $649,472.50 between Whatcom County Public Works and Reisner Distributor, Inc. for your review and signature. ■ Background and Purpose This agreement is a result of the bidding process in 2003, which resulted in the awarding of Bid #03- 57 — Truck & Tanker Vehicle Petroleum Fuel Service for the purposes of purchasing and delivery of fuel to be used in Whatcom County equipment and vehicles. This contractor was chosen because it was the lowest responsive bidder. The original contract agreement provided the option of extending the truck and tanker vehicle petroleum fuel service for up to three (3) annual renewals (for a period of one year each). This is the third and final extension for a total of four years on this contract. Funding Amount and Source This contract amendment is in the amount of $649,472.50 for a new running total of $1,783,633.60. The actual amount may vary from this figure since the price per gallon is subject to fluctuation during the term of the contract and the exact amount of fuel to be delivered is unknown. The actual expenditure will be a function of the supplier's rack price (Tosco Conoco -Phillips) which fluctuates, the same fixed delivery cost, and the actual amount of fuel delivered, which may also vary somewhat from the estimate contained in the contract. The funding has been allocated in the 2006 ER&R Fund Budget. The original agreement (AB2003-293) received unanimous executivelcouncil approval on September 9, 2003 at the Regular County Council Meeting. ■ Differences from Previous Contract This is an amendment to extend/renew the contract for the purchase of fuel for another year with the contract amount increased solely due to the suppliers current rack prices, which have increased slightly less than last year's renewal, from 2005 rack prices of $1.8779 to $2.2050 per gallon (17%) for #2 Dyed Diesel and from $1.9082 to $2.3375 (22%) for Unleaded. Please contact Eric L. Schlehuber at Ext. 50607, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. Enclosure 220 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. a vo309o/7-3 Originating Department: Public Works / Equipment Services Division Contact Person:. Eric L. Schlehuber Contractor's Name: Reisner Distributor, Inc. Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment to an Existing Contract? Yes No X Yes X No If an Amendment, previous number(s): 200309017, 200309017-1 Is this a renewal? 200309017-2 Yes X No Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is more than amt and any prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $ 1,134,161.10 memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more This Amendment Amount: than $I0,000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an $ 649, 472.50 agenda bill and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Total Amended Amount: Executive with supporting memo for approval. $ 1, 783, 633.60 ,Scope of Services To provide for the purchasing and delivery of fuel for use on Whatcom County equipment and vehicles. Truck & Tanker Vehicle Petroleum Fuel Service Nature of Contract Amt: ( Check One) Fixed Amount Not to Exceed X Open Ended Term of Contract: I year w/I year Expiration Date: August 31, 2007 extensions: this contract is for year four Renewal O tion: Yes No X Last Renewal, if exercised, Would Expire: August 31, 2007 Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: Contract Routing Steps & Signoff.• [sign or initial] ]indicate date transmitted] 1. Prepared by: Eric L. Schlehuber Date 06130106 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: Daniel L. Gibson Date 06130106 [electronic] 3. AS -Finance reviewed. bbennett Date 07110106 [electronic] hard copy printed 4. Corrections made: Deb Douglas Date 06/30/06 5. Attorney sign f' Daniel L. Gibson Date 06130106 6. Submitted to Exec Office: ✓ Date 7- /7—j (G /summary via electronic; hardcopies] 7. Contractor signed: Date 8. Submitted to Exec Office: Date 9. Reviewed by DCA: Date 10. Council approved (if necessary). Date 11. Executive signed. Date 11. Contractor Original returned to dept: Date 12. County Original to Council: Date this fonn may need to expand to more than one page 221 Whatcom County Contract No. A 003o 9 of -3 CONTRACT EXTENSION #3 FOR SERVICES AND MATERIALS AGREEMENT TRUCK & TANKER VEHICLE PETROLEUM FUEL SERVICE BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND REISNER DISTRIBUTOR, INC. This extension of Whatcom County Contract #200309017 is made this day of July, 2006, by and between WHATCOM COUNTY, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY", and REISNER DISTRIBUTOR, INC., hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR", for the purpose of providing TRUCK & TANKER VEHICLE PETROLEUM FUEL SERVICE. A. The following paragraphs are amended and should be substituted into the original agreement: 10.1 Term: Services and materials provided by Contractor prior to or after the term of this contract shall be performed or provided at the expense of Contractor and are not compensable under this contract unless both parties hereto agree to such provision in writing. The term of this Agreement shall be extended for a period of one year, beginning September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007. The term shall be as stated regardless of the date of signature. 10.2 Extension: All extension options have been utilized, so therefore there are no remaining extensions available on this Agreement. B. Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" shall be substituted in their entirety as attached hereto. C. All other terms and conditions set forth in the original agreement will remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement this day of July, 2006. CONTRACTOR: REISNER DISTRIBUTOR, INC. Dan Averill, Vice -President STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this `day of July, 2006, before me personally appeared Dan Averili to me known to be the Vice -President of Reisner Distributor, Inc. and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Stale of Washington, residing at . My commission expires Contract Extension #3 for Services and Materials Agreement Truck & Tanker Vehicle Petroleum Fuel Service Page 1 222 WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for Approval: Jeffrey M. Monsen, Department Director Date Approved as to form: Daniel L. Gibson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: Bv: Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of July, 2006, before me personally appeared Pete Kremen, to me known to be the Executive of Whatcom County, who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof, NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at . My commission expires CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: REISNER DISTRIBUTOR, INC. Dan Averill Vice -President Address: 1922 Front Street Lynden, WA 98264 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 673 Lynden, WA 98264-0673 Contact Name: Dan Averill Contact Phone: (360) 354-2169 Contact FAX: (360) 354-4768 Contact Email: daverill(@reisnerd[stributor.com Contract Extension #3 for Services and Materials Agreement Truck & Tanker Vehicle Petroleum Fuel Service Page 2 223 EXHIBIT "A" (SCOPE OF WORK, DELIVERY OF PETROLEUM) REGULAR DELIVERY SERVICE DELIVERY: Delivery shall be made within 24 hours after receipt of order. Regular delivery service of truck and tanker is F.O.B. Whatcom County Central Shop located at 901 West Road Smith, Bellingham, WA 98226. Deliveries may be made any time between 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, except during County holidays. The following is a list of the County holidays that are observed: New Years Day, Martin Luther Kings Birthday, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day after Thanksgiving, Day before Christmas, and Christmas Day. Delivery must be made in the presence of designated County personnel. 2. STORAGE TANKS: Storage capacity for the Central Shop tanks are: (1) Diesel — 20,000 gallons; (2) Unleaded — 5,000 gallons; and (3) Unleaded--10,000 gallons. The delivery driver must check the County storage tank(s) for water before delivery. Water quantity must be recorded on the delivery slips. Truck and trailer deliveries must show County tank reading in inches before and after delivery. 3. DELIVERY SLIPS: A designated County employee must sign all delivery slips. 4. COMPLIANCE: Unleaded Regular — Must have a minimum octane rating of 87 and must conform to ASTM-D439. #2 Dyed Diesel — Must conform to ASTM-D975 (most recent issue). 5. RIGHT OF REFUSAL: The County reserves the right to analyze fuel at any time during the contract period and may refuse fuel if defective or substandard. All fuel purchases are subject to the approval of the Whatcom County Public Works/Assistant County Road Engineer. Any fuel rejected because of nonconformance with the terms and conditions of this contract, whether held by the County or returned, will be at the Contractor's own risk and expense. 6. RIGHT TO PURCHASE: During the contract period, if the supplier cannot supply product or service due to problems beyond its control, Whatcom County reserves the right to purchase from another vendor. ON -CALL DELIVERY DELIVERY — WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY: Delivery of diesel fuel shall be made within 24 hours after receipt of order. Regular delivery service of tank wagon is on the Whatcom Chief Ferry located at Gooseberry Point. Average delivery is approximately 2,000 gallons with a storage capacity of 4,400 gallons. Tank wagon deliveries must be metered. A County employee must sign all delivery slips. Contractor must be United States Coast Guard approved to fuel over water. 2. DELIVERY -- SILVER LAKE PARK: Delivery of diesel fuel shall be made within 24 hours after receipt of order. Average delivery is approximately 300 gallons with a delivery frequency once to twice a year. Tank wagon deliveries must be metered. The delivery driver must check the County storage tank for water before delivery. Delivery must be made in the presence of designated County personnel and a County employee must sign all delivery slips. Contract Extension #3 for Services and Materials Agreement Truck & Tanker Vehicle Petroleum Fuel Service Page 3 224 EXHIBIT "B" (COMPENSATION) PAYMENTTERMS: • Whatcom County intends to take advantage of prompt payment terms offered. Prompt payment discounts of 20 calendar days or more after receipt of correct material and invoice will be considered. Payments will be processed in accordance with Whatcom County's established policies and procedures. • Delivery slips, signed by a County employee, must accompany invoices. SAMPLE PRICE TABLE FOR TRUCK & TRAILER LOADS DELIVERED TO CENTRAL SHOP1 # 2 Dyed Diesel NIA $ 2.2050 $ .0185 $ 2.2235 115,000 $ 255,702.50 Unleaded Regular 87 $ 2.3375 $ .0185 $ 2.3560 110,000 $ 259,160.00 SAMPLE PRICE TABLE FOR TANK WAGON DELIVERY2 � � _<c : ""a5ir f. -j ;lx�s - � 'r 'f� S J RKhI .� ' - I��.Lc:�.' -.i6i". -. ,� � ��., .-- •.:�.�_. `+_:ir.�. - +'1 - Y�f eE.�.. ;.. ..' �,�».. '�:;':r=,:'�r:;S'r�-r n.,; �y :rr._::.,��? :: S A rrl �rY d l,} { ��, {((��` �• 'il'.'- � ��v �:� 7^ �ii} fa RSn ::�.lC �.. �.�-r :1.1 .'ON..t�F+l..hi..�rc'. �!�'F:.Si" �� A^.• �FY�:rH S.>•4.t-l'rtZ # 2 Dyed Diesel NIA $ 2.2050 $ .0385 $ 2.2435 60,000 $ 134,610.00 Unleaded Regular NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID Estimated Total (Truck & Tanker and Tank Wagon) $ 649,472.50 PRODUCT PRICE ADJUSTMENT • Product price adjustments during the contract period must be supplied at each delivery. Adjustments shall be based only on supplier rack price changes to the vendor, must be clearly documented, and may be audited. • The vendors 'delivery charge' of $.0185 for truck and trailer loads to be delivered at Central Shop (located at 901 West Smith Road) and $.0385 for tank wagon delivery to the Whatcom County "Whatcom Chief Ferry" and to Silver Lake Park or margin must be firm for the period of September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007. • Whatcom County reserves the right to negotiate an acceptable method of price adjustment at any time during the contract period. The price table establishes that the County will pay supplier's rack price based on Tosco Conoco -Phillips rack price at the applicable time plus the fixed delivery charge as stated in the table. Thus the total price may vary from that listed due to fluctuations in the supplier's rack price and total number of gallons ordered. This table reflects supplier rack prices as of June 28, 2006. 2 Same qualification on price as stated in footnote #1, above. Contract Extension #3 for Services and Materials Agreement Truck & Tanker Vehicle Petroleum Fuel Service Page 4 225 EXHIBIT "C" (CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE) Contract Extension #3 for Services and Materials Agreement Truck & Tanker Vehicle Petroleum Fuel Service Page 5 226 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-315 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: 7/25/06 Finance/ Originator: PK 7117/06 Council Drvision Head: J U L 18 Dept. Head: �r J Prosecutor: YHATCOM COUIVT Purc►asrn /Bud et ,. 1110f, LJ:� i� i C O i N C I L Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Resolution of the County Council of Whatcom County, Washington, approving, as planning jurisdiction solely for the purposes of RCW 39.84.060, the issuance of nonrecourse revenue bonds of the Industrial Development Corporation of the Port of Bellingham, the proceeds of which will be used for industrial development facilities within the County by Wood Stone Corporation. ATTA CHMENTS: Memorandum and Resolution SEPA review required? { ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? { ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? { ) Yes { ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STA TEMENT 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.) Resolution regarding issuance of nonrecourse revenue bonds of the Industrial Development Corporation of the Port of Bellingham, the proceeds of which will be used for industrial development facilities by Wood Stone Corporation. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatconr.wa.us/council. 227 WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #108 Bellingham, WA 98225-4082 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Council Chair Members of the County Council FROM: Pete Kremen, County Executive Pete Kremen County Executive DATE: July 17, 2006 RE: Industrial Development Corporation of the Port of Bellingham Multi -Modal Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Wood Stone Corporation Project The Port of Bellingham maintains a development corporation under RCW Ch. 39.84, the Industrial Development Corporation of the Port of Bellingham (the "Development Corporation"). The Development Corporation has received an application for $8,000,000 tax-exempt financing from Wood Stone Corporation (the "Company") to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of facilities at 1791 West Bakerview Road in unincorporated Whatcom County (the "Project"). The Company is seeking tax-exempt financing in order to lower its costs of borrowing. Because the Project lies within the unincorporated boundaries of Whatcom County, the County Council has planning jurisdiction over the Project. Therefore, the Development Corporation is required to obtain the approval of the County Council pursuant to RCW 39.84.060. The attached resolution will provide sufficient approval for the issuance of the Bonds by the Development Corporation. Within the text of the resolution, the right and authority of the County has been specifically reserved to consider independently any subsequent development permit that may be presented for the Project. In addition, the resolution contains specific language that provides that the County shall have no liability under any circumstance for the payment of any debt service on the Bonds, nor shall it incur any liability in connection with the Project. This language is repetitive of Ch. 39.84, which specifically states that no public money shall ever be used to pay the debt service on this type of bond. I support this resolution and request approval by the County Council at its meeting on July 25, 2006. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. PKlld Attachment 228 Office (360) 676-6717 County (360) 384-1403 FAX (360) 676-6775 TDD (360) 738-4555 SPONSORED BY: Executive PROPOSED BY: Executive INTRODUCTION DATE: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the County Council of Whatcom County, Washington, approving, as planning jurisdiction solely for the purposes of RCW 39.84.060, the issuance of nonrecourse revenue bonds of the Industrial Development Corporation of the Port of Bellingham, the proceeds of which will be used for industrial development facilities within the County by Wood Stone Corporation. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Washington has provided for the creation of public corporations by municipalities, including port districts, pursuant to Chapter 300, Laws of Washington, 1981 (Regular Session) codified as Chapter 39.84 RCW, as amended (the "Act"), for the purpose of facilitating industrial development and employment opportunities in the State of Washington; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Industrial Development Corporation of the Port of Bellingham (the "Development Corporation") was formed in order to carry out the purposes of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Development Corporation has received an application from Wood Stone Corporation (the "Company") for the purpose of providing financing for the acquisition, construction, and equipping of a facility for the manufacture, assembly and warehousing of cooking equipment at 1791 West Bakerview Road in unincorporated Whatcom County (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Development Corporation and its bond counsel have reviewed the application of the Company and have determined that the project qualifies as an "industrial development facility" within the meaning of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Development Corporation has scheduled a special meeting to approve the issuance of nonrecourse revenue bonds in the amount not to exceed $8,000,000 (the "Bonds") on July 18, 2006; and Page 1 229 WHEREAS, the Act provides that each county or town within whose planning jurisdiction the Project is to be located must approve the issuance of revenue bonds by the Development Corporation for such Project; and WHEREAS, the Development Corporation, as the issuer of the Bonds for the Project, has requested the approval of Whatcom County (the "County") pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the County has been assured that there will be no financial liability accruing to the County as a result of such approval and that this approval shall constitute approval solely for the purpose of permitting the Development Corporation to proceed with the issuance of the Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, as follows: Section 1. The County, pursuant to Chapter 39.84 RCW, does hereby approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Development Corporation for the purposes of financing the Project under the Act. The Bonds are anticipated to be issued by the Development Corporation in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $8,000,000 pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Development Corporation for the purposes of financing the Project under the Act. The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Company, pursuant to a loan agreement with the Development Corporation, and the proceeds will be used for the purpose of paying all or a part of the costs of the Project within unincorporated Whatcom County. The Bonds shall be payable solely from the Company's repayments of the loan under the loan agreement. The Bonds shall not constitute an obligation of the County, and no tax funds or other revenues of the County shall be used to pay the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. Neither the faith and credit nor any taxing power or revenues of the County shall ever be pledged to pay the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. Section 2. This resolution is intended solely to constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds within the meaning of RCW 39.84.060. This approval shall not in any way be deemed to be a review or final approval of any development permit for the Project that may be in process, or may be submitted at a future date. Page 2 230 ADOPTED by the County Council of Whatcom County, Washington, this day of July 2006. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy P o ut r WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Council Chair Page 3 231 CERTIFICATE 1, the undersigned, Clerk of the County Council of Whatcom County, Washington (the "County"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY: 1. That the attached Resolution No. (the "Resolution") is a true and correct copy of a resolution of the County as adopted at a meeting of the County Council of the County held on July 25, 2006 and duly recorded in my office. 2. That said meeting was duly convened and held in all respects in accordance with law, and to the extent required by law, due and proper notice of such meeting was given; that a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting and a legally sufficient number of members of the County Council of the County voted in the proper manner for the adoption of the Resolution; that all other requirements and proceedings incident to the proper adoption of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed, and that I am authorized to execute this certificate. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of July 2006. Clerk of the County Council Page 4 232 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 200b-310 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: LJH 7118106 7125106 FINANCE Orr inator: LJ E L, 11 Division Head.- V JUL 18 2006 Dept. Head: -jkkL IU d6 Prosecutor: -�` � �� f HATCOM (30UN i Purchasin Bud et: COUNCIL 7_t$ Earecutive: r TITLE OFDOCUMENT: CITYICOUNTYJAIL INVESTMENT PROGRAMDISCUSSION ATTACHMENTS: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT 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.) Discussion surrounding the City/County Jail Investment Program — No action required at this time. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are availahle for viewing and printing on the Coun 's wehsite at: www.co.whatcom.wa.usleouncil. 233 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WHATCOM COUNTY — CITY OF { THIS AGREEMENT, replaces Whatcom County Interlocal Agreement #200603030 between Whatcom County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of ( ), a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City"; WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34.180) has been amended effective January 1,1997 to require each city to be responsible for the costs incident to prosecution, adjudication, and incarceration of gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor offenses that occur within its jurisdiction and that are committed by adults; and WHEREAS, the City desires to utilize the services and/or the facilities of the Whatcom County Jail on a regular basis, for the purpose of incarcerating persons or utilizing jail alternative programs where the initial or appropriate final charge is a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor offense committed by an adult within its jurisdiction and the person to be incarcerated is referred to the County Jail by City law enforcement officers or the Municipal Court Judge; and WHEREAS, in order to accommodate a steadily increasing jail population, including those inmates from the various cities of Whatcom County, it is necessary for Whatcom County to construct a new jail facility, designated the Whatcom County Interim Jail and Alternative Corrections Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Corrections Center") in addition to its present jail space; and WHEREAS, the City of ( ) has also recognized the need for a new interim jail facility to accommodate the growing need for jail space and has engaged with the County in planning for a new facility; and WHEREAS, the new interim jail facility is intended to be a regional capital project, serving the cities and the unincorporated areas of Whatcom County; and Jail Interlocal Agreement 234 WHEREAS, the City intends to provide funding to Whatcom County towards the capital construction costs of the facility in order to acquire the right to use a portion of the capacity of the facility; and WHEREAS, the City has added the interim jail facility to the City's Capital Facilities Plan in the recent update and has included it in the City's 2006 adopted budget; WHEREAS, the initial cost of building the Corrections Center is projected to be at least $10.2 million, plus additional startup costs approximating $1.2 million, with the cost of operating the facility thereafter estimated to be in excess of $2 million per year; and WHEREAS, the larger portion of the cost of constructing this Corrections Center that is scheduled to go into service in the latter part of 2006, will be borne by the County; and WHEREAS, the County and cities of the County have discussed and agreed upon the concept of the cities each contributing a portion of the balance of the cost of constructing the Corrections Center in exchange for credits to be applied by the County against the charges for the cities' respective uses of the jail through the year 2014; and WHEREAS, this concept has been proffered to the cities by the County not only as a funding mechanism for Corrections Center construction but also as a means for the cities to each make the transition from a budgetary standpoint to again utilize available jail space, and their choice to participate in this program is strictly voluntary; and WHEREAS, in light of the differences between the cities in both population levels and jail utilization rates, it has been necessary to determine a fair amount of contribution and corresponding credit for each of the participating cities; and WHEREAS, the total contribution from the cities toward the cost of Corrections Center construction at this time is expected to be approximately $2.26 million; and Jail InterIocal Agreement 2 235 WHEREAS, the Corrections Center is scheduled to be utilized through 2014, by which time another new jail facility is expected to replace it and accommodate a significant number of inmates beyond the number accommodated by the current facilities; and WHEREAS, the credit to be given the respective cities for their contributions to costs of jail construction will be granted to them from the point at which the new facility goes into service (late 2006) through 2014 and is expected to total slightly over $6.11 million, and will be applied by the County to reduce the amount otherwise owing by each city for the cost of using jail space in the County jail facilities; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto also desire to include within this agreement the procedures for determining the costs associated with housing inmates within the jail, for billing those costs, and for payment by the City to the County for the portion of the costs that remain after application of the proper credit against the total bill; WHEREAS, this agreement will in effect supplement, amend, and replace the existing agreement between the County and the City pertaining to provision of and payment for jail services; NOW, THEREFORE, the County and City agree as follows: Section 1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT. This agreement shall finalize and memorialize the arrangement between the County and the City whereby the City shall contribute to the County by September 1, 2006 a sum of money in the amount set forth below in Section 4, and the County shall in exchange therefor provide to the City a portion of the jail capacity to be measured in bed days. The County shall in fulfillment of this obligation provide a credit to the City to be applied against its bill for its use of inmate services. It shall also serve as the basis for the County's provision of jail services to the City, along with a determination of standards, costs, and payments for those services provided to the City by the County. Section 2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT. This agreement shall be effective September 1, 2006, whatever the date of execution, and shall continue through December 31, 2014, or until the agreement is terminated according to the provisions for termination contained herein. ]ail Interlocal Agreement 3 236 Section 3. PARTY CONTACTS. The County's contact for this agreement shall be the Chief of Corrections. The City's contact shall be Judicial and Support Services Director. Section 4. CITY'S CONTRIBUTION. The City shall, no later than September 1, 2006, pay to the County in cash, negotiable instrument, or other equivalent form of value acceptable to the County the amount of [$1,681,440 - Bellingham] [$90,400 - Blaine] [$51,980 - Everson/Nooksack] [$228,260 - Ferndale] [$158,200 - Lynden] [$49,720 - Sumas] which shall be for the purpose of contributing to the cost of constructing the Corrections Center, and shall be applied as the County deems appropriate. Section 4a. CHARGES FOR SERVICES. The City shall pay the County for the services provided under this Agreement as set forth in Addendum A to the Agreement, provided that, if any jurisdiction is granted a more favorable rate for any or all of the services provided under this Agreement, except during a transition period, or as a result of specific and unique settlement or necessary contract or fee adjustment, the City shall also receive the more favorable rate. Charges for services rendered shall be verified as they accrue, and will be paid within thirty (30) days of each month's final invoice. The preliminary per diem cost for each correction program shall be established by the County based on the projected budget for providing each program area during the contract year. The preliminary projection for each corrections program shall be provided to the City for budget purposes no later than May 31 each year. The preliminary per diem for corrections programs will be increased or decreased according to the final budget figures for the corrections programs adopted by the County Council for each contract year, and provided to the City within sixty (60) days of final adoption. Section 5. CAPACITY PROVIDED. In exchange for its contribution of $1,681,440 towards construction of the new jail facility, received by the County in cash, negotiable instrument, or other form satisfactory to the County by September 1, 2006, the County shall provide to the City a vested right to a portion of the capacity of the regional jail facility for the City's inmate population. The parties intend that the value of the City's use of the facility will be commensurate with the City's capital contribution, and that the value will be provided in the form of a credit granted by Jail Interlocal Agreement 4 237 the County against the invoice for the cost of the city's use of inmate services as set forth in Section 5a, below. Section 5a. CREDIT PROVIDED. In exchange for its contribution of $1,681,440 toward the construction of the new jail facility, received by the County in cash, negotiable instrument, or other form satisfactory to the County by September 1, 2006, the County shall grant the City credits each year from 2006 through 2014 in the following amounts: Bellingham Blaine Everson/Nooksack Ferndale Lynden Sumas 2006: $123,206 $ 6,624 $ 3,809 $16,726 $11,592 $3,643 2007. $497,754 $26,671 $15,388 $67,571 $46,382 $14,719 2008: $517,664 $27,831 $16,003 $70,274 $48,705 $15,307 2009: $538,371 $28,944 $16,643 $73,085 $50,653 $15,919 2010: $559,906 $30,102 $17,309 $76,008 $52,679 $16,556 2011: $582,302 $31,306 $18,001 $79,048 $54,786 $17,218 2012: $605,594 $32,558 $18,721 $82,210 $56,977 $17,907 2013: $629,818 $33,860 $19,470 $85,498 $59,256 $18,623 2014: $491,258 $26,411 $15,187 $66,689 $46,220 $14,526 The amount to be credited each year, as reflected above, shall be deducted from the County's charge(s) to the City for the City's jail usage for each billing period. One - twelfth of the total for each year shall be available for credit in each month for eligible services, and in case any of the credit is unused in a particular month, it may be carried over to the next month, and be available for credit that next month. In case that the amount of the credit available exceeds the amount charged for that year, the unused portion of the credit shall carry forward to the following year, and shall be added to the ordinary credit for the year in determining the available amount of credit each month. In case the City has not used up all of its credit by the end of 2014, the credit shall nonetheless be cancelled and the County shall owe the City no additional money or service for the remaining unused credit. Section 5b. SERVICES PROVIDED. The County agrees to provide inmate services for gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor cases initiated by the City and referred to the County for those offenses alleged to have been committed by adults within the City. Jail Interlocal Agreement 5 238 The County shall provide inmate services consistent with the standards contained in Addendum A. If circumstances require the County to reduce services to all jurisdictions, including unincorporated Whatcom County, such reduction in services shall be made uniformly and the County shall provide reasonable notice to the City of its intention to reduce service levels in any correction program. Wherever possible, the County will provide a minimum of thirty (30) days' notice of such reductions unless specific circumstances require more immediate action. Section 6. DETERMINATION OF CASE STATUS. The Prosecuting Attorney shall have the sole authority to determine which felony arrest cases submitted by the City shall be charged as felonies and which as gross misdemeanors or misdemeanors. The City shall not be responsible for any case charged as a felony by the Prosecutor, except nothing in this contract prevents the County from seeking reimbursement for felony medical costs prior to sentencing as provided in RCW 70.48.130. The City asserts and retains all of its rights under RCW 39.34.180. If the determination is made by the Prosecutor that a case is a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, such cases shall be referred to the City Attorney for filing in the Municipal Court with inmate services charged to the city. Any case originally charged by the Prosecutor as a felony and later plea bargained or adjudicated to a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, shall not require compensation by the City. Section 7. BILLING INFORMATION. The County shall provide the City with an itemized monthly billing report for each service area. The dates used in computing the fees shall be the initiation and release date for each corrections program. The report listing shall include name of offender, booking number, date and time; charge, court code, disposition and date of same; citation/warrant numbers of cases, days served, and related costs. Reports shall be provided to the City's designee no later than the 201" day of the month following service. The City's designee shall be allowed read-only access to the County's automated law and justice computer records, case files and billing records for the purpose of verification of billings. Section S. ASSIGNMENT. The County shall provide at least 30 days' notice to the City of its intent to assign or delegate duties under this Agreement, specifying which duties it intends to assign or delegate and the name and address of the party to whom it intends to assign or delegate. Jail Interlocal Agreement :I 239 Section 9. HOLD HARMLESS. The County shall indemnify the City, its officers, employees, and agents, and hold them harmless from any and all claims, suits, actions, loss, or damage resulting from or arising out of the services provided under this Agreement or the negligence or intentional act or omission of the County, its officers, agents, and employees, in performing or failing to perform said services. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers, employees, and agents for all claims, suits, actions, loss, or damage resulting from or arising out of the negligence or intentional wrongful act or omission of the City in the apprehension, arrest, detention, or release of adult prisoners delivered to the County for incarceration or detention. Section 10. RELATIONSHIP OF THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. The City and the County intend that a City/Independent Contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee, servant, or representative of the County shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant, or representative of the City for any purpose. Nor shall any agent, employee, servant, or representative of the City be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant, or representative of the County for any purpose. Section 10a. COUNTY RESPONSIBLE FOR JAIL OPERATIONS. The City and County intend that the County have the sole responsibility for the operation of the jail and that nothing in this agreement is intended to create any governance of the jail facility by the participating cities. The term "regional jail" as used herein is not intended to be used as defined in RCW 70.48.095. It is further understood by the parties that the County shall be solely responsible for operational decisions regarding the appropriate level of security and housing of all inmates. Section 11. MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION. This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual agreement of the City and the County. Preliminary proposals for modifications requiring legislative budget authorization and affecting a successive yearly budget shall be submitted to the respective parties' contact on or before May 31 of each year. The preliminary cost per case/per diem will be increased or decreased according to the final budget figures for the service areas adopted by the County Council for the contract year. Either the City or the County may terminate this Agreement for subsequent years upon a minimum of 120 days' written notice to the other party of its intent to Jail Fnterlocal Agreement 7 240 terminate. Termination shall be deemed to be effective only after formal action of the terminating party's legislative body. The legislative action must take place prior to September 1 in order to be effective for the following year. If it does not, then the effective date of termination will be on December 31 of the following year. The termination date will be at midnight on December 31 of that year. If this Agreement is terminated by the City for reasons other than the County's breach prior to the completion of the term of the Agreement, then the City shall forfeit reimbursement by the County for the remaining credit otherwise owing to the City. If the County terminates this Agreement for reasons other than the City's breach prior to the completion of the term of the Agreement, then the County will compensate the City for the remaining credit owed the City (the total amount of the original credit less the amount of the credit applied against the City's bill throughout the effective life of the Agreement). Either the City or the County may terminate this Agreement upon a breach by the other party, provided the party seeking to terminate the Agreement shall provide at least thirty (30) days' written notice and an opportunity to cure to the other party. Upon termination, the City shall be obligated to pay for only those services previously rendered that remain unpaid or for services rendered thereafter for defendants booked or incarcerated prior to the date of withdrawal or termination. The termination of this Agreement shall not impose a requirement on the County to provide for funding or services otherwise required by this Agreement that relate to City arrests or defendants sentenced after the effective date of termination. Upon termination, at the City's option, the County shall continue to provide services to completion for inmates housed or alternative services in progress. The City shall compensate the County for all services rendered at the immediately preceding contract rate. Section 12. DISPUTES BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. Should a dispute arise as to the administration of this agreement between the City and the County, such dispute shall be progressively resolved in the following manner: 1. Through negotiations between the City and the County's respective contacts. 2. Through negotiations between the Mayor and the County Executive; or 3. In the event that the City and the County do not reach agreement within 90 days of commencing negotiations, the matter will be submitted to binding arbitration. Nothing in this section shall deny any rights established in Section 11. Jail Interlocal Agreement H 241 The City and the County may mutually agree to extend the negotiation period. If the City and the County cannot agree upon the selection of an impartial arbitrator within fourteen days of a written request for arbitration by either the City or the County, the arbitrator shall be selected as provided in the Superior Court Mandatory Arbitration Rules by a judge of the Superior Court of Skagit County. The arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to the Superior Court Mandatory Arbitration Rules. Section 13. PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT. The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in association with applicable City cases shall remain with the original owner unless specifically and mutually agreed to by both the City and the County to this Agreement. Section 14. GENERAL TERMS. This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the City and the County. The City and the County agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No change or addition to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either the City or the County unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by both the City and the County. The City and the County agree that during the performance of this Agreement no person shall, on the basis of race, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, age, religion, ethnicity, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, be excluded from services which are within the scope of this agreement and within the reasonable ability of the County to provide. Neither the City nor the County shall discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment for the above reasons; provided, the prohibition against discrimination in employment because of handicap shall not apply if the particular disability, with reasonable accommodation, prevents the proper performance of the work involved. The City and the County agree to aid and assist the other in accomplishing the objectives of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the City and the County, and their successors and assigns. Jail Interlocal Agreement E 242 ADDENDUM A — 2006 COST METHODOLOGIES, FORMULAS, AND SERVICE STANDARDS As set forth in Section 4a of this Agreement, the City will be notified by May 31 of each year of the projected rates or fees to be charged in the next year, and of the formula used for the calculations. Any subsequent adjustments will comply with the terms of Section 4a of the Agreement. 1. Booking Charge — A booking fee shall be charged to the City for each person booked into the jail in the amount of $50.00. The booking charge will also apply when other law enforcement agencies arrest and book persons into the jail on City's charges and/or warrants. Persons booked into the County jail and released will only incur the booking fee. Persons who are booked into the jail and processed into the facility will incur both the booking charge and a partial or full day per diem charge. The County will make every effort to collect a $50.00 co -payment from each person booked into the jail for incarceration. The County will apply all proceeds from this co -payment fee to reduce the operational cost of the jail. 2. jail Per Diem — City cost per diem for 2006 for all City prisoners incarcerated in County facilities for gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor offenses will be $65.00 per initial bed day, with each day thereafter broken into quarter day charges, based on $65.00 for a full 24 hours or a pro rata amount based on quarter day increments. 3. Criteria for Assessing Per Diem Charges — In the event that an inmate is booked on multiple charges, the following procedure will apply to determine charges assessed the City: City will be charged per diem on a per day (quarter day) basis for persons incarcerated in the County jail on City gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor charges or warrants. Persons incarcerated on felony charges will be the responsibility of the County, except nothing in this contract prevents the County from seeking reimbursement for felony medical costs prior to sentencing as provided in RCW 70.48.1.30. The City asserts and retains all of its rights under RCW 39.34.1.80. Persons originally incarcerated for a felony level violation that is declined by the County Prosecutor and returned to the City Attorney will be the City's responsibility from Jail Interlocal Agreement 10 243 the date of booking. Any case originally charged by the Prosecutor as a felony and later plea-bargained or adjudicated to a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, shall not require compensation by the City. If a City charge is concurrent to either Superior Court or another jurisdictions gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor charge, the City shall be billed the proportionate percentage share of the per diem for the shared incarceration day period. 4. Alternative jail Programs/Per Diem - The City will be charged for Alternative jail Programs as follows: A. If offenders are held in Whatcom County's Offsite Work Release Facility, the 2006 per diem rate is $57.00 per bed day for work release inmates. Billing to the City for these participants will be based on this 2006 per diem rate. Any funds collected from the offender will be credited to the City. B. If an offender qualifies for Electronic Home Detention, billing to the City for these offenders participating will be based on the 2006 per diem rate of $27.00. Any funds collected from the offender will be credited to the City. C. If an offender is participating in the One -Day Offender Program, the offender will bear the complete $55.00 per diem cost of the program. If an offender is indigent, and unable to pay per diem fees for the One -Day Offender Program, the City will be responsible for the per diem cost. D. if an offender is participating in the Out of Custody Work Grew Program, billing to the City for these participants will be based on the 2006 per diem rate of $59.00. Should the County bill the offenders for participating in this program, the funds collected from the offender will be credited to the City. E. If an offender is participating in the In Custody Work Crew Program, billing to the City for these participants will be based on the 2006 per diem rate of $65.00. Should the County bill the offenders for participating in this program, the funds collected from the offender will be credited to the City. F. All participants must first be authorized by the sentencing judge to apply for alternative jail programs, and the Chief of Corrections or her designee must approve the terms and conditions of the programs for the Whatcom County Jail. G. If a City charge is concurrent to either Superior Court or another jurisdiction's gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor charge, the City shall be billed the proportionate percentage share of the 2006 per diem for the shared incarceration period. Jail Interlocal Agreement 11 244 5. Service Standards —The County agrees to furnish its facilities and personnel for confinement of City offenders and other services described in this agreement in the same manner and to the same extent as the County furnishes for the confinement of its own gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor offenders, provided that the County shall meet or exceed all legal requirements. 6. Operational control — The City acknowledges the County's operational control of the jail and alternate jail programs and agrees that City offenders committed to the Whatcom County Jail and alternative jail programs will be subject to the same lawful rules and regulations required of other offenders incarcerated therein. 7. Health Care -- The County shall be responsible for providing routine health care. Such health care will include those health care services routinely delivered at normal cost by County staff, contracted physicians or nursing staff and delivered within the facility. The County is not responsible for services delivered to offenders outside of the facility. Payment for emergency, exceptional or non -routine necessary health care for City gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor offenders shall be made by the City upon written invoice by the County or upon such other terms as City and the County may agree in writing. The County will additionally bill the City for pre - sentence felony offenders, held on the City's case, who incur emergency, exceptional or non -routine necessary medical costs, as set forth in RCW 70.48.130. The County will notify the City as soon as it becomes aware that an inmate being held on the City's charges is in need of emergency, exceptional or non -routine necessary medical care, and work with the City to investigate the possibility of release from custody. Additionally, the County agrees to utilize all agreements with medical practitioners and organizations to mitigate any medical costs, and seek out any and all eligible third party reimbursement for medical costs, prior to billing the City. Non -routine necessary health care shall include all physician -ordered health care or medical services delivered to City offenders outside of the facility, or specialized care provided by non -contract health care providers in or out of the facility. The County agrees to pursue third party payment for emergency, exceptional or non -routine necessary health care in the same manner and to the same extent as the County does for offenders held on its own charges. No third party beneficiary contract or contract of insurance is intended by this contract. ]ail Interlocal Agreement 12 245 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum this day of , 2006. WHATCOM COUNTY: Approved as to form: Prosecuting Attorney Date Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of , 2006, before me personally appeared Pete Kremen, to me known to be the Executive of Whatcom County, who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires Jail Interlocal Agreement 13 246 CITY OF ( }: EXECUTED this day of , 2006, for the CITY OF ( }: Mayor Attest: Finance Director Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Departmental Approval: Jail Interlocal Agreement 14 247 ,qt N M N O N ti N � ONO Qi tO r N tD to r N [�_ •S tf V 00 IN 00 U) t• r r N I to r 6+4 6xi 6x4 6x4 6f4 d4 6+4 6+4 6+4 6fi a s C� CM 0 Q r l- U> C m a a C CN M r CO COON a1N C]C]C NtOat+CU?tOCDU1NC C]C]C U)a)U)thNNMt0Ga co co co " c Ui Ui LO r to to 1• 1. 1• 00 CO T N N N I— tO 6f4 6f4 69 6+4 6+4 69 69 Q% Q% 644 644 44169 00 co M M a M of [� aS tp 00 t+ M C 00 Re 00 M tO C r t r 0 r C N N r LOCReOoa v,cot�r�a��nNa�_�a�n� a M' a N a tM 4 U) U) to f` t• 00 4 O E T T r r r r r r � M 00[ T r V. r T CO 4- (%} 64 69 69 6Ri 69 644 6Ri 6Ri 6f4 6f4 6f4 6f4 6zi 6+4 6+4 6V CA v0QT-1`NCC NNU)mmw ticoQm C N 00 T tO tO tD N C N C M a w 1` 00 P 0 N m tD a 1 t tO U1 tO of U? N C] U) OO t tO tO 1% 07 N N tO W M C M N N N tD C] C] % y r tO 00 Q N V tO M CO f� tD CO M N 0 00 r V tO r r U) U) UI U? U? N W 44 6% 69 6+4 614 6R4 6R4 6R4 644 644 6zi 6z4 6x4 6R4 6R4 6R4 6f4 6f4 644 6A tO r 00 00 C M a7 d N t~ W f` 00 CV r M aS 00 C ti U) N a a a N V tD r r -ptD1•Ct-Mcea NtetD1` r C ti ti ti ti 00 00 tO T- M C v 41 LL 644 C, 6+4 6ek 44 69 69 6+4 644 69 44 6A ---------- M M M M r r a ti — '�CaoavaaNI- C U>MM NtecoN wm of am N 00 M 0 00 N M O M M a p M a 1: V r 10 0 U) N t'M t0 C7 P~ U) U) CO U? t'M U) tp to 1` CO CO aS U) E C; U) M ti r tD C W) C r N y j Y r r r r r r r r N C C] r r N N M C et a) p r r v v v T r r r r V 4- 4- 4- - QI > O 6Ri 64 64 6zi tR 6+4 6R4 6Ri 64 6f4 C .N 6zi 6zi 6+4 6+4 6+4 64 6Ri 6f4 6R 6+9 (D f• y r r N tO 00 C r to a r to M C C U> CO r 0) tO 1• 00 a7 r V) U) N Re 0) M _ C co co M ti C - N N M M M N N V m N v d4 6+4 � 6+4 6+4 64 6f4 6f4 6f4 6zi 6zi 6x4 6A p C to to w r tO 1%- a N L = C et r C N 00 00 E�tiaawrati et Ca7aOoa) N47ReM L/? C� pr CrNMtOtO00p LN titoMaSMU)00NOD p CO r N C7 (tl a th U�f• �' C m I~ ti 00 a1 N UI cn r N C to r CO N 00 to 4t M M C N M r M to CO a N (S %t Ih CO C] r t�1 I to CO C N a r Re U) U) U) UI tD C qt •� U? r N N V) m M M m q C 'i 6+4 6+4 44 44 6f4 Ow Ow 6z4 6z4 6F4 : m 6Ri 6+4 6f4 69 44 44 6+4 6+4 64 69 UI CO P 00 a? C r C4 V) V a L to ti CO M Q N CO m t a C a a a T r r r r �+' tti C a t C] T T r r r CCa CD Caaa C 0Q C a a a a aaa N N N N N N N N N N V }. N N N N N N N N N 1— L li Iq m O O O w 0 al CD SDLOvOtitictO > qqr q' V r N M U0 >- LO 0 V T- CO v c� Ca 64 61} 61t 64 61t 69 64 O C100000 Oo000NO N• O N N ti O a) CD CV N C N EA 64 6i 69 69 69 64 W CD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 p� C qT O M O N O U qi qT N O ti N O �1 a) > d 00 O O M N� a0 O A 000 000 C [D N O ti r 0 oMCT)C) C) 01 Y U f4 Y O @ Z a) � C mC co O (D f6 C E CD C mm WLL -j{n M Q N O a1 m O U) N N a) m �M Im o Cl) Q �Cl) QD) o cU dl LO O j � f4 O Q O N N N SU m Op Ch N � C + O 249 LL f- IqT T to q;T a) a) M ce) Ln M v 0) v ce) _ 'a)l qcT ItT N r I- N m (9 T T x ql g T W T N a) Iq M O Co I- r- m Lo co ti C] O C O 0) I� (� � r- CD -4' cr O NtflQ?N+-tfl�t^ to C � M N Q = O 0 qT m ON m O CU x O O N O N mq;f C] N 0 (P C" (D OO f-� Cn (fl Cfl C) .F.. y MO N M T T T (n L O T Od. ramr^^ 0 v! rte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F CD ql 0 00 (D O N 0 O C] qcT qcT a) N N I- C] C C7 ti-- CD 00 00 CY) O 0600a)LoNu» to E CO (D N T N O N r N Q N 6F} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d q O M T O N C] O C N C7 f- N 6 O �1 ( i r ("D a U co Y O N Z CT N N U (DN C CD i -0 E O > Ql 7+ 7 m m LU L.L J Cl) So O [A (D O O N co r ti C O fA CD O N r 250 MORE MUNI STATS 4/1/2005 Expected Extrapolated Expected Extrapolated Population % of Pop Main Jail to 100% Min Sec to 100% Usage Usage Bellingham 72,320 71.6% 13.08% 77.4% 26.77% 74.1% Blaine 4,240 4.2% 0.62% 3.7% 1.45% 4.0% Everson/Nooksack 3,050 3.0% 0.51% 3.0% 0.36% 1.0% Ferndale 9,750 9.7% 1.69% 10.0% 3.83% 10.6% Lynden 10,480 10.4% 0.70% 4.1 % 2.37% 6.6% Sumas 1,112 1.1% 0.30% 1.8% 1.33% 3.7% 100,952 100.0% 16.90% 100.0% 36.10% 100.0% Average Portion of Pop Usage Investment E + G /2 Weighted" $ 2,260,000 71.6% 75.8% 74.4% $ 1,681,440 4.2% 3.9% 4.0% $ 90,400 3.0% 2.0% 2.3% $ 51,980 9.7% 10.3% 10.1 % $ 228,260 10.4% 5.4% 7.0% $ 158,200 1.1 % 2.8% 2.2% $ 49,720 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% $ 2,260,000 * 1/3 population 2/3 usage 251 0 E W r L L a a C* 5 5 a c m Z O W n w IL J IL 0 a) � N U. 0LU U C C 7 Q 0�E> Q LO N O J > d O Q N E a) O a) a O 0 C co C 2 -0 E LU CD n 7 U OQ a) o U ca a) M LU a) Q U p in N J Q 0- N9r O N 0 T)) 0 D) a) a E CN N L Cl CN u i C N E m 0 E .0 ti O T c7 (D OO CD N ti T C7 � ti CA M M Ln T M T T O CD r- CD ce) CD Cf) T O O N ti r ti O CD W O U') r ti CW) O CD CD T r- CN N CN T r\ T Cn r1 r1 r1 a0 In O N co w N a0 C6 CD O r-CD O CO MNCO M �O cD v CO M N CO In T N CD T T CD CD Ln lqr r- N C mOCDNcomcoa CD In qr Ln O N O c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w m r N ti w O N CD Lq ti c- N m O M O O T T O N O T co 'cr m'gr O O O ti D)aoOMaoMM w N O O N N O N ctCD CDma0CD ��TOaON� To�0r-InT Nmwm) wC) T O N O N W M N N N O CD Ch T O N --M In co ti In. In LO CO �wCbOr-w aoMToUDMCO tr(6G rlDiTao co T rncDLnvr-Nr-Iqr lqrCONCOT 4tMW T T T N T (7 0 0 0 0 o a -0- 0 MaoTInr�NMC) ti'crwtiaoOUnO CD t- O M N T N T N co T r- LIj a) a) CD O Q T �U .0 7 E O �+ c"; E O f0 O Q o r_ CD O c a) O "= U a) Q 0 'U O E O c 7 0O E •H O CD N N 3 (0 co U O p O T (n_ N N C U N O U IA Q -0 Cn c9 O O E U a0 a) r -a Q 12 N O Cn T O E 0 O Q C .O O Z5 N Q f9 Q_ o ai o CD m CD a) � N R a) Q1 Y :3 U U O O O N a) O () Q E •`� a)N•E (U •� _ 19 c LU LL J U) J x x pi� Iq 252 0 CD cc N D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cc CO OD r LO ti N CO O N � oO OD C7 � N ti CD O (U ti'T (D ti oO O CI] O (U N (D Lo fl r N Cl) Q r Q Cr) N r N (3 co O O r O N 0 N N IL� 6i. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L a D ti CD N Q (D r fl- Q a D CD O QO ItT QO r r 0 0 N(o CD LOr Cp oO f- O N N CD CO LO oO O N O Q ,` N C' ) co O r 0) CID 0 Q Q 0. o 0 o 0 _ ce)N LL 0 D D aM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 � 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 y C c I- u] CD c'7 I� c'7 O O y 'a 00 N r O O O O O C a) C4 I-- � C*) o0 C+] M O O N m O CD l() CD I- C•7 r Q Q � 0 N r Q C 7 N N � 0 T O O r 0 0 C+7 O pj m m m N o m �m C ce) 0. N D (14 0 c +� O V 0 ,O -le � CL N 0 4i. vIz e ce) 00 QQ _ z (6cm ~0-6 N ~ L tn_ a) 0 _ � C 7= 9 c .N � 5� C n= m a) N : j mFnWLLJU)J 2 mm W LLJUJJ Q CF) (D O O N 00 r ti C O N a) O CV 253 N 7 M C. n E o •� a� m _ E o co E 06 Z, J j j C N aa, w E C :3 LL H c O co C Q ai r C C �_ .� 7 W— L7 O U — � C Q to > 'Ip y O �5 N w C ca Z C Lo Z A y 0 o Oin 0NU o 0 a O J N C N d d G N o 0 C 01 O OM[�l J [0 N e 0 QOY m co Na)EE Z 7 -C CD C= C. O M IN En O O w 0 0 LL Z Z) Q Q 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a M_ m 0 M V 0 r �- (D W In W Q N m y' (D 0 r r O Q O O = C C. N 'C '[0 � U LU O V e o e o o e e ,a m m h (D N O (D 1� N U) (D In r (D M) n iao m E NrrMMQr o N C O) = ;, 93-M'c E 'E W N n Nr M 0M M Q (D r-O MN-fV N N 7 0 O O O O O O O � W M N Mlq: N V I73 \ N O Q N Q N o N O W =_ C M 'C x LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 M o m In C M Q M� w l(D O (O (D mLj m 0)Q Q rCD CD CDO 6NM o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O n 0 11 � N O r I N o N r Q M r r CORM la) W 0 O o T o 0 0 0 c I O O r I/) lLQ N i(R IN (M 0) � � CI O r C1 O Mcr) I f�*\o! QO � r N W co c r 0 O o 0 O o 0 0 O N 3 O U M m O CO IT N IT Oi r Nr O O co 0 E o � 0 O 0 0 0 0 e 0 011 p m M Cl) (D Q Ln N I Nca Q (D M M v n to I a7 \ N 1� r Q M M r r l O = N I C. M C m x '2 LU o O O O O f (Dvrinrrrnl co m O O r r Q Q I O U) N I N •� nQI e e o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 pin V Q ca N lOn(R�((DDLr-� CD ~M O 19 In O G m 0 N N r Q N 0 a a a) 61 D. M •C o m LL O W C O m O O O O O N O N O 61 0 0 o 0 0 0 CD NV In to co r CDLn 0 Cl (D M fn M 0)( W (D (y O M N O 1� V r In ti cc 47 r M N O M Q� r M Q Q .- 0 C d �� N r Q N r Q [A M Q LU N CD O M e U V m I73 Z Y lull x O o O m F t E z C E z m M o g 1 U_UCD oa a) m E U mm O-0 (Den E a d = in In W LLJ(nJ � Ica mmLULLJ(AJ N U) E 7 N x as O t2 N C O E O C co 'UD. .0 ►a ri 254 000000010 q) m N O)0000 CD (D If) (D Ih% CT O ) T CD C> r Q O M 0 V N Q 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 N h IC] m LO a 04 C'i v h h h h N 00 _ Cc N G �R :3 X W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)mrOMMO) U) C M (D rl% I(J (D N m o Nl a 0 0 C3 C:> M D U) fl LN a CO f fli O O 'K O O O CD 'Kr h m C O T 0) (O � CO (D N /ant e w m co f7 o r f7 a C! CD C N G 0 0 C o 0 C 0 y O (D N m co m N c (�] (D � h m N a M m T O a e- 0 17 N (!J O N Oi � r 0 0 0 a N 0 M 0) o Q M m M 0) h (D f 1 1 m cn mMvmwoM T 2 Mcl(DNhhv Q) vIn rM m 1 T 1 a? T o NI(7ao-a0 1 QO (DNO M 00 f ry- fa co N T O M 0 N C14 w N m m O� h I aoNr MTN (a LO M T M � r f o O O Q T 0 O m m (nT 0000 M O W m N (D �_ a (D 1 CA a mO M;-) Om 1 O U) N Cl CD v (D (D N n I(] M M m LO U') 1 N N Cl) 1 T f a M m h M h N (l) N h N r Q 4a \ N If) Q a .- 0 0 —0 0 O = N Q N -E fa LW cu Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 maa0Cam) N o Ca ++ mm't M N(D 0m 0r0aoi � OON h MON0 a W o a J 0 m a J E 0 a Q ca z Z Z G fNa E CU E E in m W lL J (q J N N Q Q O M O f U) O r 1() h U( QLq 1 1 M h m IC] v h h m 1 (DInhNQCDh I a05 VvN_mto00 1 (D Y M C (D (D 1 f0 O 1 � r fn hm Nv NN Cm)O i (V MNhNmN I a U) N h (D V CC) W N= aD (D r CA v T a Q Y a fA U m w rn 0 E H Y m G 4) V c N m 0 co E o fa mm LULL J(n JZ w W a U) m J a Z V N a m O" m M M M r (D h (O ri ti (. (n 0) m N 0) N m m N O f` 1() a m O M a (D — a M m M (D m h (D m r M Q m M N m M r 0 (D (D r Q T Co 0 ., 0) N m m N M h r 0� mO (DMm(CIO MCA 0 N m Cam'] N � V N QO � ce) (D r M N O) CA h O) O M N M r fn m hmMM h to w LO O (n N N ChO N � " IC] In � a N h m h N v h N N O [n �f h M�r N CO r h O M h 0 qT h M CTO N 0 to a00r T-M MNto N= Q MN(f V O W 0 h M N O) M r Q 04 O NMMMOMM U) to It M T"It N h"It m w CO co CO c, :f (.)0 vi hl I- Cl) to U) M (D M V (D cl) 0) N — 47 Ci() M (D C6 (n (D ca h N T (D M LO W d E z ~ co�2 F u0co `) 'D w ccaa E -2 C E -p o mm W liJfl»Z T y c fq c G N 0 R a ' T C C ;v 's O ca Q o O (a m Z -D` ui (aN --) O M 63 Z r7 Ih LO CA (0 0 Q C 0 LO Q a 255 START-UP COSTS 2005 2006 Hiring & Outfitting Costs 90,770 - Staff Training & Outfitting 73,396 720,224 Snohomish Beds 110,880 453,600 Supplies, etc - 229,303 275,046 1,403,127 256 N (D M M r M O O r czN 0 N (0 5 N N N O w m r O N c+) O r Q r(pNc*�r(p� OI :t N Ln OD Ln 1� N O M N r II- ti r o N r N co r F— N I� ifl Ln r O Ln 81 OD OD O r Ld Ln U N d 0 0 E o (D L E E V co m W LL J (n J O 7t Qi C) O O N co r ti C O Lv Ln O (V 257 O (L) U) Z 0 H U W O w a H N W -4 a rn H W ly Q) Q h r In V NTco 00 o N m o in T Iq In h rn In M r: C (o Ln O v_ co v Co Q U') Iq� m m T U') h Q�O)OOn'It Q N N V Q lb (Q N lfJ ei M M n W r r M r M r N O) N r Ol N (Q fQ Q o Q (D m (Q CO M Co T Co co M oc m M m V 0) ao v M Q 'Coo (Q m Q V V (ND (O co Q ll) O) CA r Q (Q lf) Q Q O r C Co N Q r M M In N N M C)» h T N lt) n h r 0 M N co (Q r r V r N W r N M Q If) (Q N M o u)m u)mQWLoLo m N h (Q Q n C') Q Clh N lf) 11) m U') N N U') 11) O Cb V 0 m m V N m IT O N O 'It lf) V "Cll) lf) C') N m r w N R m V r� Opr Qm co M if ) Cl r N cDrnvmmncDco 0 rh U)Qn 00Om� lf) Q CQ ll) Cc Q Q) N V 11) h T _m CD CO 0 CO CO N r M CO N Q lr) h OOQO1:1NnQonQo0)O N'T m rh m 0 CD 'T O N M If) CQ r O CO _ N R T T r N QOrCQCQrNnm o Cli cc V Q lf) In fh IT Q Q O W In N N m 1n Cj wi C6 C*7 O Q (Q h r O) m (6 Q V O CQ O: V cl� if ) V lf) C6 Nr nM V IT0ITCjM m V r N In _ co CD Q lf) co h � r MlT Q O) N L V Omh Cpr Mr N j Omj ll¢ CQ GD �Ctlnmv_mv o -) �'- N Q CO CO�Q lfN ~ ) V rm O CQ Cn N (T CO r Q T r co C m (? O '(m r N Q) m M CQ M r M lf) rh n CQ O (Q r lt) V h O h m h m O L nN0CQ m Q CQN M O MIT V wmti0(6M QO O QO (Q CQ CQ m Cl N M Cl T n r�rmvrnnnmoi r co N h r CO T r m r T M n fA 00 lf) In h lT M o T In (Q (Q M 0 r 0 n Q N nmcoOOrnnvm 'TQQCOCArNInRm m In T m cct n M Ct N j actT Q: T clm (Q m Op m n N n 03 IQ CO Cr) CQ N CA 0 In CA T N O m O m lt) n m gm N Q w w w m m V O 0 (Q N CO CQ IT M m (Q_ C) N cl cl n r If! N n'- coQo O_ M V (D QD O N r r m U) Oj N Nr m .Q. N N C') co co co co co V V N r h r CQ lf) r C0 r r Z CO In O N T N N m CO o n Q CQ h V (Q N N (Q CQ V Qom vvn� CQ y r-0NNMN00Om CCbQ In O O_ fA m m CF h r r r Q r 00 lA 0 V 0 IT m M M h N M M M IT m rh N� Cal � n N (Q Q 0, Co m N h Q) ll) n co �_ m Q V M In N m 0 n 0 Q CQ V rh -T- M Q CQ CQ 00 Q n cc Q r Cl to (Q Qp Q N r M m m m M W M N V N p N N m m M m M m T T N r h `- h �N-- r co(6 d o O Q r r O O N N 0MMn V ON h c o N vmmNnOQO(QCO 0 m U') Q M N Q M O CD 9 co m co m co CQ m co N N CO r C0 (Q lt) _ (+) CA r 0 0 (v r h r IT CO W) CO Q> CD CO W) CD T - r` co r V 0 if) U) r-: r- (o r- C7 W (o CO Q N CQ CD U) IT m U-)'O I'. to N N m N Q co Q m lT m O ll) O O- - O O Q) T r Q r Cc ll) (Q V (Q V r�Nvv vOMuiU') 0 cor--" coTnN(Qo —QnrnN rr Q) mQV QW)N 0) co I, co cor r n N ncc! Or m lf)(Q CO ON rn NNmcococococo'T r � � N N L 0 to 4 4 O QO O T N m V 0 Q Q O 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 O N N N N N N N N N N N U ca U C c) O c W -a�EcoE (n C N 7 0 7 (n �mmW LLJZU) o Q 258 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-263A CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: LJH 7/18/06 7125106 FINANCE Originator: E C i_ � � V E D Division Head.- J U L 18 p Z005 L U o Dept Head.- (/[r Prosecutor: UVHATCOM COUNTY Purchasin Bud er: �� COiJNM Fxecritive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: B UDGET DE VELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR 200712008 ATTACHMENTS. GUIDELINES SEPA review required? { ) Yes { ) NO Should Clerk schedule a !tearing ? { ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes { ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public !rearing, 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.) Discussion surrounding the Budget Development Guidelines for 200712008 COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 259 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR 2007-2008 The following represents the policy direction for development of the 2007/2008 budget: 1. Service Levels — The Council recognizes that projected 2007/2008 revenues will likely fall short of funding base level budgets in 2007/2008. The Council requests that the Administration develop a budget that, wherever possible, maintains essential levels of service. A proposal for new or expanded high priority services should be offset by a reduction or elimination of lower priority services or an increase in revenue. 2. Prioritize Services —The Council requests the Administration, in conjunction with departments, prioritize departmental services in light of the mission of the county and the mission of the department. The Council requests that the Administration develop a prioritization of services currently offered, based on the feedback received from the Council in budget policy discussions to date, along with the Administration's own prioritization. 3. Staffing Levels — The Council supports the Administration's desire to avoid layoffs. The Council anticipates that no new positions will be considered unless they are an element of an additional service request (ASRs) that is budget neutral or funded through internal cost savings. The Council will carefully analyze the social and economic impacts in the elimination of positions previously supported by dis- continued grants and external sources of funding. Should the negative impacts of the loss of these positions be deemed too great, the Council will explore all funding options to maintain existing services 4. Consolidation of Functions and Services —The Council encourages the Administration and all departments to, where appropriate, consolidate or integrate similar or compatible functions to improve operational efficiency and public access to county services. 5. Revenues - The Council encourages the Administration to review fees and propose fee changes wherever appropriate. Whenever possible, fees should be structured in order to recover the total cost of providing the associated service, including administrative overhead. Whenever possible, the Admin- istration should seek to recover administrative overhead from grants and contracts. The Council encourages the administration to review all existing Whatcom County taxes, levies, and fees, and to propose increasing, decreasing, or maintaining these revenues to fund general fund expenditures, while supporting policies for ending fund balances and reserves. B. Efficiencies — The Council encourages the Administration and all departments to make every reasonable effort to reduce costs, conserve energy, and carefully utilize public resources while provid- ing the best possible service to the public. 7. Ending Fund Balance and Reserves — The Council requests the Administration to develop the 2007/2008 General Fund Budget so that it provides cash reserves of at least 15 percent of the pro- jected general fund budgeted expenditures. The Administration may utilize fund balance in excess of this limitation to: a) Fund one-time capital purchases and one-time program expenditures; b) Make provision for year 2007/2008 supplemental budgets; and c) Maintain 2006 service levels in the 2007/2008 budget. Whatcom County 2007-2008 Budget Instructions APPENDIX C Page t 260 8. Cooperative Business Operations — The Council encourages the Administration to develop cooperative partnerships with governmental and private entities that provide services in an efficient and cost effective manner. Page 2 APPENDIX C Whatcom County 2007-2008 Budget Instructions 261 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-320 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: PW Committee/ Originator: JPR 711312006 FR EE C E � V 712512006 Introduction Public Heari►ag/ Division Head: JPRR 711312006 `J J U L 18 2006 81812006 Adoption Dept. Head: / l� �� / �� %11/Q& Prosecutor: WHATCQM CoUr Purchasing/Budge! 0' 1 A N L E-ecutive: 7/4—CC, TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Resolution in the matter of the Whatcom County Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2007 through 2012 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo to County Executive and Council Attachment "A"-2007-2012 Capital Project Priority Order and Financial Distribution by Year Attachment "Bl-BY"- Road Fund Balance, Revenue, and Expenditure Projections Attachment "C"—Roadway Priority Rating Program Attachment "D" —Bridge Report 2. 2007-2012 Six Year Transportation IniprovementProgram Resolution Exhibit "A"— 2007-2012 Sir -Year Transportation Improvement Program Exhibit `B"- 2007-2020 Fourteen -Year Ferry Capital Program SEPA review required? { ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( X ) Yes ( } NO SEPA review completed? { ) Yes (X ) NO Requested Date: 81812006 SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT 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.) Each year the County is required to update its Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), per RCW 35.77.010 and RCW 36.81.121. The STIP includes the capital elements of the first six years of the Fourteen -Year Ferry Program. The STIP is intended as a planning tool for local, state and federally funded projects and is designed to identify projects for preliminary engineering, right-of-way purchase and/or construction. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers. Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcoin.wa.us1counciL 262 WHATCOM COUNTY JOSEPH P. RUTAN, P.E. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P`f.°� Assistant Director/County Road Engineer 2011 Young St., Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98225-4052 .IEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. oa Phone: (360)715-7450 Director 9sNiKa1 Fax: (360) 715-7451 Memo TO: The Honorable Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive, and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council FROM: Joseph P. Rutan, Asst. Director/County Road Engineer CC: Jeffrey M. Monsen, Public Works Director DATE: July 13, 2006 SUBJECT: Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, 2007-2012 PW Committee Work Session, Introduction and Adoption Requested Action: The Department of Public Works requests that a Council Public Works Committee work session be scheduled for July 25, 2006 for discussion of the information attached to this memorandum regarding the 2007-2012 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). If approved by the Committee we request that the STIP Resolution and its associated exhibits, 2007-2012 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program and 2007-2020 Fourteen -Year Ferry Capital Program, be introduced at that evenings County Council meeting. We then request that a public hearing be advertised for and held at the August 8, 2006 County Council meeting, with the resolution adopted at said meeting. Backeround and Purpose: Each year the County is required to update its Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, per RCW 35.77.010 and RCW 36.81.121. The County is also required to prepare a Fourteen -Year Ferry Capital Program each year per RCW 36.54.015. The STEP includes the capital elements of the first six years of the Fourteen - Year Ferry Capital Program which is exhibit "B" of the resolution. Information: I- Memorandum to County Executive and Council Attachment "A"- 2007-2012 Capital Project Financial Distribution by Year. Attachment "B 1 "- Road Fund Balance Projections Attachment "B2"- Road Fund Revenue Projections Attachment "133" - Road Fund Expenditure Projections Attachment "C" - Roadway Priority Rating Program Attachment "D"- Bridge Report Attachment "A" is a simplified form of Exhibit "A" to the STIR This simplified form shows priority order of proposed projects as well as expenditures by year. This is being provided in order to facilitate the Public Works Committee work session. Changes made to this form by the Public Works Committee will then be transferred to Exhibit "A" of the Resolution for introduction and eventual adoption. 2- 2007-2012 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Resolution Exhibit "A"- 2007-2012 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Exhibit "B"- 2007-2020 Fourteen -Year Ferry Capital Program 263 m O n 0 G L 0 a c a O L a E r. L O0 CL H C L� r L ;a A K N v cc N c IL �-G N N 0"m o r 0 w 6N2 9 rN to 2 w W w 4'11100 w w 1 w w N r S Y V 7 N b9M N 110 O I n N S ��t�qw� S O O S r 6V9 tl9 WE N `A Q 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 00 NO 0 N 1ul�I 0 � m 0 In 0 u7 w 000 M O N N N wN Q000 ON00 r C w is m to r njw w w tO vi w w ww ww w ww N w w 000 O O o O ov N b O o b N N o n p O o O 00000 N O O oo 1 n Q O N Nw r m w w w b4 4 w" w w w w Q N w w 60 69 w 07 0 0 00 SS O In O O loo s Q O In O u1 O N no O�n 0 O O b 0 N00 0 0 0 Ln C cn Nw gar v v m5 59 w w 0to C/w Nw wfN969 to � N 6M4 6M9 � � 6q rw ti p00oo0p000 K] SNo boo s oo o 0 O5CI o0o0o �0011'l b N o N 0 N oo8poo oLn b 00 00000 OON 00 oo Lo�D 10 ww� R OO N Oww CI w(nr m Nwww w w w uI �www N N N ww w N win ww O N ww�w w �q O Q o 0 o-t 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O G In w In 11nnO C)'�T QOO Ob O u10 mIn O_O 1b In O NO mr w Nv [O b ON NwwYJ N O h Nw7�n 4w m NNr M N o00 010 N1� O In ON f7 �n N wow o 1n m N 22 0101 N [� wG9 www69 (� In ww w�p ww N N w N ww N w w 69696906,( ^nj ww iH fRw ww w w (9 bi CO 0uao �n ao +n nmoo2o0 M a N o Q wmw uI in N w o LO r o vN +n C) $ N 8 N CD w w w rv7 Cj r b9 in w t9 w tR w w w w O w w N CI m In m N mN O o fp Nm N r N mm p m NOD r w r r ��m w d N O o m o o O m o o s o m 0000pa000mlo r o o m 0 r o 0 o o o oo/oo r a o o p o 0 o r o m o m o 0 o o 0 ao r 0 o r m o 000 N o o 0 0 a 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m U Z m v � � m Y L m E R N O 0m L 7 N ; Q E } c E m � ° o 0 m ,� EE c m m�j m Jab a o E E Cs m b U V K mom C m m ago C N U 'O 7 U L n N c=m m— O 42 C c' m m m U s m rm y C O— 9L > m m W a c V 017 m m O E o m Y D m Ln},c c }' Gd c E E m 'p IL0 m cy `Q cc Z 9 0� D C$ M tm oh'Z cR' w ivLL' O` m j q O 7i o m my a m o9 ma a m m ry ++ m° O O x.T 3 m m x m s x c m 0. X c c m x J b a a m a� '� z os m m m J m Q '� o- 3 D E [q 3 Q c m m Y u L pp m m c m o.. m r m o ue C: m 7 c a .0 O E m m c .. m o m a c LL K a D m- c L m m m m m 4 m LL D = 07 U m .. m L LL E D m L C U C C O m 0 r m ..��.. w E mCC m J O L p .. L m C a R• _ 'moo C x E p Q? O Q C m F; y LL L 0 7 Z 7 W c N N a b W m m m m 0 O m m N N D E m O G O- a (fJmJO i� CSSOU J mm 0.} �(AJSm2� H 4 ZN(7 UCA u!=f7 W O J7LL 7V1 »u, kPOPd O O O b r N M 7 .n (D r m m 0 .-NNNNNNN N NNM M � N M CIM Au7M 1-1-1- MCi I+ GC i7M m b7 N V �7 CI o O O tlr1 O' w 04 fV w w O O O N Ip loos w w N 10 a�1 Pl M GI w w w j n O 10 �O � W N w t7 � tOV N w N w w It N N w C A u> ai YI r w w w n n n m Dui v ari ui ri w w w 264 m co t~ v n N SCION cu C a4 C 'cu LL m O O T r 1- N T T N I- N T r ti CO D Or O T 0 O r I- O r 000 .-. OR N .-. O0O O .-. N T .-. O T N a) � V! o 0 0 0 0 0 0 aC w 669 6�4 69 69- 613� K3 69 r C) CD C C C W m cp � O T 69 N O T T 69 N O T T 6F} ti N T T 6i O CD O T 69 0 1- T T 69 O T T 63 M O T T 6i O M 69 m T 6i LO T 69 It w ��. 69 v In 0 T 6i LO U-) 69 + r U') In 1- i, O O T s- N 0 T m N O N 0 s- w M C") cn LO N ch C N It O — � ti w O v LO ca O r CD C O CA 1- Z v: . _. C6 69 ... U)- 669 � �. C6 64 6 Eva} In 6v9 6 66� � N 6ct 4 64 c 5 669 N 66� N 6c� m r ti .-. L� N LN CD 1� .-. m .-. CCn O .. CV CD .-. V O .-. O CO .-. CD LY? r. It OD .-. c M Lt . .-. O N .-. O 0) co.-. O a) N Q- N O C V W Ln 69 6 63 r 69 CD 69 63 CD 69 I� 69 Op 69 LA r 6i .... LLB N 63 ... N T 69 ... L T 63 .... 6 i .. N 69 .. (D V y.0 :3 U1 C CD 1- O OD 'KtN Cn M CO 't T CO OD CD LO O O I CV Ch r V CV U') r coO CO T CD O (A M O O 0 O N s- O > V T 69 N 6i N 63 CV 6i T 69 s- 69 N 69 Ch 69 4 69 N r-: 6F} 6 69 T 69 O 69 Lti N v CD m CD m CD OD 0 O 0 O Lii Z N r LA OO CD 4 v In 4 0 m c 7 m m 1- OD O v L6 m N Ch O OD 4 CD In li CD v 1. v m li N N 4 O CD 4 63 6i 69 69 69 69 69 69 V9- 69 69 69 N O C. a)T Z M C, ti It N O O (� Ch r U) N v N I- 't Cp CO N U.)0 LL7 N O r 0 r 0 0 ti i-- (A U) I� O N U') Lq f• (A U') OD OD OD m O t m Lti T O W i v 6i v 6- 69 6i 63 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 66} O m d d CCD (7 N I- N ti 69 O C) U7 OD 6i 0 CA I- OD 63 O CO Cfl OD _ 69 M In CO CA 6i s- O 0) 0; _ 69 V 0 LO c- 6N9 O In CD s- 6N4 OD N CD r dN4 i-- T T N M T Co N 6N14 m cn T C6 GO. O 0 Co C6 6% O O N 4 6 - ` O O O N T N N N c7 N Kt N Ui N (0 O N f• O N OD O N C) O N O N T N N N } U m i m V m U m 5 m i m C�j m U m 0 Q. 0 n Q. a. n n Q. 265 d r a CK n r. f.7 � C a C41 n Q .O 4. E 3 0 V LL LL Co 3 di0 SNON LL w Li 0 c7 a _ m O y M 0 ao r co o 1� 0 m M ti M M V V 0 ti lri u, CR rn N 0 M r M 0 N m 0 C7 v � Et3 64 64 64 Eta 64 64 63 Et3 64 64 Eta d4 wl W C C m O M O () J (D r 64 O co N Eta M N N 64 cD r N 64 m OMN r Eta l!') r Eta O N 64 M V CO 69 N LO T V 64 N 0 O t` 64 0 m O 64 O ON D r da O r 0 Eti C O C O V y y 1� N 1- r 03 LO r LO O 1� m O mLO (O ao r O CD 01 r O W O r ul LI) N 0 M O r N m1� N (i) N r r N N _W fD CV N M M r f 7 N O M (i) C7 N O N N O � z 64 Eta it3 6'i 4R 64 Ef3 Eti 63 64 d3 Ef3 03 64 4! r (D M %r CO T OO U) CO r 0) OD O) C Z y 0 > 0 U1 0 Eta O T r Eta O EH m M O 64 (D M O 69 N O U3- N M O EH M O Eta O M O 64 r M O 64 N M O Eta M M O Eta M M O 64 R M _O 64 C Q) r O M 1- 0 M r O 0 N M 0 M r �. N CY C ] V COD tMD (~D COD I� ti t C V O Eta O U3. O 64 O 64 O Eta O 64 O 6H 0 64 0 CR O 64 O Et3 O 64 0 Et3 O 64 E CD CD N 0) N N rOr N (D co O w CO O O rN O O CD CD N O CD N O O N CD O N CD CD N •_� N w 0�00100�0�O� 64 64 tFt 64 tFt 64 tFt x CO +'' 0) O CD r V N r 0) CO r V (D r O N r 1Z r O O O CDO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C$ O 4fi O 64 O Et3 0 64 O t9 O 64 0 Eti O 69 0 69 O 4R O 64 O 64 O 64 0 64 N (D 0) co 0) N M r M 1� CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LL V 604 V tFt Q U3. (D 664 co V9 tFt (D ort O 0) O 664 O 0 64 O N O tf9 O N O 0 64 M 0) V CO CO m O 0 V N m ti O M O M 1-- 0) O O c0 O O O O O 0) O (D O O O 0) O O O O O 03 N O LL r 64 0 Efi r Eta 0 6O r 64 O 64 0 ER 0 w 0 64 0 64 0 64 0 64 0 69 N ,(D a) 0 LL LL %• CD V' 0 EA (D O (D 0 64 0:)1� (D O 0 EA N m 0 69 en M m o 6% IP) ZI d 64 LI) M M 0 63 O r W 0 63 O 0 M 0 Et3 O O M 0 64 O O M 0 64 O O M 0 EA O O M 0 Eta 0 O CO 0 Ul Ul ca G) ' (p T CO r 0 M r- r O r r T O T O M N N O � M O O M m O 0 O In r O CD 0 r O O m r O O In O O m T O O 0 r 0 CD m T O CL 64 U3. 64 64 w Eta 64 63 Eta Eta w 64 Eta Eta �O O O 1- N r r r O N CD M M IP) O W 41 N O d LL ci V 1� N 64 O N C) Eta 1- N C) Eta co M (h 64 co M Cr) 64 M V C) 6H Mr— 0) a) Et3 O 69 1— r h N 64 CO M V Eta 0) V ER O cD V 64 N 1� s� to :3 R c6 d Ql a r V r r 6R V ti 117 r r 64 In OD CtJ Ef3 co M 0) r T 64 0) IT (V t; 0) N r 64 ti OO C'] r U3.64 O 0 r � r M 10 V r m � r 64 V CO Un Q 0 L() c() r ER M M 0) m r EF> N LO M co r 64 L O r N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O m (a (a (a (vv (ma a n a a (a n a U U Q U OO N U) 0 z 42 o m O W �oov O a) N L e Lq N f0 � ti m e L _ o- � Q it ^ ` C o O O Q a 0 O (n O N N p Y1 ' d m ° v O J > C m s U. co N C3 N w LL J m Q m U O W LL 0 91 �a z 266 v M c. a; ao r- v N C O O = cq N O C IL ° 0_ 3 L U 0 E o 0 U. 4L r+ � a sa3O N d Y C O C. H x (D CO � T M (D T C)r N M OD CD N CA � T N Ln co � O T m Ln C) r N N CO N C:, (D N cr) N M N a0 N IT M (D O Cr) OD MCC! NCO Ce) C:,N N Lo O CO N w 69 69 EF} 6. 6469 N3 6) CF} £H 6H 69 6'} 69 w C r n CC j N CN7 CD Imo. M M CA N CD � cm CO CD M CO V: C:) C!) O N O m pc.6Cn c i 69 64 69 64 6F} Cn 64 N_ 6F} M 691 I- 00 (D M T V O N m a0 O Cn r C LO O p r U 'T T N T O O C6 T Cn N 4 T N Iti T (D N T N O Cn T Cn T 6 T Cn h r - r Cn 1� (D T Cn Ln I� T Ln T 00 T a0 r co T I O T T T a N 6F} 6F} 6g 69} 63 6F} 69 63 63 64 �} 6Fj 69 6F3 N T T a C)O O O C,O a) T C)(D 0 Cn 0 Cn 0 0 0 t O O T a O O O O O O 0 (Al 64 & J- 69 69 64 � K) 669} 6F} Y E 0 (D T M 'IT Cn N CD a0 T Cp M T I- I- T a 00 p r T N a a T a C) N O O N O O N C7 O N a O N CD O N QI C)O a O C)a a a O a a a O a 63, 64 61), 63 69 S4 63 64 64 64 69 64 01, 69 p' U a1 wQ I- N ti a 69 In N ti a 64 00 N CIO a 64 00 N (� s 69 CD Cn Il a 69 a Ln CIO a 69 T I- CIO a 69 CO CD 00 a 64 LO T CA a (ra CO M O a 691 N (D C� a 64 CD CIO Q� o 64 N +7 N O i O LU ci w N CM Ca 69 Cn T T C)O 69 m N C* 64 N CC) M O 6) O t ti C)T 69 a (D T 64 co N r T 69 CD Cn T T 64 m0 CIO T T da r N T 6F), N T 69 CD I,- N T da C CD Ln M O 0o ll� a (D 'T m O V: T CA M O m M O m M O (D C7 ti I~ M CD w M (D m M CD C7 V: W a O O O a a a a a a a O Q 64 64 6a 6F) 6F} 6F) 64 64 69 69 64 6F} C U (D cD (D O ti N u7 OR O 0o a0 O CA a C)N O Cn O Cn O ti a T M T O 0 T a a a a a T T T T r T T Q 64 da 6F} 64 da 69 64 69 69 6) 64 69 ++ C w O W () 0 IT W IT Ln IT CD M � qqr T O O O M T CD N C3) Ln N CO ua N CY) 'O E C7 C ;t O r N CD N N N N M C? M C') T T T r T T T q 69 64 6F} da 69 6F} 6413 da 64 69 69 69 6F} 69 4) CL LL 0 � ti O T 69 CD It O C 5 64 00 ti T T 69 CO (D M T 64 I- N M T 6F} CIO 00 N T 64 T M T 6F} It M M N 69 CY) T I- a 69 N Ln M O da CO ti CD O 69 Cn a a T 69 N M O T 64 O CD C) T 64 N -r3 p d CJ} X ?y O T a 69 V T a 69 N T a 6) m r a 69 � r a 64 T O 69 COO T O 69 m r O 69 C� r a 64 03 m T a 69 (D T O 6F} w T a 6) CD I- r O (4 ti r a 69 0 CO (D r T p0 CD 0 M M ti CD O v O v oo v 603 64 6Fi (Ja 6F) 6F3 a r 64 a T 6) r T da r r 69 T T 64 N T 69 N r 69 M T 6F} ` O d m m N N N N N C) O N O N O N C) N N r N r N m (aa (a (a (a (a CO I a a I a I `o a I a a m m CD m CD U m Q 0 N 0 o e LQ Nr CN N � C U U a `Q IL o t9 c7 a O 0 0 N N N Q m U W O Z 267 ATTACHMENT "C" 2006 Rating UC UC 18 19 29 31 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 38 39 39 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 Road Name Marine Drive Sunrise Road Lake Louise Road Lake Louise Road Yew Street Road Lake Louise Road Lake Whatcom Boulevard Lake Louise Road Lake Louise Road Marine Drive Lake Whatcom Boulevard Lake Whatcom Boulevard North Shore Road Lincoln Road Drayton Harbor Road Drayton Harbor Road Harborview Road Marine Drive Mountain View Road Cain Lake Road Badger Road (W) Cable Street Kickerville Road Marine Drive Mosquito Lake Road North Telegraph Road Van Wyck Road Marine Drive Mosquito Lake Road Mountain View Road North Shore Road South Pass Road South Pass Road Bennett Drive Haxton Way Marine Drive Mosquito Lake Road Hopewell Road Lake Whatcom Boulevard Semiahmoo Drive Shintaffer Road Axton Road (E) Ferndale Road Goodman Road Birch Point Road Cedarville Road Kickerville Road Marine Drive Mosquito Lake Road Mosquito Lake Road North Telegraph Road Whatcom County Priority Rating Program From Locust Street Birch Bay Lynden Road Sudden Valley Campground UAB Spring Valley Dr (private) Lake Whatcom Boulevard Seaplane Road Gate 5 (SV) UAB Old Marine Drive Cable Street Southern Ct (private) Bellingham C/L Shintaffer Road Harborview Road Blaine CIL Lincoln Road Wynn Road Olson Road NE Cain Lk Rd Sunrise Road Terrace Avenue (N) Bay Road Kwina Road North Fork Road Sorenson Road Hannegan Road Alderwood Avenue Township Line Lake Terrell Road MP 1.00 Goodwin Road North Pass Road Airport Drive Kwina Road Ferndale Road Hutchinson Creek Siper Road Lake Louise Road Elderberry Lane Lincoln Road SR 539 Ulrich Road Johnson Road Semiahmoo Drive Goshen Road Arnie Road Bancroft Road Old Garbage Dump Road Middle Fork Bridge Badger Road (E) To Bennett Drive Badger Road (W) UAB Austin Street Samish Way Gate 5 (SV) Lake Louise Road UAB Sudden Valley Campground Alderwood Avenue Strawberry Point Road South Bay Drive MP 1.00 Harborview Road Blaine Road Harborview Road Drayton Harbor Road Old Marine Drive Ferndale CIL Lake Whatcom Boulevard Markworth Road Lake Whatcom Boulevard Arnie Road Ferndale Road SR 542 Badger Road (E) SR 542 Locust Street North Fork Road Olson Road Y Road North Pass Road Frost Road Bakerview Road (W) Slater Road Rural Avenue Middle Fork Bridge Goodwin Road Southern Ct (private) Blaine CIL Birch Bay Drive Hannegan Road Ferndale CIL Meadow Lane Birch Bay Village Entrance SR 542 Birch Bay Lynden Road Wynn Road Hutchinson Creek Township Line Sumas Road FFC 16 8 7 16 16 7 17 17 7 16 17 7 16 7 7 8 7 16 16 7 7 16 8 7 8 8 7 16 8 7 16 7 7 17 7 7 8 8 7 7 7 7 16 8 7 8 8 16 8 8 8 Page 1 of 6 2006 Rating 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47, 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 Road Name South Bay Drive Vista Drive Vista Drive Bakerview Road (W) Beach Way Ferndale Road Gooseberry Spur Nugent Road Rural Avenue Silver Lake Road Goodwin Road Mosquito Lake Road Mosquito Lake Road Northwest Drive Northwood Road Nugent Road Silver Lake Road Wiser Lake Road (E) APA Road Bay Road Benson Road Kickerville Road Lummi Shore Road Maplewood Avenue (W) Nugent Road Siper Road Tyee Drive Wiser Lake Road (W) Birch Bay Lynden Road Goshen Road H Street Road Hemmi Road (E) Hemmi Road (E) Lake Samish Drive (W) Lake Whatcom Boulevard Lummi Shore Road Northwood Road Slater Road South Pass Road Van Buren Road Van Buren Road West Shore Drive Boundary Bay Road Ferndale Road Goodwin Road Grandview Road Jackson Road Johnson Road Lake Samish Drive (W) Laurel Road (W) Legoe Bay Road Whatcom County Priority Rating Program From Lake Whatcom Boulevard Ferndale CIL Grandview Road Bellingham CIL Slater Road Slater Road Lummi view Drive Legoe Bay Road Curtis Road SR 542 Sorenson Road SR 9 MP 0.94 Pole Road (W) Badger Road (E) Blizard Road Rock Quarry SR 539 Tyee Drive Kickerville Road Teller Road Rainbow Road Cagey Road Bellingham CIL Ferry Dock MP 0.81 Benson Road Ritter Road Portal Way Fazon Road Axling Road Hannegan Road Everson Goshen Road Nulle Road MP 2.07 Lummi View Drive Pangborn Road Beach Way Frost Road Hampton Road MP 3.34 Legoe Bay Road APA Road Marine Drive South Pass Road Point Whitehorn Way Birch Bay Drive James Road Summeriand Road UAB Nugent Road To 'Brannigan Creek Grandview Road Bay Road Bennett Drive Sucia Drive Ulrich Road Ferry Dock Granger Road Slater Road Rock Quarry South Pass Road MP 0.94 Old Garbage Dump Road Ritter Road Pangborn Road West Shore Drive South Pass Road Hannegan Road Boundary Bay Road Bruce Road Boundary Bay Road Grandview Road Marine Drive Bakerview Road (W) Blizard Road Hopewell Road Roosevelt Road SIR 539 MP 4.20 Cedarville Road Sunrise Road Everson Goshen Road Mission Road Summeriand Road Seaplane Road MP 0.77 Halverstick Road Lake Terrell Road Kendall Road Lindsay Road Halverstick Road Nugent Road Johnson Road Slater Road Hopewell Road Jackson Road Grandview Road Boundary Bay Road Lake Samish Drive (N) Aldrich Road West Shore Drive FFC 8 17 8 17 8 7 7 8 17 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 14 8 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 8 8 17 8 8 8 7 7 8 8 8 7 8 7 8 8 8 8 8 Page 2 of 6 269 Whatcom County Priority Rating Program 2006 Rating Road Name From To FFC 51 Lummi View Drive Lummi Shore Road Goosebery spur 8 51 Marine Dr 1 Edwards Dr Gulf Road Marina rive 8 51 Northwood Road UAB Badger Road (E) 17 51 Northwood Road Hampton Road UAB 8 51 Olson Road Aldergrove Road Mountain View Road 8 51 Slater Road Lake Terre[[ Road Haxton Way 7 51 South Bay Drive Brannigan Creek Park Road 8 51 South Pass Road Kendall Road Silver Lake Road 8 51 Y Road North Shore Road Jensen Road 8 52 Curtis Road Country Lane Rural Avenue 17 52 Hannegan Road Smith Road (E) Ten Mile Road 7 52 Hovander Road Smith Road (W) Ferndale CIL 16 52 Lake Samish Drive (N) Lake Samish Drive (W) Lake Samish Drive (E) 8 52 Laurel Road (E) SR 539 Hannegan Road 8 52 Nugent Road Sunrise Road Legoe Bay Road 8 52 Pole Road (W) Northwest Drive SR 539 7 52 Smith Road (W) Hovander Road Ferndale CIL 16 53 Berthusen Road Loomis Trail Road West Main Street 8 53 Birch Bay Drive Alderson Road Harborview Road 7 53 Cain Lake Road Skagit County Line NE Cain Lk Rd 7 53 Country Lane Rural Avenue Bancroft Road 16 53 Everson Goshen Road Smith Road (E) Hemmi Road (E) 7 53 Fazon Road Goshen Road Hemmi Road (E) 8 53 H Street Road SR 539 Axling Road 7 53 H Street Road Sunrise Road Blaine CIL 7 53 Halverstick Road Crape Road Garrison Road 8 53 Hannegan Road Van Wyck Road Smith Road (E) 7 53 Haxton Way Balch Road Kwina Road 7 53 James Street Road Bellingham CIL Bakerview Road (E) 16 53 Lake Samish Drive (N) Lake Samish Drive (E) Old Samish Road 8 53 Laurel Road (W) Aldrich Road SR 539 8 53 Lummi Shore Road Kwina Road Haxton Way 8 53 Main Street Bruce Road Custer School Road 8 53 Marine Drive Gulf Road Roosevelt Road 8 53 Old Samish Road MP 2.51 Bellingham CIL 8 53 Portal Way Grandview Road Faris Road 16 53 Portal Way Birch Bay Lynden Road Blaine CIL 7 53 Rock Road Sumas Road Nims Road 8 53 Smith Road (E) Noon Road Mission Road 7 53 Smith Road (E) Mission Road SR 542 7 53 Valleyview Road Birch Bay Lynden Road Haynie Road 8 53 Van Dyk Road Thei[ Road Everson Goshen Road 8 54 Airport'Drive Alderwood Avenue Airport Way 16 54 Bay Road Blaine Road Kickervilie Road 7 54 Birch Bay Lynden Road Delta Line Road Enterprise Road (N) 7 54 Bruce Road Bay Road Main Street 8 54 Grandview Road UAB Enterprise Road 7 54 Halverstick Road Northwood Road Van Buren Road 8 54 Halverstick Road Van Buren Road Crape Road 8 54 Hampton Road UAB Northwood Road 7 54 Hannegan Road Bellingham CIL Van Wyck Road 16 270 Page 3 of 6 Whatcom County Priority Rating Program 2006 Rating Road Name From To FFC 54 Harksell Road Enterprise Road Enterprise Road (N) 7 54 Haxton Way Mackenzie Road Balch Road 7 54 Laurel Road (W) Northwest Drive UAB 17 54 Olson Road Vista Drive Aldergrove Road 8 54 Portal Way Faris Road Birch Bay Lynden Road 7 54 Seacrest Drive Sunrise Road Scenic Estates 8 54 Sunrise Road Nugent Road Seacrest Drive 8 54 Van Dyk Road Hannegan Road Theil Road 8 55 Enterprise Road (N) Harksell Road Brookwood Drive 7 55 Hampton Road Northwood Road Slotemaker Road 7 55 Loomis Trail Road Blaine Road Portal Way 8 55 Lummi View Drive Gooseberry Spur Mackenzie Road 7 55 Slater Road Ferndale Road RIR Crossing 7 55 Sucia Drive BMP Beach Way 8 55 Van Buren Road Lindsay Road Badger Road (E) 7 55 Y Road Jensen Road SR 542 8 56 Badger Road (E) Garrison Road North Telegraph Road 8 56 Bancroft Road Marine Drive Country Lane 16 56 Birch Bay Lynden Road Enterprise Road (N) Rathbone Road 7 56 Cedarwood Avenue Bennett Drive Bellingham CIL 17 56 Grandview Road 1-5 UAB 16 56 Hampton Road Lynden CIL UAB 17 56 Hampton Road Slotemaker Road Van Buren Road 7 56 Hemmi Road (E) SR 539 Hannegan Road 8 56 Loomis Trail Road Bob Hall Road Berthusen Road 8 56 Northwest Drive Axton Road (W) Paradise Road 16 56 Nulle Road Lake Samish Drive (W) 1-5 8 56 Portal Way Brown Road Grandview Road 16 56 Roosevelt Road Marine Drive Tyee Drive 8 56 Siper Road SR 9 MP 0.81 8 56 Slater Road Haxton Way Ferndale Road 7 56 South Pass Road Nooksack CIL Goodwin Road 7 56 Weidkamp Road Badger Road (W) H Street Road 8 57 Alderwood Avenue Marine Drive Airport Drive 16 57 Alderwood Avenue Airport Drive Bellingham CIL 17 57 Bakerview Road (E) Bellingham CIL Bellingham CIL 16 57 Bakerview Road (W) Bennett Drive Bellingham CIL 16 57 Birch Bay Lynden Road MP 4.20 Delta Line Road 7 57 Birch Bay Lynden Road Rathbone Road Berthusen Road 7 57 Birch Point Road Birch Bay Village Entrance Birch Point Loop (East) 7 57 Birch Point Road Birch Point Loop (East) Shintaffer Road 7 57 Cottonwood Avenue Bennett Drive Bellingham CIL 17 57 Everson Goshen Road SR 542 Smith Road (E) 7 57 Lincoln Road Blaine CIL Shintaffer Road 7 57 Meadow Lane Goodman Road Roosevelt Road 8 57 Northwest Drive Paradise Road Pole Road (W) 7 57 Point Whitehorn Road Grandview Road Birch Bay Drive 7 57 Slater Road RIR Crossing Rural Avenue 16 57 Slater Road Rural Avenue Pacific Highway 16 57 Sunrise Road Badger Road (W) H Street Road 7 58 Birch Bay Drive Harborview Road Shintaffer Road 7 271 Page 4 of 6 Whatcom County Priority Rating Program 2006 Rating Road Name From To FFC 58 Birch Bay Lynden Road Harborview Road Blaine Road 7 58 Birch Bay Lynden Road Blaine Road Portal Way 7 58 Breckenridge Road Nooksack CIL Sorenson Road 8 58 Custer School Road Creasy Road Birch Bay Lynden Road 8 58 Everson Goshen Road Hemmi Road (E) Pole Road (E) 7 58 Harborview Road Birch Bay Drive Lincoln Road 7 58 Kickerville Road Grandview Road Bay Road 7 58 Lindsay Road Van Buren Road Van Buren Road 7 58 Northwest Drive Smith Road (W) Axton Road (W) 16 58 Sorenson Road Breckenridge Road North Telegraph Road 8 58 West Main Street Berthusen Road Lynden CIL 8 59 Birch Bay Lynden Road Berthusen Road Tromp Road (city limits) 16 59 Grandview Road Enterprise Road Dahlberg Road 7 59 Lake Whatcom Boulevard Strawberry Point Road MP 2.07 17 59 Northwest Drive MP 1.68 Smith Road (W) 16 59 Roosevelt Road Tyee Drive Meadow Lane 8 59 Samish Way Galbraith Lane Bellingham CIL 16 59 Semiahmoo Drive Birch Point Road Elderberry Lane 7 59 Stadsvold Road Haynie Road Sweet Road 7 59 Van Wyck Road BMP Hannegan Road 7 60 Birch Bay Drive Point Whitehorn Way State Park (north gate) 7 60 Birch Bay Drive State Park (north gate) Alderson Road 7 60 Enterprise Road Ferndale CIL Harksell Road 7 60 Enterprise Road (N) Brookwood Drive Birch Bay Lynden Road 7 60 Haynie Road Valleyview Road Delta Line Road 7 60 Kickerville Road Birch Bay Lynden Road Loomis Trail Road 8 60 Samish Way Old Samish Road Galbraith Lane 8 60 Weidkamp Road Loomis Trail Road Badger Road (W) 8 61 Bennett Drive Marine Drive Airport Drive 16 61 Britton Road Emerald Lake Way Bellingham CIL 16 61 Mountain View Road Rainbow Road Lake Terrell Road 7 61 Northwest Drive Bellingham CIL MP 1.68 16 61 Old Samish Road Lake Samish Drive (N) MP 2.51 8 61 Park Road South Bay Drive SR 9 8 61 Slater Road Pacific Highway Northwest Drive 16 61 Smith Road (E) SR 539 Hannegan Road 7 61 Sweet Road Blaine CIL Stadsvold Road 7 62 Axton Road (W) Northwest Drive Aldrich Road 16 62 Axton Road (W) Aldrich Road SR 539 7 62 Britton Road SR 542 Emerald Lake Way 16 62 Custer School Road Main Street Creasy Road 8 62 Enterprise Road (N) Birch Bay Lynden Road Loomis Trail Road 8 62 Lakeway Drive Bellingham CIL Terrace Avenue (N) 16 62 Van Buren Road Badger Road (E) MP 3.34 8 63 Bender Road Boundary Road (E) Visser Road 8 63 Haynie Road Stadsvold Road Valleyview Road 7 64 Alderson Road Birch Bay Drive Blaine Road 8 64 Baker Lake Road Skagit County Line MP 3.93 7 64 Gulf Road Marine Drive Tyee Drive 7 64 Hannegan Road Ten Mile Road Pole Road (E) 7 64 Hannegan Road Pole Road (E) Scott Ditch 7 272 Page 5 of 6 Whatcom County Priority Rating Program 2006 Rating Road Name From To FFC 64 Hannegan Road Scott Ditch Lynden C/L 7 64 Marina Drive Edwards Drive APA Road 8 65 Airport Drive Airport Way Bennett Drive 16 65 Axton Road (W) Ferndale CIL Northwest Drive 16 65 Benson Road Visser Road Boundary Road (E) 8 65 Delta Line Road Badger Road (W) Haynie Road 7 65 Nugent Road Granger Road Ferry Dock 8 66 Austin Street Lake Louise Road Cable Street 16 66 Boundary Road (E) SR 539 Benson Road 8 66 Loomis Trail Road Sunrise Road Bob Hall Road 8 66 Nulle Road 1-5 Skagit County Line 7 66 Smith Road (E) Hannegan Road Noon Road 7 66 Smith Road (W) Northwest Drive SR 539 7 66 Tyee Drive APA Road Gulf Road 7 67 Lummi Shore Road Smokehouse Road Cagey Road 8 67 Northwood Road Halverstick Road Boundary Road (E) 8 67 Terrace Avenue (N) Lakeway Drive Cable Street 16 67 Van Buren Road Everson CIL Hampton Road 7 68 Badger Road (W) Delta Line Road Sunrise Road 7 68 Badger Road (W) Markworth Road SR 539 7 68 Boundary Road (E) Bender Road Northwood Road 8 68 Country Lane Bancroft Road Curtis Road 17 68 Lake Terrell Road Slater Road Mountain View Road 7 68 Marine Drive Bennett Drive Bellingham CIL 16 68 Yew Street Road Bellingham CIL Spring Valley Dr (private) 16 69 Grandview Road Jackson Road Blaine Road 7 69 Lummi Shore Road MP 0.77 Smokehouse Road 8 69 Smith Road (W) Ferndale CIL Northwest Drive 16 69 Tyee Drive Gulf Road Benson Road 7 71 Kwina Road Haxton Way Lummi Shore Road 7 71 Rainbow Road Mountain View Road Kickerville Road 7 72 Visser Road Bender Road Benson Road 8 273 Page 6 of 6 d U) U C'• C d U UFlo C 7 U C N N 'C a) to U � N O d Y (Dd E '0 "O LL - O C O d 2 U C C w N-o "O C m c m U 3 O `p µ N o U IR' 0 c 2 to ° m c m U U d U-g'S ate) 00 m m 0o m d N Op CO O r e- N r N N N N N N N ❑ Y v a O o O 0 O 0 r 0 r 0 0 r 0 r 0 r 0 r 0 r CD r o a- o M M CO 0 w o o t- .- T (D N N N N N { N N = Q N N N CD O CD CD CD CD CDr r r r o U) ti ti OD 0 0 O r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a (V O O O O r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N N N N N N N N N N 0 a N N N ti 0 N y •o 6. d •Yo m do ` YdC a)1... a)oL.. C 0 m -0aa2 -0 L -o C � C a C -0 L C m� �d �v a(D �a)4-. �dOU ti m m mC m m m m m m M d a) d (D d d a) d 0) d d d d 0) d 0) d = U C13 U U wO + U mm V 0 0mrorodro U U U U yroro U U CL O _ Cl d Cl m (p O U) _ d d _ a d Q' O Q' v J m LL U LL rx LL d O U) CD c�u d o v c a o a o a v CO o . �+ I� Y O Z= m w C m� o x w Y .� �❑ ❑❑ LL U m -� d O O` m C J C O d -O C O ro E O d 3 d m m CO vi 'C Ol E O �' 'E S C_ J c m C m m E E d w E O�— m x c e m� U N d o ` d .7 m Y ro m L y u) t zi t 3 m o d v v, o ro E tZ d m 2 m cci o d= ¢ r m 2 0 o o_ Q= I U a = m m � j fn C E d C L d L E a a)Y d d ` Y E O Y Y Y7 (D Y m U Y E OP LL o O❑ d U a)W } y d U .Y C••, U .:L U y (� N Y 2 U U H 1 Q) C U d Q. Z 1p U .3 U C (} C .L C E a)om -0 v LL o :° c m a) �j .ro m U U m Y d U 3 Y :ti O C O (D0 2 m O U)o C a) ~ a)LL ~ U (` I L H m` o" m can can o¢ o c U m a o 0 Z U 00 v o 0 o CD CD 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — A o -qF 0 00 0 w 0 co 0 r 0 (D 0 LD O r o Iti 0 N 0 O 0 I;t 0 CA Co "Rt 0 0 0 0 U) 0 N 0 O o CD N o CO 0 M o (D CD (D E I-- N CO 'ch (D I-- cO M 1- (o U) ti O ti r to I` co uo O r I�r N IT O ti r 0 m U7 CO O Iti I,- I` to ti O CO M ti 14, M_ N_ (C) CD In co U) � f` 2 Z O h NCO co co OD CO CO cn (n CO CON CO CO CO CO OD coN 000 OD CO ONO OD OD 0 CO a0 a0 COOD CO 00 I-- C O❑ O r( 00 N O r V7 (D a r r CV N N Q) ('] O r QI r •O Q3 0 0- D r (D N Y r O m O U) r � N m C!• r m U) r co N ('7 M O 0 r tt D) "t O r r O C) r N r d' N o V U z (0n E v v c N c v c L = == c m c ro c ro c ro c ro c m c m c m c m ro ro ro c d d- d v- t-- v - •- ro c c c c c c c c c c c c S v m m ro m m m m m u? �? }? a: Y Y Y c c c d LL d LL U v tL v U- U v LL U U U U U U .c ,C C ,� .S c .0 c •C 'c4 '(n r N M v In m r� ao rn a r r r N r (h r M m 2 m 2 (o 2 ro 2 m 2 m 2 m 2 m 2 m 2 co' 2 2 2i N M 'd 0 (D I.- 00 O Or r 274 I SPONSORED BY: Public Works 2 PROPOSED BY: 3 INTRODUCTION DATE: 4 5 6 RESOLUTION NO. 7 8 9 A RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY 10 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 11 FOR THE YEARS 2007 THROUGH 2O12 12 13 14 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.81.121, Whatcom County is required to prepare and adopt a six- 15 year transportation improvement program each year; and 16 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.54.015, Whatcom County is required to prepare a fourteen -year 17 ferry capital program each year; and 18 WHEREAS, following adoption of six -year transportation improvement program, the law requires an 19 annual review of the work accomplished under the program and a determination of current transportation 20 needs; and 21 WHEREAS, based upon the findings of the annual review, and after public hearing, arevised six -year 22 transportation improvement program shall be adopted; and 23 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.81.121, the six -year transportation improvement program and 24 fourteen -year ferry capital program must be consistent with the County comprehensive plan pursuant to RCW 25 36.70A; and 26 WHEREAS, the six -year transportation improvement program attached hereto as Exhibit "A" has been 27 reviewed and determined to be consistent with the County's comprehensive plan; and 28 WHEREAS, the fourteen -year ferry capital program attached hereto as Exhibit "B" has been reviewed 29 and determined to be consistent with the County's comprehensive plan; 30 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council as follows: 31 1. That the Whatcom County Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for theyears 2007 32 through 2012, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A, including the capital elements ofthe first 33 six -years of the fourteen -year ferry capital program, which is attached hereto as Exhibit `B", is 34 hereby adopted. 35 2. That the County Engineer is directed to file a copy of the same with the County Road 36 Administration Board and the State Secretary of Transportation. 37 275 Pa 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 APPROVED this day of , 2006. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: '64b Senior Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Council Chair 276 A a fV 16. 0)r 0 O Cy a 0 E ga O m Z C a) o o= O o a c Oew N c 0 E a ¢ O O L L O N ai � A O �.., im ro C C 6f 2 Q } ZZ W 2 X W a a_ 7 a m m � Q M N ' QQ TW ai 0 de �M LLJ d W N m r a N r. C O k o o a 0 o 0r 0Mo') 0oN 0N 00 cm co �m ooaOJ o � NaN [p ooN G N OOO o G 0)W GN O CLL� � 4R7 ��(1 !;2 G EO m 000 N go G g G in Q Nl -0 C rMo N m LL LL N N M N 10 Q G � � C w--- D _ _ — --- In V N a w N 0 � — — a L G f c U. h A U. U a N N 0 U. — U6 N C p(D C Q d LL LL LL U Y m D a` o gga non oo goo = rn �u Lv Lv La v aN iiJ r` c� z U oz HU ow Ha ow �aErU z co m owz HaU — N ow Ha�U z N o <- ase oafo� 4d3 d m sapooAman n a aHU coCD aHU aF aI-- 4Waalle3ol to N o v c C? d a. c roi d 2 o an4ins m (n V7 vi V) v3 U (e}add yuawaeadwl v o o N o o 0 a a im O a m zm I m o c o E E s E o v uj 5 m J z P z m C.) m L m$ m e c O fi c 4 Z z a L a +' a F c C m L m e E b R� v ti b 5 vC s @ 8 m 5 a AC m ¢ a "_ d IL a. O C 0 C p Q 10 p LQU O U; IL N 01 E pNa e .9 2 U P 9E JagWnN APOIJd a + w Cl)v un m SSEIo O O O leuollounj O 4 N Im 217 Q E 0 O uai U Ch y pE U _O O Z L L Z d Q Cb w z N U � 0 U C) C L C, C7 L C7 e z° z° 10 � T �� 0 8 C G = o R rro N 0 a� co r a N U U La w U L 2r Sn G o 0 $ 0 to o 0 0 0 G r a F c0 0� 7 D 'C�` a 0 0 0 C0 0 $$ 0 Z V Cl) m N N r N N N w 41 ►�. Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 O 7 O O 0 7 BOYS C. RJ SO N N 13 u c M p N �yCy 4 N— N 0 O-- 0$ $--- N-- 0 N LU T.O.$ N m N N GOO o00 0 $ 0 0 0 o 1l��G D O G G Ooo D G 0 D O a a 00 $ O Qv O 0 0 0 ian N caN l7 V �l Ln � Nr� u7 to S 7 nc� m O p FLL O O a 0 0 0 $ O G G 4320 0 LO 0 0 0 O o o 0 0 In 0 O O O m S m � N N 0 0 N n N (11 C N Cl N N V Q N r� CI n n G O 7 J LL r O--- ` ----� --- — --- —e�-�--- — o 0 o Q O 0to m n c _N U07 In ' O 3 LL — C O — ---- --- --- ` mn0 a ¢ ¢ mN vi�U O r a -a $ 'D a r 1i cm N A ° to C U N � LL LL oW U m v a3 'o Q m m Sr o m a� LLcD U m y O a` ae nn n aoo nn 0 00 n 000 n 0 naoo 00 01 00 a tU 000 000 000 0 000 000 D_ a�z H a�z H a�z H a Cq B a¢v to H w z } aseUd�oafoad W sopoo IS inn n 3:1--0L u1U aF-00) o00a0 CLh0 0 ah Uv1(9 EL qlfiv u� Idol ro n 0 0 0 0 snjEnS LO EL a a 0. d cn (s)adRl co N Cf] CO o N Ln Ln N m Cl) N luawanwdwl 0-- o r o o CO o 0— co 0 o [r' z ? a) C [O 9 0 a a - °� # m L G a] N Go m a1 V O w h d b = Y1 c m x 7 - 0 0 o o ro or Z c,3 E f co C m ep m u h o p r r ai O Y b i Y Z o m� o� uJ' q 0 r 3 h 0= m 4 � E ti z ti 0 Q G ~ D: C mv 9 mm c c m n � D N N N U m N o w a E a ca U LL y y p N N mOI yN �c E Q L Ti a �. .� c 3 m f zi N li LL N m O �o to @ mo ' �o �'S mo y o y 0 0 0 O li! k Wy E t $ f �+ umi E y a E m E a 3 m a U V �Q m �J N o¢ N CU jegwnN 1L}uoud N n co CD C) N SSLlo cfl o 0 0 0 Iauoi�aunj N m cd a v 178 E cm Mc L N 0. E ti o m Z n c C 0 o N o h E a oc C O O i cc O a y C a1 � % C G Aeti coo) a W a L i+ 0 CL 0 U C7 U h U G 7LL z � 7 Z a E a O m z H m U � U � y E r v CD c O L m o Iq z z Go m m c 0c cc rr o ;� (DZ Q r U Q U rim w N U U U U t L m m aI 000 N M N F r d _ ' pp m 0 O Cn � N N y. (J U W co N crV Vi YC1 _ :3 Oao 0 0 „4y o Q $ 0 0 O 000 c co [ O N n W m c ' l7 N N N O co cor q N eG -- -- O- N O m N•--_--- N O ^ a N r pp O O I n O 0 0 cm 0 0 O N N N 0 0 0 pp Q O Qm 0 W W n p A N O O O ICI 0 0 LO y (d C ONE V IDS NN'0 � rQn r M' N r h N o D h LL -- -- N O 8 '�:l W Q O N --- O --- lO O O Itl _0 1Of] 19 N J C s-- LL —_ -- — --- 7 V d U n n C6 E2 p � to lL --- C - -- --- --- --- a. & M d mmm :4 c N US CA CA m 0 LL �� aaa 0 C 1O 0$ Q O N O Q O M T h LL m Vd1 9 y Ip CJ N *� l0 V CI = U d H LL LL LL pN C1 i () Q V d d y D d C� U 7 0 O QQQ [!][!][!] tt tr mm w F p LL d LL U LL LL Zn LL 000 O O Q r 00 O O 0 000 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 n OI 000 000 O 0 O d y ��Ir7 Ir7 a¢ v RS s° - a L N tT{ H a Ec n w CG I� a¢ v ul 76 1�- a v N fE H a¢ n CA C6 H OS12Lld loeroid m sep0o lS inn rl U a. H 0 a CO F E U CL F U 0 0 0 d 0 h 4oue111401 m c o C4CY fl d anlsls 'O u) co 0) U IL IL (s)adAl v o 0 0 o r o 0 0 r M N o luawan0ldwl m O z d 0 c cm a � m v m p m 0 4 w Q a m q C w m N "N m d C C n Q COA `m O Z C O O O o O a` O 0 $ W 40 cy q @ o � `0 ° a q m B a z r Co S GI 10 C7 7 C L ~V E k li CC a o n Oy1 d OI N a = o tbv fp Cl y L L$ E Y4 G] Gl Q C o o c T� 2 �Q� fD �a LL d w cl R m pQCA-- ¢Q ui Coo Q U G ul Li $ o i m r o m a o �tp� $ E N o m Mn p 0. TlO �m � �¢ Ulr J V �cz xr d [O N c legwnN cn v In r. co Aluaud N ss�1O no coo leuOilound CO d A LL 0 W9 Co N CY) 0 O N a p R z C 0 p ++ O O a c CL CM a C 0O O i LL to CL N Lto o oR r C G N 2 Q N c R 0 y U � U E H U w = z 0 z m` E a CL A d ° : z 'o IL U � H E o $ S o C t co 0 Z O N R 0 z z U U a a T a m '.0 0 U Q �d vE �CL N w LL w� U 0 O pp p 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 00 1n Ln 0 0 0 N 0 N r 2r cm y 7 _ — � SZ g g o 0 0 N co in G1 C7 C Q N yC a•.,. — — — -- — — N N W N � O O O O 0 N O N N O C, N 0 0 1[I g u'/ 0 p r• O N N N N Ra 0 C � r LL o o N N N N N 4�') 0 0 I.- N N N a c v C LL J LL — — — — H N y—co E N t LL = b C a N cm N Li U m y r N F LL3 C N U N co y MULL — — N LL ro m mca o o U- g g g m m a�� r -r a Q H a 9 a H a U Fes- a Q a aseyd IDafoJd m sepoo Amine r. a H U fL cu fL U (L 0 EL a F U MIBUO1Iinol cp m r eq o ovi 0 a o Qn ci c0i o 6n)al$ Ln w a a a of d (S)adi O O O Cl) co rco O r Iuauianoiduil O O C) a 0 d T z 40 b V 2 Q m cF (D m m m �� W g o f p Q 5 a) a 0 z oam og o of ra g g o Q 0 m V a W Agcc� N a a M a Y 3 E �0 Z Z U 2 a E O Q O tpC cc d GI v m o W rn ui aul m �' 4Qm 30 m = ao E_ CDti Q U O LLl LL ooY� N 2 °y 3� d q m $ E ii x r o %1 S o z } O ¢ ¢ 27 Viac asqulnN a rn C) cv nC°i CVAIuoud as elo IeuoilDun=j m m a rr� Fi U 0 42 O 2 Z s Z Z a O E a Z ~_ It 3 U O O a U 2 E O t� O Cl) o � o z Al 0 �� p N L 0- },15 a Tv C N LPLa F pp N L9 O o pp p N N N N 1O U) N N L 2 L O N vl M 07 — 6i 5, N N t v m C r y O N QC ---— — — — %v N— N LU N � pp N lam`, O L 0tf) LO C,N N N C,1�f1 O N N N F LL N cam'] N N N N N Vl O a1 N N N U O j C) C J LL v cm Yl E Itg C)` w p LL (a ` N -0 m N 7 [V r Q a m N to L C 0 LO LL w r 1iUd — — — H LL c(D M -0�$ " mm LL LLU 0 iw a` L cob' co G1 _ d ` E a¢ o co H a o _N F D _N H a _N wa 0 N o _N � r'lTl'cl ioafo3d m sopoo Amain n a F- U a F U d F U 3 N o 41BUBIlelol co ro o c 0 0 c 0 c 0 BnpgS u, D 0 0. a 0. (s)adSl v 0 o 0 0 Cl) 0 0 0 Iuawano3dwl Cl) v 0 G � Z v a oOM v o ¢ a:Q m m n m y � A IL E Z G $ E = o C.,c sc U cc 0 4B ¢ .$ O O m O` o o U a .. m rn3 C a P Q S o ac a F Cw b o N _ Ea b m �3 �m C 'C 13 4 m cc m yE� cc 3 @� y N 3 2 B ¢ 2 U, x 2 m 4 c E c o o bto i YN 2 C1 D ui LL: l<E � 10 z E N�� a ¢ o. �oE Zcm3 jequ3nN a LO co n co m o ,quoud N N N N N V3 sse�D Ieuoiloun� 0 0 0 0 o Ln a, m 0. E m cm C O O cm a ++ C rt0.. di d c z O o OL COV o y a as C O O L. LL V- O a H cc 0 C C c x ra Z U a a cv LL 0 Mig m � w aQ ; a o N U LL w tpv ap0 C upY $ ID N .r-2r- CD -e a N 0 �� o �t o t v v m N 0 CO U) 61 Q� Ifj pN l7 p N c T�:S � 47 r c� G O N v y O O 0 0 0 0 OI 0 0 0 0 0 O C5 0 N' 0 O W N ^ S n Y O N C N N O� n p g N N P n CD N N N r �p O'a4i F LL O O O O p O O N O O O 0 0 N N o p O �(l O N [p a ID N w n m o C O 7 J LL r — -- — -- m ` EE p pp O o o O o 0 g m C N N A �LL c — -- o N CY LL rr LL rr — -- Y a m 7 � C a N 5 5 a m � O U) LL 0 a n N O F t 'LL m ro } m h C LL (aa LL QN V � N C L � N O 91 O LL LL LL (a a) 0. N d r r �- n ° iff_ F° ° a 0 iSS— H a ° d a l0 12 aseyd IDafad m supoo Amara r a AI6sa•1 1e of co 0 0 sn1e1S . IL d U U co (s)adAl v o 0 o a Q JuawanojdwI 0 0 m d 0 z m o °i a a 2 m al C m m a E E y a su E �[j a 3 m 0 0 y O O O O d O o O C7 _ S _ E C Q \ � o p d j � c � 8 Itmi mTj � •5� O 3 m o i s fi m y m a' 12 d n m 4 G R •O o E ,� Im Ny E m E ti Cb c y y lL Q N m O E� & 4 U 0 j ii c� y E ag s E a Co E $ E $ E E aagwn `" m m r(luoud sue'+ cq ccr) SSUID o leuogoun=1 0 i N T- oo O N a 4 O E ,� O (p Z a) h G O O o s Q N o 0 Q E O O U. /O if cc J7 tau) E C C C 2 Q x_ N c° E U L °i O C. (6 F Z � o Ci a U m E O rU O L (n O � o 0 e Z Z �� Q Ci CU Olu T N I 0 Q N T � Q .d `s °a' 0 d T o N (i w F- 0 p o p Q 1O Q �p o0 m n p 0 o0 N N 0 0 000 1R 0 0 0 Sao N Vl O pp p r 2.c O) r N vLn rn n 7 • p 0 O Cl N C 0 O C) T O O m pp O LM op 4 N C7 d — -- N N N N C1 Q N QCi -- -- --- O O N o N O OOl 0 O OOl O--- O o Lo lu N co N O N N N C N N m N pp pp O l[Qj O W N my Q to r n rn U- O Oto O G o C 0 0 cc N p m 0 0 0 C 0 0 0Ln O W y (.1 9 V � N n r cn NIA O j J O LL — -- -- --- --- N d co N m .2 ro £ 0 roc cn D -- — — — -- N 7 N NU, (cc 0 LL o c — T� m F c {i ca L y D ) iiUn — N 1L — U y my m CD c $ o LL i ( U p LL d n n g nn g nn gg ai n caro a ��' 4 o H Q H (Lo H (Lo H (¢ U y s° d¢ 0 aseUd loafoid co sapoo 111 mn (- � 41buin lulo1 m cli snlels Lo to to to U) a cn (s)WAI n (D n (D (D N N yuaWanoidwi O O O O O (O A G O Z N O O1 d v 2 m` o, c m c m 1u ID pco Z ❑ c E M E c A Z Z d x m n Q y v g 0 m m _oca U N Q) N 0i LL ✓L h m O h •� b, 'o` V mt 3 pp �QUCui(i Ez u_ En " Ez c E= k o Ez O m O O O 0 O m D JogwnN N m Co.v cm diuoud ssE�',] o O O O O O S 0 :283 E § N_ CD O 2 N � � R E " N CL E E 0 2 U. � 0 CL ■ c e � % ■ � : N )\ ƒQ § CC �� 2f I� ) k Q L� Lf) _ j� 77 k) m-- LO cm (a -- w ® § a }) � ~ � s\/ § OD t) f ~ 2 I k § -- 2ƒ 2LO aLL k}/ k/ ]2 a en �LL �##(D D222 =LO LL - 0 _ / LL L! LL� a 0 ca d E § $ R - 2E3 ] 4 2 _ _@ 10010M GO -@o%m { MBUG9 llnoi k snitns La m o �/adA.L, - 2 k \ ' m 2 � ) c 2ED § e E q ( t a R § $ 2 $ ■ k - k c 6 § k 0 . a ƒ60 IL \§«jam} �a�0a ) 0 $ 2 . § ��Z, ©En 2 ] - § § �I22k ƒado��- \�) �m_N and g in ; § $ ; z Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Instructions for Completing the Form Complete the form for the six year program in accordance with the following instructions. Include all transportation -related projects regardless of location or source of funds. Heading Agency Enter name of the sponsoring agency. County Number Enter the OFM assigned number (see LAG Appendix 21.44). City Number Enter the OFM assigned number (see LAG Appendix 21.45). MPOIRTPO Enter the name of the MPO (if located within urbanized area) or RTPO (if in the rural area). Hearing Date Enter the date of the public hearing. Adoption Date Enter the date this program was adopted by council or commission. Resolution Number Enter Legislative Authority resolution number if applicable. Amendment Date Enter the date this program was amended by council or commission. Column Number 1. Functional Classification. Enter the appropriate 2-digit code denoting the Federal Functional Classification. (Note: The Federal Functional Classification must be approved by FHWA.) 00 Rural (under 5,000 population) 01 - Interstate 02 - Principal Arterial 06 - Minor Arterials 07 - Major Collector 08 - Minor Collector 09 - Local Access Description - No Classification Urban (over 5,000 population) 11 -interstate 12 - Freeways & Expressways 14 - Other Principal Arterials 16 - Minor Arterial 17 - Collector 19 - Local Access 2. Priority Numbers. Enter local agency number identifying agency project priority (optional). 3. Project Identification. Enter (a) Federal Aid Number if previously assigned; (b) Bridge Number; (c) Project Title; (d) Street/Road Name or Number/Federal Route Number; (e) Beginning and Ending Termini (Mile Post or Street/Road Names); and (f) Describe the Work to be Completed. 4. Improvement Type Codes. Enter the appropriate federal code number(s). Description 01 - New construction on 07 - Resurfacing 14 - Bridge Program Special new alignment 08 - New Bridge Construction 21 - Transit Capital Project 02 - Relocation 09 - Bridge Replacement 22 - Transit Operational Project 03 - Reconstruction 10 - Bridge Rehabilitation 23 - Transit Planning 04 - Major Widening 11 - Minor Bridge Rehabilitation 24 - Transit Training/Admin 05 - Minor Widening 12 - Safety/Traffic Operation/TSM 31 - Non Capital Improvement 06 - Other Enhancements 13 - Environmentally Related 32 - Non Motor Vehicle Project 5. Funding Status. Enter the funding status for the entire project which describes the current status. S -Project is `selected' by the appropriate selection body &funding is secured. P - Project is subject to selection by an agency other than the lead and is listed for planning purposes and funding has not been determined. 6. Total Length. Enter project length to the nearest hundredth mile (or code "00" if not applicable). 7. Utility Code(s). Enter the appropriate code letter(s) for the utilities that would need to be relocated or are impacted by the construction project. C - Cable TV S - Sewer (other than agency -owned) G - Gas T - Telephone O - Other W - Water P - Power 285 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Instructions for Completing the Form 8. Project Phase. Select the appropriate phase code of the project. PE - Preliminary Engineering, including Design (or Planning) RW - Right of Way or land acquisition CN - Construction only (or transit planning or equipment purchase) ALL - All Phases from Preliminary Engineering through Construction (Use only in Years 4, 5, & 6) 9. Phase Start Date. Enter the month/day/year (in MM/DDNY format) that the selected phase of the project is actually expected to start. 10. Federal Fund Sources. Enter the Federal Fund Source code from the table below. BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs BR - Bridge Replacement or Rehab. CBDG - Community Development Block Grant (HUD) CMAQ - Congestion Mitigation Air Quality DEMO - TEA-21 Demo Projects (Selected) Discretionary - Ferry Boat Discretionary, Public Lands Highway, Scenic Byways, etc. DOD - Department of Defense IC - Interstate Construction IM - Interstate Maintenance NHS - National Highway System 3037 - FTA Job Access/Reverse Commute FTA Discretionary for Capital Expenditures 5307 - FTA Urban Areas 5309(Bus) - Bus 5309(FG) - Fixed Guideways 5309(NS) - New Starts 5310 - FTA Elderly/Disabled 5311 - FTA Rural Areas REV - Rural Economic Vitality Program STP(C) - STP Statewide Competitive Program STP(E) - STP Transportation Enhancements STP(S) - STP Safety Including Hazard and RR STP(R) - STP Rural Regionally Selected STP(U) - STP Urban Regionally Selected STP - STP (WSDOT Use Only) 11. Federal Cost. Enter the total federal cost (in thousands) of the phase regardless of when the funds will be spent. 12. State Fund Code. Enter the appropriate code for any of the listed funds to be used on this project. CAPP - County Arterial Preservation Program PWTF - Public Works Trust Fund CHAP - City Hardship Assistance Program RAP - Rural Arterial Program TPP - Transportation Partnerships Program SCP - Small City Program AIP - Arterial Improvement Program FMSIB - Freight Mobility Strategic Invest. Board PSMP - Pedestrian Safety & Mobility Program WSDOT - WSDOT funds PTSP - Public Transportation Systems Program OTHER - Any other unlisted state fund codes 13. State Funds. Enter all funds from the State Agencies (in thousands) of the phase regardless of when the funds will be spent. 14. Local Funds. Enter all the funds from Local Agencies (in thousands) of the phase regardless of when the funds will be spent. 15. Total Funds. Enter the sum of columns 10, 12, and 14. (This will auto -total in the STIP software program.) 16-19. Expenditure Schedule - (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th thru 6th years). Enter the estimated expenditures (in thousands) of dollars by year. (For Local Agency use.) 20. Environmental Data Type. Enter the type of environmental documentation that will be required for this project. Environmental determination must be completed before the Right-of-Way/Construction phase(s) can be obligated. (This is required for Federally funded projects.) EIS - Environmental Impact Statement EA - Environmental Assessment CE - Categorical Exclusion 21. R/W Certification. If Right of Way acquisition is required, enter R/W Certification Date, if known. (This is required for Federally funded projects .) :: EXHIBIT '59B" WHATCOM COUNTY 2007-2020 FOURTEEN -YEAR FERRY CAPITAL PROGRAM ,,ILII�F�Iff' � I f'I , i �I�. ' 1 � I •,i I r�'ii•�1 }f -Ik. �; 1a1 I�1•I ,i�,..,�� '�,nt � r�k'i;� 6 x Y .iF�iiErL{ � d a a:17 Table of Contents Preface B-3 WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE LAST REPORT B-3 2005-2006 ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE FERRY SYSTEM B-3 THE NEW FERRY DECISION B-3 THE NEED TO RAISE RATES B-4 THE IMPACT OF A NEW VESSEL ON RATES B-4 PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATION B-4 THE BASIS FOR THE REPORT B-5 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT B-5 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT B-5 TABLE 1: FERRY SYSTEM CURRENT AND REPLACEMENT VALUES — 2007 B-5 TABLE 2: PROJECTED EXPENDITURES B-5 TABLE 3: PROJECTED REVENUES B-6 MAJOR PROJECT ANALYSIS B-6 MAJOR MAINTENANCEIRECONSTRUCTION B-6 MINOR MAINTENANCE B-6 HISTORY OF THE FERRY SYSTEM B-6 YEAR/EVENT B-7 TABLE 1: FERRY SYSTEM CURRENT AND REPLACEMENT VALUES — 2007 B-8 TABLE 2: PROJECTED EXPENDITURES PAGE 1 B-9 TABLE 2: PROJECTED EXPENDITURES PAGE 2 B-10 TABLE 3: PROJECTED REVENUES B-11 a PREFACE WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE LAST REPORT 2005-2006 ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE FERRY SYSTEM Since the beginning of 2005 the Whatcom County Public Works Ferry Division has been very active. Considerable effort has gone into a variety of issues, to include; planning for a new ferry, establishment of the ferry system fund (to make it easier to separately account for ferry system costs), the design of a new parking lot on Lummi Island, negotiating an extension of the parking lot lease on Gooseberry Point, conducting a feasibility study for "off -boat" ticketing, and the approval of new staff positions to ensure the dedication of resources to this effort. Public Works has also been actively involved in seeking financial assistance from a variety sources to augment County funds for the major capital investments envisioned over the next 2-5 years. Additionally the staff has been reviewing the revenue and expenditure issues related to the operation of the ferry system, and has prepared the basis for the 2007 and 2008 budget, as well as the ground work for the 2007-2020 14 Year Plan. One of the outcomes of this analysis is the recommendation to adjust the fare structure to insure the required 55% user fee revenue. Other financial impacts reviewed include the costs of a variety of services and/or service levels. The following paragraphs discuss these major activities in more detail. THE NEW FERRY DECISION Over the course of the past 4-5 years, a thorough public process, including the Charette exercises, the 2004 and 2005 Ferry System Reports, and surveys of Lummi Islanders and Ferry users was undertaken. It was clear that the majority of the persons involved wanted to find ways to increase the capacity of the ferry system, particularly at peak usage times. Due to the fact that personnel cost and regular maintenance and operating cost are the major factors driving the cost of ferry service, the idea of simply adding a second boat (car ferry or just a passenger vessel) to the run was quickly put aside due to the magnitude of the additional operating cost. In 2005, Elliot Bay Design Group (Marine Engineers), Art Anderson and Associates (Marine Engineers, Facilities) and Whatcom County Public Works did a detailed analysis of the ferry service, to determine the best size vessel for our service. Our present vessel is capable of sustained operations at a rate of 5 runs every 2 hours. This equates to a nominal capacity of 100 cars every 2 hours or 50 cars an hour on average. We also have the ability to carry up to I00 persons including drivers and passengers. Factors that effect vessel size constraints are; load and unload times for both vehicles and pedestrians, as well as vessel transit time. The larger the vessel the longer it takes to load and/or unload. Also, the more foot passengers the longer the load/unload time. Given the very short passage from Gooseberry Point to Lummi Island, virtually all of the options looked at would make the crossing in the same time. The results of this analysis indicated that even a very small increment in capacity increase to a 25-30 car vessel made it unlikely that the 5 runs in two hours schedule could be maintained, it also was decided that the 40 car vessel would probably have a hard time maintaining a turnaround time that allowed 2 runs per hour due to the additional load/unload time. The 35-car design basis was agreed upon because it can make 2 trips an hour which equates to 70 cars an hour or a 40% increase in capacity. This vessel also provides for a total passenger load of 150 which increases the passenger capacity by 50%. The 35-car vessel with the car deck level passenger spaces also meets the Coast Guard criteria that allows it to be crewed with the same number of hands as the existing vessel, and is ADA compliant. Based on this analysis, Elliot Bay Design Group was contracted to design a new 35 car ferry that would provide for the most increased capacity without using a second vessel, and could use our existing docking facilities with as little capital improvement as possible. At the same time Art Anderson and Associates was contracted to design the necessary structural improvements to the facilities to handle the increased size of the 35-car vessel. Both of these design efforts are underway, and the vessel design has been reviewed and is ready to go to bid at the appropriate time. The facilities upgrade proposals are being developed in phases to take advantage of dry-dock periods and "fish windows" for construction before the delivery of the new vessel. Work that needs to be done regardless of a change in vessels is progressing as quickly as possible. 289 With a new vessel there will be the requirement to modify the existing schedule. The most probable new schedule would be 2 runs per hour during the same hours as the ferry currently runs. Other options will be reviewed and such user groups as the schools will be asked for input. The impact of lines and waiting time at peak operating times should be positive at least at first due to the increased capacity. How long this remains the case will depend on if people shift their rider ship habits based on when deck space is available. Other schedule issues that may be addressed in the future include the concept of Seasonal Scheduling, and Peak vs. Non -peak schedules. THE NEED TO RAISE RATES In addition to the work being undertaken as described above, Public Works has also been involved in an analysis of the operating costs of the Ferry System, and evaluating the user fee structure as it relates to the requirement that users pay for 55% of the system operating costs. It should be pointed out that none of the capital or financing costs related to the acquisition of the new ferry vessel or facilities upgrades impact the system operating costs. The same is true for the construction of the new parking lot on Lummi Island. Items that are included in the operating cost for the system and are impacted by the system after a new vessel is in service are, the increased costs of maintenance, fuel and operating supplies, and any personnel costs -due to the larger system. Also included will be the cost to maintain the existing vessel in a back-up mode (net of any potential revenue it may generate, or cost sharing with another ferry system). In addition to the forces of inflation, which continue to push costs upward, there are other issues that affect the cost per user on the ferry system. The largest of these issues is the fact that at peak capacity the system simply cannot move more customers. With an inability to sell more tickets, and costs rising it is inevitable that the cost per user will increase. The costs of operating the ferry system have been rising steadily, and the rate of increase has been increasing over the past 3-4 years. In 2005 the total cost of the ferry system was $1,883,906 of which $1,445,383 was operating cost. The total user fee revenue was $639,000 which equated to 47% of the operating cost. With no changes to the system, the costs for 2006 are projected to be $1,503,000 and revenues are budgeted at $651,000 which is a recovery rate of 44%. Based on this information alone it is necessary to raise rates by about 20% if there are no changes in costs or services. However, for 2006 the addition of a full time ferry manager, the beginning of some type of continuous operations at peak periods, and setting up for "off -boat" ticketing are included in the budget. These additions, and the fact that any rate increase will be effective late in the year, result in a proposed rate increase of an average of 55%. All of this is before any of the impact of operating of a new vessel. THE IMPACT OF A NEW VESSEL ON RATES The actual impact of operating costs from the new vessel is currently projected at about $230,000. This includes the additional cost of maintenance, fuel and operating supplies, and keeping the old vessel as a back up. This impact on rates is expected to require an increase in fare revenue of about 10%. Some of this cost may be shared with other ferry systems or offset by revenue opportunities, so this is a conservative estimate, or projected worst case. The other impact on rates comes from the "off -boat" ticketing scenario. This is being seriously considered because the effort to sell tickets on the larger vessel would probably require additional crew on each shift and is estimated that would cost $250,000 (3 pursers at $69,000 per year, and an additional relief person at $43,000 per year). It is planned to accomplish this thru a combination of clerical workers, and machine sales that would allow the price of this activity to be reduced to less than $135,000 each year. This would be a savings of $115,000 that would not have to be recovered in increased fares. As a result of the analysis done by Public Works, the staff is recommending an immediate user fee rate increase of 55%. This will allow the ferry fund to get back to a 55% recovery rate despite the fact that more that one-half of 2006 290 will be over before the rate increase takes effect. This rate increase may also make it possible to operate the system without a fare box deficit until the new vessel is placed in service. THE BASIS FOR THE REPORT PURPOSE OF THE REPORT This program is designed provides a blueprint for the effective, efficient, and continuing operation of the Whatcom County Ferry System. The projects listed are the result of input from County departments, governmental agencies, business organizations, citizen groups, and individuals. Capital improvements are scheduled based on 79 years experience operating and maintaining the system, while complying with applicable regulations. Inevitably, priorities and available funds for the ferry system will change over the fourteen years projected in this program. Therefore, the intention of the program is to be a guide indicating long-range improvements and anticipated revenues and expenditures. Strict adherence is not required. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT The program information is presented in three tables. State and Federal requirements were established to assure counties have current plans for comprehensive transportation improvement efforts. Statutory requirements and a brief explanation of the tables and how they meet the requirements follow. Enacted in 1975, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.54.015 states "The legislative authority of every county operating ferries shall prepare, with the advice and assistance of the county engineer, a fourteen year Iong range capital improvement plan embracing all major elements of the ferry system. Such plan shall include a listing of each major element of the system showing its estimated current value, its estimated replacement cost, and its amortization period." TABLE 1: FERRY SYSTEM CURRENT AND REPLACEMENT VALUES — 2007 meets these requirements, showing the current value, replacement cost, and amortization periods for the vessels and facilities. The current value of the MN Whatcom Chief is the book value, calculated from the depreciated original construction cost and any depreciated improvements/major repairs. The facilities' current value is book value; original cost less depreciation plus depreciated improvements. RCW 36.81.121 (1) states "...the legislative authority of each county, after one or more public hearings thereon, shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years .... and for those counties operating ferries shall also include a separate section showing proposed capital expenditures for ferries, docks, and related facilities. Copies of the program shall be filed with the county road administration board and the secretary of transportation not more than thirty days after its adoption by the legislative authority..." Subsection (2) requires expanded information on how a county will spend all its money on the various facets of the transportation program. This RCW Section was enacted in 1961. The capital expenditure portion of Subsection (1) is satisfied by: TABLE 2: PROJECTED EXPENDITURES. TABLE 2 includes all other expenditures on the system that meet Subsection (2) requirements. Operational expenditures are delineated between vessel and non -vessel costs. U.S. Coast Guard regulations currently require the ferries to be dry-docked every two years, however to extend the life, improve reliability and protect our capital investment Whatcom County schedules dry-docking every year for its vessels. When the MN Whatcom Chief goes into standby, this periodicity will be extended to once every two years. This is reflected in the table. The landings are inspected regularly as required by the National Bridge Inspection Standards administered through the Washington State Department of Transportation. The inspection report helps identify and time major maintenance and replacement of these facilities. The last section of the table lists loan payments. This RCW section also provides the reporting requirement and timing of program submission, as well as establishing the annual update requirement. Additionally, the Federal Highway Administration requires all agencies within a Metropolitan Planning Organization to develop and annually update the long range Transportation Improvement Plans and their Biennial Element. Whatcom 291 County will be updating this 14-Year plan each year and incorporating the results into the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. TABLE 3: PROJECTED REVENUES, Defines the known and anticipated sources of funding for the 14 Year Plan. MAJOR PROJECT ANALYSIS The major capital improvement project listed in this program is the construction of a 35-vehicle ferry. The new ferry will replace the 1962 vintage, 20-vehicle ferry M/V Whatcom Chief. The design was initiated in 2005 and construction completion is anticipated to be in 2008. The new ferry will provide a 40% greater system capacity and improved safety. M/V Whatcom Chief is scheduled to be retained as a back-up boat for dry-docking periods and unexpected maintenance/repair periods. Strategies for sharing the M/V Whatcom Chief with another county (e.g. Skagit or Pierce) are being explored. The significant increase in overall system capacity is planned to serve the transportation needs of the Lummi Island for many years. At the present time the County is persuing the option of County Ferry Capital Improvement financing thru the CRAB. Assistance is being requested for the repayment of the principle on a loan for this project. The other major capital improvements required for this project are the construction of new wing walls at both the Gooseberry Point and Lummi Island landings to accommodate the much larger berthing energies (four times that of the MN Whatcom Chiej ). An extension to the wave break (80 ft) and replacement of one dolphin at the Lummi Island landing is also necessary to handle the new longer and slightly wider 35-vehicle ferry. Design is scheduled for completion in 2006 and construction in 2006 and 2007. MAJOR MAINTENANCE/RECONSTRUCTION Pile, dolphin & fender work: Major pile dolphin and fender work replacement is scheduled at regular intervals, as shown in Table 2. Waiting Area/Parking. Improvements to passenger waiting areas and parking facilities on Lummi Island are also scheduled as shown in Table 2. These improvements are intended to encourage the use of mass transit to help reduce the peak vehicle demand on the system. Vessel dry-docking_ US Coast Guard regulations require periodic inspections of all ferry vessels. In addition to quarterly inspections and yearly certifications, each vessel is required to be dry docked every two years. However, to protect our investments, Whatcom County schedules dry-docking every year. The Dry-docking periodicity for the MN Whatcom Chief as back-up vessel will be extended to once every two years. The Engine overhaul, vessel painting, hull repairs, and other major and minor repairs occur during the dry-docking. The dry-docking periods for the new vessel and for the MN Whatcom Chief will scheduled to minimize the impacts/costs on the ferry system. The MN Whatcom Chief will be used when the new 35-vehicle ferry is dry-docked. MINOR MAINTENANCE General minor maintenance is continual on the ferries, landings, aprons, and waiting facilities. The costs and extent of the work is unpredictable and frequently, problems must be repaired immediately upon detection. Routine maintenance such as building painting and roof cleaning is more predictable and scheduled in advance. HISTORY OF THE FERRY SYSTEM The ferry system is the lifeline for Lummi Island. It has seen a growth in annual total demand of 95,000 car & driver trips in 1990 to over 137,000 in 2004 the latest year for which statistics are available. Total annual passenger use has grown from 167,000 in 1990 to over 230,000 in 2004. The following is a chronology of the Whatcom County Ferry System. 292 B-6 YEAR/EVENT 1926 Lummi Shore Road from Bellingham was completed and a ferry, the Central, owned by Whatcom County and large enough to hold six small Model-T Fords started making scheduled runs between Lummi Island and Gooseberry Point. 1929 The slightly larger Chief Kwina replaces the Central. 1950 Gooseberry Point terminal built. 1962 The MIV Whatcom Chief begins service. 1978 Lummi Island terminal is relocated. 1982 New lift mechanism installed on transfer span at Lummi Island. Gooseberry Point pier refurbished 1987 Gooseberry Point Transfer span, wing walls and dolphins replaced 1997 Major refurbishment of Gooseberry point landing accomplished 2002 20-Year Plan Phase 1 Charette Process and report completed. 2005 Major Status Report on Ferry System 293 B-7 TABLE 1: FERRY SYSTEM CURRENT AND REPLACEMENT VALUES - 2007 VESSELS MN Whatcom Current Statistics Chief LENGTH ft 94 BEAM ft 44 DISPLACEMENT tons 78 YEAR BUILT 1962 CAPACITY -- Passengers 100 CAPACITY -- Cars 20 CURRENT INSURED VALUE - 2007 $290,000 TOTAL CURRENT VALUE - 2007 Replacement Statistics YEAR 2008 CAPACITY -- Passengers 100 CAPACITY -- Cars 20 REPLACEMENT VALUE - 2007(2) $2,300,000 TOTAL -REPLACEMENT VALUE .2007 FACILITIES LOCATION Lummi Island Landing Transfer Span Dock Dol hinsAVin wall(3) Parking Lots Passenger Waiting/Office Subtotal - Lummi Island Landing Gooseberry Point Landing Transfer Span Dock Dolph i ns[W i nwall(3) Subtotal - Gooseberry Point Landing $290,000 $2,300,0001 CURRENT REPLACEMENT BOOK REPLACEMENT YEAR BUILT YEAR VALUE(4) VALUE - 2007(5) 1982 2022 $155,000 $1,870,000 1978 2018 $23,000 $213,000 1978 2018 $163,000 $1,016,000 1978 2018 $30,000 $128,000 1978 11 2018 11 $10,00011 $20,000 $381,0001 $3,247,000 1987 1 2027 11 $44 .00011 $2,200 1997 2037 1 $87,000 $574 1997 2037 $910,000 $544 $1,442,000 $3,318 TOTAL FACILITIES VALUE 1 $1,823,00 $6,565,000 TOTAL VESSEL & FACILITIES VALUE 1 $2,113,0001 $8,865,000� NOTES: s'f Depreciated Columbia Sentinel Engineers (1990) Value plus Depreciated Improvements s2j Estimate by Art Anderson Associates (2005) (3) Replace with Steel Pilings sot Estimated using a 40-year life and straight-line depreciation (including depreciated improvements) (5) Replacement value based on original cost plus yearly escalations 294 B-8 Whatcom County Public Works 14-Year Ferry Capital Program Inflation % All $ in 000's Table 2 Expenditures 2007-2020 Page 1. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Operations Expenses: Vessel Operations Whatcom Chief Personnel -$ 850 $ 100 $ 102 $ 104 $ 106 $ 108 $ 110 2% Fuel & Operating Supplies S 200 $ 50 $ 52 $ 54 $ 56 $ 58 $ 61 4% Insurance S 43 $ 35 $ 36 $ 37 $ 38 $ 39 $ 41 3% Other Operating Expenses $ 250 S 50 $ 52 $ 53 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 3% New 35-Car Vessel Personnel $ 850 $ 867 $ 884 $ 902 $ 920 $ 938 2% Fuel & Operating Supplies S 500 $ 520 $ 541 $ 562 $ 585 $ 608 4% Insurance S 50 $ 52 S 53 $ 55 $ 56 $ 58 3% Other Operating Expenses $ 200 $ 206 $ 212 $ 219 $ 225 $ 232 3% Total Vessel Operations $ 1,343 $ 1,835 S 1,886 $ 1,939 S 1,993 $ 2,049 S 2,106 Other Operations Administration S 171 S 180 $ 184 $ 187 $ 191 $ 195 $ 199 2% Parking Lots Lummi Island $ 10 $ 10 $ 11 $ 11 $ 11 $ 12 3% Gooseberry Point $ 15 $ 20 $ 21 $ 21 $ 22 $ 23 $ 23 3% Staging Areas Lummi Island S 10 $ 10 S 10 $ 11 S 11 $ 11 S 12 3% Gooseberry Point $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 11 $ 11 $ 11 $ 12 3% Docks Lummi Island $ 25 S 25 $ 26 $ 27 $ 27 $ 28 $ 29 3% Gooseberry Point $ 25 S 25 $ 26 S 27 $ 27 $ 28 $ 29 3% Total Operations Expense $ 1,599 S 2,115 $ 2,173 $ 2,232 $ 2,293 $ 2,356 $ 2,421 Other Expenditures Vessel Depreciation $ 170 $ 170 $ 170 $ 170 $ 170 $ 170 Facilities Depreciation S 136 $ 211 S 219 S 225 S 230 $ 231 S 230 Financing Expense Loan Principle $ 272 S 285 $ 300 $ 315 S 331 S 347 Loan Interest $ 450 $ 438 $ 422 $ 407 S 391 S 376 Capital Expenditures Vessel Replacement $ 1,500 S 5,500 Gooseberry Parking Lot S 100 Staging Area S 200 $ 100 $ 50 $ 50 Dock S 150 $ 1,100 $ 150 $ 150 Lummi Island Parking Lot $ 100 $ 10 $ 50 Staging Area $ 50 $ 50 Dock $ 300 $ 450 S 150 S 150 S 150 Total Expenditures $ 3,785 $10,578 S 3,535 $ 3,549 $ 3,665 S 3,679 S 3,744 User Fee @ 55% of Operations $ 879 S 1,163 $ 1,195 $ 1,228 $ 1,26-1-r$-1,2961 $ 1,332 RE Whatcom County Public Works 14-Year Ferry Capital Program Inflation % All $ in 000's Table 2 Expenditures 2007-2020 Page 2. 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Operations Expenses: Vessel Operations Whatcom Chief Personnel $ 112 $ 114 $ 117 $ 119 $ 121 $ 124 $ 126 2% Fuel & Operating Supplies $ 63 $ 66 $ 69 $ 71 $ 74 $ 77 $ 80 4% Insurance I I $ 42 $ 43 $ 45 $ 46 $ 48 $ 49 $ 50 3% Other Operating Expenses $ 60 $ 62 $ 63 $ 65 $ 67 $ 69 $ 71 3% New 35-Car Vessel Personnel 1 1$ 957 $ 976 $ 995 $ 1,015 $ 1,036 $ 1,056 $ 1,077 2% Fuel & Operating Supplies $ 632 $ 658 $ 684 $ 711 $ 740 $ 769 $ 800 4% Insurance 1 1 $ 60 $ 62 $ 63 $ 65 $ 67 $ 69 $ 71 3% Other Operating Expenses $ 239 $ 246 $ 254 $ 261 $ 269 $ 277 $ 285 3% Total Vessel Operations $ 2,165 $ 2,227 $ 2,290 $ 2,355 $ 2,422 $ 2,491 $ 2,563 Other Operations Administration $ 203 $ 207 $ 211 $ 215 $ 220 $ 224 $ 229 2% Parking Lots Lummi Island $ 12 $ 13 $ 13 $ 14 $ 14 $ 14 $ 15 3% Gooseberry Point $ 24 $ 24 $ 25 $ 26 $ 27 $ 27 $ 28 3% Staging Areas Lummi Island $ 12 $ 13 $ 13 $ 14 $ 14 $ 14 $ 15 3% Gooseberry Point $ 12 $ 13 $ 13 $ 14 $ 14 $ 14 $ 15 3% Docks Lummi Island $ 12 $ 13 $ 13 $ 14 $ 14 $ 14 $ 15 3% Gooseberry Point $ 12 $ 13 $ 13 $ 14 $ 14 $ 14 $ 15 3% Total Operations Expense $ 2,454 $ 2,522 $ 2,592 $ 2,664 $ 2,738 $ 2,814 $ 2,893 Other Expenditures Vessel Depreciation $ 170 $ 170 $ 170 $ 170 $ 170 $ 170 $ 170 Facilities Depreciation $ 240 $ 243 $ 300 $ 301 $ 290 $ 303 $ 300 Financing Expense Loan Principle $ 365 $ 383 $ 402 $ 422 $ 444 $ 466 $ 489 Loan Interest $ 357 $ 339 $ 320 $ 301 $ 279 $ 257 $ 233 Capital Expenditures Vessel Replacement Gooseberry Parking Lot Staging Area $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 Dock I$ 150 $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 Lummi Island Parking Lot Staging Area $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 Dock $ 150 $ 150 $ 150 Total Expenditures F $ 3,786 $ 3,8571 $ 3,984 $ 4,058 $ 4,121 $ 4,210 $ 4,285 User Fee @55% of Operations $ I,350 $ 1,387F $ 1,425 $ 1,465 $ 1,506 $ 1,5481 $ 1,591 1 Whatcom County Public Works 14-Year Ferry Capital Program All $ in 000's Table 3 Revenues 2007-2020 CATEGORY 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Punch Card Fares (1) $ 791 $ 1,047 $ 1,076 $ 1,105 $ 1,135 $ 1,166 $ 1,199 Cash Fares (1) $ 88 $ 116 $ 120 $ 123 $ 126 $ 130 $ 133 (Memo 55% of Operating Cost) $ 879 $ 1,163 $ 1,195 $ 1,228 $ 1,261 $ 1,296 $ 1,332 MVFT Deficit Subsidy $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 County Road Fund Subsidy (2) $ 719 $ 952 $ 978 $ 1,005 $ 1,032 $ 1,060 $ 1,090 Ferry Loan Proceeds $ 9,000 Loan Repayment Assistance CRAB $ 367 $ 367 $ 367 $ 367 $ 367 $ 367 Unfunded $ 2,027 $ (1,064) $ 835 $ 789 $ 845 $ 792 $ 795 TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,785 $10,578 $ 3,535 $ 3,549 $ 3,665 $ 3,675 $ 3,744 (Memo Total Cost) $ 3,785 $ 10,578 $ 3,535 $ 3,549 $ 3,665 $ 3,675 $ 3,744 CATEGORY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Punch Card Fares (1) $ 11215 $ 1,248 $ 1,283 $ 1,319 $ 1,355 $ 1,393 $ 1,432 Cash Fares (1) $ 135 $ 139 $ 143 $ 147 $ 151 $ 155 $ 159 (Memo 55% of Operating Cost) $ 1,350 $ 1,387 $ 1,425 $ 1,465 $ 1,506 $ 1,548 $ 1,591 MVFT Deficit Subsidy $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 $ 160 County Road Fund Subsidy (2) $ 1,105 $ 1,135 $ 1,166 $ 1,199 $ 1,232 $ 1,267 $ 1,302 Ferry Loan Proceeds Loan Repayment Assistance CRAB $ 367 $ 367 $ 367 $ 367 $ 367 $ 367 $ 367 Unfunded $ 804 $ 808 $ 866 $ 867 $ 856 $ 868 $ 865 TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,786 $ 3,857 $ 3,984 $ 4,058 $ 4,121 $ 4,210 $ 4,285 (Memo Total Cost) $ 3,786 $ 3,857 $ 3,984 $ 4,058 $ 4,121 $ 4,210 $ 4,285 NOTES: Sum is Projected as 55% of Operating Cost Based on 45% of Operating Cost 297 B-11 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2006- 220 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator., MEW S/I8/06 urL'� D E::.- ,`� t l 1 June 6, 2006 Introduction Division Head: JPR June 20, 2006 Public Hearin S f 215. Dept. Head: JMM 1"Ih1M M A Y ry � � L0o6 Prosecutor: }}��/JJ DLG J9' 05 0 L ypp1 �} YWi ATCVM COUNTY COUNGiL Purchasi / e1: -�c(p Executive: `Y TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Developer Reimbursement of Roadway Construction on West Road ATTACHMENTS: Memo with vicinity map, sample notice of developer application, and sample hearing notice Developer Reimbursement Agreement SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date: June 20, 2006 SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this itene 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.) The purpose of the public hearing is the review and approval of a Developer Reimbursement Agreement, consistent with WCC 12.44, between Whatcom County and Morning Star Ventures, LLC (Jim Buchanan), as a result of improvements made to West Road, otherwise known as a "late corners" agreement. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatco)n.wa.us/council. WN WHATCOM COUNTY CO CO DIVISION OF ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �P��.J ? ;q G,y JOSEPH P. RUTAN, P.E. JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. P Y� Assistant Director/County Road Engineer 5280 Northwest Drive, 5uite C Director Bellingham, WA 98226-9098 �gshrH�.10 Phone: (360) 676-6730; (360) 380-81 t0 Fax: (360) 676-6558 MEMO TO: The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive, and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council RECEIVED FROM: Joseph P. Rutan, Asst. Director/County Road Engineer MAY 2 5 2006 Jeffrey M. Monsen, Public Works Director Jiq PETS KREMEN DATE: May 18, 2006 COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUBJECT: Developer Reimbursement of Roadway Construction on West Road Requested Action: Property owners within the proposed assessment area for the above referenced developer reimbursement have requested a hearing be held to aid the Council in their determination of a fair assessment area and assessment. Following the public hearing, the Council may approve, modify, or ieject the assessment reimbursement area and the assessment for each property within the area, applying the standards set forth in WCC 12.44. The Council's decision on approval of the Developer Reimbursement Agreement is determinative and final. Backfzround and Purpose: WCC 12.44 allows developers to submit application for reimbursement on roadway construction from property owners improving their properties in the future that benefit from the completed roadways improvements. Morning Star Ventures, LLC (Jim Buchanan) improved West Road from the end of the paved roadway to a point 60 feet beyond the intersection centerline of Salmon Creek Lane, a total of 1,004 feet in length (see attached vicinity map). The improvements consisted of widening a County maintained gravel road from 17-foot to 26-foot in width. As a result of these improvements, County forces will be chip -sealing (2 layers of bituminous surface -treatment) the gravel roadway to 20 feet in width. The resulting roadway will be a hard surface of 20 feet -wide with 3-foot gravel shoulders. The improvements made to the roadway by County forces is being accomplished as a part of the "gravel road conversion" program and the associated costs are not a part of this reimbursement agreement. A notice sent to all affected property owners within the proposed assessment in late April. As .a result, and consistent with WCC 12.44, we received requests for holding a public hearing on this matter. Notice of Hearing was sent to all affected property owners on May 18, 2006 with` notice of a hearing date set for June 20, 2006. Staff will be present at time of the hearing to assist the Council in its deliberations. Enc. 299 Phone: (360) 676-6730 County: (360) 380-8110 FAX: (360) 676-6558 WEST ROAD LATECOMERS ASSESSMENT AREA VICINITY MAP 300 WHA'TCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. Director CERTIFIED MAIL_ «First» «Last Name» «Address» «City», «St» «Zip» DIVISION OF ENGINEERING �co*� coG JOSEPH P. RUTAN P.E. County Road Engineer/Assistant Director _ 5280 Northwest Drive, Suite C Bellingham, WA 98226-9098 s � ° Phone: (360) 676-6730; (360) 380-8110 Fax: (360) 676-6558 April 26, 2006 RE: Developer Re-imbursement Application for West Road Dear «First» «Last Name» : Washington State law allows municipalities to enter into a latecomer's agreement with owners of real property who elect to construct road improvements as a required condition for property development. The intent of the latecomer's agreement is to provide a means for the developer of the road improvements to recover a share of the costs from other property owners who benefit from the improvements and would have been required to make similar improvements before developing their own properties. The procedures include delineation of an assessment reimbursement area, method of assessment, public notification, and public hearing, if requested by any property owner within the boundary of the assessment reimbursement area. The latecomer's agreement is written, signed, and then recorded in the County Auditor's office. A latecomer's application for West Road was submitted for creation of an assessment area. Your property, parcel No <<TRS» <<Parcel», is within the assessment reimbursement area, attached as "Exhibit A". West Road was constructed to rural public road standards of 26-foot wide gravel road within County maintained right-of-way for the Brooktide 2 Short Plat. The County will be applying two. layers of Bituminous Surface Treatment (chip seal) to the roadway to provide a 20 solid travel way with 3-foot gravel shoulders. The road cost assessment is based on the number of likely lots potential within the assessment reimbursement area and the cost is divided equally between all potential lots. The total costs allowed are $62,008.56, which is $1,771.67 per potential lot. Your parcel is assessed as #«Assessed —Lots» of likely potential lots and the amount of the assessment on your parcel is <<Assessment» . This amount would only be collected if and when your property is developed. 301 Preliminary Determination Notice West Road Latecomers No. 2006-01 April 27, 2006 Page 2 Whatcom County Code 12.44 defines the eligible costs associated with the latecomer's agreement. The developer has the ability to collect interest on each assessment. The interest rate shall be a fixed rate at the Federal Reserve rate for one-year treasury bills on the secondary market at the time the agreement is signed. Pursuant to Washington State law, each latecomer's agreement shall be -valid for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) years. A hearing will be held before the Whatcom County Council only if any property owner requests a hearing in writing within thirty (30) days of the mailing of this notice. Hearing requests should be sent to: Whatcom County Council 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 105 Bellingham, WA 98225 If a request -for a hearing is made, a notice will be sent to all affected property owners. After public hearing, the County Council may approve, modify, or reject the Assessment Reimbursement Area and assessment for each property within the Assessment Reimbursement Area applying the standards set forth in WCC 12.44. The County Council's ruling is determinative and final. If you have any questions, please contact me at (360) 676-6730 or you may e-mail me at mwhite@co.whatcom.wa.us. Sincerely, Mary E. White Engineering Technician Enclosure: Exhibit `A' 302 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. Director CERTIFIED MAIL «First» ((Last Name» «Address» «City», «St» «Zip» DIVISION OF ENGINEERING M°ay JOSEPH P. RUTAN, P.E. f' e County Road Engineer/Assistant Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Suite C `y4stp? BeIIingham, WA 98226-9098 IN Phone: (360) 676-6730; (360) 380-8110 Fax: (360) 676-6558 May 18, 2006 RE: Notice of Hearing for West Road Latecomers Assessment Determination Dear «First» ((Last Name»: A hearing will be held on June 20, 2006 at 7:00 PM in the County Council Chambers located on the Whatcom Countv Courthouse, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington on the Mission Road Latecomers Assessment Determination. The County Council may approve, modify, or reject the assessment reimbursement area and the assessment for each property within the assessment reimbursement area by applying the standards set forth in Whatcom County Code 12.44. The County Council's determination with regard to the assessment reimbursement area and the assessments shall be determinative and final. As a reminder, the calculated assessment for parcel No. «TRS» «Parcel» is «Assessment» for the potential of «Assessed_ Lots)) developable lot(s). Additionally, the assessment reimbursement area and a copy of the Whatcom County Code are attached. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (360) 676-6730 or you may e-mail me at mwhite (a)co.whatcom.wa.us. Thank you Sincerely, Mary E. White Engineering Technician Cc: Whatcom County Council Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director 303 DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of , 20 , by and between Whatcom County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter the "County") and Morning Star Ventures, LLC, and its heirs, successors, and assigns (hereinafter called "Owner"). WHEREAS, pursuant to and consistent with Chapter 35.72 RCW, the County extensively amended Whatcom County Code (WCC) 12.44, the Procedure for Reimbursement of Roadway Construction Costs that Benefit Others ordinance, with WCC 12.44.070 presently providing for execution of an Owner -County contract between the County and the' Owner by - which the Owner agrees to fund the cost of improvements as necessary under Whatcom County Code; and, WHEREAS, WCC 12.44 provides for the recovery of the costs expended by the Owner for improvements within County right-of-way based on a pro -rats share of the costs of the improvement collected from the owners developing property in the reimbursement area who are benefited by the improvement project; and WHEREAS, Owner as a condition of development has improved a portion of West Road, a County -maintained gravel road, from the current end of the pavement to a point sixty (60) feet beyond the centerline of the intersection of West Road with Salmon Creek Lane, for a total improvement of 1004 feet in length; and WHEREAS, the improvements performed by Owner consisted of the widening the graveled portion of West Road in this section from a width of 17 feet to a width of 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the County will be applying to the newly improved and widened gravel surface, two layers of bituminous surface treatment (BST) to a width of 20 feet for the course of 1004 feet, leaving three-foot gravel shoulders on either side of the pavement; and WHEREAS, Owner is entitled to partial reimbursement for the cost of his work on the road to the extent of benefit to persons who subsequently develop lots served by the improved portion of the road; and WHEREAS, Owner has certified the accuracy of the costs submitted by him, the costs appear to be reasonable upon review, and those costs are set forth below; and WHEREAS, notice of hearing on the proposed latecomer's agreement has been provided to the affected parties, the County Council has conducted a public hearing on the proposed agreement; and, Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page 1 of 7 304 WHEREAS, after receiving and considering information provided at the time of the public hearing the Whatcom County Council has determined that the form of the agreement to be executed by Whatcom County shall be as set forth below. IT IS AGREED THAT: Section 1. Boundary of: Assessment Reimbursement Area. The boundary of Assessment Reimbursement Area is delineated on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. Description of Improvements and Benefit to Property Owners. The Owner voluntarily agreed to fund and perform improvements following land development regulations contained in Titles 20 and 21 WCC. The cost of the improvements was more than the Owner's proportionate share. The improvements consist of a 26-foot wide (widened from its previous 17-foot width) gravel roadway constructed to Whatcom County specifications from a point at the current end of the pavement on West Road and continuing 1,004 feet east on said road to a point 60 feet east of the centerline of the intersection of Salmon Creek Lane and West Road, this point being the current end of the County -maintained road. An itemization of the actual costs incurred by the Owner is itemized below. The Owner has certified -and the Public Works Department agrees that the itemized costs reflect accurately the allowable costs that it incurred in the construction of the required improvements. Other property owners within the reimbursement area, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", will be required, as they develop their properties (including but not limited to subdivision thereof), to reimburse the Owner their proportionate share of the costs of the road improvements, in accordance with Chapter 35.72 RCW, and as set forth below in Section 3. Section 3. Calculation of Proportionate Share Reimbursement. The total cost of the improvements at West Road eligible for reimbursement under WCC 12.44 is $62,008.56 based upon the following: Direct Construction Costs Developer Administrative Costs Construction Interest Latecomer Administrative Fee Subtotal Less Owner's Proportionate Share Maximum Reimbursable Amount under Developer Reimbursement Agreement without interest Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road $ 62,847.09 $ 1,885.41 $ 363.39 $ 7,542.71 $ 72,638.60 $ 10,630.04 $ 62,008.56 Page 2 of 7 305 If all potential parcels within the boundary of Assessment Reimbursement Area develop, there will be 41 parcels (with parcel size depending on the zoning of the parcel). Dividing the total cost of the improvements by the total potential parcels possible through development in the area provides a per parcel rate calculated as follows: Total Reimbursable Costs of $72,638.60 / 41 parcels = $1,771.67 per parcel The calculated $1,77.1.67 shall be used as the assessment cost per parcel impacting the West Road for all developers within the assessment reimbursement area. The Owner's proportionate share of the improvements is based upon its 6 parcels multiplied by the $1,771.67/parcel, or $ 10,630.04. A current list of parcels within the reimbursement area, attached as Exhibit "B", will be subject to the assessment of the above -stated per parcel amount upon development. Properties subject to the assessment reimbursement have benefited by the Owner's improvements to West Road, in that they would have been unable to develop and/or they would have been required to provide similar road improvements or fund a pro rata share of improvements, but for the fact that those improvements were provided for by the Owner under this Developer Reimbursement Agreement. Section 4. Maximum Reimbursement to the Owner. Reimbursement will be made to the Owner, per Section 6, from funds collected not to exceed $ 62,008.56 (sixty-two thousand eight dollars and fifty-six cents) based upon $ 62,008.56 due to the owner and $0.00 due to the County for processing and administering the Developer Reimbursement Agreement. Accrued interest may also be collected above the $62,008.56 in accordance with Whatcom County Code 12.44.110. Section 5. Termination of Agreement. Upon full reimbursement to the Owner and/or its successors of the maximum reimbursement figure of $ 62,008.56 plus allowable interest accrual, or at the expiration of fifteen (15) years from the recording of the Assessment Reimbursement Agreement, whichever occurs first, this reimbursement agreement shall terminate, and any remaining obligations to pay hereunder shall be extinguished. Section 6. Reimbursement to Owner. All monies up to $62,008.56 plus allowable interest accrual collected during the, duration of Assessment Reimbursement Area will be remitted to the County per WCC 12.44.130, which shall in tarn disburse the funds received to: Morning Star Ventures, LLC, 5275 Noon Road, Bellingham, Washington 98226 (referred to herein as the "Owner") The Owner is responsible for notifying the County of change of address or assignment of payments. Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page 3 of 7 306 Section 7. Binding Assessments. Assessments shall be binding on the real property within the area described on Exhibit "A" and currently identified as the parcels listed on the attached Exhibit "B", plus allowable interest accruals. Section 8. County and Owner Responsibilities. Pursuant to WCC 12.44.150, the County in no way guarantees payment of assessments by latecomers, or enforceability of assessments, or the amounts thereof against such persons or property. Nor will the offices or finances of the County be used for enforcement or collection of latecomer obligations beyond those duties specifically undertaken by the County pursuant to WCC 12.44. It shall be the obligation of the Owner to take whatever authorized means are available to enforce payment of latecomer assessments. Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page 4 of 7 307 WHATCOM COUNTY Pete Kremen County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON) )SS COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) Owner/Developer dim Buchanan, on behalf of Owner Morning Star Ventures, LLC I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Executive of Whatcom County to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: NOTARY PUBLIC in the State of Washington Residing at My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Signed this instrument, to me known to be the of ; authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged him/her as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Approved as to Form only Daniel Gibson Asst. Chief Civil Deputy Pros NOTARY PUBLIC in the State of Washington Residing at My appointment expires Atty., Whatcom County Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page 5 of 7 Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page 6 of 7 309 C h IN (O (O N V O O r- IA (D (C Ir (D " O,- (D (D "- (D M (D O- P.-Ir (D (D f- IP (D (MO- (O f- (O O AN (D O O 0 O 0 O NR r �E CA R ��A O h� m qOq �FF �CO (9 (9 _q 470 IA � . . rr di Fg rr fA .n Ni fA N Ih d! . eA 69 . OA M 1. 09 r (A Hi r 69 Y] to qy Q f F t pv t s F a. m �p�N NN r r a 4'1 rr r V rr V O a pC to to In tD to N 77�7�dOy�'K ¢Kto 0. Ix N O aV- N a0 Ind (NO h N N N N III K] Is1[] (!7 In Y0101,4 Oj [L/O Ri (DON r N N [V OV a r PO7 n m N N 0 4 tail N (I� O (lS C4 (.I Or V N C (h m Om10m1Ol ��%% �0Q Ol fO J N k dl inV A �OggQp '�QOQ+ �Q4 Owl I�7� �U.,Oml LLyTjf - O Ij.V. IRI Q m I� N r N N OBI GNO ONO .� mCM M I-OO O01 M MINE M > 0, M in33c�rz33 6 Q 06h, ¢ ¢ m ¢ c3 3¢ ¢ ¢ 3_ 3 ¢ a Q 4 a U ¢ ¢ ¢ E C M m Q E E �p N I m m �Ey L t m o (a6 L CY m V L E_ }Cph ` C �m�� C O C ll = C C vim C Umm�immaq IcSI2m �m w mmmmm 1tl0 � m m Uamm ' 3 a•amc rn 3 •c 4 •� c c m m m 4� m� 2i q� rJ ?: mtn�dm UrX w pN0 v a ° y Ui a (° o�> a EO N NryO CAN r �O 0)M (0 r2 �0�e7I1 A N O m DOI pMp Nmm 00 ONI copOrO rOD (+i N O ��yrI (D�Om m cCD oF LO Q eT VNrco N ariaa mNN (+I rarr mRmr mN L m U c m OF J a� C ILL�pp Ld m c 1qq C GI � L O O E m m m a s a c m a m- o pp a(i 00 c •tcp L m N ls7 m c O m yy iry p It 4aC�0Y�U2>C7mm ¢M6 LL Da'❑ �i wTC(7n y 7 i 'Jg7 }J}qq 7lq E E U Id = yaa�c�m C$: c > E �r90 3ac� w�-x caa�M go go'0 co m (+I A �t UO vN N(�700 O� (p mC Om fQ. p IIf 01011� t� N r M r 1pt�-p t�v-f- r f lV v p v pn r O � to '�} r r � p8 1p� 9 v.5 f0 O o r o r 0 m Pr] (rf 1N7 ( V In (q 1(p] eft �� pO 7� O Q Q Iry O O O O a0 O O a0 0 a0 CO 0 0 e0 O . 0 . . 0 0 . O 0 0 m O_ m 0 0 OO O O 0 0 0 OI IM 11'7� 1,01,01,01ol,cl 0 IC0 8VVV R V 7 Q�f 6 'T I v Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page 7 of 7 310 DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of , 20 _, by and between Whatcom County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter the "County") and Morning Star Ventures, LLC1 and its heirs, successors, and assigns (hereinafter called "Owner"). WHEREAS, pursuant to and consistent with Chapter 35.72 RCW, the County extensively amended Whatcom County Code (WCC) 12.44, the Procedure for Reimbursement of Roadway Construction Costs that Benefit Others ordinance, with WCC 12.44.070 presently providing for execution of an Owner -County contract between the County and the' Owner by which the Owner agrees to fund the cost of improvements as necessary under Whatcom County Code; and, WHEREAS, WCC 12.44 provides for the recovery of the costs expended by the Owner for improvements within County right-of-way based on a pro-rata share of the costs of the improvement collected from the owners developing property in the reimbursement area who are benefited by the improvement project; and WHEREAS, Owner as a condition of development has improved a portion of West Road, a County -maintained gravel road, from the current end of the pavement to a point sixty (60) feet beyond the centerline of the intersection of West Road with Salmon Creek Lane, for a total improvement of 1004 feet in length; and WHEREAS, the improvements performed by Owner consisted of the widening the graveled portion of West Road in this section from a width of 17 feet to a width of 26 feet; and WHEREAS, the County will be applying to the newly improved and widened gravel surface, two layers of bituminous surface treatment (BST) to a width of 20 feet for the course of 1004 feet, leaving three-foot gravel shoulders on either side of the pavement; and WHEREAS, Owner is entitled to partial reimbursement for the cost of his work on the road to the extent of benefit to persons who subsequently develop lots served by the improved portion of the road; and WHEREAS, Owner has certified the accuracy of the costs submitted by him, the costs appear to be reasonable upon review, and those costs are set forth below; and WHEREAS, notice of hearing on the proposed latecomer's agreement has been provided to the affected parties, the County Council has conducted a public hearing on the proposed agreement; and, Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page I of 7 311 WHEREAS, after receiving and considering information provided at the time of the public hearing the Whatcom County Council has determined that the form of the agreement to be executed by Whatcom County shall be as set forth below. IT IS AGREED THAT: Section 1. Boundary of Assessment Reimbursement Area. The boundary of Assessment Reimbursement Area is delineated on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. Description of Improvements and Benefit to Property Owners. The Owner voluntarily agreed to fund and perform improvements following land development regulations contained in Titles 20 and 21 WCC. The cost of the improvements was more than the Owner's proportionate share. The improvements consist of a 26-foot wide (widened from its previous 17-foot width) gravel roadway constructed to Whatcom County specifications from a point at the current end of the pavement on West Road and continuing 1,004 feet east on said road to a point 60 feet east of the centerline of the intersection of Salmon Creek Lane and West Road, this point being the current end of the County -maintained road. An itemization of the actual costs incurred by the Owner is itemized below. The Owner has certified and the Public Works Department agrees that the itemized costs reflect accurately the allowable costs that it incurred in the construction of the required improvements. Other property owners within the reimbursement area, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", will be required, as they develop their properties (including but not limited to subdivision thereof), to reimburse the Owner their proportionate share of the costs of the road improvements, in accordance with Chapter 35.72 RCW, and as set forth below in Section 3. Section 3. Calculation of Proportionate Share Reimbursement. The total cost of the improvements at West Road eligible for reimbursement under WCC 12.44 is $62,008.56 based upon the following: Direct Construction Costs Developer Administrative Costs Construction Interest Latecomer Administrative Fee Subtotal Less Owner's Proportionate Share Maximum Reimbursable Amount under Developer Reimbursement Agreement without interest Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road $ 62,847.09 $ 1,885.41 $ 363.39 $ 7,542.71 $ 72,638.60 $ 10,630.04 $ 62,008.56 Page 2 of 7 312 If all potential parcels within the boundary of Assessment Reimbursement Area develop, there will be 41 parcels (with parcel size depending on the zoning of the parcel). Dividing the total cost of the improvements by the total potential parcels possible through development in the area provides a per parcel rate calculated as follows: Total Reimbursable Costs of $72,638.60 / 41 parcels = $1,771.67 per parcel The calculated $1,771.67 shall be used as the assessment cost per parcel impacting the Vilest Road for all developers within the assessment reimbursement area. The Owner's proportionate share of the improvements is based upon its 6 parcels multiplied by the $1,771.67/parcel, or $ 10,630.04. A current list of parcels within the reimbursement area, attached as Exhibit "B", will be subject to the assessment of the above -stated per parcel amount upon development. Properties subject to the assessment reimbursement have benefited by the Owner's improvements to West Road, in that they would have been unable to develop and/or they would have been required to provide similar road improvements or fund a pro rata share of improvements, but for the fact that those improvements were provided for by the Owner under this Developer Reimbursement Agreement. Section 4, Maximum Reimbursement to the Owner. Reimbursement will be made to the Owner, per Section 6, from funds collected not to exceed $ 62,008.56 (sixty-two thousand eight dollars and fifty-six cents) based upon $ 62,008.56 due to the owner and.$0.00 due to the County for processing and administering the Developer Reimbursement Agreement. Accrued interest may also be collected above the $62,008.56 in accordance with Whatcom County Code 12.44.110. Section 5. Termination of Agreement. Upon full reimbursement to the Owner and/or its successors of the maximum reimbursement figure of $ 62,008.56 plus allowable interest accrual, or at the expiration of fifteen (15) years from the recording of the Assessment Reimbursement Agreement, whichever occurs first, this reimbursement agreement shall terminate, and any remaining obligations to pay hereunder shall be extinguished. Section 6. Reimbursement to Owner. All monies up to $62,008.56 plus allowable interest accrual collected during the duration of Assessment Reimbursement Area will be remitted to the County per WCC 12.44.130, which shall in turn disburse the funds received to: Morning Star Ventures, LLC, 5275 Noon Road, Bellingham, Washington 98226 (referred to herein as the "Owner") The Owner is responsible for notifying the County of change of address or assignment of payments. Developer Reimbursement Agreement for Nest Road Page 3 of 7 313 Section 7. Binding Assessments. Assessments shall be binding on the real property within the area described on Exhibit "A" and currently identified as the parcels listed on the attached Exhibit "B", plus allowable interest accruals. Section 8. County and Owner Responsibilities. Pursuant to WCC 12.44.150, the County in no way guarantees payment of assessments by latecomers, or enforceability of assessments, or the amounts thereof against such persons or property. Nor will the offices or finances of the County be used for enforcement or collection of latecomer obligations beyond those duties specifically undertaken by the County pursuant to WCC 12.44. It shall be the obligation of the Owner to take whatever authorized means are available to enforce payment of latecomer assessments. Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page 4 of 7 314 WHATCOM COUNTY Pete Kremen County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON) )SS COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) Owner/Developer Jim Buchanan, on behalf of Owner Morning Star Ventures, LLC I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Executive of Whatcom County to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: NOTARY PUBLIC in the State of Washington Residing at My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON) )ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Signed this instrument, to me known to be the of ; authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged him/her as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Approved as to Form only Daniel Gibson Asst. Chief Civil Deputy Pros NOTARY PUBLIC in the State of Washington Residing at My appointment expires Atty., Whatcom County Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page S of 7 31.5 Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page G of 7 316 C f` N NCnn gIQ0� ff0D ff�0 Af•f+ f, QI f0 N f, tin UI (D nfv f, N000 Op4 qq U) I0� I(��0 !� h M(D F�f� f(�O f� f(q f[.O f� h f�R f� q fc�0 f(q [FEE If�O fro '0k f(�G fR k fR k R]6'16gH qM N N [9 W6�9 69 di www 0 60)0 rM W W tl1w M y� VJ Q ,• �l '. f jam.. � Ali �1 �NC-4 O IL c aM`��aagN(Nf7, I(7 I(1 N 4'Y In 1C1 tly IL'1 fp Ip fp NtO qqC6C6 CD V�1a1l��aa rN o0 N NC ¢ N /h qq f�l f�1 Nf!'10q LVV O (7 qO too CI mO Oql W ��p v NfO N �y N q Q V 4R 3 [mil Oml 4Ni��f iU.. pp Oqi 1[] V O N N 1'. Ni�I N q CO N N M Ol N N O 0 m O m q q coa0 m to co aao}}aa maa a aa_¢a ate¢ a tea¢¢ m v m F' Ery �( m mm m t C r m m N oo y L % m m L IM 19 C C ._ W C -aA N C Li ' C 4 C U 19 m m e— m m f G m m C..1 m 1 L CO a W m m c— m m m m m p 7 L� m in qq U m _. LL m m m y m ca � o` 0 0O, _ > i - men C7 cc z 0 m p �� 7('Ti' Q�_tpe� $m Ei Vj m OM A ( gJgv7 �_pi�¢ �$ y m Opr gc m G �LW e Rfj�mai t c�sf� vl�Qp.m U0, W o W [�++ o o dmI w � o-mi7 b¢ Cq C-4ysfm fAN�O r- 10 r OIA NN miy lf)m 8NQQmoN0 CO O mm m N m W O'D Y 1 V V l 2d0. N CI) cOan� �i m U � m ' J C m aE LO N Y 15 C}� N ^ m FII W C R a m— m Yam L PL NCJ O mF Q �oaY Z m m m cd W CL 'a mEry r- na m oe H �E m m a S m Q g t z C t C gym.. S a C 0 u 1mq g l!. ¢G.C?DY�25U' a mm aOCU YI.LTL'. ��O 22 W i i E E E c u m Wr9a C Q q 0 m V W a f0 Nf�l p �y GO QqQ ,$YfON OO fO.6 (h 00 mrD Nq mpCfti Q R047 Ul Qlh Lh W N Mee�p 47 7N 7 r q rN rv� r O N M mpf b N co � Cm7 c� in M 41 �t �T u'1 o V ' ro vj ggmmm q 0 g O m q q qmm O 0_ O m O mgmmm qq m m co Gl Ol I It Developer Reimbursement Agreement for West Road Page 7 of 7 317 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-3 i 6 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: originalor: MG 6128106 I1 1rV J U L 18 2CO6 1IIt CleoU i0VII 11 N T`� N It f A i C O M MUM i L 7125106 Pub Wks Division Head: Dept. Head: �J '" 'f I S �D �v Prosecutor: Purchasing/Budge : Executive: -�g'BG TITLE F DOCUMENT: 2006 / 2007Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Plan ATTACHMENTS. 1. Memo to County Executive and County Council 2. 2006 12007 Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Plan SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a (rearing? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT 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.) Request review and approval of the 2006/ 2007Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Plan. COMMITTEEACTION.- COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: 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. in WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. Director ROAD DIVISION MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS Mary A. Green, Superintendent 901 W. Smith Road Bellingham, WA 98226 (360) 676-6759 1380-8111 Fax 676-6879 MEMO TO: The Honorable Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive, and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council FROM: Jeffrey M. Monsen, P.E., Director, RECEIVED DATE: SUBJECT: June 30 2006 JUL 0., 7 200E PETF KREMEN 2006/2007 Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management P&PUN EXECUTIVE Requested Action: Review and approve the 2006/2007 Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Plan at the July 25th Council Meeting. Background and Purpose: Consistent with Whatcom County Code 12.48.020(G), the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Plan is brought forward annually to the County Council Public Works Committee for review and approval. Should you have any questions, please contact Mary Green, Maintenance and Operations Superintendent at 676-6759. Thank you. 319 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS DIVISION 2006/2007 INTEGRATED ROADSIDE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN Jeffrey M. Monsen, P.E., Dizector Joseph P. Rutan, P.E., County Road Engineer Mary A. Green, Maintenance and Operations Superintendent Paul Kelley, Vegetation Crew Leader Christy Sands, Clerk III 320 Table of Contents Page No. Forward 4 I. Mission 5 II. Objectives 5 III. Introduction 5 A. Integrated Roadside Management Defined 5 B. Typical Cross Section and General Terminology 6 C. Examples of Benefits of Vegetation Management 7 1. Pavement Drainage 7 2. Safe Visibility 7 3. Cleared Roadway 7 4. Ditch Maintenance 7 1V. Vegetation Management Programs 8 A. Brush Program 8 1. Brush BMP No. 1: Tree Trimming in Right -Of -Way 9 2. Brush BMP No.2: Right -Of -Way Tree Removal 10 3. Brush BMP No.3: Hazard Tree Identification and Removal 11 4. Brush BMP NoA: Detention Pond Maintenance 12 5. Storm water Facility Maintenance and Inspection 13 B. Herbicide Program 14 I. Herbicides 14 A. Minimize Use of Herbicides 14 B. Herbicide Product List for 2006/2007 14 C. Herbicide Notification Process 14 D. Record Keeping 15 E. Geographically Sensitive Areas 15 F. Petitioned No Spray Areas 15 G. Owner Will Maintain Agreement 15 H. Herbicide Program Details 15 II. Herbicide Best Management Practiccs (BMPs) 1. Herbicide BUT No. 1: Bareground Application 16 2. Herbicide BMP No.2: Dormant Brush Control 17 3. Hcrbicide BUT No.3: Noxious/Selective Weed Control 18 4. Hcrbicide BMP NoA: Signpost Trcatmcnts 19 5. Hcrbicide BMP No.S: Guardrail Treatments 20 6. Herbicide BUT No.6: Miscellaneous Projects 21 7. Herbicide BUT No. 7: Selective Knotweed Treatment 22 C. Hydroseeding Program 23 1. Hydroseeding BMP 24 D. Wildflower Islands 25 1- Wildflower BMP 26 E. Mowing Program 27 1. Mowing BMP No. 1: Long -Arm Mowing 28 2. Mowing BMP No.2: Shouldcr Mowing 29 3. Mowing BMP No. 3: Ditch Maintenance 30 2 321 V. APPENDIX A. Appendix I Whatcom County Code Chapter 12.48 "Roadside Vegetation Management Program" B. Appendix II Press Release C. Appendix III Public Notice D. Appendix IV Roadside Spray Sign Posting E. Appendix V Daily Chemical Application Record F. Appendix VI Owner Will Maintain Packet including: Letter to Prior Owner Will Maintain Signators Road Right -Of -Way Maintenance Agreement Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement Owner Will Maintain Spray Options with Explanations Owner Will Maintain Sign Posting Instructions Owner Will Maintain Sign G. Appendix VII Owner Will Maintain Default Letter 3 322 Forward Whatcom County's 2006/2007 Vegetation Plan continues to incorporate Best Management Practices developed according to the most current environmental standards. It is our goal to meet these standards while continuing to give excellent customer service. Our ongoing commitment is to provide a safe, esthetically pleasing roadway using environmentally sound methods. Whatcom County Roads display the results of the hard work of our vegetation staff and their commitment to the quality of their finished product. Staff training, proper equipment, and funding of programs continue to be vital to support these efforts. In 2006/2007 a member of the vegetation staff will continue training for and receive the designation of Certified Arborist. This expertise will further enhance the quality of Maintenance and Operations tree maintenance program. As in past years, the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Plan is a working document that continues to evolve as we respond to new laws and public concerns that impact the environment, health, and safety. One public concern, West Nile Virus, has been addressed. As was anticipated in the 2005 Plan, a full-time mower has been added for ditch maintenance. Clearing ditches of undesirable vegetation improves drainage, giving mosquitoes fewer places to breed. In addition, we will be able to respond more quickly to specific citizen requests, and provide maintenance support to the ditching program. Wildflower islands have become an even more important part of the 2006/2007 Plan. The addition of three areas brings the current number of island planted and maintained to fifteen. Several intersections throughout the county are also planted with wildflowers. Planting and maintenance of the islands and intersections is done by the herbicide crew and is part of the herbicide budget. The purchase of a hydroseeder in 2003 has had a positive impact in Whatcom County's Integrated Vegetation Management Program and the demand for hydroseeding has steadily increased. Hydroseeding bare soil after various road maintenance projects stabilizes soil, which prevents erosion and reduces or eliminates sedimentation runoff. Currently, hydroseeding is part of the herbicide budget, but it is anticipated that it will become a separate line item in the budget. Best Management Practices for each vegetation program will continue to be evaluated for their safety and effectiveness as we continue to face new challenges. 4 323 I. MISSION The mission of the 2006/2007 Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Program is as follows: 1. Protect the County Road System from encroaching vegetation. 2. Provide a safe environment for the travelling public. 3. Provide an aesthetically pleasing passageway for the travelling public. 4. Eradicate and prevent the spread of noxious weeds. 5. Perform work in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water Act. 6. Operate in a cost-effective, business -like manner. II. OBJECTIVES The objectives of the 2006/2007 Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Program are as follows: 1. Continuous evolution of vegetation Best Management Practices (BMP's) to meet the evolving requirements derived from the ESA/Clean Water Act. 2. Identify and mark Environmentally Critical Areas. 3. Acquire equipment and train staff as necessary to meet ESA/Clean Water Act requirements. III. INTRODUCTION A. Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Defined Integrated roadside vegetation management is a decision -making and action process. All available biological, mechanical, manual, cultural and chemical measures are evaluated. After choosing the best method for controlling undesirable vegetation implementation takes place. Whatcom County's program is modeled on the State of Washington's Integrated Pest Management program as codified in Chapter 17.15 of the Revised Code of Washington. Specific legislative direction upon which this program is based is codified in Chapter 12.48 "Roadside Vegetation Management Program" of the Whatcom County Code (Appendix I). As an illustration of the different vegetation management methods available, an example of a biological control measure is the release of insects to control the spread of a noxious weed; a mechanical control measure is shoulder mowing with a tractor; a manual vegetation control measure is trimming a tree with a chain saw; a cultural control measure is the planting of wildflowers; and an example of a chemical vegetation control measure is the application of a herbicide. 324 TYPICAL COUNTY ROAD CROSS SECTION Roadwayf Back slope Traveled way Hinge Shoulder Cross slope Shoulder �--� point Ninge - �" Drainage ditch Side slope Side slope Clear zone Clearzone Hinge Point Point where the slope rate charges. Clear zone That area along the side of the traveled way including the shoulder that is available for recovery of an errant vehicle. 325 Examples of the Benefits of VelZetatxon Mana-gement Vegetation management measures are necessary, in general, to protect the road, provide safety to the travelling public, provide aesthetic value, protect the environment, and to prevent the spread of noxious weeds as identified by the Whatcom County Noxious Weed Board. The following are some specific examples of the benefits of vegetation management: 1. Pavement Drainage: If left unchecked, sod builds up on the road shoulder and encroaches into the paved traveled way. Both the sod and its roots are apt to penetrate into the paved surface, cracking and damaging the road. Additionally, the sod traps and dams water preventing it from running off the road, thereby saturating the road base. This leads to accelerated degradation of the roadway. Trapped water at the road edge can lead to hydroplaning, or during winter, freeze and create hazardous road conditions. Sod at the edge of the traveled way is removed using mechanical means with a motor grader or is treated by chemical means using herbicide. A well -drained road protects the travelling public and the road. 2. Safe Visibility: If left unchecked, grass, brush, trees, and other vegetation grows in the shoulder, side slope, drainage ditch, and back slope. The line of sight for automobile drivers becomes impaired when rounding curves and approaching intersections as well as viewing road signs such as stop signs. Vegetation is cleared manually using chain saws and weed whackers, mechanically using long -arm tractor mowers, and chemically using herbicides. A clear line of sight is critical to the safety of the travelling public. 3. Hazard Trees: If left unchecked, branches and limbs from trees growing in the back slope encroach onto the roadway, potentially damaging vehicles and impairing visibility. The trees themselves can become hazardous, particularly during windstorms when they may blow over. A thick canopy of trees over the road promotes the retention of moisture on the road, leading to faster degradation of the road. Frost and ice are more likely to form. Trees in the back slope are cleared manually using chain saws, wand saws, and the basket truck. A cleared roadway allows for safe passage of the travelling public and promotes aeration (i.e. quick drying) of the road. 4. Ditch Maintenance: Long -arm mowing of ditches helps promote drainage. This reduces standing water in ditches, a particular concern because of mosquitoes. It also improves surface water runoff, as the mowed ditch provides an improved biofiltration function. In addition, ditch maintenance reduces snow build-up and drifting, especially in the . northeastern areas of the County. A full- time mower for ditch maintenance has been added to our program this year. The above examples illustrate just a few of the many benefits of our Integrated Vegetation Program and how important a part it plays in over-all road maintenance. 7 326 IV. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS A. BRUSH PROGRAM Staff. The brush program is currently staffed with a Service Worker III (Basket Truck Operator), two Service Worker 11's (Chipper Operator, Log Puller), and one or two Service Worker I's (Flagging Traffic), depending upon need and availability. The Vegetation Crew Leader provides immediate supervision. The brush program is utilized about 80% of the year. During the summer the crew is broken up to work on chip sealing. Equipment: Basket Truck, Chipper, Chipper Truck with knuckle boom and miscellaneous brush - cutting equipment such as a wand saw and chainsaws. A special chainsaw utilizing peanut oil is used in environmentally critical areas to limit the use of petroleum products. The recently acquired chipper truck with mounted knuckle -boom lifts logs out of ditches thereby minimizing erosion problems due to dragging the logs and eliminating sawdust in the ditch (i.e. knuckle boom can lift larger logs). Also, minimizes the potential of back injuries from dragging the logs up the ditch. Training and Licensure: Ongoing training for arborist certification for Crew Leader and basket truck operator. This certification will assist in determining a course of action for hazard trees (i.e. potential danger to travelling public), for improving limbing and pruning activities, and complying with ESA. Adopted 2006 Budget: Brush Cutting Manual $362,600 Dike Maintenance $5,000 Tasks: Tree Trimming in Right -Of -Way, Hazard Tree Removal in the Right -Of -Way, Tree Chipping in the Right -Of -Way. Also, with the use of summer help, manual maintenance of detention ponds. Performance Measurement Tree Trimming — Miles of Roadway Cleared Hazard Tree Removal — Number of Hazard Trees Removed, Number of Trees Identified Tree Chipping —Number of Yards of Chips Produced Pond Maintenance -Number of ponds maintained, frequency of maintenance General: The Vegetation Crew Leader and the Brush Crew work closely with the Public Works Biologist, especially in critical areas, to insure all work is performed in accordance with ESA requirements. For example, where practicable, work is performed to enhance the environment. This includes leaving woody debris in ditches as well as other wildlife enhancements. 327 BMP #1: TREE TRIMMING IN RIGHT-OF-WAY ♦ DESCRIPTION Tree trimming in the right-of-way involves the clearing of the tree canopy over the road surface. Limbs are trimmed using a basket buck and a hydraulic chain saw and fuel -powered chain saws. Chit limbs are fed through a chipper for use in other locations. ♦ PURPOSE Clearing the tree canopy from over the road allows air circulation, drying the road. It also allows the sun to warm the road surface. Keeping the road drier makes the road safer for the public, helping to reduce water retention and frost. Moisture on the road also causes damage. A dry road surface adds to the life of the road, saving money. In addition, visibility is enhanced. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP may be applied any time of year. It may be used in conjunction with other BMP's. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: • Inside the 150-foot buffer zone in critical areas unless public safety is jeopardized. In this case special precautions will be taken to minimize or eliminate any environmental impacts. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Identify and mark critical areas and setbacks. • Site evaluations prior to maintenance. This would include on site visual inspections and the use of maps. • Use of biodegradable oil in a chain saw to be used in critical areas only. • Crew will be familiar with a spill prevention plan and carry spill kits on site. • Fueling of equipment will be done using a spill prevention pump and spill guard. • Trim only what is necessary to provide a safe roadway. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE Regularly inspect all tools and equipment for leaks prior to operating Ongoing training for staff Ongoing updates and improvement of equipment 9 328 BMP #2: RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE REMOVAL ♦ DESCRIPTION When trees pose a potential threat to the public, utilities, or the roadway the Brush Crew removes them. Trees to be removed are first limbed using the basket truck and the hydraulic saw. Then the tree is felled to the ground using fuel -powered chain saws. Limbs are chipped and the wood chips are used in other locations. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of this BMP is to identify and remove potentially threatening trees before they become a hazard. Public safety, road drainage and visibility, and the elimination of potential hazard trees before they cause injuries or damage are all considerations in the removal of trees from the right-of- way. ♦ APPLICATION This BMP may be used in all areas at any time of year. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be applied inside the 150-foot buffer zone in critical areas unless public safety is jeopardized. In this case special precautions will be taken to minimize or eliminate any environmental impacts. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Identify and mark critical areas and setbacks. • Site evaluations prior to maintenance. This would include on site visual inspections and the use of maps. • Use of biodegradable oil in a chain saw to be used in critical areas only. • Crew will be familiar with a spill prevention plan and carry spill kits on site. • Fueling of equipment will be done using a spill prevention pump and spill guard. • Trim only what is necessary to provide a safe roadway. • Use log removal equipment to nunimize sawdust and soil disturbance. Repair any disturbed soils using approved methods. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE Regularly inspect all tools and equipment for leaks prior to operating. Ongoing training for staff. Ongoing updates and improvement of equipment 10 329 BMP #3: HAZARD TREE IDENTIFICATION AND REMOVAL ♦ DESCRIPTION Hazard trees are those trees that pose an immediate danger to people, public or private property, or utilities. The vegetation crew takes a pro -active approach in identifying and removing potentially hazardous trees. Reports of hazard trees may be received from other crewmembers, law enforcement or the public. The Vegetation Crew Leader receives these reports and inspects the trees reported. In addition, a member of the Brush Crew is in the process of achieving the goal of becoming a certified arborist. This would further enhance the department's ability to identify trees that might be a potential danger. Causes of damage to trees can include weather, beaver activity and disease. Once a tree has been determined by our staff to be a hazard and in County right-of-way, trimming or removal becomes priority. If the hazard tree is not on the right-of-way, every effort is made to identify and notify the property owner. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of this BMP is to identify and remove hazard trees before they can injure people or cause property damage. ♦ APPLICATION This BMP may be used in all areas at any time of year. ♦ LIMITATIONS Because this BMP involves an immediate threat to human life and/or property, there is no limitation to its application. In critical areas, special precautions will be taken to minimize or eliminate any negative environmental impact. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Respond as quickly as possible when notified of a potential hazard tree. • Locate and determine if the tree is a hazard tree as defined by guidelines. • Dispatch brush crew as soon as possible for the removal of the tree. Use a spill prevention plan and have a spill kit on site. • In critical areas these precautions will be taken: 1. Use of biodegradable oil in a specially designated chain saw. 2. Fueling of equipment will be done using a spill prevention pump and spell guard. 3. Trim or remove only what is necessary to protect the public and threatened property. 4. Use log removal equipment to minimize sawdust and soil disturbance. Repair any disturbed soils using approved methods. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Ongoing training to include the goal of acquiring the designation of certified arborist for a member of the vegetation crew • Ongoing updates and improvement of equipment • Regular inspection of tools and equipment 330 BMP #4: DETENTION POND MAINTENANCE ♦ DESCRIPTION Road construction in the County includes the construction of detention ponds that are designed to provide biofiltration for clean water runoff. Maintenance of these ponds has been assigned to the Vegetation Crew and funding comes out of the Brush Program budget. Maintenance includes mowing bio-swales, bagging and properly disposing of grass clippings, picking up all woody debris, and the removal of all undesirable vegetation. This is generally done manually with brush saws and by hand pulling. Summer Help performs most of the work. There are currently 12 ponds maintained and include Yew Street, Stein Road, Lake Terrell (3 ea), Baker -view Road (2 ea), Slater Road, Hannegan Road, Park Road (2 ea), and W Smith Road. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of this BMP is to maintain detention ponds so that they may continue to perform the biofiltration function as designed. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP may be applied any time of year, but most work is generally done during the summer when vegetation is actively growing. ♦ LIMITIONS There are no limitations to this BMP. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Check ponds and perform maintenance on a regularly scheduled basis and as needed. • Maintenance performed will be specific to the guidelines established for each individual pond. • Care will be taken to protect desirable vegetation when removing unwanted vegetation. • Grasses should be maintained at a height of 3 to 6 inches. 12 331 STORMWATER FACILITY MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION Facility Name Date Reason for inspection Bio-filtration swale: Remove garbage and other debris and dispose of appropriately. Mow grass to 4-5 inches and remove all clippings. Re -seed any bare spots. Replace or reset riprap at the culvert inlets and outlets. _ Clean and repair trash rack. Remove brush and tree saplings. Detention &/or Wet Ponds: Remove accumulated sediment if more than 10% of the design pond depth. Re -seed any bare spots. _ Mow grass to 4-5 inches and remove all clippings. _ Remove garbage and other debris and dispose of appropriately. Replace or reset riprap at the culvert inlets and outlets. Clean and repair trash rack. Replace or reset rock for spillway. Remove vegetation from spillway. Remove brush and tree saplings. Control Structures for Detention Ponds and Wet Ponds: Vactor control structure manhole, sump, and storm drains Remove garbage or other debris and dispose of appropriately. Repair or replace non-functioning shear gate. Repair or replace any rusted or damaged parts and/or pipes. Mortar any loose or leaking joints. Signature Print R Sign (annual, storm event, other) ***Please return form to Chris Brueske --- Public Works Engineering*** 13 332 B. HERBICIDE PROGRAM I. HERBICIDES A. Minimize Use of Herbicides It is the explicit goal of the 2006/2007 Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Program to minimize the use of herbicides whenever practicable. Considerations include level of vcgctation infestation, economic impacts, and ecologic consequences. When a chemical measure is chosen, minimization is aclueved through proper herbicide selection, timely application, and the lowest effective rate of herbicide. Whatcom County is very conscientious in the use of herbicides. All herbicides used are currently registered by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Agriculture. Application of herbicides is in accordance with State Department of Agriculture standards and chemical labels. Public Works Maintenance and Operations employees who apply the herbicides are licensed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture. In addition, these employees undergo continuous training to upgrade their expertise in the selection and safe application of herbicides. To insure the herbicide program is properly implemented, there is a written policy and procedure manual covering storage, transportation, application, disposal of herbicides, as well as the safety of those who come in contact with herbicides. This manual is located in the office of the Vegetation Crew Leader and in the herbicide truck. B. Herbicide Product List for 2006/2007 The following is the proposed list of products: Roundup Pro, Escort, Landmark, Veteran 720, Garlon 4, Rodeo, and Casoron. C. Herbicide Notification Process General public notice is provided annually in February and includes a Press Release (Appendix II), and Public Notice (Appendix III). The Press Release is provided to the news media (i.e. radio stations and local newspapers) Public Notice is posted at various public places throughout the County such as the Courthouse, post offices, stores, grange halls, fire stations, etc. The Press Release and Public Notice include the number of miles to be treated and information on entering into an Owner Will Maintain Agreement (see below). Additionally, at least one week prior to actual chemical treatment a Herbicide Notice (Appendix IV) is posted at intersections and not less than every two miles. Information in the Herbicide Notice includes the names of the herbicides to be used, approximate date of application, and the telephone number to contact for further information. Notices are re -dated as to the actual date of application. D. Record Keeping Thorough record keeping is maintained on a Daily Chemical Application Record (Appendix V) per State requirement for all herbicide applications including location, chemical used, weather conditions, and applicator comments. All citizen inquiries pertaining to herbicide application are carefully logged. E. Geographically Sensitive Areas Sensitive geographic areas have been identified within the County where herbicide spraying shall not take place. The areas are reviewed annually to evaluate the impact of alternative vegetation control methods. Such areas presently include Lake Whatcom Watershed, Lake Samish Watershed, Lummi Island, North Fork Rd., Cornell Creek, Rd, areas within the jurisdiction of the Whatcom County Shorelines Management Program, and Department of Ecology and Department of Fisheries exemptions 14 333 F. Petitioned No Spray Areas Roads may be petitioned as "No Spray" per Chapter 12.48.030 of the Whatcom County Code. They presently include the Lummi Reservation, Mosquito Lake Road, Rutsatz Road, a portion of Saxon Road, Paradise Road, Barrett Road, Waldron Road off Pacific Highway, and some areas in the Acme Valley- G. Owner Will Maintain Agreement Property owners have the option to have herbicide treatment reduced or eliminated on the road right-of-way abutting their property. To do so, the property owner must enter into an Owner Will Maintain Agreement with the County and perform vegetation control/maintenance as outlined in the Agreement. An example Owner Will Maintain Packet is included in the Appendices VI. Additional information can be obtained at Whatcom County Maintenance and Operations, (360) 676-6759. H. Herbicide Program Details Staff: The herbicide program is currently staffed with a licensed Service Worker II (Driver) and a licensed Service Worker III (Applicator). The Vegetation Crew Leader provides immediate supervision. Equipment: Labeled Herbicide spray truck with an on -board computer, portable 25-gallon spray tank, and 1 and 3 gallon pump tanks for manual applications. Training and Licensure: Washington State Department of Agriculture Pesticide License "Public Operator." Washington State Weed Association Annual Weed Conference (3 Day Conference). Washington State University IPM Program Certification (On -Going). Adopted 2006 Budget: Weed Spray/Hydroseeding $ 186,000 Noxious Weed Control 531,000 Tasks: Bare ground Application, Dormant Brush Application, Noxious Weed/Selective Weed Control, Signpost Treatment, Guardrail Treatment, Miscellaneous Other Projects and Maintenance of Wildflower Islands. See BMP's for a more detailed description. Performance Measurements: Bare ground Application -- Numbers of miles of treatment Dormant Brush Application -- Number of miles of treatment Noxious Weed Control — Number of square feet of treatment Signpost Treatment -- Number of sign posts treated Guardrail Treatment — Number of lineal feet of treatment General: Maintenance and Operations is actively working to reduce the amount of herbicide utilized to the extent practieable. Emphasis is placed on careful selection of product, utilization of the lowest effective application rate, and proper timing. County policy is to use the produet according to its label and the Washington State Department of Agriculture. 15 334 HERBICIDE BMP #1: BARE GROUND APPLICATION ♦ DESCRIPTION A bare ground application is a vegetation free strip next to the edge of the road pavement. Selected herbicides are applied to this zone using a computerized injection system. This zone is usually a minimum of 12 inches, but the actual width varies according to the specific road shoulder. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of the bare ground application is to prevent vegetation from damaging the road surface and to promote drainage. It also improves visibility and reduces fire hazard. In addition this vegetation free zone provides pedestrian access and a refuge for vehicles. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP may be applied when vegetation is actively growing, as weather allows, from mid March through early October. it may be used in conjunction with other BMP's. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: When weather conditions do not permit including heavy rainfall, inversions, freezing temperatures, or wind velocity exceeding label recommendations. In critical areas or within a setback of 150 feet on both sides of a sensitive area without the approval of the Biologist and the Vegetation Crew Leader. When the shoulder composition is not adequate to prevent erosion, bio-filtration function, or off -target application. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Observe strict compliance to product labels, and State and local regulations. • Careful selection of products, rates, and timing of application. • Careful site evaluation prior to applications ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Regular maintenance and calibration of all spray equipment. • Ongoing site evaluations throughout the season. + Ongoing training of staff including yearly re -certification. • Ongoing improvement and updates of equipment and facilities. 16 335 HERBICIDE BMP #2: DORMANT BRUSH CONTROL ♦ DESCRIPTION A Dormant Brush application is applied to woody species of vegetation; primarily blackberries, alder and cottonwood, during the fall, winter, and early spring using selected herbicides applied with a computerized injection system. These brush species are sprayed within the right-of-way in intersections, along the backside of the ditch, or where their encroachment on to the ROW might be a problem. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of the application is to control various aggressive tree and brush species in order to prevent them from becoming visibility hazards and maintenance problems. Drainage is a particular concern. This program prevents brush from encroaching into the ditch line and allows for ditch maintenance. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP may be applied all year, weather permitting, but the optimum time for treatment is from mid -October to March when the targeted vegetation is dormant. It may be used in conjunction with other BMP's. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: • When weather conditions do not permit, to include rainfall, freezing temperatures, or wind velocity exceeding label restrictions. • In critical areas or within a setback of 150 feet of a sensitive area without the approval of the Biologist and the Vegetation Crew Leader. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Observe strict compliance to product labels, and to State and local regulations. • Application to blackberries only in the dormant season when no fruit is present. • Careful selection of products, rates, and timing of applications. • Careful site evaluations prior to application. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Regular maintenance and calibration of spray equipment. • Ongoing site evaluations before and after applications • Ongoing training of staff including yearly re -certification training. • Ongoing improvement and updates of equipment 17 336 HERBICIDE BMP #3:NOXIOUSISELECTIVE WEED CONTROL ♦ DESCRIPTION A noxious weed application targets specific weed species that have been identified by the County Noxious Weed Board to be non-native to our area. These weed pests may pose a significant hazard to animal or human health, the economy, or to the environment. Examples of noxious weeds include meadow and spotted knapweed, orange and smooth hawkweed, tansy ragwort and purple loosestrife. Applications are made with selected herbicides chosen for their effectiveness on the weed being targeted and may be made with a computerized injection system or with portable hand tanks. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of this BMP is to control undesirable non-native weed species on County right - of -way and to prevent them from spreading. Left uncontrolled, these species spread rapidly, choking out desirable species. Left unchecked, these noxious weeds cause more damage and are more difficult and costly to control. In addition, Federal Law dictates that they be controlled. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP may be used when targeted weeds are actively growing. Product label guidelines for timing and rates should be observed for best results. It may be used in conjunction with other BMP's including biological and manual. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: • When weather conditions do not permit • In critical areas, or within a setback of 150 feet of a sensitive area without the approval of the Biologist and the Vegetation Crew Leader. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Observe strict compliance to product labels, and to State and local regulations. • Careful selection of products, rates, tinting of application, and equipment to be used. • Site evaluation, weed population to be controlled and consideration of other BMP's. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Regular maintenance and calibration of all spray equipment. • Early detection of targeted weed infestations and ongoing site evaluations. • Ongoing training of staff including yearly re -certification. • Ongoing improvement and updates of equipment and facilities. 18 337 HERBICIDE BMP #4: SIGNPOST TREATMENTS ♦ DESCRIPTION Signpost treatments are the application of non -selective and residual herbicides around the base of road signs. The size of the area depends on the location of the sign and the width of the shoulder. Applications are made with portable spray tanks and with a calibrated granular applicator. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of the signpost treatment is for public safety by improving visibility and to assist mower operators who cannot mow close to or behind signposts. This reduces mower damage to signs. Signpost treatment also helps the sign crew to locate the position of missing signs and aids them in sign maintenance. Public safety is enhanced through improved visibility at intersections and other areas where warning signs are located. We currently maintain 9,000 signs on County Roadways. APPLICATIONS This BMP may be applied at all times of the year, depending on the products being used. It is often used in conjunction with other BMP's, specifically manual clearing of weeds and grasses with brush saws. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: When weather conditions do not permit. With granular products only freezing, snow, or very heavy rainfall would limit applications. In critical areas or within 150 feet of a sensitive area without the approval of the Biologist and the Vegetation Crew Leader. Where the condition of the shoulder or the location of the sign might cause herbicide to contaminate the water. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Observe strict compliance to product labels, and State and local regulations • Careful site evaluation at time of application. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Regular maintenance and calibration of spray equipment + Site evaluation prior to treatment • Ongoing training of staff including yearly re -certification • Ongoing improvement and updates of equipment and facilities 19 338 HERBICIDE BMP #5: GUARDRAIL TREATMENTS ♦ DESCRIPTION Methods of guardrail treatments include the application of herbicides in front of, under, and in some cases, behind guardrails. These herbicides are applied to this zone using either a computerized injection system or with a hand application using a portable spray tank. County mowers cannot effectively maintain guardrails. In some cases, seasonal crews maintain guardrails using manual methods. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of this application is to aid in guardrail maintenance and enhance public safety through improved visibility. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP may be applied when vegetation is actively growing. It may be used in conjunction with other BMP's. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: • When weather conditions do not permit. + In critical areas or within a setback of 150 feet of a sensitive area without the approval of the Biologist and the Vegetation Crew Leader. • When the composition of the shoulder under or behind the guardrail is not adequate to prevent erosion or off -target application. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES Observe strict compliance to product labels, and State and local regulations Careful product selection to include the use of the aquatic herbicide Rodeo when appropriate. Careful site evaluation prior to and following applications. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE Regular maintenance and calibration of all spray equipment. • Ongoing site evaluations. • Ongoing training of staff including yearly re -certification. Ongoing updates of equipment and facilities. 20 339 HERBICIDE BMP #6: MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS ♦ DESCRIPTION Miscellaneous Projects is the application of selected herbicides to a variety of County facilities. Included are Central Shop, the Sheriff's compound, gravel pits, County parks, wildflower islands, and in preparation for new road construction. Products are chosen to best suit the needs of the specific area or the weed(s) to be controlled. Application is made using a computerized injection system, portable spray tanks, or calibrated granular spreaders. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of these various applications is to control undesirable weeds in County facilities, to control or eliminate noxious weeds in these locations, or to prepare wildflower islands for planting. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP may be applied when the vegetation is actively growing, or in the case of granular pre - emergent products, any time of year as weather permits. It may be used in conjunction with other BMP's. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: • When weather conditions do not permit. • In critical areas or within a setback of 150 feet on both sides of a sensitive area without the approval of the Biologist and the Vegetation Crew Leader. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Observe strict compliance to product labels, and to State and local regulations • Careful selection of products, rates, and timing of applications. • Careful site evaluation prior to applications. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Regular maintenance and calibration of spray equipment • Ongoing site evaluations. • Ongoing training of staff including yearly re -certification. • Ongoing improvement and updates of equipment and facilities. 21 340 ByIP #7: SELECTIVE KNOTWEED TREATMENT ♦ DESCRIPTION Several species of knotweed (Polygonum cuspide dum, P. sachalinese, P. polystachyian, Rx.hohemicuna) are rapidly colonizing throughout Whatcom County. Knotweed is a class B noxious weed in Whatconi County and Washington State (WAC 16-750). Knotweed grows from 4-10 feet tall, posing a significant site distance problem along the right-of-way. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of this BMP is to remove knot -weed with effective methods before it becomes a hazard and more difficult to maintain. The current practice of repeated mowing, particularly in designated no - spray areas, warrants revision since current research indicates that mowing alone actually spreads the plants rather than controlling them. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP may be applied when vegetation is actively growing, as weather allows, from April through October. It may be used in conjunction with other BMP's. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: • When weather conditions do not permit to include heavy rainfall, inversions, freezing temperatures, or wind velocity exceeding label recommendations. • When the shoulder composition is not adequate to prevent erosion, bio-filtration function, or off -target application. • In areas exempted from spraying, Executive approval to treat will be required_ • In critical areas. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Use only herbicides with the active ingredient glyphosate in an aquatic formulation (AquaMasterT1-1, RodeoTM, and others) • Observe strict compliance to product labels, and State and local regulations. • Careful site evaluation prior to applications • A single cutting of the plants in the months of April, May and June, followed by herbicide application to re -growth in July, August, September, and early October + Application rate will be between 3-5% solution for foliar treatment ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Regular maintenance and calibration of all spray equipment • Ongoing site evaluations throughout the season + Ongoing training of staff including yearly re -certification • Ongoing improvement and updates of equipment and facilities • Ongoing consultations with Weed Board staff for current information 22 341 HYDROSEEDING PROGRAM Staff. This program is staffed with a Service Worker II (Driver) and a Service Worker III (Applicator). Immediate supervision is be provided by the Vegetation Crew Leader. The hydroseeding program began in 2003. It is anticipated that it will be utilized about 25% of the year. Equipment: 800-gallon "Bowie Hydro Mulcher" hydroseeder. Training and Licensure: State Erosion and Sediment Control Certification (2 Day Class). Proposed Budget: Combined with the herbicide budget. Tasks: Hydroseed Application (See BMP for a more detailed description). Performance Measurement Hydroseed Application — Number of square feet of area treated. Hydroseed Application — Number of sites treated. General: Hydroseeding is necessary to prevent erosion for any land disturbance activities performed by M&O (i.e. ditching, culvert replacement, bridge replacement, etc...) that would otherwise result in erosion and sedimentation. Requirements from ESA/Clean Water Act are such that it is essential this program be funded. 23 342 HYDROSEEDING BMP ♦ DESCRIPTION Hydroseeding is done by using a machine that broadcasts grass seed, wildflower, tackifier, wood fiber mulch and water on soils that have been disturbed by road maintenance functions such as road construction, shoulder rehabilitation ditching, or in areas that require erosion control. It can also be used in wildflower planting. This BMP is used to minimize potential for soil movement either by becoming airborne or in water runoff. Establishing grass stands in these disturbed areas reduces water velocity and aids in establishing and maintaining natural habitat. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of this BMP includes, but is not limited to: • Establishing vegetation in sparse, bare and/or exposed soil areas over a large site. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP may be used after any soil disturbance due to road maintenance to include shoulder picking, ditching, bridge repair and construction, guardrail maintenance, or any project causing land disturbance. It may be used in conjunction with other BMP's. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: • When weather conditions would prevent seed from germinating. • No tackifiers or fertilizers should be used in critical areas. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Seed selection should be based on the intended use and the area in which it will be used. • Spread seed uniformly and follow manufacturer's recommendations. • Cover hydro seeded areas with other methods as needed. Hydro seeding should be applied after finish grading and/or surface roughening. Applications may depend on slope, soil, exposure and time of year. • Tackifler and/or moisture retention agent may be added per state standard and in accordance with guidelines involving critical areas. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Inspect during seed establishment period. Re -seed as necessary. • Check during storm events. Monitor for scour and sloughing and repair as needed. BMP REMOVAL • BMP removal is not necessary. 24 343 WILDFLOWER ISLANDS Wildflower planting in Whatcom County will be increased annually. Areas currently planted include: Slater @ Lake Terrell; Pole Road curves (3); Harksell @ Enterprise; Harksell @ North Enterprise; Harborview @ Drayton Harbor; West Badger @ Delta Line; West Main @ Berthusen; Hopewell @ Oat Coles; Stadsvold @ Sweet; Shintaffer Connector; Nulle at Pacific Hwy; Hampton at Lynden city limits, and Goshen @ Fazon. In addition, the intersections on Hannegan from Smith north to Ten Mile are planted in wildflowers. The total area planted is about three acres. Maintenance on these islands is done by the herbicide crew and is part of their budget. There are important benefits to wildflower islands. Wildflowers provide an important cultural maintenance tool. By choosing low growing native flowers, site distance problems can be reduced or eliminated in areas where taller grasses and weeds might otherwise hamper visibility. These flowers provide competition to undesirable weeds and grasses to include noxious weeds. Perhaps most important of all, they are beautiful. They provide an aesthetically pleasing right of way and are very popular with the public. 25 344 WILDFLOWER ISLAND BMP ♦ DESCRIPTION Fifteen traffic islands throughout the County as well as other selected areas have been planted with selected native wildflowers. The islands are first prepared by eliminating weeds and grasses, then tilled and planted. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of this BMP is to create an aesthetically pleasing right of way, improve site distance for motorists, and discourage the invasion of undesirable weeds and grasses to include noxious weeds. ♦ APPLICATION This BMP may be applied during the spring and summer from April to October. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used when whether conditions do not permit. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • In spring when weather permits, islands are cleared of debris and any undesirable weeds and grasses. • When weeds and grasses have been cleared from islands, they are tilled. • After tilling, selected wildflower seeds are planted. • During the growing season islands are monitored. If rain is insufficient, islands are watered using the water tank from the herbicide truck, hose and nozzle. • Mid summer, when flowers have gone to seed, islands are mowed to a height of approximately 6 inches. This encourages re -seeding and a second bloom. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Carefully select wildflower and evaluate during season • Monitor islands regularly during growing season • Water as necessary when there is insufficient rainfall • Remove any undesirable weeds from the islands, especially noxious weeds 26 345 ♦ MOWING PROGRAM Staff : The mowing program is currently staffed with six Service Worker III's. During the summer one Service Worker 11 is added to the crew for shoulder mowing. The Vegetation Crew Leader provides immediate supervision. The mowing program is utilized the entire year. Equipment: Each Crew Member operates a tractor with mowing attachments. Each tractor has a spill prevention kit. Training and Licensure: On-the-job training. Adopted 2006 Budget: Brush Cutting Mechanical $518,000 Mowing $295,000 Tasks: Long -Arm Mowing, Shoulder Mowing, Ditch Mowing (See BMP's for more detailed description) Performance Measurement Long -Arm Mowing — Pass Miles of Roadside Mowed Shoulder Mowing — Miles of Roadside Mowed Ditch Mowing — Pass Miles of Ditch Mowed General: The Vegetation Crew Leader works closely with the Public Works Biologist and coordinates with the Mowing Crew Members to insure that all work is performed in accordance with ESA requirements. Critical areas have been identified and fish culverts are being physically marked with green delineators with a picture of a fish on them. These markers are being set using a 150-foot setback from culverts designated as fish bearing by the Public Works Biologist. This insures that mowers will know which areas and locations require special consideration. Appropriate BMP's have been developed for these locations. Changes and updates are done as necessary. 27 346 BMP #1: LONG ARM MOWING ♦ DESCRIPTION Long -arm mowing is the practice of clearing vegetation,.primarily brush and small trees,. from the right -of —way. Work is accomplished with a rotary or flail mowing head attached to an extendable boom mounted to a tractor. This practice would include ditches and intersections. {See BMP's for more detailed description ♦ PURPOSE Long -arm mowing improves visibility, promotes drainage, removes small trees before they can become a hazard, and reduces brush that can be a fire hazard in hot dry weather. Long -arm mowing contributes to reducing snow drifting in the northeast area of Whatcom County. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP can be applied in the fall and winter when road shoulder vegetation is not actively growing and does not need to be mowed. It may be used in conjunction with other BMP's. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: • Inside the 150 foot setback in critical areas. • On the backside of the ditch slope in critical areas. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Identify and mark setbacks in critical areas. • Mow the front of the ditch slope only, not the back slope in critical areas. • Mower operators will be assigned areas. They will be familiar with their area and carry maps indicating any critical area of concern to their operation. • Ditches in non -critical areas may be brushed as needed. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Regular maintenance and inspection of mower and mower head to minimize leaks or potential spills. • Operators will be familiar with a spill prevention plan and carry spill kits. • Ongoing training in critical areas issues for operators. • Ongoing improvements in equipment. 28 347 MOWING BMP #2: SHOULDER MOWING ♦ DESCRIPTION Road shoulders, the area from the pavement edge to the ditch, are mowed using rotary or flail mowers. ♦ PURPOSE The purpose of shoulder mowing is to provide visibility, improve drainage, and reduce fire hazard. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP can be applied from spring to early fall when shoulder vegetation is actively growing and ongoing shoulder maintenance is required. It may be used in conjunction with other BMP's. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: • In critical areas when clippings from mowing might enter water. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Identify and mark areas of concern in critical areas. • Mower operators will be assigned areas. They will be familiar with their area and carry maps indicating any critical area of concern to their operation. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Regular maintenance and inspection of mower and mower head to minimize leaks or potential spills. • Operators will be familiar with a spill prevention plan and carry spill kits. • Ongoing training in critical areas issues for operators. • Ongoing improvements in equipment. 29 348 BMP #3: DITCH MAINTENANCE ♦ DESCRIPTION Ditch maintenance is the practice of mowing ditches with a long -arm mower. This mower is dedicated exclusively to ditch maintenance all year. Using a tractor mounted extendable boom and rotary mowing head, ditches will be cleared of undesirable vegetation. By adding a full-time mower to the mowing program it is possible to regularly maintain more ditches and respond more effectively to citizen requests. ♦ PURPOSE Clearing undesirable brush and trees from ditches encourages the growth of desirable grasses. This helps maintain the bio-filtration function of grass, making for cleaner water runoff. In addition, mowing insures positive drainage and reduces the breeding habitat of mosquitoes. Because they can potentially carry West Nile Virus, mosquitoes are of particular concern to the public. ♦ APPLICATIONS This BMP may be applied year-round. It may be used in conjunction with other BMP's. ♦ LIMITATIONS This BMP should not be used: • Inside the 150 foot setback in critical areas. • On the backside of the ditch slope in critical areas. ♦ APPLICATION GUIDELINES • Identify and mark setbacks in critical areas. • Mow the front of the ditch slope only, not the back slope in critical areas. • Ditches in non -critical areas may be brushed as needed. ♦ BMP MAINTENANCE • Regular maintenance and inspection of mower and mower head to minimize leaks and spills. • Operators will be familiar with a spill prevention plan and carry spill kits. • Ongoing training for operators in critical areas issues. • Ongoing improvements in equipment. 30 349 V. APPENDIX 31 350 Chapter 12.48 ROADSIDE VEGETATION Page l of 4 Chapter 12.48 ROADSIDE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Sections: 12.48.010 Minimization of herbicide use -- Goals and timetables. 12.48.020 Use of certain herbicides approved — Conditions. 12.48.030 Long-range integrated vegetation management plan. 12.48.040 Additional conditions. 12.48.050 Violation — Penalty. 12.48.010 Minimization of herbicide use —Goals and timetables. Whatcom County shall minimize the use of herbicides for vegetation control along maintained road rights -of -way, and shall set specific goals and timetables for minimizing the use of herbicides. (Ord. 94-044). 12.48.020 Use of certain herbicides approved — Conditions. The Whatcom County council approves the use of certain herbicides to be utilized in the transportation services annual integrated roadside vegetation management program in accordance with Chapter 17.21 RCW under the following conditions: A. The only herbicides authorized for use by an applicator shall be those currently registered by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Agriculture. B. All herbicides shall be applied in accordance with the standards set forth by the State Department of Agriculture and chemical labels. C. Anyone responsible for and applying the herbicides shall be licensed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture. Further, the transportation services department, maintenance and operations division, shall engage in an ongoing program to upgrade the expertise of its personnel in integrated vegetation management alternatives and in the selection and safe application of herbicides. The transportation services department, in consultation with the county industrial safety officer, shall develop a program to protect the safety of employees and others who work or come in contact with the county's herbicides, and shall develop a written procedures manual covering the selection, storage, transportation, application and disposal of herbicides used by the program. D. (Applies to all persons applying herbicides on maintained county road rights - of -way.) At least one week prior to actual chemical treatment, the transportation services department, roads division of maintenance and operations shall give due notification through the news media (radio, local newspapers), and post notices at various public places, including, but not limited to post offices, stores, grange halls, fire stations, etc. The notices shall contain the areas, the names of the herbicides to be utilized, the approximate number of miles to be treated, and the person and telephone number to contact for further information or to register protests. The notices shall also provide information on the right to enter into owner will maintain" agreements. Noncounty applicators shall notify transportation services, roads division of maintenance and operations division of Whatcom County at least two http://searc,h.mrsc. org/nxtlgateway.dll/whatmc/whatco l 2/whatco l248.html?f=templates$fn... 8/6/2004351 Chapter 12.48 ROADSIDE VEGETATION Page 2 of 4 weeks prior to application of herbicides. E. (Applies to county only.) In addition, signs shall be conspicuously posted in the area(s) to be sprayed or chemically treated at least one week prior to actual treatment. Signs shall include information regarding the anticipated date of chemical treatment, the herbicide(s) to be used, and the roads to be treated. Following the use of herbicides, the notices along the maintained roadways shall be changed or altered with a sign stating that chemical treatment has occurred, naming the chemical used. A faithful record of comments and protests received shall be made, preserved and made available to the public. F. The director of transportation services shall submit annually to the Whatcom County executive a listing of all areas and the names of approved herbicides to be utilized in the annual integrated roadside vegetation management program. G. Prior to forwarding a copy of the annual vegetation management plan to the executive, the director of transportation services shall schedule a meeting with the county council public services committee in July of each calendar year as part of the budget process. The committee shall review the plan and make recommendations for changes as deemed necessary. (Ord. 94-044). 12.48.030 Long-range integrated vegetation management plan. The executive shall prepare, annually update and adhere to a long-range integrated vegetation management plan. An "integrated roadside vegetation management plan" is one that advances the commitment to implement a variety of vegetation control measures, such as biological, mechanical, manual and chemical. It seeks to minimize chemical solutions when possible based upon the level of vegetation infestation, its economic impacts, and an assessment by the roadside/vegetation crew leader of the economic and ecologic consequences of each type of control. The plan shall assess the results of the previous year and identify additional sensitive geographical areas within the county where spraying shall not take place. Such areas presently include: A. Lake Whatcom Watershed; B. Lummi Island; C. North Fork Road; D. Cornell Creek Road; E. All areas within the jurisdiction of the Whatcom County shorelines management program; F. All areas that may be exempted from chemical treatment by the county council now or in the future. Identification of areas as being sensitive may be initiated by petition of at least 51 percent of property owners in the area; or 60 percent of the citizens of the area. Exemptions may be granted by the executive in writing within 30 days of request or de facto exemption shall apply and shall be limited to the hand treatment of fresh cut stumps and hand treatment of noxious weeds as defined by the noxious weed board. The criteria for reviewing such petitions shall include such factors as the presence of groundwater, relatively high use by pedestrians or children, and any other criteria the executive or designee deems appropriate. Treatment shall be allowed under new asphalt. Hand treatment within the listed sensitive geographical areas shall be limited to application by licensed applicators and persons registered with the transportation services, roads division of maintenance and operations division of Whatcom County on an annual basis to apply herbicides in the sensitive areas. Whatcom County shall prepare maps showing areas exempted above for distribution to applicators. Application as required for cut stumps shall be coordinated by anyone performing vegetation management in identified sensitive areas with the roadside/vegetation crew leader. The county shall limit the amount of material allowed in each sensitive area to a maximum of three gallons of material suitably mixed per crew and ready for application by a licensed applicator. Material shall be transported in an http://sea.rch.mrse.org/nxt/gateway.dll/whatme/whatco l 2/whatco l 248.html?f—templates$fn... 8/6/20(A52 Chapter I2.48 ROADSIDE VEGETATION Page 3 of 4 approved container and shall be protected from spillage by an outer liner or containment vessel. (Ord. 94-044). 12.48.040 Additional conditions. The following conditions shall be adhered to by the department: A. The use of herbicides by all persons, whether public or private entities or individuals, is hereby prohibited on all county owned and maintained road rights -of - way subject to use as permitted by Whatcom County franchise agreement within designated sensitive geographical areas. B. All property owners who do not wish herbicides to be used in front of their property shall sign an "owner will maintain" agreement. The roadside/vegetation crew leader shall be responsible for monitoring for compliance. C. Ditches will be cleaned by nonchemical means except where vegetation only is causing a blockage or if additional excavation would result in the unnecessary lowering of culverts. These areas may be treated with an aquatic registered herbicide only where other means are impractical and uneconomical. D. Backslopes and frontslopes will be treated by nonchemical means and maintained so as to retain grasses and other vegetation to prevent erosion, using herbicides for such maintenance only when other means are impractical and/or uneconomical. E. No public or private entity or individual shall commence any chemical treatment on any maintained county right-of-way without the prior written consent of the director of the transportation services department. A plan showing areas to be chemically treated shall accompany any request for approval. F.Ongoing testing sites will be established to evaluate various integrated vegetation management techniques. G. Ordinance 91-044 is hereby repealed and all other resolutions, or policies are superseded to the extent that they are in conflict with this chapter. (Ord. 94-044). 12.48.050 Violation — Penalty. Penalties and court enforcement shall be applied as follows: A. Any person, firm or corporation who fails to comply with any of the conditions herein, shall be guilty of a civil offense and shall be fined a sum not to exceed $1,000. B. The penalty provided in the above section shall be imposed by a written notice delivered, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person, firm or corporation involved in the activity. Said notice shall originate at the Whatcom County transportation services department. The notice shall include the amount of the penalty imposed and shall describe the violation with reasonable particularity. It shall also order the act or acts constituting the violation or violations to cease and desist or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action to be taken within a specific and reasonable time. C. After the notice is postmarked, the recipient has 30 days to either pay the amount designated or to make written application to the transportation services department, for remission or mitigation of such penalty. Upon receipt of the application, said department shall review the penalty and make a written decision of that review. The transportation services department's decision shall be reviewed by the county council if the aggrieved party files a written appeal with the clerk of the county council within 10 days of its issuance. -The decision of the county council regarding the penalty imposed shall be final. In calculating the time limits mentioned in this chapter, begin calculating the time the day after the decision is issued and include the last day. If the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, then the time limit is extended to the next regular business day. D. The prosecuting attorney may in his discretion, bring such injunctive, declaratory or other actions as deemed necessary to ensure that violations of this chapter are prevented or cease, and to otherwise enforce the provisions of this http://search.rnrsc.org/nxtlgateway.dll/whatmc/whatco 12/whatco l248.html?f--templatcs$fn... 8/6/200$53 Chapter 1.2.48 ROADSIDE VEGETATION Page 4 of 4 chapter. E. In the event any person, firm or corporation violates any of the provisions of this chapter, the transportation services department shall cause a notice of violation to be delivered to a person of suitable age at the site or place of business and order all work to cease until authorized to proceed. Failure to comply with the order to stop work shall be a gross misdemeanor punishable upon conviction by a minimum fine of $500.00 up to a maximum fine of $1,000 or one year in )ail, or both. Under no circumstance may the court defer or suspend any portion of the minimum $500.00 fine for any conviction under this section. Each day or part thereof of noncompliance with said order to stop work shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. 94-044). Code Publishing Company Code Publishing's websitc Voice: (206) 527-6831 Fez: (206) 527-8411 E-mail Code Publishing http://search.mrsc.orglnxt/gateway.dll/whatmelwhatco 12/whatco 1248.htmi7�templatcs$fn... 8l6/20A54 WHATCOM COUNTY PtGOM CO4 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. Director 0 4SHr Nit March 1, 2006 NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--------------------------------- ROADDIVISION MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS Mary A. Green, Superintendent 901 W. Smith Road Bellingham, WA 98226 (360) 676-67591380-B111 Fax 676-6879 The Whatcom County Public Works Department is beginning the year 2006 Road Shoulder Herbicide Program. Approximately 250 miles of arterial roads and 450 miles of access roads are scheduled for treatment during the forthcoming season. Lawns and yard areas may have a minimum 12" wide strip treated to aid in drainage and minimize pavement damage. Property owners who do not wish to have their adjoining right-of-way treated have the option of maintaining the right-of-way abutting their property. Agreements to this effect may be signed and "Owner Will Maintain" signs obtained from Maintenance and Operations, 901 West Smith Road between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There is no charge for this service. 355 PUBLIC NOTICE The Whatcom County Public Works Department is beginning its Year 2006 Roadside vegetation Spray Program. Approximately 250 miles of arterial roads and 450 miles of access roads are scheduled for treatment during the forthcoming season. A minimum 12"strip at the pavement edge may be treated to aid in drainage and to minimize pavement damage. Property owners who do not wish to have the County right -of --way treated adjacent to their property have the option of maintaining the right-of-way abutting their property. Agreements to this effect may be signed and Owner Will Maintain signs may be obtained from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Maintenance and Operations Division located at 901 West Smith Road, Monday through Friday. There is no charge for this service. Whatcom County Public Works Department Maintenance and Operations 901 West Smith Road Bellingham, WA. 98226 Sincerely, Mary A. Green Maintenance and Operations Superintendent 356 ROADSIDE SPRAX SIGH POSTING fe. INTENT TO HETRB[C(flE ANTICIPATED DATE ❑ SHOULDERS 1:1 DORMANT BRUSH E] NOXIOUS WEEDS HERBICIDE USED El ❑ ROUNDUP ❑ OUST o GARLO N DATE SPRAYED FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORDS G76-6759 380-8111 357 Whatcom County Public Works M&O Daily Spray Log Datev� Program Bareground Bars Code 542-715 W/O# 10444 App.Andrew Elarth Lie # 72029 Driver Bob Clemons Lie # 72118Tr # 356 Lic#66486CPickup #160Lic66418C RD Name Rd. # Ln. Miles Blk. To Blk. Hrs. Wk. RD Name Rd. # Ln. Miles Blk. To B& Hrs. Wk. RD Name Rd. # Ln. Miles Blk. To Blk. Hrs. Wk. RD Name Rd. # Ln. Miles Blk. To Blk. Hrs. Wk. RD Name Rd. # Ln. Miles Blk. To Blk. Hrs. Wk. RD Name Rd. # Ln. Miles Blk. To Blk. Hrs. Wk. RD Name Rd. # Ln. Miles Blk. To Blk. Hrs. Wk. RD Name Rd. # Ln. Miles Blk. To Blk. Hrs. Wk. RD Name Rd. ## Ln. Miles Blk. To Blk. Hrs. Wk. RD Name Rd. # Ln. Miles Blk. To Blk. Hrs. Wk. Total Files Total Hrs. Chemical: Roundup EPA # 542-475 ru Amt. Gal. App. Rate Gal/Ac. Unit Cost! Gal. Chemical :Landmark EPA # 352-62a LM Amt. OZ. App. Rate OzfAc. Unit Cost _ Oz. Chemical :Act 90 EPA # N/A Amt. Gal. App. Rate Gal/Ac. Unit Cost Gal. Chemical :Escort EPA #357-439 Amt. OZ. App. Rate Oz/Ac. Unit Cost Gal. Chemical: _ EPA # Amt. Gal. App. Rate Gal/Ac. Unit Cost Gal. Chemical :! EPA # Amt. Gal. App. Rate Gal/Ac. Unit Cost Gal. Vegetation Type: Weather Conditions: Additional Comments: Acres Treated Time f Wind Direction: Speed 358 WHATCOM COUNTY �r��Gam CO 4yd PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. Director 2 gSHINt*.�O ROAD DIVISION MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS Mary A. Green, Superintendent 901 W. Smith Road Bellingham, WA 98226 (360) 676-67591380-8111/Fax 676-6879 February 21, 2006 Dear Resident: The Whatcom County Public Works Department will begin its annual roadside vegetation herbicide spray program in March. In 2005 you requested that the right-of-way adjacent to your property not be included in the program. in return you signed an "Owner Will Maintain" agreement and agreed to maintain this area yourself. If you do not want the right of way adjacent to your property to be included in our spray program for year 2006, the enclosed "Owner Will Maintain" agreement needs to be signed and returned to Maintenance and Operations, 901 West Smith Road, by March 30, 2005. Upon completion of the Agreement, signs will be available at the Maintenance and Operations front office between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If Whatcom County does not receive a signed agreement from you by March 30, 2005, your request may be withdrawn and the right-of-way adjacent to your property reinstated into the spray program. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS FOR LEASED PROPERTY MUST BE SIGNED BY BOTH LESSEE AND LESSORILANDOWNER. If you have any questions, please call (360)676-6759 or (380-8111). Please return this agreement to: Whatcom County Public Works Department Maintenance and Operations 901 West Smith Road Bellingham, WA 98226 Sincerely, Mary A. Green Maintenance and Operations Superintendent 359 WHATCOM COUNTY . PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS "OWNER WILL MAINTAIN" ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Pursuant to your request, we are providing you with "Owner Will Maintain" signs based upon your representation that you are the owner of the real property described below. This agreement is in conjunction with the Roadside Herbicide Spray Program ONLY The terms and conditions of this agreement to maintain the County road right-of-way are as follows: 4. The signs shall be affixed on your property lines, beginning and end, so that they are clearly visible at all times. Refer to the attached diagram, page 6, for proper installation. You are responsible for their maintenance, repair and replacement if necessary. 2. The right-of-way maintenance shall be conducted along the roadside adjacent to your property as often as necessary to: p Ensure that no visual or drainage hazards develop. Ensure no pavement is damaged due to vegetation. 3. The Public Works Department, Maintenance and Operations, may not use chemical herbicides in the posted areas as per your spray option request, which may include shoulders, ditches and County right-bf-way behind the ditches. refer to page 4, "SPRAY OPTIONS".. 4. If at any time the right-of-way is not maintained pursuant to the'terms and conditions of this agreement, Whatcom County may give written notice of the failure to maintain to the undersigned. In the event that the undersigned does not remedy the failure to maintain within ten (10) days from the date of the notice sent, the County shall have the right to terminate this agreement forthwith. 5. If Tansy Ragwort, Knapweed or other Noxious Weeds are identified by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Coordinator•on the County right-of-way in this area, you agree to remove them. (Tansy and Knapweed have been identified by the Noxious Weed Control Board as toxic and by law, must be removed. The Noxious Weed Control Coordinator or representative will contact you if your area is identified as containing Noxious Weeds.) 360 INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT The undersigned hereby accepts responsibility for the installation and maintenance of the "Owner Will Maintain" signs and further to manually maintain that area between these signs in the manner set forth in the Agreement In the event that a Court of. law determines that the undersigned -is, wholly or partially negligent as a result of any act, action, neglect, omission or default pertaining to road right-of-way maintenance as described in this agreement, the undersigned agrees and covenants to indemnify, defend and save harmless Whatcom County and those persons who were, now are, or shall be duly elected or appointed officials or members or employees thereof, hereinafter referred to as "yllhatcom County", against and from any loss, damage, costs, charge, expense, liability, claims demand or judgements of whatsoever kind_ or nature, whether to persons or property, in the proportion as determined by the Court. In case any suit or cause of action shall be brought against Whatcom County on account of any act, action, neglect, omission or default pertaining to road right -of --way maintenance on the part of the unders'igried, his agents, subcontractors, and/or employees, the undersigned hereby agrees and covenants to appear and defend hislher interests and, subject to the Courts ruling apportioning liability and damages, to pay any and all proportionate costs, charges, attorneys fees, judgements and other' expenses that may be incurred or obtained against Whatcom County. In the event the County is required to institute legal action and/or participate in legal action to enforce this Indemnification and Hold Harmless Clause, the undersigned agrees to pay the County's legal fees, costs and disbursements in establishing the right to indemnification. Dated this day of 20 This agreement will remain in effect for a period of one (1) year and must be renewed each and every year to remain in effect. This agreement may be terminated by the property owner upon written notification of its termination within that one (1) year period - Mailing Address: City and Zip Code LAND PARCEL ADDRESS OR LOCATION: Approved as to form: Sigmatwe x Please Print Full Name Phone fl: Daniel L. Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS FOR LEASED PROPERTY MUST BE•SIGNED BY BOTH LESSEE AND LESSOR / LANDOWNER. If you have any questions, please call 676-6759 or 380-8111 _ Please return this agreement to: Whatcom County Public Works Maintenance and Operations 901 West Smith Road Bellingham, WA 98226 361 "OWNER WILL MAINTAIN" SPRAY OPTIONS WITH EXPLANATIONS 1. I will allow a 12" wide strip at the pavement edge to be sprayed to minimize road pavement damage and allow adequate drainage. If this option is selected, Whatcom County may apply herbicides at the pavement's edge, but not to exceed 92 inches from the pavement edge to the road shoulder. 2. Do not spray the road shoulder and back slope (from pavement to property line) adjacent to my property. If this option is selected, Matcom County will apply NO chemicals to the right of way abutting your property from the road shoulder to your property line. This will eliminate option # 9 3. Do not spray the road shoulder back slope (bottom of ditch to property line) adjacent to my property. If this option is selected, Whatcom County may apply chemicals to the road shoulder but will apply NO chemicals from the bottom of the ditch to your property line. Spraying a strip a minimum of 12 inches in width adjacent to the pavement's edge is invaluable in preventing sod build-up which otherwise hinders necessary roadway drainage, and in preventing root systems from deteriorating edges of roadway. 362 Owner Will Maintain Sign Posting, Instructions Post the boundaries of your property with the signs provided by Whatcom County in accordance with the sketch on the backside of this sheet of paper. Signs should be securely fastened to a small post which is firmly driven into the ground at a location that is as far away from the edge of the pavement as is reasonably possible while still remaining easily visible for an approaching vehicle. Please remember that you are responsible for the reasonable maintenance of -the entire area posted. Reasonable maintenance means the right -of- way abutting your property should be maintained at the same level as those portions of the right-of-way maintained by Whatcom County within your area. If you have chosen the option to allow spraying of the shoulder but no spraying on the back slope, you are responsible only for the maintenance of that area from the ditch line to the property line. If no ditch exists, you are responsible only for that portion from the shoulder outward from the roadway. Should you have any questions about roadside vegetation maintenance, please feel free to call (360) 676-6759 or 380-8111. You may also write to Whatcom County Public Works, Maintenance & Operations, 901 West Smith Road, Bellingham, WA. 98226. Permits and posting of "Owner Will Maintain Signs" are good for one calendar year only. They will have to be renewed on an, annual basis. Anyone who has an existing Owner Will Maintain Agreement with the County will be mailed a. renewal application the following year at approximately the same time as advertisements are placed in the local newspapers. See Reverse Side for Diagram 363 OWNER WILL MAINTAIN PROGRAM" INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR SIGN PLACEMENT �. Please attach sign to a stake or post and place on the backside of the ditch. 2: Cover sign with clear plastic to protect it from the weather. 3. Place sign at property lines at both ends of your property, with both signs facing in the same direction and facing_ the oncoming traffic for Your side o the road, see diagram # I below. P P R R O L O L P I HOUSE P 1 E N E N R E R E T T Y Y SIGN -a +- COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY +-- FOR CORNER LOT PROPERTIES SIGN --> 1. For those parcels that are located at a road intersection, you will need three s4gns, please ask for an extra sign when applying for Program. 2. There will need to be -a -sign at each comer of the parcel at the beginning of eact property line on each road. See attachment. SIGN f PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE LINE P C. R O O L- U P I HOUSE N E N T R E Y T Y R D. SIGN � +-- COUNTY ROAD +-- SIGN -r 364 OWNER WILL MAINTAIN DEFAULT LETTER Dear Resident, In 2006 you signed a Road Right -of -Way Maintenance Agreement with Whatcom County. The terms and conditions of this agreement were: That Whatcom County Public Works Department, Maintenance and Operations, would no use chemical herbicides on the road shoulder and/or back slope abutting your property. It would be your responsibility to conduct right-of-way maintenance along the roadside adjacent to your property as often as necessary to ensure that no visual or drainage hazards develop and to ensure no pavement is damaged due to vegetation. This maintenance is to be at the same level as those portions of the right-of-way maintained by Whatcom County within your residential area. As of (date) the right-of-way abutting your property has not been maintained pursuant to the terms and conditions of the road Right -of -Way Maintenance Agreement. You have ten (10) days from the date of this letter to meet the terms of the agreement. If the right-of-way is not properly maintained by (date), Whatcom County will terminate the agreement. If the agreement is terminated due to your failure to comply with terms and conditions, Whatcom County may maintain that portion of the right-of-way adjacent to your property, which may include chemical spraying. If you have any questions, please call either Mary Green or Paul Kelley at (360) 380- 8111 or (360) 676-6759. Sincerely, Mary A. Green Maintenance and Operations Superintendent Paul Kelley Vegetation Crew Leader .: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006 — 286 A CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 7/11/2006 7/11/2006 Introduction Division Head: 7/25/06 P&D/Council Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasin Bud et: Ezeculive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Ord. Adopting short term plan zoning in the Birch Bay UGA for Horizon Village ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? { ) Yes { ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? { i Yes { ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT 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 specs is and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Ordinance adopting a short term planning zoning overlay designation in the Birch Bay UGA for Horizons Village COMMITTEEACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: 7/11/06: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numhers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing andprinting Ion the Coun 's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.uslcouncil. 367 PROPOSED BY: SPONSORED BY: Consent INTRODUCTION DATE: 3uly 11, 2006 ORDINANCE# ADOPTING THE SHORT TERM PLANNING AREA ZONING OVERLAY DESIGNATION IN THE BIRCH BAY UGA FOR HORIZONS VILLAGE AT SEMIAHMOO WHEREAS, Birch Point Village LLC submitted an application to rezone approximately 36.3 acres from long term planning area (LTPA) to short term planning area (STPA) in the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezone is located within the NW1/4 of Section 24, T40N, R1W, W.M, Assessor's Parcel Nos: 059532, 063475, and 095449; and WHEREAS, rezoning to STPA is a prerequisite to developing the site at urban densities; and WHEREAS, legal notice requirements have been met; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the proposal: and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner has evaluated the proposed amendments for consistency with the Whatcom County Plan; and WHEREAS, the County Council has considered the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action, Conclusions and Recommendations; The Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT: Notice of the rezone application was sent to the Blaine Fire District and other government agencies on 8-31-2005. 2. Notice that the County received the rezone application was published in the Bellingham Herald on 8-31-2005. 3. Notice of the Hearing Examiner hearing for the rezone application was posted on the County's website on 8-31-2005. 4. Notice of the Hearing Examiner hearing for the rezone application was mailed to the Blaine Fire District, Blaine School District, other special districts and Tribal representatives who may have requested such notice on 5-03-2006. 5. Notice of the Hearing Examiner hearing for the rezone application was mailed to surrounding property owners within 300' of the subject site on 8-31-2005. 6. Notice of the Hearing Examiner hearing was posted on the subject site on 4-17- 2006. 7. Notice of the Hearing Examiner for the rezone application was published in the Bellingham Herald on 8-31-2005 and on 4-20-2006. 8. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing relating to the rezone application on 5- 03-2006. 9. A Mitigated Determination of Non — Significance (MDNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on 4-13-2006. 10. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Policy 2S-1 contains criteria for rezoning property from Long Term Planning Area to Short Term Planning Area. 11. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2A-1 recognizes the purpose of the urban growth area to: "Concentrate urban levels of development within designated urban growth areas". 12. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2A-10 acknowledges the balance between economy and community relevant to regions such as Birch Bay: "Recognize the importance of tourism and its influence on the need for land for various types of development". 13. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2Z links Birch Bay to urban levels of development and service provisions and coordination: "Recognize Birch Bay as major unincorporated county growth area." 14. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2Z-4 "Recognize the resort natural of Birch Bay including significant second home factor when analyzing land supply for urban growth area boundaries." 15. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2A-1: "Ensure provision of sufficient land in all designation to accommodate the growth needs of Whatcom County and protect the qualities which make the county a desirable place to live." 16. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goal 2S "Establish short term planning areas within which annexations and urban levels of development can occur and outside of which annexation and urban levels of development will not occur. This is intended to be a sprawl preventing measure where a need exists to promote phased development from the urban core outward where final plans for urban services are not yet in place, and where joint planning at the development regulation level is appropriate. This will assure both conformance and consistency for future plans and developments." 17. Growth Management Act 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)). 18. Countywide Planning Policy D-3 states "...Short term and long term boundaries may be used to facilitate provision of urban levels of service and to not preclude future urban densities as defined within the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan" (italics added for emphasis). 19. County -wide Planning Policy 1-3 is: "To encourage use of a single occupant vehicle alternative and development of pedestrian scale neighborhoods, high density residential development shall be encouraged in urban growth areas with particular 2 369 attention to those locations within cities and in close proximity to arterials and main transit routes." 20. The subject site is within the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area, where Planning Policy 3-3 encourages high density. Other large projects are located near to this site and through clustering developments coordination with special districts can be encouraged so that they locate necessary facilities in relatively close proximity to these developments as the UGA more fully develops. Establishing higher density residential developments in proximity to project future services could facilitate grater use of alternative transportation modes. 21. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan states that "Short Term Planning Area" (STPA) is designed to promote urban levels of density and cost-effective provision of services and avoid sprawl. 22. Whatcom County's important interest in ensuring appropriate urban densities is expressed in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goal 2A, which is to "ensure provision of sufficient land and densities to accommodate the growth needs of Whatcom County and protect the qualities that make the county a desirable place to live." Additional Comprehensive Plan Policy 2P-1 is to "ensure that cities have adopted mechanisms which will encourage densities at desired levels". 23. Whatcom County's important interest in protecting rural and agricultural lands in the County (including those rural and agricultural lands that may surround Urban Growth Areas) is also expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, Policy 2A-9 is to "Retain existing rural and heavy industrial areas in the northwestern region of the County." Additionally, Comprehensive Plan Goal 8A is to "Conserve and enhance Whatcom County's agricultural land base for the continued production of food and fiber." 24. The subject site is located at south side of Semiahmoo Parkway, west of Shintaffer Road, and south of the City of Blaine City limits and designated Urban Growth Area. The applicant has proposed that of the total 36.23 acre parcel a maximum of 76 single family lots or a maximum of 124 multi -family units be permitted on this site. 25. Therefore, Whatcom County, which has authority to grant or deny applications to rezone property in the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area, finds that development on the subject site should occur at a minimum density of the UR-4 zone and to ensure compliance 11.4% of the site will be dedicated to open space all other code sections relevant to Planned Unit Developments shall be complied with including: WCC 20.85.105 (buffers); WCC 20.80.345 Critical Areas; CONCLUSION The subject amendment is consistent with the Whatcom County Plan and the Birch Bay Sub Area Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1: The Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance map is hereby amended from long term to short term planning area for the subject site shown on Exhibit A. 370 Section 2: This amendment to the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance map is subject to the condition shown on Exhibit B. Section 3 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 day of , 2006 Dana Brown Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED as to form: Civil Deputy Prosecutor WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Chairperson ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, Executive Date: 4 371 I MJIMIrAbzmmmp -,w r�rr� ON %% Exhibit B 373 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. A3 zaocv—z2Z CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assi ned to: Originator. //1� `Zf �� tt EC Ell V 0 Introduction I & Division Head: 6—-aa J U N 13 2006 p }} To pp _ 7/1�/ 6 P&D/Council Dept. Head. Prosecutor: Purchasin /Bud et: IV Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Zon2004-00012, Amendment to the official Whatcom County Zoning Code amendments to the official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance, specifically adding on farm processing to chapter 20.100-accessory uses, 20.40.138 — administrative uses, deleting 20.40.158 adding agricultural processing definition to chapter 20.97— definitions and adding lot coverage restriction — chapter 20.40.450. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance, Planning Commission Motion, Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes SERA review required? ( X ) Yes ( } NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes (X ) NO SERA review completed? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMAR Y STATEMENT 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.) Amendment to Whatcom County Code 20.40 —Agriculture District and 20.97— Definitions, for the purpose of adding additional language to accommodate on farm processing of agricultural products. In addition, a maximum lot coverage provision is also included in the proposed changes. COMMITTEE A CTION: COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 374 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE # AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY ADDING ON -FARM PROCESSING TO CHAPTER 20.100- ACCESSORY USES, 20.40.138 — ADMINISTRATIVE USES, DELETING 20.40.158 ADDING AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING DEFINITION TO CHAPTER 20.97 -- DEFINITIONS AND ADDING LOT COVERAGE RESTRICTION — CHAPTER 20.40.450. WHEREAS, the proposed zoning text amendments shall be considered pursuant to WCC 20.90; and WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendment was published in the Bellingham Herald on April 19, 2006; and WHEREAS, notice of the subject amendment was sent to state agencies, including the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), on May 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, the SEPA Official has issued a Determination of Non -Significance on April 19, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing relating to the subject amendment on April 27, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received testimony and deliberated the merits of the proposal and provided their findings and recommendations for Council review and consideration. The Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for the subject amendment was published in the Bellingham Herald on April 13, 2006. The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment on April 27, 2006. 375 2. A determination of non -significance was issued on April 19, 2006, under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 3. Whatcom County's Agricultural Advisory Committee requested that this proposed text amendment be docketed and has reviewed and endorsed this proposal (see correspondence dated February 22, 2006). 4. Conditional Use Requirements for common on -farm processing of local farm products are contrary to the GMA in that the majority of Conditional Use Criteria as included in WCC 20.84.220, were for the protection of neighboring uses from impacts associated with agricultural activities associated with the processing opertation. 5. WCC 20.40 — Agriculture District lacked a lot coverage provision. The lack of such a provision leaves designated high quality soils vulnerable to extensive coverage by non soil based agricultural uses. 6. The addition of the lot coverage provision includes a provision to redirect uses that require greater than 25% lot coverage to lesser quality soils. CONCLUSIONS T. The proposal complies with the Goals and Policies of the County Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance, Title 20, is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. Section 2. 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 day of , 2006 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 2 376 ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED as to f rm: Civi rosecutor WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Chairperson, Laurie Caskey-Schreiber ( ) Approved () Denied Pete Kremen, Executive Date: 3 377 Exhibit A 20.40 AGRICULTURE DISTRICT 20.40.100 Accessory uses.* .109 Home occupations, when in compliance with the following: (1) The occupation or profession shall be carried out wholly within the principal or accessory buildings; and (2) Not more than two persons outside the immediate family shall be employed in the home occupation. 111. The processinq of agricultural products, other than slaughterhouses and mushroom substrate facilities, which originate from the permitted uses in WCC 20.40.050 provided: (1)The facility is supplemental to the primary permitted use. (2)The facility processes at least 50% agricultural goods produced in Whatcom County and that originate from permitted uses. (3)The facility employs no more than 20 permanent employees. 20.40.130 Administrative approval uses. .136 Surface mining subject to Washington State's Surface Mining Act (Chapter 78.44 RCW), and accessory washing and sorting, when within a Mineral Resource Land Special District subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.73 WCC and all other applicable regulations. Site reclamation must be to agricultural use within any MRLs adopted after May 1, 2001. No off -site dust shall be generated from the operation. .137 The processing of agricultural products other than slaughterhouses and mushroom substrate facilities, that originate from the permitted uses in WCC 20.40.050 provided that the following criteria are met: (1) The facility is supplemental to the primate permitted use. (2) The facility processes at least 50% agricultural goods produced in Whatcom County and that originate from permitted uses. (3) The facility employs over 20 permanent employees. (4) In addition to the criteria listed above, the administrator shall ensure that only the following criteria from WCC 20.84 — Conditional Use are applied to on -farm 4 378 processinq application reviews: (4) the proposed location will be serviced adequately by necessary public facilities such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewers, and schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such services, (5) the proposed location will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community, and (7) the proposal will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets. 137- 8 Mini -day care centers in a family dwelling. 20.40.150 Conditional uses.* .157 Rendering plants. .. ll ll!• L�.�\��l�i�Y■ is\�.11—J�\\a�, a�'11, �1 tea. ea��.i��\�J .159 Transitory solid waste facilities for treatment, storage, or collection, including, but not limited to: recycle centers and drop boxes for household materials excluding large items such as automobiles or major appliances; noncommercial or commercial composting and mulching facilities; and including but not limited to the types of facilities operated by neighborhood or public service organizations. 20.40.450 Lot coverage. No structure or combination of structures, including accessory buildings, shall occupy or cover more than 25 percent of the total area of the subject parcel. Exceptions to the maximum lot coverage may be allowed when any of the following can be demonstrated: (a)Proposed structures, in excess of the allowed maximum lot coverage, are located on lesser quality soils. (b) Proposed structures in excess of the allowed maximum lot coverage support additional agricultural production on parcels other than the subject parcel. (c) Expansion of facilities that were in operation prior to the adoption of this ordinance if it can be demonstrated that substantial on -site investment has been made and location of additonal structures off —site would cause an economic hardship to the farm operation. 379 20.97 DEFINITIONS 20.97.010.1 Agricultural Processing A_ ricultural processing means the transformation, either chemically or physically, of raw agricultural goods including but not limited to washingdn extracting, icing, producing ornamental agricultural products, sorting, cutting, pressing, bagging, freezing, canning, packaging, milling, crushing, fermenting, aging, pasteurizing, preserving, storage, bottling, but excluding slaughtering of livestock. Agricultural processing includes those process steps associated with product preparation and processing. Storage, warehousing and distributing products in conjunction with the agricultural processing activity occurring on that site shall be allowed. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT & REASONS FOR ACTION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY ADDING ON -FARM PROCESSING TO CHAPTER 20.100- ACCESSORY USES, 20.40.138 — ADMINISTRATIVE USES, DELETING 20.40.158 ADDING AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING DEFINITION TO CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS AND ADDING LOT COVERAGE RESTRICTION — CHAPTER 20.40.450. WHEREAS, the proposed zoning text amendments shall be considered pursuant to WCC 20.90; and WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendment was published in the Bellingham Herald on April 19, 2006; and WHEREAS, notice of the subject amendment was sent to state agencies, including the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), on May 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, the SEPA Official has issued a Determination of Non -Significance on April 19, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing relating to the subject amendment on April 27, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received testimony and deliberated the merits of the proposal and provided their findings and recommendations for Council review and consideration. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENTERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT & REASONS FOR ACTION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for.the subject amendment was published in the Bellingham Herald on April 13, 2006. The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment on April 27, 2006. 381 2. A determination of non -significance was issued on April 19, 2006, inder the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 3. Whatcom County's Agricultural Advisory Committee requested that this proposed text amendment be docketed and has reviewed and endorsed this proposal {see correspondence dated February 22, 2006. 4. Conditional Use requirements for common on -farm processing of local farm products was contrary to the GMA in that the majority of Conditional Use Criteria as included in WCC 20.84.220, were for the protection of neighboring uses from impacts associated with agricultural activities associated with the processing opertaion. 5. WCC 20.40 — Agriculture District lacked a lot coverage provision. The lack of such a provision leaves designated high quality soils vulnerable to extensive coverage by non soil based agricultural uses. 6. The addition of the lot coverage provision includes a provion to redirect uses that require greater than 25% lot coverage to lesser quality soils. CONCLUSIONS The subject zoning text amendment is consistent with Growth Management Act and Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and strengthens the Official Whatcom County Zoning text's agricultural provisions. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the zoning text amendments shown on Exhibit A. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Davi unter, hairperson Hal H. Hart, Secretary Date Date 2 382 Commissioners present at the April 27, 2006 meeting when the vote was taken on the subject amendment: Belise, Burdge, Hunter, Lesow, Mann, Pros, Roosma. Vote: Ayes: —, Burdge, Hunter, Lesow, Mann, Pros, Nays: Belisle, Roosma , Abstain: 0, Absent: Menzies, Steensma. Motion carried to adopt the above amendments. Exhibit A 20.40 AGRICULTURE DISTRICT 20.40.100 Accessory uses.* .109 Home occupations, when in compliance with the following: (1) The occupation or profession shall be carried out wholly within the principal or accessory buildings; and (2) Not more than two persons outside the immediate family shall be employed in the home occupation. 111. The processing of agricultural products, other than slaughterhouses and mushroom substrate facilities, which originate from the permitted uses in WCC 20.40.050 provided: (1)The facility is supplemental to the primary permitted use. (2)The facility processes at least 50% agricultural goods produced in Whatcom County and that originate from permitted uses. (3)The facility employs no more than 20 permanent employees. 20.40.130 Administrative approval uses. .136 Surface mining subject to Washington State's Surface Mining Act (Chapter 78.44 RCW), and accessory washing and sorting, when within a Mineral Resource Land Special District subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.73 WCC and all other applicable regulations. Site reclamation must be to agricultural use within any MRLs adopted after May 1, 2001. No off -site dust shall be generated from the operation. 3 383 .137 The processing of agricultural products other than slaughterhouses and mushroom substrate facilities, that originate from the permitted uses in WCC 20.40.050 provided that the following criteria are met: (1) The facility is supplemental to the primary permitted use. (2) The facility processes at least 50% agricultural goods produced in Whatcom County and that originate from permitted uses. (3) The facility employs over 20 permanent employees. (4) In addition to the criteria listed above, the administrator shall ensure that only the following criteria from WCC 20.84 — Conditional Use are applied to on -farm processing application reviews: (4) the proposed location will be serviced adequately by necessary public facilities such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewers, and schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such services, (5) the proposed location will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community, and (7) the proposal will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets. .13-7 8 Mini -day care centers in a family dwelling. 20.40.150 Conditional uses.* 157 Rendering plants. ■ .159 Transitory solid waste facilities for treatment, storage, or collection, including, but not limited to: recycle centers and drop boxes for household materials excluding large items such as automobiles or major appliances; noncommercial or commercial composting and mulching facilities; and including but not limited to the types of facilities operated by neighborhood or public service organizations. 20.40.450 Lot coverage. No structure or combination of structures, includinq accessory buildings, shall occupy or cover more than 25 percent of the total area of the subject parcel. Exceptions to the maximum lot coverage may be allowed when any of the following can be demonstrated: (a) Proposed structures, in excess of the allowed maximum lot coverage, are located on lesser quality soils. (b) Proposed structures in excess of the allowed maximum lot coverage support additional agricultural production on parcels other than the subject parcel. (c) Expansion of facilities that were in operation prior to the adoption of this ordinance if it can be demonstrated that substantial on -site investment has been made and location of additonal structures off —site would cause an economic hardship to the farm operation. 20.97 DEFINITIONS 20.97.010.1 Agricultural Processing Agricultural processinq means the transformation, either chemically or Physically, of raw agricultural goods including but not limited to washing, grading, sizing, drying, extracting ctting pressing bagging, freezing, canning, packaging, milling, crushing, fermenting, aging, pasteurizing, reservin storage, bottling, but excluding slaughterinq of livestock. Agricultural processing includes those process steps associated with product preparation and processing Storage warehousing and distributing products in conjunction with the agricultural processing activity occurring on that site shall be allowed. 385 File # ZON2004-00012 April 20, 2006 Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Staff Report, Page 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION File # ZON2004-00012 File Name: Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Applicant: Whatcom County Planning and Development Department. Staff: Kraig Olason, Senior Planner Summary of Request: The primary purpose of the proposal is to establish text and set criteria pertaining to on - farm agricultural processing in the designated agriculture zone of Whatcom County. In addition, the proposal establishes lot coverage restrictions within the designated agricultural zone. Currently no such language or criteria defining agricultural processing or lot coverage restrictions exist within the designated agriculture zone. • The subject proposal amends the Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance 20.40.100 Accessory Use and 20.40.130 Administrative Use to include the processing of agriculture products and removes current code section 20.40.158 from the conditional use section. • The subject proposal amends the Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance 20.40 by creating a maximum lot coverage restriction. • In addition, the proposal creates a definition of "agricultural processing" in the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance 20.97. Location and Site Description: Whatcom County Designated Agriculture Zone 1A2 Planning Division\Zoning Amendments\Zoning 2004\ZON2004-00012 Ag Processing\Staff Report_ag processing.doc File # ZON2004-00012 April 20, 2006 Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Staff Report, Page 2 II. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (A) Evaluation of the proposed amendment in relationship to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. Growth Management Act Planning Policies RCW 36.70A.020 specifically states the Planning Goal for resource lands: (5) Economic development Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. (8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource -based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. The proposed text incorporates the concept of maintaining and enhancing natural resource industries. Among the complaints received by PDS from farmers involved in the conditional use process was the distinction that had been made between a berry processing facility and the facilities necessary for dairy farms. Freezing and warehousing of processed berries is now common. Footprint wise, the berry processing facilities take up much less land area than sheds, milking parlors and other structures and facilities associated with diaries. However, while dairies and associated facilities were allowed outright, any processing or expansion of processing facilities required a conditional use permit. Because berries are a highly perishable product, on -farm processing provides farmers with greater flexibility to market the product since the processing — particularly freezing - can greatly extend the marketable shelf life of the product. L\2 Planning Division\Zoning Amendmenls\Zoning 20041ZON2004-00012 Ag Processing\Slaff Report_ag proccssing.doc 387 File # ZON2004-00012 April 20, 2006 Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Staff Report, Page 3 In addition, the proposed text seeks to broaden the types of processing opportunities that would be allowed out -right or through an administrative permit. Utilizing some form of processing can greatly augment the marketability of many farm crops and products. Requiring a conditional use, which is now required for the majority of the uses contemplated by this proposal (WCC 20.40.158) not only adds significant time and expense to the process of building or expanding on -farm processing facilities but also runs counter to GMA. Recent Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board case (Final Decision and Order (Case No.05-2-0017) states: "Adopted development regulations that restrict agricultural activity on designated agricultural resource lands to reconcile agricultural activity with residential and other uses on adjacent lands do not comply with the GMA" Final Decision and Order, Case No. 05-2-0017 at 30. WCC 20.84.220, the criteria section of the conditional use permit text includes eight criteria by which the proposed use would be evaluated. Five of those criteria include considerations of impact to adjacent uses or existing character. The proposal modifies the administrative review to include only three of the eight criteria of 20.84.220. These criteria (4), (5), and (6) do not address neighboring uses, but rather cost of infrastructure and traffic. Applicable goals, policies and text of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan are addressed below: County -Wide Planning Policies A primary County -wide Planning Policy is to ensure the economic viability of agricultural activities. This is stated in Whatcom County Code 20.40.010: "The primary purpose of this district is to preserve, enhance and support the production of food and fiber in Whatcom County, to maintain a sufficiently large agricultural land base to ensure a viable agriculture industry and to maintain the economic feasibility of supporting services. Whatcom County supports agricultural activities as the highest priority use in the Agriculture District, with all other uses being subordinate to agricultural activities." Comprehensive Plan On May 20, 1997, Whatcom County adopted its new Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Growth Management Act. A primary goal in the Whatcom County's Comprehensive Plan is: IA2 Planning Division\Zoning Amend mentslZon ing 20042ON2004-00012 Ag ProcessinotaffReport_ag processing.doc File # ZON2004-00012 April 20, 2006 Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Staff Report, Page 4 GOAL 8A: Conserve and enhance Whatcom County's agricultural land base for the continued production of food and fiber. Policy 8A-4: Discourage conversion of productive agricultural land to incompatible non- agricultural uses. Policy 8A-6: Prioritize agricultural activity in land use decisions when land is composed of prime and/orproductive agricultural soils and agriculture is the highest value resource use. GOAL 8B: Maintain and enhance Whatcom County's agricultural products industry as a long-term and sustainable industry. Policy 8B-1: Promote the expansion and stability of local and regional agricultural economies. Policy 8B-2: Assist Whatcom County's agricultural industry in the pursuit of its long-term economic potential. This should include the development of strategies and policies necessary to reach this potential, in terms of both production and diversity. Policy 8B-3: Support agricultural product processing facilities through appropriate planning, zoning, and land use regulations. Policy 8B-4: Support methods and strategies to market Whatcom County agriculture in ways which ensure that agricultural activities (such as dairying) and entities (such as processors) will remain here in the long term. Policy 8B-5. Support improving the efficiency and flexibility of state and local environmental regulations affecting the agricultural products industry. Policy 8B-6: Develop a range of non -regulatory programs, options, and incentives which agricultural landowners can employ to meet or exceed county environmental goals. The proposed text amendment provides a wide array of opportunities for on -farm processing opportunities. On -farm processing is distinguished from more commercial "processors" by requiring that the on -farm processing is subordinate to the primary agricultural activity. In addition to providing opportunity for on -farm processing, this proposal also establishes a threshold for lot coverage by structures. This has been added to ensure that the agricultural soils are provided heightened protection for future long-term viability. 1:12 Planning Division\Zoning Amendments\Zoning 20041ZON2004-00012 Ag Processing\Staff Report—ag processing.doc M File # ZON2004-00012 April 20, 2006 Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Staff Report, Page 5 1:12 Planning Division2oning Amendments2oning 20041ZON2004-00012 Ag Processing\Slaff Report ag processing.doc 390 File # ZON2004-00012 April 20, 2006 Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Staff Report, Page 6 (B) Environmental implications of the proposed action, as identified by the Whatcom County SEPA Official, must be considered. A Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act on April 19, 2006. No mitigating conditions were imposed on the project through the SEPA process. III. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for the subject amendment was published in the Bellingham Herald on April 13, 2006. The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment on April 27, 2006. 2. A determination of non -significance was issued on April 19, 2006, inder the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 3. Whatcom County's Agricultural Advisory Committee requested that this proposed text amendment be docketed and has reviewed and endorsed this proposal (see correspondence dated February 22, 2006. 4. Conditional Use requirements for common on -farm processing of local farm products was contrary to the GMA in that the majority of Conditional Use Criteria as included in WCC 20.84.220, were for the protection of neighboring uses from impacts associated with agricultural activities associated with the processing opertaion. 5. WCC 20.40 -- Agriculture District lacked a lot coverage provision. The lack of such a provision leaves designated high quality soils vulnerable to extensive coverage by non soil based agricultural uses. 6. The addition of the lot coverage provision includes a provion to redirect uses that require greater than 25% lot coverage to lesser quality soils. IV. PROPOSED CONCLUSION The subject zoning text amendment is consistent with Growth Management Act and Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and strengthens the Official Whatcom County Zoning text's agricultural provisions. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission incorporate the proposed text, findings and conclusions into their Recommendations for Adoption to County Council. 1:12 Planning Division\Zoning Amendmenls\Zoning 20041ZON2004-00012 Ag Proccssing151afrReportag processing.doc 391 File # ZON2004-00012 April 20, 2006 Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Staff Report, Page 7 B2 Planning Division\Zoning Amend mcnls\Zon ing 20041ZON2004-00012 Ag ProcessinglStafi'Report_ag processing,doc 392 File # ZON2004-00012 April 20, 2006 Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Staff Report, Page 8 EXHIBIT A 20.40 AGRICULTURE DISTRICT 20.40.100 Accessory uses.* 109 Home occupations, when in compliance with the following: (1) The occupation or profession shall be carried out wholly within the principal or accessory buildings; and (2) Not more than two persons outside the immediate family shall be employed in the home occupation. 111. The processing of agricultural products, other than slaughterhouses and mushroom substrate facilities, which originate from the permitted uses in WCC 20.40.050 provided: (1)The facility is supplemental to the primary permitted use. (2)The facility processes at least 50% agricultural goods produced in Whatcom County and that originate from permitted uses. (3)The facility employs no more than 20 permanent employees. 20.40.130 Administrative approval uses. .136 Surface mining subject to Washington State's Surface Mining Act (Chapter 78.44 RCW), and accessory washing and sorting, when within a Mineral Resource Land Special District subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.73 WCC and all other applicable regulations. Site reclamation must be to agricultural use within any MRLs adopted after May 1, 2001. No off -site dust shall be generated from the operation. .137 The processina of agricultural products other than slaughterhouses and mushroom substrate facilities, that originate from the permitted uses in WCC 20.40.050 provided that the following criteria are met: (1) The facility is supplemental to the primary permitted use. (2) The facility processes at least 50% agricultural goods produced in Whatcom County and that originate from permitted uses. (3) The facility employs over 20 permanent employees. (4) In addition to the criteria listed above, the administrator shall ensure that only the following criteria from WCC 20.84 — Conditional Use are applied to on - farm processing application reviews: (4) the proposed location will be serviced adequately by necessary public facilities such as highways, streets, Police and fire protection drainage structures, refuse disposal water and sewers, and schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the 1A2 Planning Division\Zoning AmendmentslZoning 20041ZON2004-00012 Ag Processing\Staff Report_ag processing.doc 393 File # ZON2004-00012 April 20, 2006 Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Staff Report, Page 9 Proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such services, (5) the proposed location will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community, and (7) the proposal will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets. 137 8 Mini -day care centers in a family dwelling. 20.40.150 Conditional uses.* 157 Rendering plants. ■ .159 Transitory solid waste facilities for treatment, storage, or collection, including, but not limited to: recycle centers and drop boxes for household materials excluding large items such as automobiles or major appliances; noncommercial or commercial composting and mulching facilities; and including but not limited to the types of facilities operated by neighborhood or public service organizations. 20.40.450 Lot coverage. No structure or combination of structures, including accessory buildings, shall occupy or cover more than 25 percent of the total area of the subiect parcel. Exceptions to the maximum lot coverage may be allowed when any of the following can be demonstrated; (a) Proposed structures, in excess of the allowed maximum lot coverage, are located on lesser quality soils. (b) Proposed structures in excess of the allowed maximum lot coverage support additional agricultural production on parcels other than the subject parcel. (c) Expansion of facilities that were in operation prior to the adoption of this ordinance if it can be demonstrated that substantial on -site investment has been made and location of additonal structures off —site would cause an economic hardship to the farm operation. IA2 Planning DivisionVoning ArnendmentsVoning 20041ZON2004-00012 Ag ProcessinglStaffReport ag processing.doc 394 File # ZON2004-00012 April 20, 2006 Agricultural Processing Text Amendment Staff Report, Page 10 20.97 DEFINITIONS 20.97.010.1 Agricultural Processing Agricultural processing means the transformation, either chemically or Physically, of raw agricultural goods including but not limited to washing, grading, sizing, drying, extracting, icing, producing ornamental agricultural products, sorting, cutting, pressing, bagging, freezing, canning, packaging, milling, crushing, fermenting, aging, pasteurizing, preserving, storage, bottling, but excluding slaughtering of livestock. Agricultural processing includes those process steps associated with product preparation and processing. Storage, warehousing and distributing products in conjunction with the agricultural processing activity occurring on that site shall be allowed. ]:12 Planning Division\Zoning Amendmenls\Zoning 20041ZON2004-00012 Ag Processing\Staff Report —as processing.doc 395 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 27, 2006 Public Hearing File# ZON2004-00012 — Ag. Product Definitions, amendment to Whatcom County Code 20.40 — Agriculture District and 20.97 — Definitions, for the purpose of adding additional language to accommodate on -farm processing of agricultural products. In addition, a maximum lot coverage provision is also included in the proposed changes. Kraig Olason presented the staff report. This is a proposal that basically does four things. it's dealing with the agricultural code 20.40. It adds a definition for agricultural processing under 20.97. It removes the provision for agricultural processing under the conditional use section 20.41.58. It essentially takes what was the gist of that section and moves it into either an accessory or administrative position in terms of its review requirements. The other thing included in this proposal is the percent lot cover limitation. 0 This proposal is from the Agricultural Advisory Committee. In part it is to do with berry production. If you follow the trends in the County berry production is up. Because the business is dealing with a fairly perishable product it's very common for producers to have some sort of processing associated with their business, particularly with freezer plants. There were numerous permits granted for conditional use permits which require a public hearing and notice each time someone wants to add on to their freezer plants. There is a lot of interest in providing for a more expedited method for agriculture producers to do some on farm processing. I would like to touch on the requirement for a conditional use permit. One of the things that was very clear in a recent Growth Management Hearings Board decision, that we received on another ordinance, had to do with requiring conditions or modifications of project proposals or activities to protect adjacent property owners in the agricultural zone. If you look at what Whatcom County Code 20.84.220 includes in the conditional use section much of it pertains to adjacent uses. It's important to note that the text includes some provisions that allow for some exemption to the lot coverage. The lot coverage issue is one that the Agricultural Advisory Committee kicked around quite a bit. If you think about a typical 40 acre parcel you would be looking at 10 acres of that being covered. We did provide for some relief if the site is in existence and they are adding to the existing facilities. Primarily what we are looking for is to try to persuade non agricultural soil dependant agriculture on to lesser quality soils. If you look at Exhibit A, page 6, you will see we have moved new text under 20.40. E 1 hick talks about allowing for these uses as accessory. These are subordinate uses to the agricultural property. It is important to note that we are trying to insure that when it's reviewed we have included the language in this section that limits the conditional use review subjects to the three identified. It does allow for notification as well as appeal. We are trying to insure that when it's reviewed that the conditional use review subjects are the three identified. The three exemptions are trying to address the reality that is out there. We talk about trying to maintain a 25 percent cover as a maximum, however, if the proposed structures are going to be in excess of 25 percent we would direct them to lesser quality soils. We have added new language to read: proposed structures in excess of the allowed maximum lot coverage support additional agricultural production on parcels other than the subject parcel. We have added a provision for existing facilities that would allow them to just add on. What we are trying to do is let new operations know if they are not soil dependant they need to look at lesser quality soils within the agricultural zone, if they are going to exceed 25 percent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 10 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 27, 2006 Staff recommends approval. Pros: Aren't people building where soil is not farmable? Olason: No. What people are really looking for is water rights not soil. Mann: How does this affect the mushroom substrate production issue? Olason: This is not intended to address mushroom substrate production. There has always been a debate between is it preparation or processing? Mann: Is mushroom substrate production considered agricultural processing? Olason: It's been considered a component of an agricultural practice. What we need to look at is we will be having a mushroom substrate section which will clearly call out what can and can't be done. I would offer that if there is a real concern that you could table this. Lesow: Is it a coincidence that we received this staff report on April 20t' and on April 21" we received this letter with regard to mushroom substrate? Olason: I don't think it's a coincidence. I think there's a perception that there is more to this amendment than there is. The hearing was opened to the public. Catherine Hanowell, Everson: I am here to ask you to think about this ordinance a little bit more. I had a good conversation with Kraig earlier this week. He pretty much explained to me what he has explained to you. I certainly support the goals of the ordinance in trying to make it easier for the agricultural community to do on site processing. My husband and I raise hazelnuts on property owned by the family since 1949. We aren't newbies to the area. am worried because of the language, especially in the definition, a good attorney could make an argument that indeed substrate production is this kind of thing. hope you will wait until the two ordinances come together. Greg Barlean, Everson: (Distributed a packet of information) I live adjacent to the purported worm farm which we believe is a commercial substrate production facility in disguise. I am the unofficial and self appointed leader of a whole group of citizens, about 200 families, which make up the Hopewell Neighborhood Association. I have been doing this for a little over four years. I quit my job. I have spent about $8,000 of my own money and I have spent about $100,000 of my neighbor's money because I believe that we are in peril from this industry. This industry tried to set up two large commercial substrate production facilities in our neighborhood with the blessing of the Planning Department. We have been engaged in a four year effort to protect ourselves via the conditional use permit process. This is the one tool we have to protect ourselves. Commercial substrate production, as far as I know, has never been allowed on agricultural land. By commercial I mean substrate production for offsite use. If you take a look at what the Planning Department has come up with an attorney would have a hay -day with the language. The fact of the matter is the Growth Management Hearings Board came up with a 397 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 27, 2006 definition that mushroom substrate production, for on site use, is an agricultural activity. We had an issue with that but I don't think we can win this. I think that has been lost to us. On site substrate production is now officially an agricultural activity in Washington State and that's just the way it is. This ordinance allows agricultural activities or agricultural processing and fermenting which is mushroom substrate production. What this ordinance does is take that agricultural processing activity and removes most of the conditional use permit requirements. There is a tremendous gray area here. We have a zoning ordinance that is going to be before you at the next Planning Commission meeting. What I suggest you do is clarify this matter. All we have to do is offer a simple amendment. What this amendment is intended to do is take substrate production out. Then when the substrate ordinance comes in front of you, in about two weeks, if you want to exempt on site substrate production from some of the provisions in the conditional use permit do it then. If you want to exempt commercial substrate production facilities from some of the conditions do it then. You can do that. You can exempt it here and then add it in later and it's not discriminatory towards substrate production to put it in the same category as slaughter houses. I'm not an attorney but I have sat through two court cases with this industry and I know what this industry is capable of doing. I don't think anyone else in this room has sat through court cases with this industry and let me tell you these guys are sharp. It's an industry that has made a career out of avoiding regulations. So here we are with an opportunity to avoid regulations by vague language. I am going to assume that's not the intent. Roosma: If you were sitting in our seats would you allow substrate production in forest land? Barlean: I might, but I guarantee you the Growth Management Hearings Board would have a lot of difficulty with it. We did ask for a postponement and we aren't trying to burden you folks. Nobody is more upset that this thing is back in front of you guys than we are. Mann: If this language that you provided tonight were incorporated into the ordinance would you still be in favor of tabling it? Barlean: No, but I would ask that all of you look very carefully at this. Even if you do put the language in there I think this is a real opportunity for unintended consequences. The conditional use permit regulations, that have been in place for all of these years, were well considered and now all of a sudden here is a basic gutting of the conditional use permit for agricultural processing. Cheri McKay, Everson: (Distributed information) We spoke to our council on this matter, who is man we feel very comfortable with and we believe he has the welfare of the agricultural industry and County at heart. He took a look at it and said it is a great big loophole and it will make your fears come true if it is acted upon. I have looked at some other items in here, like the DNS, and I don't understand it. I was looking forward to talking to our attorney about that because I can't imagine a processing plant for the agricultural goods of a large farm that wouldn't have some impact on the environment. I am a very strong supporter of whatever farmers can do to increase their viability and keep them holding onto this land. I don't want it to go to big ag. I want to see the guys that have lived there farm it. The hearing was closed to the public. QM RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 27, 2006 Work Session Pros: Is there any problem with eliminating substrate production? Olason: It's fine with me. Pros: Is there any particular reason you didn't throw that in there to begin with? Olason: Because I think it's going to be addressed elsewhere. Pros moved to accept the staff report with the addition of mushroom substrate as a prohibited use. Lesow seconded. Hunter: Why were slaughter houses put in then taken out? McKay: Our attorney just felt it should go up higher in the text so it covered everything beneath it. Roosma: The chances of anything happening with substrate between now and when we pass our next regulations are very slim. Hunter: I think the language, as it is, invites usage by the substrate system. I don't see any harm in including the substrate language. Belisle: Farming is a dirty, smelly business. As density comes in the problems become more inherent. I really think we need to stay away from easily spelling things out because they really should go through the difficult process of where it is going through now and be done. We run the risk of setting a precedence of changing these things to fit the crowd. Hunter: To be clear we aren't changing substrate production at all by taking it out of here. Belisle: I would like to wait on this until we see what comes out of the other regulations. Roll Call vote to accept the staff report with the addition of mushroom substrate as a prohibited use: Ayes — Burdge, Hunter, Lesow, Mann, Pros; Nays — Belisle, Roosma; Abstain — 0; Absent — Menzies, Steensma. Motion carried. Work Session File# ZON2005-00014, Agriculture Protection Overlay zone, and proposed Agriculture Zone Amendments. Kraig Olason gave a power point presentation At our previous meeting on this issue when we discussed some of the proposed elements they included things like siting the residential structures and a provision that the remainder lot would have some siting requirements for the home. We also looked at having a requirement for 35 percent of the lot available for development rather than 25 percent because we didn't count anything on the remainder lot. After we had that conversation we also talked a little bit about maybe looking at lot size versus percent. One of the things you asked me to do was to go look for some R10 zoned land in the APO that was developed into clusters. We have about 25,000 acres of R10 land. It has the same percentage allowed as R5 for the development portion with half the density. 399 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 27, 2006 (Showed slide of property that is an R10 two lot cluster located in an area near H Street and Delta Line Road.) The property has one lot that is in the cluster and the remainder is a second lot. There are currently no siting requirements so the house can go anywhere. Another issue with the APO is that this is a wood lot which we are protecting with the APO. The cluster lot is taking up 11 percent of the total. (Showed map of soils for this area.) (Showed slide of property that is an R10 two lot cluster located on the Pole Road.) This is a pretty agricultural based area. (Showed map of soils for this area.) There are mostly APO soils in this area. This cluster is using up the entire 25 percent. (Showed slides of a two lot cluster in the Hemmi Road area and a three lot cluster near Telegraph Road.) Wells are no longer allowed outside of the residential area. At the hearing we will bring to you some of the suggestions you had made previously. Other Business Pros: What is the status of the third party review of the land supply? Holbrook: We have prepared a funding request which we have forwarded to the Administration. Pros: I would like to adopt Mr. Horowitz's land supply figures. Pros moved to have a worksession on this topic at the May 11, 2006 meeting. Lesow seconded. Motion carried. Holbrook: At the County Council meeting last Tuesday they approved the Tennant Lake rezone. They want to have a public hearing on the Ferndale rezone you denied. That will take place on May 9"n The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Minutes prepared by B. Boxx. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: David Hunter, Chair Hal H. Hart, A.I.C.P., Secretary M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Board of Health June 27, 2006 Council Chair Laurie Caskey-Schreiber called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Board of Health Present: Barbara Brenner Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Carl Weimer L. Ward Nelson Public Health Advisory Board Present: Lavern Lane-Oreiro Andy Byrne John Worlund Mary Ellen Shields David Davidson L. Ward Nelson Chris Phillips 1. PUBLIC SESSION No one spoke. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC HEALTH PLAN Absent: None Absent: Jenny Shuler Diana Quinn Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, introduced Kristen West. Kristen West, CHOICE Regional Health Network Executive Director, gave a presentation and background on the CHOICE Regional Health Network. What each community can do for health care is unique. However, until there is a framework for community -led health care reform efforts, they won't be able to influence State and federal policy and attract larger resources. She has put together a framework for how communities can help themselves. There is now a well-defined technical assistance component to community health care collaborative work nationwide. Many strategies for solving health care crises have been focused on consolidating government and employer purchasers to create incentives in the marketplace. However, it's been proven that many of those things don't work well. Community -led efforts is about doing things differently through looking at how the healthcare system works at the point of transaction between the provider and patient, and having that lead to changes in the health care system and health care policy. Board of Health, 6/27/2006, Page 1 401 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Approximately 600 communities nationwide have realized they won't see comprehensive solutions from the federal government or state governments. They have defined what they can do in the absence of those solutions to create better health for everyone at less cost. Her positive deviance theory is that they spend a lot of time focusing on the 80 percent that is the problem, without looking at the 20 percent that is the solution. For example, rather than focus on 80 percent of the children in Vietnam who are malnourished, look at the 20 percent who aren't malnourished to see what they are doing differently. Then, use that as a best practice. They took that approach to community health care access. They are looking at communities with successful pieces of a solution, and replicating those pieces as best practices. Many communities have achieved 100 percent access. The positive outcomes is to improve health outcomes, save billions of dollars, and leverage existing funds to raise more money. A study has shown that about 30 percent of healthcare expenditures nationwide are unnecessary and wasteful, as a result of fragmentation in the healthcare system. In Washington State, that rate is slightly better, at about 24 percent. Compared to other countries, they spend a significantly higher amount on health care, but the outcomes are significantly poorer. They have poor health status but are paying a lot of money. Seventy- five percent of every dollar that goes into the healthcare system is from a government source. They believe they have a private healthcare system, but it's really a government - funded system. An increasing number of people don't have access to this poorly organized system of care, which they spend too much money on. The vision is to get back in balance and have an improved health status. They must fully fund primary care and prevention. They need to have a comprehensive definition of primary care and prevention that includes dental care, mental health, and chemical dependency services. They won't need to capture all 24 percent of those unnecessary costs to cover everyone who is uninsured. They would only need to capture about ten percent of those unnecessary expenditures. At the same time, they would reduce the amount of uncompensated care that the hospitals and physicians provide. There is a process to get from the small, community projects that are often grant - funded to better health for everyone in the nation at a lesser cost. The first step in the process is to identify the local early initiatives, including outreach programs. Get people connected to the programs and services that exist, but that they aren't using. Eliminate duplicative infrastructure and separate funding sources. They must be actively involved in the three-tier chess game, which is at the local, state, and national levels. At the local level, know how the community power is harnessed. Then, turn to other like-minded colleagues at the state level and create state frameworks. Washington State has done that through the Communities Connect program. They must also be actively involved at the national level to change the way healthcare is financed. Communities Connect has been successful during the last two legislative sessions in getting legislation passed that allows community initiatives to flourish. Through Communities Joined in Action, talk about the outcomes they've been able to achieve nationwide to attract large, private funding. After increasing primary care capacity and getting people enrolled in government - funded health plans, the next step is to get people access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Board of Health, 6/27/2006, Page 2 402 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. organize donated specialty care, and reduce inappropriate emergency room use. Make it affordable for small employers to provide coverage. Initiatives are often developed around those types of activities. There are critical activities common to any community program. Knowing what those activities are, they can jump-start a community's efforts to create a critical, local infrastructure. They need someone in the community to put these activities together in an integrated way. There must be a common client -tracking and referral system. Track the services people are using and identify gaps to plan for the next phase. She asked if this is the type of work they are doing in this community. Phillips stated they start out concentrating on Medicaid outreach, working through the school system. Make sure that every child eligible for Medicaid gets Medicaid. They are beginning to implement Project Access, for uninsured access who need specialty care. They are implementing strategies for emergency room redirection, to reduce the inappropriate use of the emergency room. Those are three they are concentrating on at the moment. They've begun to develop the prescription drug program. West stated this community is active on four of the eight critical activities. Nelson stated they have also done work on a survey of medical homes. West read the eight critical activities from the presentation (on file). Phillips stated many of these things are related to finding savings in the system. If they can redirect people from the emergency room to medical homes, there is tremendous savings. Fleetwood asked where a subsidy for small employers to cover low wage workers would come from. Nelson stated that's what they are working on. West stated a community in Michigan pays the cost of low wage health care equally from the employer, employee, and the hospital disproportionate share dollars. In Washington, they may have access to basic health plan dollars to be their one-third share. There are also local taxing options. Nelson stated that locally, they've talked about using medical savings accounts as a tool for employers. Brenner stated she's not convinced the health accounts will work. They work great for healthy people. When people aren't healthy, they aren't working and don't have an account. West stated she has information on that issue. Medical health accounts cannot be the only solution. However, they can be part of the solution. There could be a community health savings account for primary care and prevention, if it were tied to some kind of catastrophic insurance product. There is some innovative ways to use them that have not Board of Health, 6/27/2006, Page 3 403 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. been explored. Employers love them because they are pre-tax. If they get employers into the conversation, it's worth it to get them thinking about coverage for their workers. Regarding the process to get from the small, community projects that are often grant -funded to better health for everyone in the nation at a lesser cost, people in Whatcom County are working the three tiers very effectively. In the legislature, Whatcom County efforts are innovative, talked about a lot, and are seen as community collaboratives that should be replicated throughout the state. She talks a lot about Whatcom County's work nationally. Whatcom County is in the phase of working to implement and integrate the eight critical activities. Once the community healthcare collaborative movement matures, they build the local capacity around the eight critical activities, and the activities are integrated, then they will have the leverage to influence policy at the state and federal levels. They can look at sustainable ways to organize the delivery system. Begin to track health outcomes and status in the community. That's when they will see a larger savings in the system and can begin to advocate at the state and federal levels for changing the way health care is financed to support this newly organized healthcare delivery system. It will fully fund expanded primary care and blend funding from Medicaid, Basic Health Plan, employers, and other sources in a community pot of funds to pay for primary care and prevention. Insurance is a great mechanism for catastrophic, unpredictable events. They don't need insurance for regular, routine, planned care. There are savings that can be had by carving that out of the insurance financing mechanism and keeping those dollars local. Brenner stated the local community, through the hospital, has a program to do different kinds of screenings that are very inexpensive rather than going to several different doctors. She understands they are getting ready to broaden that program. West stated that is a great example. A State bill before the legislature is before the Blue Ribbon Commission on Healthcare. They are interested in hearing from communities about what kind of health policy is needed to increase access, improve quality, and reduce cost. Community healthcare collaboratives will have significant influence on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission. Community -led initiatives are finally getting visibility. Move to the community level the decision about which healthcare services should be covered and prioritize within available financing. Pooling funds requires changes in state and federal statutes, which seems really difficult. To begin moving the decisions to the local level within existing statutes, public health services districts may be formed. They can create a governance body and taxing authority to finance things like a determining how to finance an electronic health record, set up a plan to cover everyone who is uninsured, or many other things. There is a lot they can do within existing statute and with the vote of the people. In summary of the process, start with small projects, plan to implement the critical activities, designate an organization to be a neutral convener to implement the activities in an integrated way, drive policy decisions about how healthcare is organized and financed, and then move financial and delivery decisions to the local communities. Board of Health, 6/27/2006, Page 4 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Davidson asked about evidence -based medicine and driving decisions locally. That runs counter to his notion that what they know is best has to do with epidemiologic things such as big samples, best practices, and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). He asked how those mesh. West stated her collaborative uses the U.S. Clinical Preventative Services guidelines and the State Board of Health expanded work on primary care and prevention. They work with the State agencies on developing best practices. They tried to apply the best science available to the services that should be covered. They also use what they know about the health outcomes of other countries that do things differently. The State health care authority donated their actuaries to her collaborative to see if is remotely affordable. They found that it was affordable. Evidence - based medicine means having some kind of a distribution mechanism in the community where sole or small -group practice providers have access to the best information available and know how their practice compares. They can extract the savings and cover everyone who is uninsured within five years. The Community Health Care Collaborative grant program is to create six collaboratives in the state and give them $250,000 per year to implement those eight critical activities to extract these savings. The State legislature approved and funded the legislation because they were able to show the outcomes communities are achieving. Once they begin to organize the donated care, get small employers financially participating, everyone is enrolled in existing resources, and have a highly organized system for interacting with the healthcare system, there will be a common infrastructure. When hospitals and practitioners, public and private health organizations, community collaboratives, and employers operates together without duplication, there will be an integrated infrastructure. The involvement of county government is exciting. It can be a bully pulpit for these types of initiatives. County governments plays a wonderful role in health care access and quality, through the comprehensive plans. Counties can also monitor annually how well the community is doing on the eight critical activities and outcomes. They can provide subsidies to support efforts and provide seed capital. Nelson stated a jurisdiction in Oregon included a health component in their comprehensive plan. There is more this community can do. There are many organizations that make efforts to have a healthy community, but there is no plan. The County should facilitate a collaborative effort within the community to provide a comprehensive health care plan. It will take some time to put together a plan the community can help develop and support. Delahunt stated this goes beyond the Whatcom Alliance for Healthcare Access (WAHA). It is about developing a real plan for having a healthy community. There are many good ideas and projects to make the community healthier. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Delahunt continued to state that they need a plan and goals for the next five or ten years to evaluate funding requests, the County's public health work, and all the community collaborative work. The Public Health Advisory Board can assist in putting together this vision. Board of Health, 6/27/2006, Page 5 405 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated she is involved in the Pandemic Flu Task Force. They can use the same protocol and organization. It's important to have a comprehensive plan, but the County shouldn't do it. The plan should be community -based and pull together all the elements of healthcare in Whatcom County. Dr. Greg Stern, County Health Officer, stated a comprehensive county health care plan should not be run by the County. The pandemic flu planning process involved many people, and is not a County government process. It is a community process. Coming up with a comprehensive health plan should be the same thing. There is a difference between coverage and insurance. There are alternatives to health insurance. Consider treating preventive care as a public utility. Pool money through taxes, donations, or other methods to save on preventive services and benefit all. It will save money by preventing the expense of catastrophic care. (Inaudible.) Nelson stated government is not an entity on its own. It is comprised of everyone. People will look to the government in situations of pandemic crises. Government facilitates and gets the discussion going, then formalizes a community plan. That doesn't mean that government, as an individual entity, does it by themselves. Get people talking about ideas and thoughts. The Council should ask the Public Health Advisory Board to begin considering a plan process and subjects to go into a public health comprehensive plan. Begin discussions. Reach out to the business community, schools, and other interest groups. A lot of work has already been done. Bring that work together. If many of these community groups throughout the nation do this, it will send a message to the federal government that the communities can do a better job of using the dollars. Caskey-Schreiber stated she supports going forward with this kind of plan. The local government needs more control to fix its own problems with healthcare access. This will be a big project. She asked if the Public Health Advisory Board has time to take this on. She may be willing to consider adding staff to work on it. Use the Board's recommendations as a framework for developing a comprehensive plan. Delahunt stated that is how it would work. After they decide on the framework and community partners, find someone to facilitate the entire thing. Take the time to be thoughtful and deliberate, and it won't be a big burden. The process may take a couple of years to get through. In the end, there would be a really good product. McShane stated he likes the idea of adding it to the County Comprehensive Plan. Nelson stated they can't add it to the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Growth Management Act (GMA), the Comprehensive Plan must be a land use document. There is no other comprehensive health plan in the state of Washington. They will be the first to do this. There is no legal ground to tie it to the Comprehensive Plan. They can cite elements from the health plan in the Comprehensive Plan. Randy Watts checked on it already. McShane stated they can use the Comprehensive Plan as a skeleton for a health plan. Define goals and action items. Define how the Council evaluates funding requests. Delahunt stated the format of the Comprehensive Plan, with its policies, goals, and actions, would work for a health plan. It could be a simple and straightforward document, in the end. Board of Health, 6/27/2006, Page 6 E1• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Davidson stated don't have the health plan as a chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. If it were a chapter, then all the legal requirements and challenges and controversies that have to do with the land use plan would snarl up and delay the health plan. It may not even be a plan the County Council has to formally adopt. There may be an advantage to not having it be adopted. WAHA is in place. It can create a plan with staff and support from the County. He worries about the extent to which it becomes a work plan of the Board of Health, which will just slow down the process. Nelson stated the County government includes everyone in the county. WAHA is an element of everyone. County government does slow things down, but that's why it's important. They take the time to make sure everyone has been heard and their concerns have been addressed. If WAHA, which is a fine group, does the plan, the plan may not include mental health issues, for example. It may not address dental issues. Those are issues WAHA has not taken on. This plan process is an opportunity to address all the issues of concern to the people of Whatcom County. They could put it out to the public as a vote. There won't be 100 percent approval on anything related to healthcare. Therefore, reach into the community to get as much information as they can. Include everyone, including the tribes and small business, in this process. The County is the facilitator. Stern stated the County government may be new to this, but the community has been doing this for a long time. The County and Health Department is involved in these community efforts. If the County rushes in too fast to develop a comprehensive plan, it could interfere with what is becoming a community comprehensive planning process. focusing on that final product may preclude developing relationships, new ideas, and new partnerships. Step into this gently. Recognize the decades of work that has been going on here. Offer County resources to the subtleties of an ongoing conversation rather than an up -or -down vote. Nelson stated many groups want to do things year after year. No one takes the role to help them focus attention and find new ideas that work. He hopes any comprehensive health plan would be a growing document that incorporates new ideas as they come forward. There is no where for someone to see what is the community's plan for health care. There are many groups, but they are not coordinated. Coordinating people isn't telling people what to do. Put together written information on what the community has and knows, as well as general goals and directions. Phillips stated it seems like a lot of groups are doing a lot of things. A comprehensive plan would address public health, traditional healthcare delivery, dental health, and mental health. Begin from the County Board of Health and Public Health Advisory Board to lay out an outline of what a comprehensive plan might look like. That would be a tremendous step forward. Kristen West's message is that a community has taken steps and made significant progress to ensure 100 percent access. They are facing a healthcare crisis. They have begun to talk about rationing. What they should talk about is sustainability. Stay focused on the possibility of ensuring 100 percent access. Brenner stated she has confidence they can do both. It will take some time. It may be an evolutionary document in the end, but they want to be confident that they have a good start. What's most important is diverse community involvement in the process. Board of Health, 6/27/2006, Page 7 407 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Worlund stated they are talking about two things, process and product. Keep them separate. The process may be organic, too. It's not the County's job to tell people what their roles should be any more than it is to tell them what the end product should be. The most the County can do is come up with a position paper. Define the issues and invite people to participate in a discussion on solutions. Leave open the issue of the County's role. He doesn't know who owns the product. Part of the process will be to figure out who owns the product. Caskey-Schreiber stated everyone has a different vision. She will keep her mind open to issues that are at the forefront of the county and how to prioritize them. She hopes the Public Health Advisory Board begins moving in that direction. The Council can consider incorporating this effort into its budget planning. She asked if there is consensus on doing this project. Delahunt stated the advisory board seems willing to take on this project to develop an outline and framework, and then bring it back to the Board of Health. The Council concurred, West stated the National Association of County Officials (NACO) may have discretionary seed funds to get this started. She will find out if anything is available for this. The County is breaking new ground. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk 2006. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Council Chair Board of Health, 6/27/2006, Page 8 R1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special County Council June 20, 2006 Council Chair Laurie Caskey-Schreiber called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. in the Fifth Floor Meeting Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Carl Weimer L. Ward Nelson Staff Present Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator Mike McFarlane, Parks Department Director Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension Executive Director Dave McEachran, Prosecutor Wendy Jones, Chief of Corrections Shirley Forslof, County Auditor John Komorowski, Public Defender Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director Dennis Rhodes, Planning and Development Services Bruce Van Glubt, District Court Probation Debbie Adelstein, Auditor's Office Brad Bennett, Finance Division Manager Karen Sterling-Goens, Human Resources Division Manager N.F. Jackson, Superior Court Clerk Marianne Caldwell, Finance Division Kathy Walker, Prosecutor's Office Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director Terry Hinz, Health Department Carey James, Sheriff's Office Jeff Parks, Sheriff's Office Marvette Gwinner, Sheriff's Office Dave Reynolds, Juvenile Court Administratoar Linda Harduar, Administrative Services Department Perry Rice, Information Technology Division Manager Keven Moyes, Sheriff's Office Greg DePaul, Sheriff's Office Denise Runyan, Public Works Department Mike Russell, Facilities Division Manager Keith Willnauer, Assessor 1. 2007-2008 BUDGET PLANNING INFORMATION (AB2006-263) Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 1 MW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Desler welcomed everyone. He's pleased with how the two year budget process has worked out. Start today with talking about the results of that two year budget. Each department will give a brief discussion on their accomplishments. Forslof discussed each division in the Auditor's Office. Legislation affects the way they register voters and count ballots. The office has met and continues to meet the new challenges. They have a new voter registration system that provides more information to staff and the public. The system interfaces with statewide voter registration system. She discussed the benefits of the new system. Before purchasing a new ballot counting system, she put together an advisory committee, which continues to meet and discuss concerns with the Auditor's Office. Whatcom County was the first county to switch to vote -by -mail, with the approval of the Council. She discussed the new voting system. Voter turnout has increased with vote -by -mail. Staff applied for grants for new equipment and projects. She described the duties of the Licensing Division. There were 150,000 licensing transactions by the subagents and 106,000 in the office. Staff keeps up-to-date with new rules by attending training. The volume of transactions remains at the same level as 2005. The Recording Division continues with indexing at the time a document is recorded. Staff worked to transition to the new countywide computer system. They are working on a project to redact social security numbers from recorded documents, so the documents can go on the internet. Also, they will more quickly index documents. They have met all goals in the last budget process. The Audit Division conducted audits in a number of departments, is improving its division manual, and provided audit services to departments and committees. She and her staff participate in State and local committees. Jackson stated the Superior Court has made four primary accomplishments. During the budget biennium, they established a collections unit within the County Clerk's Office and analyzed the unit. Before, the collections effort was done by the Department of Collections, but is now done in-house. It is a success. Collections are higher than before. The Executive recommends that it be continued and beefed up to add an enforcement component. It is paying for itself. There is life after federal funding for drug court. Significant work by many departments continues to find ways to keep the program going. Funding was reduced to a certain extent. The program now enrolls 60 to 70 people. It is a success. Recidivism rates remain admirable. Still struggle by in family treatment court and juvenile court with little or no funding. They are using funds from other partners, such as the State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). During the staffing crisis a year ago, the administration created 5.5 new positions, which are almost all filled. Imaging is the big issue in Superior Court. Since 2005, all court files are now virtual files. They are scanning and then destroying the original files. At the onset of the process, there were about 35,000 case files on the shelves. They take in about 1,000 documents per day. Before imaging, they were taking files off the shelves 75,000 times per year. Now, they don't have to do that. They are not re -shelving files. They still have paper files from Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 2 410 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. the old years. They have not been able to dedicate resources for imaging those files. There are only about 10,000 case files left. Now, 80 percent of the workweek is involved in completely electronic cases. It has had a profound effect on the way they do business. A major thing they should have planned better is how to use virtual file folders in the courtroom. Rapid-fire access is needed. With assistance from the Information Technology Division staff, they created an automated process to pull up relevant cases quickly. Using the technology has been a challenge. Capture by laser fiche is the way the County needs to go. Use it more throughout the County organization. They are able to save hundreds of man-hours by sharing those documents with business partners electronically. He described the benefits of the computer files. They look forward to the day they can make the documents available online to business partners. Crawford asked if people can track case status on the internet. Jackson stated people could do that through a subscription service until two years ago. Now, people can search a table of contents online. They can see the progress back to 1980. Currently, people can pull up that index, click on a document, and view the document. MacConnell provided hand out (on file). He described the Cooperative Extension Office history and mission. They have initiated a regional approach to enhancing value- added agricultural entrepreneurial development. They have a partnership with five counties. By funding Cooperative Extension, the County really gets a partnership with the land grant system and leverage for the dollars invested. A number of grant -funded projects have been initiated using County dollars as leverage. They brought the first anaerobic digester on a dairy farm to Whatcom County. They also discovered a post -digestion process applied to the solid effluent coming out of that digester, that turns it into a high -value product. It brings adequate returns to the digester to make it more financially feasible. They filed a patent on the application of that discovery. The purpose of integrated pest management (IPM) is to reduce unit cost for growers by looking at ways to address pest issues at a lower cost and also protect the environment. He described the IPM projects. The nutrition education programs are to improve food quality and safety for people with low income and youth. The program expanded from 18 to 140 classrooms countywide. Reestablished the watershed master volunteer program, which he explained. This is another way they leverage dollars, by using volunteers they manage. Another program looks at waterfront owners and teaches them best management practices. They have a partnership with the C-grant component of Education Across the Nation. There is a shared faculty position for watershed education. Caskey-Schreiber asked if Cooperative Extension can assist smaller dairy farms with startup grants for experimental crops, or advise them of farming options, or if the Mt. Vernon office would address something like that. MacConnell stated Cooperative Extension can do both. They must move the agricultural industry away from commodity producers in this global environment. They are looking to add value to the producers instead. McShane asked about noxious weeds. MaConnell stated Washington State University provides technical assistance to the Public Works Department. Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 3 411 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Nelson asked if more land is available to use due to the change in methodology. MacConnell stated he doesn't believe it. The information in the handout is the national survey. The methodology is used country -wide. The problem is that they changed the methodology this last census. Brenner asked the efforts being made on organic farming. MacConnell stated Washington State University is the first university to offer a major in organic agriculture. At this point, the market is sufficient for farmers to migrate to organic, but they are providing support for it. Van Glubt discussed accomplishments of District Court, including night court. He described how night court operates and the results of night court. They have implemented a weekly domestic violence court. Almost all domestic violence cases will be heard in that court. Night court is for claims less than $5,000. Domestic violence court required no additional funding. They also brought mediators in to the court. Many cases from small claims have been mediated, which saves court time and also benefits the citizens involved. About 75,000 cases couldn't be processed. They were old cases. They can't just close the case, according to the State. With the Council's help last time, they are on track to get that done in seven years. The Council gave extra help for a collections process. He described the process. They are trying to find a statistical way to measure that success. District Court Probation went from 2,000 to 3,000 active cases from 2001 to now. There are 4,000 inactive cases and 11 probation officers. The domestic violence unit continues to operate. It is involved in a lengthy and extensive survey of the effectiveness on the local community of treatment and probation. He hopes to see results in two to three years. It is a very long-term study. They have increased the use of volunteer advocates to work with domestic violence victims. That's a new successful program. Fleetwood asked about the contractor for mediation services. Van Glubt stated he contracts with the Dispute Resolution Center. Willnauer stated the Assessor's Office is engaged in three projects during this cycle. One is implementation of a geographic information system (GIS) parcel layer computer automated mapping. That project will be ongoing. They implemented the project by using existing staff and working it into the continuing workload. A second project is a native lands inventory and status review, to work with a large portion of the county that is identified as reservation land. The intent is to create a continuous cadastral coverage, which is a land status inventory of physical descriptions of property. The third project is to expand the Assessor's and Treasurer's computer implementation, which has migrated to a higher level computer mainframe. There is an entirely new administrative software package. The result is an ability to process a very large number of property tax transactions in a short amount of time. It increases their ability to maintain effectiveness during high volume times of the year. The prime recipients of the benefits are senior citizens. Last, the largest success is that they have continued existing operations against a dynamically increasing growth and need. There are larger and larger amounts of processing. They have done that without a single supplemental request to the budget. Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 4 412 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner asked the limit for senior deferral and senior exemptions, and the percentage of property limits. Willnauer stated the income limit is $35,000 for the exemption and $40,000 for the deferral. There are 6,000 people with the exemption and 3,500 with the deferral. Crawford stated citizens are concerned about their property taxes going up. He asked why it is going up so much. Willnauer stated it doesn't go up unless the Council raises taxes. Desler stated that if every government did what Whatcom County does, over time people would not see an increase in their property taxes. There are other property tax jurisdictions that are increasing their taxes. Willnauer stated that is correct. There is a certain blame put on the Assessor's Office for rising taxes, but if the County doesn't increase levying and spending, the amount stays the same. Nelson stated the County Assessor webpage should explain property taxes. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Willnauer stated voters also voted to approve expensive levies for greenways and the school district. The County has not increased its levy in ten years. Desler stated increases from County -only taxes is from the value of increased construction. As assessed valuation rises, that is a tremendous amount of money. Willnauer stated there are only two reasons people's taxes would rise from the county. One is that the value of that person's property relative to the value of other properties has changed. The second is that the result of additional and dramatic exemptions of other properties have given an additional tax load to other properties. The loss of Georgia Pacific shifted $39 million of taxes onto the taxpayers. The reduction in Alcoa would also have that effect on an individual taxpayer. Komorowski stated the administration recently relocated the Public Defender's Office offices on time and under budget. He introduced the new Chief Deputy Richard Fasy. Successes of the Public Defender's Office include a new case management system for felonies to reduce the backlog of felony cases awaiting trial. The result is more efficient case handling. He described the benefits of the new system. They are also fast -tracking certain cases to divert them out of the criminal justice system quickly. Attorney's are assigned to handle the cases in an expedited manner. In conjunction with Judge Snyder and Prosecutor McEachran, they are looking at ways to fund drug court from drug -related cases. They will receive a grant from the State soon to explore the possibility of helping with the public defense budget. He looks forward to working with other agencies in the criminal justice system. Brenner asked what they are doing to make sure the defendants are getting an equal defense. Komorowski stated the attorneys must meet professional standards. The disposition of a particular case is driven by what the State can prove, search and seizure Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 5 413 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. issues, proof, and the general equities of a case. For all of the crimes, the legislature authorizes jail time, prison commitment, and the fine. The information suggested in a recent article by the Associated Press was not accurate. Law enforcement also weighs in on the case disposition. It's insulting to law enforcement and criminal justice that bad guys get off the hook based on how much money they have. It does make sense to get money from people who are in the system and can pay money to fund the system. Crawford stated this program should be used as a model. McShane stated issues with defenders have been conflicted out in past years. He asked if that has been resolved, or if the County should budget for it. Komorowski stated there are certain ethical considerations. He explained the conflict case system. McEachran stated the Prosecutor's Office caseload has increased to over 2,000 felony cases, which is the most ever. He described the caseload increases since 1998. Increases are felt throughout the criminal justice system. They have one of the highest caseloads per attorney in the State. The proximity to the border impacts them in many ways. People with criminal histories and no money can't get into Canada. These people land in Whatcom County and some become murderers. The criminal justice departments developed a program to fast track certain felony cases. He described the fast track process. The federal grant he received provided staff for these rapid border prosecution cases. They have to move forward 39 cases per week or they get behind. With the fast track program, the average days spent on a case is reduced. The County staff like this program so much, they are going to expand it to other types of cases. The number of backlogged cases has gone down. The crime rate in the county is about the same. However, the Sheriff's Office is catching more people, which is a positive thing. The crime rate is not going up dramatically. Given the additional support received last year, they are changing the entire culture of case handling. He'll ask for even more support. Fleetwood asked if there is a formula for the reduced offers given in the fast track program. McEachran stated there is a general formula, which he described. The offer is within the framework of the statute. Brenner asked if there is information on the percentages of the different types of crimes. She asked the percentage the County is getting reimbursed by the federal government. McEachran stated the County has gotten some help from the federal government. There are two bills, one of which is before Congress to help northern border counties. Executive Kremen recently received millions in grants for the County. It takes $2 million to take care of all the impact. Now, they are taking care of the cases better than ever. He doesn't know the exact percentages. Desler stated they are getting about 25 percent. They don't get any special money from the federal government for federal cases. They get grants for other purposes. McEachran stated he gets a federal grant for staff for the High Intensity Drug Traffic Act (HIDTA). It is a very successful unit. Weimer asked the number of defendants going with fast track. McEachran stated more than 60 percent of the defenders go through the fast track process. Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 6 414 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Reynolds stated one achievement of Juvenile Court is a parent pay program, so parents pay for the cost of housing their kids. He described the payment program. What they've collected does not meet the cost, but it is an improvement. Also, they employ youth to meet financial obligations. It's hard for these kids to get jobs. They started a program where kids can work doing extra community service, and that helps pay off their obligations. That is funded by money from the State. The average population now is 19, down from 38 a few years ago. They used to average about 50. Warrants down to 103, which is fewer. The average length of stay in detention is reduced to seven days. They are being more proactive to the needs of the kids. The new case management system is very efficient. Juvenile drug court operates on a shoestring budget. The number of kids who participate is low, but increasing. They are working to make changes to make it more attractive for kids. McFarlane stated the past budget focused on maintenance and infrastructure. He changed staffing, programs, and services. Parks facilities had about 500,000 visitations or more. There are about 200,000 users of senior services. They instituted a web -based reservation system for outdoor programs and Parks Department facilities. That reduced the amount of phone time in the office. They centralized facility reservations, which allows field staff to work on infrastructure and daily maintenance. The central office, not the park managers, handles the volume of reservations. They are finishing the comprehensive Parks and Open Space Plan. They have reorganized work crews into regions, which is more efficient, provides better coverage, and is more responsive. There are three regions. He estimates that actual use can be as high as 750,000. He will work on getting more accurate counts to design facilities and schedule staff work schedules. More trails will be coming on line soon. A major project now is marking property lines to deal with encroachment issues. They are addressing the bridge situation and Canyon Lake Community Forest. They are replacing the bridges with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and there is a proposed trail system around the lake. It will be done at the end of this season. The Bay to Baker Trail segment has been worked on and continues to be worked on. They are working on an easement to bridge Cornell Creek. During 2005/2006, they had to address three Parks Department facilities with water issues. He listed the scheduled repair and maintenance projects. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) McFarlane continued to list the repair and maintenance projects. The Senior Services program continues on target. There are substantial changes to the outdoor and youth program. There has been an increase in the use of the outdoor program. They have contracted with private vendors for different programs, which offers more programs and reduces County costs. The cultural arts program remains strong. They are considering expanding the program. They are doing a major renovation of the Bellingham Senior Center. They have deferred a few maintenance projects for various reasons. Nelson asked if they can use private donations to support Parks Department operations. McFarlane stated they don't take in a lot of donations. Donations work well on smaller projects. On bigger projects, they partner with other programs or use grant funds. Fees are a more major source of funding. Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 7 415 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Nelson asked if reservations for park facilities are taken a year in advance. McFarlane stated they are. Hart stated the Planning and Development Services Department has watched growth occur in Whatcom County the last five or six years. Single family home permits have doubled in the last few years. There has been an increase in condominium development as a percentage. Trends are changing. Development is happening in different areas and on more difficult building lots. The more difficult lots require more staff and resources to process. They are trying to focus growth into urban growth areas, with smaller lots and more condominium development. Eighty five percent of the work done by the Planning Department is the permit process. One key thing the Council supported is professionalizing the front counter. They replaced and trained front counter folks with professionals who can answer the questions brought to the counter. They are working to bring the geographic information system (GIS) to the front counter. Next, he would like to spend more time on site planning with the people who are developing projects. The department was given additional management capacity. Three departments work through the permit process. Dennis Rhodes is working on three levels to create consistent processes and decisions throughout. They've added capacity over the last year that is making a difference. The wait for a building permit appointment has been reduced by more than half, even though the total volume is increased. Nelson stated a concern is the proximity to a frustrated public. Customer service there is more important than anywhere else in the County. He encourages that there be an objective to let the staff show empathy and make extra efforts with the public. He is concerned about communication between the Public Works Department and Planning Department. Coordinate how changes to the regulations are delivered to the public. McShane stated three huge projects are listed as goals. However, the City of Bellingham urban growth area (UGA) project is not included. It could be challenging, depending on how the County Council feels. That project could require staffing. Hart stated the staff in the department now is available to deal with the transportation issue. They want to focus on the transfer of development rights (TDR) program for Lake Whatcom and on transfers into the City, which has not been willing to accept the transfers. Brenner stated she is impressed with the front counter staff at the Planning Department. She asked if there is someone to replace Troy Holbrook on the purchase of development rights (PDR) and TDR projects. Hart stated they are actively recruiting staff now. Caskey-Schreiber stated she wants to keep Mr. Holbrook on privately to work on the UGA effort. Monsen stated the Public Works Department is in a transition to begin more proactively dealing with long-range planning. Now, the length of time to complete projects is getting longer. Project selection and implementation is now dominated by water, not asphalt. A major accomplishment is adoption of the watershed management plan and salmon recovery plan. He gave examples of the different projects done in the recent years. There are many new attempts at pollution prevention. The biggest issue is clear planning and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Their purpose is shifting to urban levels of service and capacity. They must deal with public versus private financing. In the next Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 8 416 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. budget cycle, they will prioritize activities, intended activities, and re -think where they are going to ensure they deliver the priorities. Brenner stated she is concerned about the inability of Roads Division to contract out certain projects such as Lincoln Road. Monsen stated the department contracts out the majority of its projects. The department is down five design staff positions. He will be hiring a consultant to accelerate the work in Birch Bay and to supervise the existing consultants. In the past couple of years, the department has quadrupled its consultant contracts. James stated accomplishments of the Sheriff's Office include completing the Guild contract, which makes for a happier department and staff that are more productive. Staff from other agencies want to work for Whatcom County Sheriff's Office. There is a problem in getting corrections deputies for the jail, but they're working on it. The new facility is on schedule and on budget. There is a sufficient number of deputies and staff for the new facility. He read the improvements made in technology. The jail population is growing, which is driven by pre-trial offenders. Jail alternative programs continue to grow. Shift changes for the deputies have improved workflow. The deputies don't check in at Bellingham. The overlapping shift schedule is great. Deputies are more centralized to another location. Traffic deputies are relocated to the central office. There are sub -offices in fire district facilities. This reduces travel time to do administrative work. The addition of a crime analyst helps to establish links between crimes in the county. The Sheriff's Office is more proactive by having the crime analyst. They are creating a special response team, for which they now contract with the City of Bellingham. Volunteer service saves about $300,000 per year. The neighborhood program has been instituted. He described the program. There are several technology enhancements in the Sheriff's Office. They are recruiting deputies who have commissions in other places. This reduces training time for deputies. Crawford asked about the proposal for more than 20 new deputies. The proposal doesn't address where the funding would come from and the effects to the other departments in the criminal justice system. James stated the presence of those deputies would proactively and positively reduce the number of people arrested and taken into custody. They help prevent people from entering into the criminal justice system in the first place. Caskey-Schreiber stated the argument about the presence of the deputies reducing crimes is a good argument, as shown by the presence of the neighborhood deputy in Kendall. James stated many people are moving to the urban growth areas. It's difficult for the deputies to get from one side of the county to the other. They have to be proactive. Get deputies into the communities, which prevents people from going into the criminal justice system. James stated that the urban growth areas have large populations that continue to grow. The ability for deputies to get from one area of the county to the other is almost impossible. They must be proactive. By putting deputies into these areas, the deputies will become familiar with the communities and their problems. Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 9 417 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Desler stated there are four divisions in the Administrative Services Department. The Information Technology (IT) Division adopted a countywide information technology strategic plan for 2005 to 2008. The plan will guide decisions over the next three or four years. They are working on a major data integration project to involve all justice agencies in the county and community. The Facilities Division has a number of major projects, including the new jail and other major building projects that will create more efficiencies. The Human Resources Division impacted labor contracts. They have developed three-year agreements with all contracts. There are new administrators for self -insured programs, which have saved about $500,000. All employees have moved into the self -insured medical CAP plan program. The division has also focused on training. All employees have been trained in building respect and prohibiting harassment. Training has also focused on customer service and interactions with the public. The Finance Division has again been earned the Achievement in Excellence in Financial Reporting and also Distinguished Budget Report. Those achievements resulted from a national review of peers. The division is at the highest level. The County has accomplished a fair number of the goals in the last 18 to 24 months. It is doing fairly well. Expenditures have been prudent. The County hasn't increased property taxes. The County has asked the public for approval on jail services and emergency medical services. The administration has built up a fund balance over the years. Today, it is about $22 million. There are some obligations that need to be counted against that fund balance, which are mostly one-time expenses for capital and software investments and actuarial issues. The fund balance is an asset they can use. Revenue is strong now. Property taxes based on new construction is solid. Sales tax in the community is up. Interest income from investments is also strong. There are many miscellaneous revenue sources that are down, but the three major sources are up. The County government is at a stage where it has or will have financial problems. Over time, there are cyclical patterns in revenues and the organization, yet the administration is trying to maintain stability. They have seen an expenditure and revenue line loss in this biennium. That's different than in the past. There is $200,000 less in the fund balance at the end of 2006. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A. The following section of the minutes was not recorded, and is transcribed from the clerk's notes.) Desler continued to state that the County is a self-correcting organization that can address financial realities. The administration proposes a modest growth in expenditures. Watch carefully the revenue sections of the budget. During the budget process, they will define what that modest growth is. If they find by the end of the next two-year budget cycle that they can't sustain even a modest growth, they will make more adjustments. They will use the fund balance to make up the difference, and then make a correction in two years. McShane stated the reserves are very healthy. Desler stated there are going to be some building and other issues that will cut into the reserves. Investments need to be made. They can either borrow the money or use the reserves. Nelson stated the reserve amount is carried over from year to year. Look at the interest earned for ongoing costs. They need criteria for determining on what they use the Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 10 HU 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. reserves, such as construction and one-time costs. Also, develop criteria for on what they would use increased incomes, which should be ongoing costs. If they can't meet ongoing costs, they can argue about what they are willing to accept. Fleetwood asked if the list of items on page 15 of the budget packet can be considered the criteria. Nelson stated they are too broad. Keep a healthy amount for emergencies and unexpected costs. Brenner stated the County must start telling the State about funding Growth Management. Caskey-Schreiber stated that's hard to do with a 30 percent reserve. Desler stated Councilmember Nelson can develop draft criteria. Nelson stated the Finance Committee will have that discussion. Crawford stated the reserve amount is at 30 percent. The policy is for 15 percent. In no way would the Council condemn the administration for being prudent and fiscally responsible. The current administration keeps a close eye on budget financial items in all departments. Every department must run through a gauntlet to get additional funding. The overall revenue balance, which grows each year, will reach a point where the County may be collecting more than it should from the taxpayers. Desler stated they are actually spending more money than they take in, for the first time. Actual revenues have been slightly higher by about $1 million, until this year. Over the years the administration has deferred certain obligations that it can no longer defer. The County must either save for them or borrow for them. The County can show the public that those issues must be addressed. (Clerk's Note: Beginning of tape two, side B.) Crawford asked why the County would issue a bond if the policy for the general fund is to maintain a reserve of 15 percent, but the real reserve is 30 or 35 percent. Desler stated they can either use cash reserves, which the administration will propose to use on some of the County buildings, or issue a bond. They will pay the bond back from revenue from users of the building. Caskey-Schreiber asked if they want to instead use the user fees to pay for the staff that is necessary. Desler stated they could. A $1 million bond over 25 years would be about $80,000 per year. Spread that out among 20,000 square feet, and the cost is $4 per square foot per year. The other choice is to use the fund balance. The choice is spending on one-time costs versus the long-term debt the County could incur. Those are the policy directions they need to maintain that 15 percent. The 30 percent reserve is getting out of hand, and the County needs to start using it as the taxpayers intend. Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 11 419 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Crawford asked for tools to tell people what the County is doing. Now, it's difficult to say what the $22 million is for and why they have that much. Desler stated there is a fund balance they need to have for insurance purposes and emergencies that may occur. There are deferred costs for which they may need to use to use some of the balance. Beyond that, there are costs for buildings, software, and the property to build a new jail. It is not altogether paid for from the sales tax. Crawford stated the sales tax was to pay for the ongoing costs of the jail. Desler stated the financial modeling for the sales tax showed that once they dealt with the cities' allocations, the rest of the revenue would be used to make bond payments on a jail building in approximately ten years. Crawford stated that the Treasurer's message a year ago was that the County was not supposed to collect undesignated funds to grow this unused pool of money, according to State law. McShane stated there is an issue of federal taxes on the reserves. The County has to make conscious decisions about the expenditure on a bond. It's easy to just look at one fund to make decisions. They must look at the implications to multiple funds and revenue streams from bonding. They don't know how things will work out in the future. Initiative 695 is an example. They have benefited enormously from the community's support. The County had concerns about how to build a jail. Talk about what is predictable and what isn't, in terms of the reserve. Talk about the long-term assumptions. Understand the County's obligations. Caskey-Schreiber stated she will be more sympathetic to departments with one-time expenditure requests that she has not supported in the past. This may be the right time to address one-time funding requests to upgrade systems and buildings. Use the extra reserves they've built up. Crawford stated there is no shortage of requests. Nelson stated many people in the private sector have concerns about the economy. They are holding back on expansions and going forward with supporting what already exists. That might be a prudent thing for the County to consider. Desler asked if there are things in the proposed budget development guidelines for fiscal year (FY) 2007/2008 that they ought to look at. Brenner reference item two on page 12 of the budget planning session packet. It is very general. She has a feeling they are going to have to deal with more State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) costs and legal issues as things get tighter with people. That should be included somewhere. Item one, service levels, should be more optimistic, "The Council recognizes that projected 2007/2008 revenues will likely fall sheFt ef funding base level budgets remain stable in 2007/2008." Desler stated the Council could hold this discussion over to the next Finance Committee in two weeks. Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 12 420 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Crawford stated he generally has no problem with the guidelines. He wants to know that the discussion is followed up on. This is a broad document. They don't need to go into particular programs. The biggest point of discussion today is dealing with the reserve balances. Desler stated he's heard direction today to discuss SEPA legal costs, criteria for development, a plan for dealing with reserves, and having another discussion. McShane stated there are some areas that need to be robustly discussed. It would be good to know where the Council is on some of those things, such as the Public Works Department's policy with contracting. How the Council budgets for future pay issues should also be discussed. Those discussions would direct his views. Crawford stated Mr. Desler can schedule an item for the Finance Committee. Desler stated he will schedule a discussion at the Finance Committee in two weeks. Fleetwood stated there is a need for a discussion of criteria regarding additional service requests using the reserves. He's talked about the need for a comprehensive stormwater plan. It is a one-time program expenditure. However, the criteria are so vague that he wouldn't know whether to argue for it. Have a discussion in the Finance Committee on the criteria soon. It's necessary. Desler stated there would be a discussion at the next Finance Committee on criteria, guidelines, and the next steps for fund balance. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk 2006. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Council Chair Special Whatcom County Council-2007/2008 Budget Planning, 6/20/2006, Page 13 421 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Committee Of The Whole July 11, 2006 Council Chair Laurie Caskey-Schreiber called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Carl Weimer L. Ward Nelson 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON FILE NO. SHV05-0013, FILED BY JOSEPH PEMBERTON FOR COLLEEN SULLIVAN AND SCOTT MALIS (AB2006-225) McShane moved to go into executive session to discuss this item for 30 minutes Motion carried 5-0 with Brenner and Crawford out of the room. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk 2006. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Council Chair Committee of the Whole, 7/11/2006, Page 1 422 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council July 11, 2006 Council Chair Laurie Caskey-Schreiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Carl Weimer L. Ward Nelson FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS Absent: None Caskey-Schreiber announced there was consideration of an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on file No. SHV05-0013, filed by Joseph Pemberton for Colleen Sullivan and Scott Malis (AB2006-225) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting. McShane moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PRESENTATION 1. PRESENTATION REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY DRUG COURT (AB2006- 017) Chuck Snyder, Superior Court Judge, stated the Council will hear about the drug court from its graduates. They are trying to find additional funding sources. The Council is invited to the next graduation is scheduled for July 20 at 2:30 p.m. in courtroom three. Jessie Williams, drug court graduate, stated he has criminal history from the age of 12. Drug court gave him accountability. He heard about drug court by other people who had been through drug court. That was their may way out of drug addiction. Through drug court, he learned about what he was supposed to be doing, like normal people. He graduated August 18, 2005. He has learned how to successfully participate in life. Drug court showed him he can do simple things like get up and go to work every day. It was an opportunity for him to figure out what he wanted to do with his life. Other participants and the judge both encouraged him and showed him the consequences. His other option was to Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 1 423 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. go to prison. He made great friendships in drug court. He is now friends with the authority figures, when he had a problem with authority figures in the past. Snyder stated that Jessie grew up through his participation in drug court. Jennifer Coleman, drug court graduate, stated she graduated May 18, 2006. Drug court saved her life. When she got to drug court she was broken. She didn't have any self worth or self-respect. Her child was taken from her and put into foster care. She got in to drug court on theft charges. Through the classes, she learned structure and accountability. She participated for 63 weeks, and got back custody of her daughter. She now believes in herself and doesn't feel helpless anymore. She has been clean for nearly two years. Snyder stated he has been involved with Amanda Tulowetzke since she was a teenager. When she became an adult, she got into trouble and went through drug court. The County staff worked with her for many years in many expensive ways. Now they no longer have to work with her. Amanda Tulowetzke, drug court graduate, stated both her parents are heroine addicts. Her father committed suicide when she was six. Her mom recently got out of prison. She was in foster care since she was 12, and was emancipated at the age of 16. She started using at 13. She got pregnant at the time of a drug charge and got clean on her own during her pregnancy. She went into drug court when she was three months pregnant. She graduated in April 2004. Drug court completely changed her life. It taught her how to be a mother and that there is another way to live. She has only been around the drug life through her family. Drug court is a life -changing opportunity for those who want it. She has had her own place for over two years, the longest she's ever lived anywhere. She now has a job and a child that she can take care of. Crawford stated the drug court graduations are very moving. It changes people's lives. It's not often that government gets to change lives. The results are very direct. They would like drug court to continue, and will continue to look for funding. MINUTES CONSENT Nelson moved to approve Minutes Consent items one through six. Weimer moved to amend Council packet page 343, 'Motion to approve the resolution as amended carried §4-2-1 with..." Motion to amend carried unanimously Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously. 1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MAY 23, 2006 2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JUNE 6, 2006 3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JUNE 20, 2006 Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 2 424 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 4. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING FOR MAY 23, 2006 S. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING FOR JUNE 6, 2006 6. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING FOR JUNE 20, 2006 OPEN SESSION Crawford stated the Council intends to hold open the public hearings for public hearing items two and three. The following people spoke: Kris Ungern, 2095 Northshore Road, Bellingham, submitted and read from his testimony (on file). County government officials say property taxes have not increased for the last ten years. Citizens pay in dollars, not in levy rates or percentages. Levy rates were not reduced to meet target budget revenues in times of increasing property values. Increasing assessed values is a way to increase tax dollars. The increase in undedicated reserves of the general fund contradicts the administration's claims that property taxes have not gone up. Explain to the public what the reserves are for, and don't use the money for non-voter approved, pet projects. The reserve amount now is in violation to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.40.090. Gary Lisne, 2472 Northshore Road, Bellingham, submitted and read from RCW 36.40.090 (on file). He read with the actual County assessed value that exists today. The total is nearly $21 million. The current cash balance in the general fund is $24 million. The County has exceeded the cap and is in violation of the RCW. He submitted information on a lawsuit on this issue (on file). He read from the case summary. David Lobdell, 8270 Portal Way, stated he owns a business at this address. He read from a Supreme Court decision on Rapanos v. United States regarding a wetland permitting case in Michigan. The enforcement against Mr. Rapanos are part of the immense expansion of federal regulation of land use that has occurred under the Clean Water Act without any change in governing statute during five presidential administrations. Johnnie Grames, 4478 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, stated that through public disclosure, he found the secret dossier which assassinates his character and reputation, and says he is a horrible person. It has been used against him by the government. He is entitled to due process. Freedom of information and public disclosure is important to democracy. There should be a penalty for not having files and archives. Bob Bingham, 9019 Kendall Road, Sumas, stated planning, zoning, and permitting should not be a long process, but it should be easy. He used to be an International Code Council (ICC) inspector. The ICC goal for permitting is two days. It takes nine months in Whatcom County to get a hearing on subdividing his property. He had to wait four months to turn in drawings for a room addition. Fix the process. He has spoken to the managers of the departments and would like all to consider that the process needs to be fixed. Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 3 425 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset Drive, Bellingham, submitted information (on file) and stated there are facts and myths about the Growth Management Act (GMA). He read from the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) guideline called Housing Your Community: A Housing Element Guide. Don't sacrifice single family for high density housing. Single family housing has to be available within the city. High density is relative. Work with the market. Richard Roebuck, 8288 Northwood Road, submitted an invitation (on file) and stated the North County Community Alliance no longer endorses the proposed casino land swap. It is in favor of no casino at all. John Lesoe, 317 Madrona Place, Point Roberts, stated he supports Councilmember Fleetwood's inclusionary zoning proposal regarding affordable housing. An April 5, 2006 memo from CTED has five recommendations for increasing density in Bellingham. He read one of the recommendations. It encourages the use of accessory dwelling units, and he suggests the use of carriage homes. He submitted photos of examples in Ladner, British Columbia (on file). A primary home and a carriage home are on 4,000 square foot lots. Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, Bellingham, stated he has been a 1992 watershed plan advocate. They need an additional water source. Budget for what we can do. They have goals for affordable housing. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Jones continued to state that there are many examples of affordable housing. If it is going to be a goal, then budget, plan, and get on it. He is opposed to initiative 933. Stick with the planning being done by the State Department of Ecology Greg Barlean, Hopewell Neighborhood Association, stated amendments are being introduced tonight regarding mushroom substrate. He discussed the history of mushroom substrate in Whatcom County. The proposed amendments would allow mushroom substrate on agricultural land and exempt the activity from indoor requirements. The amendments are not required by any legal authority. They are being asked for by Ostrom's, and supported by County officials. The County officials have made promises to the industry. Information can be accessed at ruralwhatcom.org, with a link to the Hopewell Neighborhood Association. Chet Dow, 5491 Woodwind Way, Bellingham, stated the Council must consider the law of unintended consequences and the effects that have been done in trying to solve this affordable housing problem previously. Many government interventions may have exacerbated the problem. He is against Councilmember Fleetwood's proposal on affordable housing. Someone will have to pay for the cost of housing, one way or another. If one out of four homes must be affordable, others will have to pay the extra cost. Ken Ryan, Glen Echo Neighborhood Association, stated he is opposed to amendments to the mushroom substrate ordinance. The amendments were proposed by the attorneys for Ostrom. They want to defer authority from the County to other agencies that don't want to require a permit. They also want to establish that they are currently Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 4 426 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. employing best management practices for the size of the facilities they have now and will have. This will give those attorneys their high legal ground. Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.15 is defensible. The health ordinance is even more defensible. The County made promises it should never have been made. They were made years ago, obtained under duress and under fraudulent postulants, in direct violation of the then -existing laws. These promises will carry little weight in court. If the neighbors are forced to take this to court, the repercussions will be worse. Don't protect the County coffers over County health. Cheri MacKay, 6781 Ocean Road, Everson, submitted a letter from Bob Carmichael (on file). The State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) application was not completed accurately. If the answers were correct, determination of significance would have been rendered. She asked for delay until after the decision is made. The issue is not about the smell. The issue is about what the pollution does to people. John Donoso, 88 Sudden Valley, stated some people in Whatcom County feel that government has no business regulating what people do on their private property. Property rights occur in a specific context, one of government oversight and protection and in the democratic process. He hopes the Council does not be swayed by the movement who says the Council has no right to make rules about another property. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10 (2006-277A) hearing. Caskey-Schreiber opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public Nelson moved to approve the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION — REQ. #TR2006-09 (AB2006-278A) Crawford asked if Whatcom County Treasurer Barbara Cory would discuss the history of this item. Barbara Cory, Whatcom County Treasurer, gave a staff report and stated the County received an application from the Lummi Tribe to purchase this and the next parcel. There is a .3 interest in the beach reserve on this parcel. The second parcel has a .2 interest in the playground reserve. The Tribe requested that the interests be sold via a negotiated sale for salmon habitat benefits. The Property Management Committee reviewed the properties and found that the other property owners would also have an interest in purchasing these interests. The Committee could find no public benefit to retain the property. The Committee recommends sale by public auction. Brenner asked the County administration to respond to the letter from David Cottingham. Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 5 427 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Cory stated she talked to several of the property owners. If they can prove they own the other interests, the County would consider that information. They were unable to provide that information. She explained the process to the property owners, and has been working with them to resolve this issue. Caskey-Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Roger DeSpain, 3517 Robertson Road, Bellingham, stated many folks in the audience are here on this issue. He would like more time to come up with the documentation needed to prove ownership. When Dr. Boynton set aside these parcels, it was for those owners to have the beach reserve and playground reserve, and no one else. The reserves are for all the owners, but not someone from the outside. They thought that would be enough information for the Assessor and Treasurer. They need more time to come up with the documentation and figure out how the parcel number was assigned. These property owners, and no one else, have the interest out there. They have retained an attorney to help them. They would be very happy to pay the back taxes and clear the interest. Tim Krell, First American Title Insurance Company, 11 Bellwether Way, Bellingham, stated he is working on the ownership interest for the 100 owners. He would appreciate the extra time. Caskey-Schreiber stated the public hearing is held open until a later date. 3. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION — REQ. #TR2006-10 (AB2006-279A) (Clerk's Note: See Public Hearing item two for the staff report on this item.) Caskey-Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Marlene Dawson, 4029 Salt Spring Drive, stated that there is County access to the beach. There is no problem between the public and the upland owners who own the other share. However, if an outsider should purchase a share of the land, that person would have reason to squat in front of someone's home. This has already happened in a nearby location. To maintain peace and privacy, the owners were required to prove ownership. The upland owners are willing to pay taxes and continue to pay what is properly assessed. The interested party would likely not be interested in continuing to pay the taxes. Do not disregard the interest of the upland owners and the original developers. She asked that the upland owners be allowed to purchase the beach share contiguous with their privately - owned shares. Caskey-Schreiber stated the public hearing is held open until a later date. 4. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION TO WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS ROAD FUND — REQ. #TR2006-11 (AB2006-280A) Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 6 Em 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. hearing. Caskey-Schreiber opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public Nelson moved to approve the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through ten. Item ten is amended. Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through ten, as amended, carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #06-55 TO LOW BIDDER, BILL PIERRE FORD, FOR THE PURCHASE OF A BOMB RESPONSE VEHICLE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,857.70 (AB2006-287) 2. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 906008 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE DRAYTON HARBOR ROAD CALIFORNIA CREEK BRIDGE NO. 38 REHABILITATION, AND REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LOW BIDDER, ASSOCIATED UNDERWATER SERVICES, INC., FOR THIS WORK, IN THE AMOUNT OF $118,819 (AB2006-288) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BRIDGE DIAGNOSTICS, INC. FOR LOAD TESTING OF SLATER ROAD RED RIVER BRIDGE NO. 513, IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,100 (AB2006-289) 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WHATCOM LAND TRUST AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION, FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FARM AND RANCH LANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $435,153 (AB2006-290) 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BLAINE TO FACILITATE PARK AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT SEMIAHMOO PARK (AB2006-291) 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN WHATCOM COUNTY FOR ENHANCED CAPABILITIES FOR DETECTING, DETERRING, DISRUPTING AND Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 7 429 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. PREVENTING ACTS OF TERRORISM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $166,799 (AB2006- 292) 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF THE WASHINGTON STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO FUND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS TO SUPPLEMENT LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OPERATING BUDGETS IN AN EFFORT TO ENHANCE THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,326 (AB2006-293) 8. RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AUTHORIZATION OF AN ASSESSMENT TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR THE SAMISH WATERSHED SUBZONE (AB2006-294) 9. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WHATCOM COUNTY'S APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR A WASHINGTON WILDLIFE AND RECREATION PROGRAM PROJECT TO THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 79A.15 RCW, ACQUISITION OF INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY FOR FARMLAND PRESERVATION (AB2006- 295) 10. RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO ESTABLISH WHITECAP ROAD AS A COUNTY ROAD, DECLARING THAT SUCH ESTABLISHMENT IS A PUBLIC NECESSITY AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER TO REPORT TO COUNCIL UPON THE PROJECT (AB2006-303) OTHER ITEMS 1. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE RANKING AND AUTHORIZING THE WHATCOM COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ADMINISTRATOR TO PROCEED WITH THE ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR ROUND 4, 2005 APPLICATIONS (AB2006-296) McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated this item is held in committee for two weeks. Caskey-Schreiber stated the Council may have to readdress the target zones. McShane stated they may be able to do lot line adjustments to preserve pieces of the land. 2. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION ON WEST ROAD (AB2006-220) Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated the committee recommends approval. She moved to approve the agreement on behalf of the committee, but she is opposed to the motion. There is an option to modify the latecomers Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 8 430 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. fee. It's unclear whether the lots in the target area are the total lots likely to develop in the next 15 years. Two lots are not included and are being developed. The more lots that are within the area, the less each lot pays. One lot in the target area can develop 24 lots, but the developer is assigning it only six lots because the full development depends on whether or not the City of Blaine will provide services. She would like to hear from the City of Blaine about whether or not it will supply services. Crawford stated he is in favor of the motion. He agrees with the developer's rationale for choosing the development areas that will realistically occur. The developer has done a good job analyzing the realistic potential developer. Two parcels on the map are not included in the agreement area. They considered including those two parcels because construction is occurring on the two parcels. However, since the building permits have already been issued, the developments do not quality for reimbursement. Move forward with this request. As with all latecomer agreements, the people who already have developed parcels do not pay and the people who have undeveloped parcels are only liable for 15 years. They do not pay if they do not develop. It is the action of a property owner to develop and increase density that triggers payment. Caskey-Schreiber asked if a new property owner of an undeveloped lot would have to pay the fee through the sale. Crawford stated the fee is only triggered when the building permit is issued. Caskey-Schreiber asked how that required fee is disclosed to a seller. Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated he understands that the obligation is attached to the title. Brenner stated there is a third lot that should be included that has not been developed. In addition, there is a 24-lot parcel that is being assessed for only six lots. If included, each lot's assessment would be reduced $300. Caskey-Schreiber asked if it is in the Blaine urban growth area (UGA). Crawford stated a portion is included in the UGA. McShane asked the zoning of the parcel that triggered the requirement for the road improvement. Nelson stated the zoning is rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). The owners are developing three lots in this area. McShane asked if the 16-acre parcel, if developed at a density of urban residential, four units per acre (UR-4), would be required to do something more than what is already at West Road. Rutan stated that road would probably not meet that density requirement. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Rutan stated that would seem to be a lot coming down that road. Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 9 431 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Nelson stated it would have happened no matter who triggered the $70,000 road modifications. The developer wants to make sure everyone is equally responsible for the road improvements. If the properties in the agreement are too outlandish, the developer won't recoup his costs. This must be fair to both the property owners and the developer. He is in favor of the proposal because it follows the most likely pattern of development. Caskey-Schreiber stated she would like to know if the City of Blaine intends to extend services to the area. Brenner moved to hold in committee until they can get input from the City of Blaine about their intentions regarding services. Fleetwood asked if there is any detriment to the parties by holding it for two weeks. Crawford stated people could rush out and get building permits and become vested before the agreement takes effect. David Buys, Reichart and Ebe, stated the City of Blaine has severe problems with its sewer system. There is a master plan to take care of the issues. If the Council wants him to talk to the City, he will. However, it will cost the developer more money. It's not a big deal to spread out the agreement to more people, but this issue should come to a close. Motion to hold in committee carried 4-3 with Nelson, Crawford, and McShane opposed. Nancy Evans, 8920 Portal Way, Blaine, stated she is the Dakota Creek treasurer. They have water. There is no sewer. Weimer stated Mr. Chesterley's house should be exempt. Rutan stated that property has a house, but it could be further subdivided. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY ADDING ON -FARM PROCESSING TO CHAPTER 20.100 — ACCESSORY USES, 20.40.138 — ADMINISTRATIVE USES, DELETING 20.40.158 ADDING AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING DEFINITION TO CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS AND ADDING LOT COVERAGE RESTRICTION — CHAPTER 20.40.450 (AB2006-282) Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated this item is held in committee for two weeks. They will introduce it on July 25 and have a public hearing in August. 4. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON FILE NO SHV05-0013, FILED BY JOSEPH PEMBERTON FOR COLLEEN SULLIVAN AND SCOTT MALIS (AB2006-225) See Announcements. S. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE MACAULAY CREEK FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, APPLICANT: RANDY GRAHAM (AB2006-261) Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 10 432 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. McShane moved to appoint Randy Graham. Motion carried unanimously. 6. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE KREMEN'S APPOINTMENT OF RABBI CINDY ENGER TO THE BELLINGHAM-WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (AB2006-297) Crawford moved to confirm the appointment. Motion carried unanimously. INTRODUCTION ITEMS Crawford moved to accept the Introduction Items. Motion carried unanimously. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2006 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, TENTH REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,941,729 (AB2006-298) 2. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR INTERIM FINANCING OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY INTERIM JAIL AND ALTERNATIVE CORRECTIONS CENTER (AB2006-299) 3. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN ASSESSMENT TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR THE SAMISH WATERSHED SUBZONE (AB2006-300) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING HEALTH CODE WCC 24.12, MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION FACILITY RULES, TO ALLOW EXISTING FACILITIES A LIMITED INCREMENTAL EXPANSION OF PRODUCTION CAPACITY (AB2006-301) S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 20.15 - MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION FACILITIES SITING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 20.40 - AGRICULTURE DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 20.68 - HEAVY IMPACT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (AB2006-302) 6. ORDINANCE DECLARING INTENT TO ACCEPT A SECTION OF WHITECAP ROAD, DECLARING THAT SUCH ESTABLISHMENT IS A PUBLIC NECESSITY AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER TO REPORT TO COUNCIL UPON THE PROJECT (AB2006-303A) 7. RECEIPT OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON FILE NO. SHR05-0010, FILED BY CHRIS FAIRBANKS FOR SOUTH CAPE DIVISION I, LLC (AB2006-284) Addendum: Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 11 433 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 8. ORDINANCE ADOPTING A SHORT TERM PLANNING ZONING OVERLAY DESIGNATION IN THE BIRCH BAY UGA FOR HORIZONS VILLAGE (AB2006- 286A) OTHER BUSINESS AND COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Crawford stated he attended the new farmers market building dedication and also toured Councilmember Brenner's home. He is very impressed with the work Councilmember Brenner has done. Fleetwood stated the Planning Committee met with the Ferndale City Council regarding growth, annexation, and their hopes regarding future growth. Caskey-Schreiber stated she attended the farmers market dedication. The farmer's market is breaking sales records. It has a huge financial impact in Whatcom County. Also, Councilmember Roy had bypass surgery last week. She wishes her well. Brenner stated the councilmembers and others are invited to see her place as an example of what can be done with recycled and restored materials. A lot can be done on small acreage, which does not have to be a problem. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk 2006. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 7/11/2006, Page 12 434 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2 0 0 6 - 3 01 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: ill 2 ["� r rr 1 /] `r E 1 V J U L a 3 2006 Introd Division Head: Dept. Head: e �Q Prosecutor: A .aE !-� lil��I�''lT Vl�M Mu UNN Lr �J111.1 Purchasin Bud el Z Execrilive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Ordinance amending WCC 24,12, Mushroom Substrate Production Facility Rules ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Form Proposed amendments to WCC 24.12, Mushroom Substrate Production Facility Rules SEPA review required? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X )Fes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: Introduction on July. 1 1, 2006 for Public [SEPA Official has issued a Determination of Non- Hearing on July 25, 2006 Significance for the amendments] SUMMAR Y S TA TEMENT 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.) The purpose of the proposed amendments to WCC 24.12 is to allow existing mushroom substrate production facilities the opportunity for a limited, incremental increase of production capacity. Existing facilities, that were in operation as of the effective date of the original ordinance, may increase the production of substrate in increments of 25% and 50% subject to quantity threshold limits, performance standards, engineering controls and the use of best management practices. All substrate must be used on site for the farming of mushrooms, and any existing facility exceeding the quantity threshold limits is required to operate indoors and under permit. COMMITTEE ACTION. • COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing andprinting on the County's website at: www.co.whatcorn.wa.us/council. 435 WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: DATE: Pete Kr4Wemen, Memorandum Whatcom County Executive Regina A. Deiahunt, Director June 27, 2006 REGINA DEIAHUNT Director GREG STERN, M.D. Health Officer RECEIVED J U N 2 8 2006 COTY EXECUTIVE RE: Proposed Amendments to Health Code WCC 24.12, Mushroom Substrate Production Facility Rules Requested Action I am attaching proposed amendments to WCC 24.12, Mushroom Substrate Production Facility Rules, for public hearing before the County Council. Background and Purpose On October 26, 2004 the County Council, acting as the Board of Health, adopted Ordinance 2004-054 establishing requirements for the design and operation of mushroom substrate production facilities. The purpose of the proposed amendments to WCC 24.12 is to allow existing mushroom substrate production facilities the opportunity for a limited, incremental increase of production capacity. Existing facilities that were in operation as of the effective date of the original ordinance may increase the production of substrate in increments of 25% and 50% subject to quantity threshold limits, performance standards, engineering controls and the use of best management practices. All substrate must be used on site for the farming of mushrooms, and any existing facility exceeding the quantity threshold limits is required to operate indoors and under permit. Information Enclosed is a copy of the proposed amendments, agenda bill and ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Please call me at extension 50801 if you have any questions. Enc. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 509 Girard Street PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUNITY HEALTH 1500 North State Street HUMAN SERVICES (360) 676-6724 ALWAYS WORKING FOR ASAFER AND CLINICAL SERVICES (360) 676-4593 436 ADMINISTRATION FAX (360) 676-7646 HEALTHIER WASHINGTON DISEASE RESPONSE FAX (360) 676.6729 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING HEALTH CODE WCC 24.12, MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION FACILITY RULES, TO ALLOW EXISTING FACILITIES A LIMITED INCREMENTAL EXPANSION OF PRODUCTION CAPACITY WHEREAS, on October 26, 2004 the Whatcom County Council, acting as the Whatcom County Board of Health, adopted Ordinance 2004-054, establishing requirements for the design and operation of mushroom substrate production facilities; and WHEREAS, there is no allowance in Ordinance 2004-054 for small existing mushroom substrate production facilities, that have been in operation as of the effective date of the ordinance, to implement a limited increase in production capacity without being fully subject to the same design, operating and permitting requirements as large facilities; and WHEREAS, an allowance for a limited incremental increase of production capacity, for such existing small facilities, is not considered to necessarily present a risk to public health and the environment, when such allowance is subject to quantity threshold limits, performance standards, engineering controls and the use of best management practices; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to WCC 24.12, as outlined in Exhibit A of this ordinance, provide for such an allowance; and WHEREAS, the SEPA official issued a Determination of Non -Significance for the proposed amendments to WCC 24.12 on June 16, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council, acting as the Whatcom County Board of Health, that the proposed amendments to WCC 24.12, Mushroom Substrate Production Facility Rules, as outlined in Exhibit A to this ordinance, be adopted. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have passed this code and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or 437 more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases has been declared invalid or unconstitutional, and the original ordinance or ordinances shall be in full force and effect. ADOPTED this day of , 2006. ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS T RM: ,Fo(' Ran hief Civil Deputy Pro ecutor WHATCOM COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Casky-Schreiber, Chair () Approved () Denied Pete Kremen, County Executive MW EXHIBIT A Chapter 24.12 MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION FACILITY RULES 24.12.010 Authority and purpose. 24.12.020 Definitions. 24.12.030 Performance standards. 24.12.040 Applicability. 24.12.050 Location standards. -= 24.12.060 Design standards. 24.12.070 Operating standards. — _-- 24.12.080 Closure requirements. 24.12.090 Construction records. 24.12.100 Permit application requirements. - — 24.12.110 Notifications, public hearings and application=review. �- 24.12.120 Permit suspension.- 24.12.130 Permit revocation.- 24.12.140 Permit eligibility. 24.12.150 Enforcement. 24.12.160 Appeals. - -- 24.12.1701nspeetion. 24.12.1.8AySey�iab'ifity. 24.12.1:90-F= Fe-9 =----=- — - 24.12.0O(0=Autha�ify-. ar-�urp_o:ser_ (1) T.f e=director shall=admini"ster ttiischapter under the authority of RCW 70.05.060, P--aversdufiesof f e local health officer. If a conflict arises between this chapter=and another _ local, state or federal regulation, the more restrictive reguirdmerit shall apply. (2) The=purbse of this chapter is to protect public health from the potential negative 1�� of large or improperly operated mushroom substrate production facilities through the establishment of permit requirements and minimum design and operating standards. 24.12.020 Definitions. The following specific definitions shall apply: (1) "Active area" means that part of a facility where mushroom substrate production activities are conducted, including feedstock storage, substrate production, and leachate collection structures. (2) "Air quality standard" means a standard set for maximum allowable contamination in ambient air as set forth in WAC 173-400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources. (3) "Best management practices" means operating standards, schedules of activities, maintenance of procedures, use of engineering controls, or other common practices utilized within an industry to protect human health and the environment. 439 4?(4) "Biofilter" means a bed of organic media designed to treat odors via adsorption and biological degradation. Proper operation requires attention to contact time, moisture, bed construction, and selection of media. ��J](5) "R. -" moans that part of a_ f Gility that lies betWeeR the aGfi� a nroa and the 1� _PFOpeFty b {0(6) "Closure" means those actions taken by the owner or operator of a facility to cease operations and to ensure that all such facilities are closed in conformance with applicable regulations at the time of closure. T�ffl ."Closure plan" means a written plan developed by an owner or operator of a facility detailing how a facility is to close at the end of its active life. k?�(8) "Composting" means the biological degradation and transformation of organic matter under controlled conditions designed to promote aerobic decomposition. Natural decay of organic matter under uncontrolled conditions is not composting. f&)(9) "Contaminant" means any chemical, physical, biological,-o_ ff— ological substance that does not occur naturally in the environment— Ethatroccurs at concentrations greater than natural background levels. �- 10 "Contaminate" means the release of leachate,_pa late Qta -_r_Such that the contaminant enters the environment at a conco.- Latium --that may__=pose a threat to human health or the environment ,=.or cause=a: violation o any applicable environmental regulation. 6. 11 "Department" means the W- atcom County -Health: Department. (12) "Director" means the= ministra.l=dlrectQr=oJff—W, fiatcom =County Health Department, or a=-rep-rese-nt9tive aUtk bY!zed by tt--E=administrative;-:dYector. (13) "Excessive Drocess=odd-means n—v odor=aene�ed from the uroduction or use ( (14)=="Exis#ing=iacil "meansYa=facilityhith-is in operation and actively engage_d=iF _mus iroo �su6strate�p�a_d-a Fd-_ff before the effective date of this ghapter.� 414(15PEL- "Facility"=mean mall=contiguous lan`dr(including bu#eFs-andsetbacks) and structure ett eE4&urtenarYces.;_and improvements on the land. 4 Q(16:)=— "Facility s-tructure§!-Emeans constructed infrastructure such as buildings, sfJetds, gRuff lin(�,_nd piping on the facility. 17:. �—'Ground2water' means that part of the subsurface water that is in the 2ane_=otSaturation. 46.)(18).___eachate" means water or other liquid that has been contaminated by drssolved or suspended materials due to contact with organic materials that are being stored, processed, or composted. 47)(19) 'Local" means within Whatcom County. 484(20) "Mushroom substrate" means a highly specific, nutrient -rich product prepared from selective organic and inorganic materials for the purpose of cultivating mushrooms. 21 "Mushroom substrate production" means any stage of a process where the ingredients necessary for the production of mushroom substrate are assembled, blended, and/or composted. 22 "Nuisance odor" means the discharge of air contaminants from anv source, with the exception of odors addressed in Section 535 of the jurisdictional air quality regulation, that have been discharged in sufficient amounts and of such characteristics and duration as is likely to be incurious or cause damage to human health, plant or animal life, or property; or which unreasonably interferes with enjoyment of life and property. any oder which 06#$ufldoffensive E)F rRay 2 440 URFeasenably inteFfere with any 1 health, 1 t beyond the pmpert bO Rdary of a facility. Q4(23) "On -site" means the property where the mushroom substrate production facility is located. {2a)(24) "Operator" means a person or corporation who operates all or part of a mushroom substrate production facility. {2Q(25) "Owner" means a person or corporation who owns all or part of a mushroom substrate production facility. Q64(26) "Permit" means an authorization issued by the department which allows a person to perform mushroom substrate production activities at a specific location and which includes specific conditions for such facility operations. {2g)(27) "Person" means an individual, firm, association, copartnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public _or : private corporation, or any other entity. Q7-)(28) "Plan of operation" means the written plan devela . •bar- 9_55wner or operator of a facility detailing how a facility is to be operated=during=>ts active life. 42-9-?(29) "Runoff' means any rainwater, Ieachate=o=�fzeL ligurdgF-- drains over land from any part of the facility. Q-94(30) "Run-on" means any rainwateror other= UId that drains over land onto any part of a facility. 439i(31) "Setback" means that partof_-a_facility :that-lies=betweenrtfie active area and man-made or geolog[cfeaturE[s (j�e�ell or=sal • ace -water). 4: )(32) "Surface-im p- ridrfaont" rd ash facili!Kur part of a faq which is a natural topographic=depression, =man made eaccavation, or diked=area formed prir�ari - ea than rrrnaterialsga:fthoigh it era. be lined with man-made materials),--_ 'nd :which .isrdesigned-tb-hoEd=an accumulation of liquids or sludges. X. rnmaludes l� leg; storage; Sef# og; an ration pits, ponds, or lagoons, but-does=nol"inclffdEF-injecti-on wells. (32-?(33)- "Surface wafer ens all=fakes, Piers, ponds, wetlands, streams, inland waters, sart-watexs-_an(L--5ErotheLsurface water and surface water courses within tlJurisdietion of=tfae state-ofWashington. {3(345E= "mac" re_s a sfafionary device designed to contain an accumulation of Iid_er_semisbl'rd=materials meeting the definition of Ieachate, and which is constructed primarily of nonearthen materials to provide structural support. J414(35��_ "Twenty -five-year storm" means a storm of twenty-four hours duration and of_ -such intensity that it has a four percent probability of being equaled or exceeded each year. f3g5) 36) "Vector" means a living animal, including, but not limited to, insects, rodents, and birds, which is capable of transmitting an infectious disease from one organism to another. 24.12.030 Performance standards. (1) The owner or operator of all mushroom substrate production facilities subject to this chapter shall: (a) Design, construct, operate, and close all facilities in a manner that does not pose a threat to human health or the environment; (b) bI —Protect surface water and ground water through the use of best management practices and all known available and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment, as appropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, setbacks from wells, surface waters, property lines, roads, public access areas, and site -specific setbacks when appropriate. The 441 facility shall comply with RCW 90.48, Water Pollution Control and implementing regulations, including WAC 173-200, Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington, as regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology; (c) Control excessive process odors to prevent migration that results in adverse impact to public health; (de) Control nuisance odors to minimizeprevent URFeasenable migration beyond property boundaries and comply with RCW 70.94 Washington Clean Air Act, as determined and implemented by the Northwest Clean Air Agency; -(e) Conform with industry standard best management practices, as defined in WCC 24.12.020, and as approved by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. (fd) Manage the operation to prevent attraction of flies, ro er"fs and other vectors; and -- - (ge) Comply with all other applicable local, state;—and=fed"efal" laws and regulations. -- WCC 24.12.040 Applicability. (1) This chapter applies to all existing a'nd-proposed-Rjshreom substrate production facilities in Whatcom County and its�incorporated-cittes=on and afterthe effective date of this chapter._-- _ Existing mushm—a—mm topm 4—OR—ca. i tie �-— F te the eff4eigtiv% date of this a. ■ . a 2) Existina mushroom substrate facilities in operation prior to and on the effective date of this chapter are exempt from the requirements of this chapter, and are subject solely to the requirements of WCC 24.12.040(3), provided that: (a) The facility does not expand its operation resulting in an increase in monthly substrate production, based on the average production rate over the three (3) months prior to the effective date of this chapter; or ..A (b) The facility expands production in compliance with WCC 24.12.060(2); or (c) The facility operates with a total volume of material on -site at any one time of not more than eighty (80) cubic yards. Material on -site includes feedstocks (except baled hay, straw or sawdust), mixed feedstocks, and finished substrate. An existing mushroom substrate production facility that is not in compliance with WCC 24.12.040(3) shall no longer be exempt and shall be subject to the full requirements of this chapter. In addition, violations of the terms and conditions of WCC 24.12.040(3) may be subject to the penalty provisions of WCC 24.07, Administrative Notice Proceedings, Civil Penalties and Abatement. (34) Operations identified in WCC 24.12.040(2)and-(3) shall be managed according to the following terms and conditions to maintain their exemptions: (a) Comply with the performance standards of WCC 24.12.030; ands" (b) Allow the department to inspect the site at reasonable times = _= 24.12.050 Location standards. _ (1) Mushroom substrate production facilities must be-JD�ia_ace -Wifh local zoning regulations. — 24.12.060 Design standards. — (1) The owner or operator of a new mushroom s0Es]fata:�-facility, or an existing facility not exeff-Uffrom th-6.Ereauiremen � f=fFiis chaps defined in WCC 24.12.040(.23�Irall_sDbmit-engitT eying �g�ts/ plans argd�pecifications, including a cons�rucfion-quafity assurance=pIan�=to-address the design standards of tbis=-s�etion. --ale dra�eings 61-ie f�ity in�ding the location and size of fe`edstoekF_and Tsutstr..ateTstora-ge-�reas�substfate processing areas, fixed eq,uipmen building" eachato=tea a 55deRc s, access roads and other a urtenant=�faciliti6s,-and-desigrEspecifimtion's for the building, biofilter, storm wafer ruij�on prevention=system; and=leachate collection and conveyance s_gsfems :shall b�ov-Id0._=_Al�bstrate production facilities shall be designed ancf-constr.acted-tomeetytKefollowing requirements: T_ee mixfrJg-and composting of all organic materials must occur in an =_ =:Janclosed-lIUIilding with easl}e# the following or equivalent technology: (i)7 An aerated floor; A biofilter; (iii) An ammonia scrubber, as applicable, preceding the biofilter; and (iv) Other system components, including but not limited to fans and monitoring systems, as specified by a qualified professional engineer. (b) Leachate collection structures shall be enclosed and maintained under negative pressure with all air emissions collected and treated by an ammonia scrubber and biofilter or other approved emission control technology. (c) The biofilter, or equivalent, shall be designed to treat all air emissions from the composting and mixing processes. The biofilter shall be designed according to published industry standards and be approved by the department. Biofilter design shall account for all of the following: volumetric flow rate of air to be treated, specific air contaminants and concentrations, media characteristics, and moisture control. (d) The mixing and substrate production buildings shall be designed so that a negative pressure differential is maintained between the inside of the 5 443 building and ambient air. All exhausted air must be treated via the ammonia scrubber and biofilter or other approved emission control technology. Monitoring equipment shall be installed to verify that the building maintains negative pressure. (e) The mixing and substrate production buildings shall be designed to maintain their integrity under the inherently corrosive conditions that are associated with the production of mushroom substrate in an enclosed building. (f) Facilities shall separate storm water from leachate by designing storm water run-on prevention systems, to divert storm water from areas of feedstock preparation, and substrate production; (g) Facilities shall collect any leachate generated from areas of feedstock storage, preparation, and substrate production. The leachate-shall be conveyed to a leachate holding pond, tank or other containmen _s ructure. The leachate holding structure shall be of adequate capaeity_#o_eollect the amount of leachate generated, and the volume cal`cuiations shall be based on the facility design, and mar#hTy7:�uaIeff:b- .ah e. Leachate holding ponds and tanks shall be desigrieda eorrding to the-ifollowing: (i) Leachate ponds shall -meet theFdN gn standar4Kestablished in WAC 173-350-220(3 ' :c: �f ; and - (H) Tanks used to store-leachate shall -meet the design standards establfsLe�o WACO' _50-33(a_T—, )n rior=t5`=-a—nd=-Tn7--he e-fifective=date=of7-_this chapter,�i 25_%o.T-not C e�Ceee i_2.15'0_eal5r Vardg-per month, provided that: (i) = lndtstrT:�Fa darn=_best management practices are employed: and Oil-= Compos�r•�rc�'n_- eks-ale formed to maximize aeration; and the on -site farming of mushrooms, except for: (A) Sample sized Quantities of up to 1 cubic yard that may be -- shipped off -site for analytical testing purposes; and (B) Equal exchanges of limited quantities of finished substrate, solely between facilities owned by the same operator, far substrate Quality testing purposes. Such exchanges will be conducted only following prior approval by the director and notification to the public, and will be substantiated by proper shipping documentation. (b) Expand the capacity to produce mushroom substrate over the production level established in WCC 24.12.060(2)(a), by up to an additional 50%. not to exceed 3,200 cubic yards Per month, provided that: (i) The facility has remained in compliance with WCC 24.12.040(3) at the production level established in WCC 24.12.060(2)(a); and (ii) Preconditioning heaps are operated over a subsurface aeration system, and maintained under the full cover of breathable tarps or a permanent roof; and 6 444 Comoostina ricks are operated under cover of a permanent roof: and (iv) A leachate aeration system, as approved by the director, is used for the recirculation of leachate applied to the preconditioning heaps -,and (v) The facility remains in compliance with the requirements of WCC 24.12.060(2)(a)(i)-(iv). (c) Facilities that expand the production capacity of mushroom substrate under WCC 24.12.060(2), and fail to remain in compliance with WCC 24.12.030, shall immediately reduce production capacity to a level that maintains compliance with WCC 24.12.030. 24.12.070 Operating standards. (1) The owner or operator of a facility shall: (a) Operate the facility to: (i) Control dust, excessive process odors,-nui-sance=odors, and other contaminants to prevent urir aS_Q a .feE- mion of air contaminants beyond property boCmdaries; (ii) Prevent the attraction af—vectors; _ (iii) Ensure that only f65.Rstacks identtfied.zip the a&r•.oved plan of operation are accepted^at<the facili - (iv) Ensue-alL--Qrganic r eta s, exeepfiilstraw oT_y, are stored under comento prevent eorifact wit�7ecipitation. (v) E 5.s ha for all=facilities sag§i ;t to WCC 24P-F2.060M, all rCi2 g an�oce of-_ dstack including the pre -wet phase, - occur: in_arr�nclosed_budding. witllemission control as outlined in (01� En"seretlieacility-o�EYate�EFRde�" the supervision and control of a properly-Ir�ained=individual= during all hours of operation, and - access tot _zFac�1 y is restricted when the facility is closed; and (yii) Ensure facility=employees are trained in appropriate facility op rations; maintenance procedures, and safety and emergency _ — proedures according to individual job duties and according to an -- approved plan of operation. �(b�—spect the facility to prevent malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors, and discharges to the environment which may present a risk to human health. Inspections shall be conducted at least weekly, unless an alternate schedule is approved by the department as part of the permitting process. For facilities with leachate holding ponds, conduct regular liner inspections at least once every five years, unless an alternate schedule is approved by the department as part of the permitting process. The frequency of inspections shall be specified in the operations plan and shall be based on the type of liner, expected service life of the material, and the site -specific service conditions. The department shall be given sufficient notice and have the opportunity to be present during liner inspections. An inspection log or summary shall be kept at the facility or other convenient location if permanent office facilities are not on -site, for at least five years from the date of inspection. Inspection records shall be made available to the department upon request. (c) Maintain daily operating records of the following: 7 445 (i) Process monitoring data as prescribed in the plan of operation; and (ii) Facility inspection reports shall also be maintained in the operating record. Significant deviations from the plan of operation shall be noted in the operating record. Records shall be kept for a minimum of five (5) years and shall be available upon request by the department. (d) Prepare and submit a copy of an annual report to the department by April 1 on forms supplied by the department. The annual report shall detail the facility's activities during the previous calendar year and shall include the following information: (i) Name and address of the facility; (ii) Calendar year covered by the report; _—_ (iii) Annual quantity of substrate produced, in cubic yards_ = (iv) Any additional information required by thedep[titrrent as a condition of the permit. (e) Develop, keep and abide by a plan of Qpez1kpxLapRL-ov -_a—s part of the permitting process. The plan of operatio gshall-convey to_site personnel the concept of operation intended by th E esigner. The plan. of operation shall be available for inspe_qtOi at the=_request of the department. If necessary, the plan shall be-:: MY Wit h=the pproval o-F_�Ethe direction of the departmenfEL-ELpl �peratio---o--Wa-include th��7lowing: (i) Lis1of=—f.aFd'9tocks�d bL—Tused _i ce rocess, incl� a general descriptron=of=the source=of=feedsfocks; ,��scripl@ not ho�fea_cFs7t_ecks�-R_a to be handled on -site during _ — the-fdcctive:life=iricli�in_ �_ _ :: (/��rceptance_Gr-m at v�d�be applied to the feedstocks, _=M-edures_foY=e�n Ylrihg that only the feedstocks described --= — willbe accepted; (q E?rocQ-lufes�or handling unacceptable feedstocks; Mass=balance calculations for feedstocks and amendments to =determine an acceptable mix of materials for efficient decomposition; = (E)— Material flow plan describing general procedures to manage all materials on -site from incoming feedstocks to _ - finished substrate; (F) A description of equipment, including equipment to add water to substrate as necessary; (G) Process monitoring plan, including temperature, moisture, and porosity; (H) NuisG,aOdor management plan (air quality control plan), including progressive steps outlining operational and design changes to be taken when excessive process or nuisance odors at the property boundary are confirmed, with the objective of odor abatement. (1) Leachate management plan; and (J) Storm water management plan; (iii) A description of how equipment, structures and other systems are to be inspected and maintained, including the frequency of inspections and inspection logs to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the facility; ..R (iv) A neighbor relations plan describing how the owner or operator will manage complaints; (v) Safety, fire and emergency plans; (vi) Forms for record keeping of daily weights or volumes of incoming feedstocks by type and finished substrate, and process monitoring results; (vii) For facilities subject to WCC 24.12.060M, procedures for ensuring that negative pressure is maintained between the inside of the building and ambient air, including a description of the monitoring equipment to be used and record keeping; and (viii) Other such details to demonstrate that the facility will be operated in accordance with this chapter. 24.12.080 Closure requirements. = (1) The owner or operator of a mushroom substrate production:facil' :sha#ITM (a) Notify the director sixty (60) days in advance"dC-closure-A7tclosure, all organic material, including but not Iimitecl=�kU1l-eed- sfo--cks, finished substrate and leachate shall be remove L--W�iother facilat conforms with the applicable regulationsfo_r handling -die material; ate= (b) Develop, keep and abide t��A-a- osure.. ap r-.oved b. tt a director as part of the permitting proeess_-At a minimum;. the closure plan shall include the _M_et. ds of re_ gmmyj, all grga�G=-waste matemals including leachate-fr'dm:Ihe facility. — 24.12.090 C_onstructio,n ecordi.M - (1) TWe-ovuner or operator--W a- mushroom-srbstrat roduction facility shall provide c ps-e_s=oTfia_dcona�ia. -record. [av g =f J ar g�eered facilities at the site and a report=doeumebtift-facility cons mctiot-incICrding the results of observations and=testing_corned=ou pprt.oiRihe con`sfruction quality assurance plan, to the dlre�tor. ilities_sball not-cornm-ence operation until the director has determined that" the=construction was==completed in accordance with the approved ngmeeri,ng=reporfF, plans'and specifications and has approved the construction fe.�meatafon in2wr'iting. 24.12.100=Rermit application requirements. (1) T11767 owner or operator of all existing and proposed mushroom substrate production facilities shall obtain a permit from the department, unless the permit exemption criteria of WCC 24.12.040(23) are met. All applications for permits shall be submitted on forms provided by the department and include: (a) Contact information for the facility owner, and the facility operator and property owner if different, including contact name, company name, mailing address, phone fax, and e-mail; (b) Identification of the type of facility that is to be permitted; (c) Identification of any other permit (local, state or federal) in effect or required at the site; (d) A vicinity plan or map (having a minimum scale of 1:24,000) showing the area within one mile (1.6 km) of the property boundaries of the facility in terms of the existing and proposed zoning and land uses within that area, residences, and access roads, and other existing and proposed man- made or natural features that may impact the operation of the facility; (e) A plan of operation meeting the requirements of this chapter; 9 447 (f) Engineering reports/plans and specifications that address the design standards of this chapter; (g) A closure plan meeting the requirements of this chapter; (h) Evidence of compliance with WAC 197-11 and WCC 16.08, SEPA ; (i) A list of property owners within one thousand (1,000) feet of the property line of the existing or proposed facility; and {j) Any additional information as requested by the department. (2) Engineering plans, reports, specifications, programs, and manuals submitted to the department shall be prepared and certified by an individual licensed to practice engineering in the state of Washington, in an engineering discipline appropriate for the facility type or activity. (3) Signature and verification of applicants: (a) All applications for permits shall be accompanied by evidence..Qf-authority to sign the application and shall be signed by the owner-�roperator as follows: -- (i) In the case of corporations, by a duly --au hOflzed principal executive officer of at least the leveif�ce-Bras -rt ; in the case of a partnership or limited partne sMgE-b-�-�. r _ (A) A general partner;, (B) Proprietor; or— _ (C) In case of sale=pr-oprietors�=rb.V a propn`etor; (ii) In the_ a-se;�f a mini - r_state �governpaeatt entity, by a du! authorized princi al=eXecutiye=officer or electud=--efficial. (b) Applicationsshall=-be:signed=ora- Tested=t by, or on behaIfof, the owner _oT_operater --in r! �p�ect to=tfae ve city o1=�[I statements -therein; or shall —.bear an :executed=statemen#�by-,-r_on belr►alf of, the owner or operator to . e=effe(it1Cse sta#ewe_ sad_e tldeiTin are made under penalty of - (c)v The=ssignature o_f<tft aDMM-nt shall -be notarized on the permit application form= 24. i2.1OrNotifcafions;-public=Fearings and application review. (1) Upon_re:ceipt ofascomplete new permit application, permit renewal application, permit=modification or variance request for a mushroom substrate production #a��iy;fie director shall send notice to all property owners within one thousand (1.r000) feet of the property line of the existing or proposed facility, to all tenants occupying property within one thousand (1,000) feet of the property line of the existing or proposed facility in such cases where the owner is not a resident, and to any persons who have requested notification. (a) A public hearing shall be held for all new facilities. (b) A public hearing shall be scheduled if a written request for a hearing is received for an existing permit renewal, modification or variance request. (2) Copies of new permit applications, permit renewal applications, permit modifications and variance requests shall be publicly available for at least twenty (20) calendar days before a permit decision is made. This public review period begins the day that the notice has been mailed to all property owners, tenants and other interested parties. (3) For all public hearings, Tthe director shall publish notice in the official county newspaper no fewer than ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing date, and mail notice to all property owners within one thousand (1,000) feet of the property line of the existing or proposed facility. 10 448 (4) At all public hearings, oral and written public comment will be taken to assist the director with a permit decision. (5) The director shall publish a notice of permit decisions for all new permits, permit renewals, permit modifications or variance requests in the official county newspaper and mail notice to all property owners witihin one thousand (1,000) feet of the property line of the existing or proposed facility, and to all tenants occupying property within one thousand (1,000) feet of the property line of the existing or proposed facility in such cases where the owner is not a resident and to any persons who have requested notification. (6) Copies of all permit applications and all administrative notes, memos, and correspondence including public comments, regarding any existing or proposed facility shall be collected and maintained by the director for public inspection or research. 24.12.120 Permit suspension. (1) Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be._suspended�=the director when: — - (a) The permit holder has been found in violetifn=oTthis cl" pier more than three (3) times within the previ_ ous three- ears; or (b) The permit holder knowingl_� with -=ra so❑ to know.;�ade a false statement or an omission or=material factr'in=�the--applicatioriffor a permit or any data attachhereto.; orir�any nay Lpertaining �fhe director's - - administr-alio-n:zof--th:R--:Oermi�'" = (2) When the direcfor- dst—a cause=exUs s-as provfded in WCC 249- 2.150(1) for permit=suspensror�, the=6-ontirR d �§Nmtior-.r=of the mushroom substrate produetion f-acility=may be=eonditioned-u on _ plia�%ce�vV�ff=corre_C# Ve aa�#�vELs :SR�cified by the director. The —_—_ cora`e tine-actie s=avill b :ecifiednin'-. a -Notice issued pursuant to WCC --- 24�-OTandEdi si§- ed=to protect public health; and/or {Y6�= tasses_smentCid fyment of civil penalties assessed pursuant to W-0-- 24.07 (3) Thee= suspebsiorl-shaII be=effective upon service of the notice upon the permit twlde.ry owner or_operator of the facility. All notices shall be served in accordance MtfzW-C�4.07.100. 24.12.1-3Q-Permit revocation. (1) Any permit issued under this chapter may be revoked by the director when: (a) Operations under the permit have violated the requirements of this chapter, and continued operation of the facility poses a hazard to public health and cannot be remedied by corrective action; or (b) The permit holder has failed to comply with corrective action detailed in a notice served pursuant to WCC 24.07.100. (2) The permit revocation shall be effective upon service of a notice upon the permit holder, owner or operator of the facility. All notices shall be serviced in accordance with WCC 24.07.100. 24.12.140 Permit eligibility. (1) Whenever a permit is suspended or revoked, the director may deny the application for a permit renewal. (2) The director may deny an application for a permit if it is determined- that the permit applicant has experienced a permit suspension or revocation under this 11 449 chapter, or any other comparable regulations issued by a governmental entity of similar jurisdiction, any time within the three (3) years immediately preceding the date of application. 24.12.150 Enforcement. (1) When an owner, operator or person violates the provisions of this chapter, the director may initiate enforcement or disciplinary actions or any other legal proceedings authorized by law, including but not limited to any one or combination of the following: (a) Administrative hearings convened at the request of the director; (b) A notice, issued pursuant to WCC 24.07, and directed to the owner or operator and/or person causing violations of this chapter; (c) Suspension or revocation of permits or approvals pursuant:to WCC 24.12.120 and WCC 24.12.130; and (d) Civil penalties as per WCC 24.07 (Ord. 2002-021; OC4'=::20D0.�21}}. 24.12.160 Appeals. — (1) An aggrieved party may appeal any perrnit=-deeia'ion,~ incl0din g approval, modification, variance decision, denjal _suspe s�1 io- or revocation accordance with WCC 24.07.090, Hearing and meals. 24.12.170Inspection. — — (1) The director shall=-hay'e-.-:the-autho�g to-inspeetwa* permitted facility, or permit exempt facility, stray-reasonablege-far=W. ating the pose of evalucompliance with the facility'sm►vntten imof op�r�tion_aedl oL�rovisions of this chapter. (2) Tf e=dMctor shall -Dave -the authohty-to-ihspecMany site or facility to assure c om Altar ceSYiit t -a efplo_ytsions oT--t�ils �. 24.12.1$O=Severa`i5ility-- _ (1) Suld any�sect�caxa; sec#ioraragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this regglatiohEl a declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision �11 nof�af ect the-yalidii f the remaining portions of this regulation. 24.12.190=Fees'~ (1) A-fl�dffities or proposed facilities shall pay applicable fees as established by the Whatcom County Council in the Unified Fee Schedule. (2) Permit fees will not be refunded to owners or operators of facilities with suspended or revoked permits. (Ord. 2002-021; Ord. 2000-021). 12 450 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2 0 0 6- 3 0 3 A CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Of fice Il t Y 0 Dearing/ Agenda Date Originator: MEW 64612006 _ --, fJ > "i 11� ;- U G L= E b J L� n 1 J U 1. 1 U 3 2906 WHATCOM COUNTY �+nnEE �� 111 COUNGUIL 711112006 Division Read: 612612006 712512006 Dept. Head: Prosecutor: � D6 /OZ�,p(' Purchasin / u et: a Q Executive: TITLE OF D CUMENT: Acceptance and Adoption of the South portion of Whitecap Road as a Whatcom County Road ATTACHMENTS: Memo to Countv Executive and Council, Map, __ 'roposed Ordinance, SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X )Fes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: June 26, 2006 SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you mustprovide the language for use in the requiredpublic notice. Be specific and cite RCWor WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining Cite intent of the action.) Whatcom County seeks, by resolution, to accept a portion (approximately 700') of newly constructed road Lying south of the existing County maintained portion of Whitecap Road. The County offers the following pertinent facts to support the establishment:. The subject road was constructed to 18 feet of bituminous surface treatment width with 1-foot gravel shoulders. This cross section is the same as the existing maintained roadway. The road was constructed through a series of trail permits to a point in which it met the existing road standard. The road provides necessary vehicular access to a significant number of residences and the public may be better served by county maintenance of the road. The roadway is unlikely to extend through to Beacon Road due to the steep rock slope at the south end of the right-of-way. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: 'Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at: www.co.whatcom.wausleouncil. 151 2 3 4 SPONSORED BY: Engineering Services PROPOSED BY: Public Works — Engineering Services INTRODUCTION DATE: 7/11/2006 ORDINANCE NO. 2006 - DECLARING INTENT TO ACCEPT A SECTION OF WHITECAP ROAD, DECLARING THAT SUCH ESTABLISHMENT IS A PUBLIC NECESSITY, AND DIRECTING COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER TO REPORT TO COUNCIL UPON THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the southern section of Whitecap Road was built under a series of Whatcom County trail permits and lies within County right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the section of Whitecap Road is constructed to the same standard of the existing maintained road at 18 feet wide bituminous surface treatment and 1 foot gravel shoulders; and WHEREAS, the road provides necessary vehicular access to a significant number of residences; and WHEREAS, it is a matter of general policy for the County to establish a County road and assume responsibility for its maintenance, if doing so provides service to the citizenry at a reasonable cost; and WHEREAS, the public may be better served by county maintenance of the road identified herein; and WHEREAS, the financial burden assumed by the County as a result of increased road maintenance responsibilities is balanced by increased revenues from state tax funds for the additional length of road in the County road system; and WHEREAS, the Council needs the most accurate, up-to-date information concerning the condition of the roadway, the status of the underlying right-of-way, the financial implications of accepting this roadway into the County road system, and the public benefit to be derived from the establishment of this roadway as a County road; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.81 requires that the County Road Engineer, upon direction from the Council, provide such information to the Council via a report; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.81 requires that that a public hearing be scheduled and held, and that proper notice be given before this road is established as a public road with the County road system; and 452 WHEREAS, The County Council held a public hearing on the proposed acceptance of the southern section of Whitecap Road on July 25, 2006, at 7:00 pm, and is authorized to adopt the road and additional cul-de-sac right-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the new and remaining portion of Whitecap Road south of the existing county maintained portion of Whitecap Road be accepted as a County road within County right-of-way. ADOPTED this I I day of , 2006. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis Council Clerk Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Council Chair 4. Daniel L. Gibson Assistant Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Pete Kremen, County Executive Date: 453 WHATCOM- COUNTY— -- - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. Director Memo - -- - --- JOSEPH-P.-RUTAN, P E-. =kGom CO& Assistant Director/County Road Engineer 3 2011 Young St., Suite 201 ' Bellingham, WA 98225-4052 4 e� Phone: (360) 715-7450 4Sh�e�t Fax: (360) 715-7451 To: The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive, and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council From: Joseph P. Rutan, Asst. Director/County Road Enginee Jeffrey M. Monsen, Public Works Director Date: June 26, 2006 Re: County Council Acceptance of the South portion of Whitecap Road as a Whatcom County Road Requested Action: The Public Works Engineering Services requests that the proposed ordinance for acceptance of the South portion of Whitecap Road as a county maintained road be forwarded to the Council for consideration and adoption. (See attached map) Background and Purpose: The subject road was constructed to 18 feet of bituminous surface treatment width with 1-foot gravel shoulders. This cross section is the same as the existinq maintained .roadway. The road was constructed through a series of trail permits to a point a which it met the existing road standard. The road provides necessary vehicular access to a significant number of residences and the public may be better served by county maintenance of the road. The roadway is unlikely to extend through to Beacon Road due to the steep rock slope at the south end of the right-�of-way. Information: Whitecap Road was extended 700 feet south of the existing county maintained road by several developers from 1979 to 2005. The work was completed through several trail permits issued by Engineering Services. Each permit contained road improvement conditions and each permit was signed as complete by the Public Works Engineering Services. Encl. 454 °•gyp 4j! � - - -- - -'! -1 ... �-,-�-- �'' -- t �.:��>♦.� �� '{ '11h� .. � _� .may.: 41, "lot I Z r.. k 'h +-�} ♦1 Fes= f�#+A /:.: �.-ti��i� _ 1 ^�' . �t�-�'a:-P _ • - � �� . a �-WHLTF CAP R[,AYY 1 _ • � .J t _. _ rt� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-317 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office A enda Date Assigned to. Originator: sM 7110106 r� !7 � i;•� Rr,i L� ' E 1 V :_-r; 712512006 Council Division Head: qp J U L 18 2006 Dept. Head: WHlRT1.fOM COUNTY COUNCIL Prosecutor: Purchasin /Bud e1: �� -�7 /"7�� Executive: 1'' u'��O TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Appointments to the Whatcom County Veteran's Advisory Board ATTACHMENTS: Applications for membership; AttachinentA (member terms) SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( X) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X) NO Requested Date. SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you lnustprovide 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.) This Board has been active for some time in an an ad hoc advisory capacity to the County Executive regarding veteran's issues in our community. Following the recent adoption of Ordinance No. 2006-025, whereby the Veteran's Advisory Committee has officially been established, the County Executive requests confirmation of his appointments to the Veteran's Advisory Board, as noted in AttachmentA. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the CounLys website at: www co. whatcom. wa. us/councib awt ATTACHMENT A WHATCOM COUNTY VETERAN'S ADVISORY BOARD Member Length of Term 1st Term Expires Philip M. Andress, Jr. 4 years 12/31/09 Eugene Goldsmith 4 years 12/31/09 Holly Lanoux 4 years 12/31/09 -Thomas Noel 3 years 12/31/08 Michael Novotny 3 years 12/31/08 Jim Pace 3 years 12/31/08 Ken Richardson 2 years 12/31/07 Edwin Simmers 2 years 12/31/07 457 PETE KREMEN 'C�'�M CQ(� COUNCILMEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner Count Executive y sP": my 'tiaRE �e b rie Caskey-Schreiber •S ' F ' ■ 1•� Sam Crawford Seth M. Fleetwood �SHlNG�� J U L 12 2006 Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson Carl Weimer PFE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Name of board or committee -please see reverse: _Veteran's Advisory Boa Which position on this board are you applying for (if applicable)? Which Council district do you reside in? (x ) One Are you a US citizen? ( x) yes ( ) no Name: —Philip M. Andress, Jr. D.O. ( ) Two ( )Three Are you a registered voter? (x ) yes ( ) no Date: July 12, 2006_ Street Address: 2790 Northshore Road City: Bellingham zip Code: _98226 Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone:_360-671-6373 Fax Number:—sam Evening Telephone: _same E-mail address:^juandererl@comcast.n Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): _Physician (semi -retired) Professional/Community Activities: Physician for VA outreach clinic, Bellingham. Education: Med schoo Qualifications related to position: _Veteran: Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom. Retired USAR. Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: _See above Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes ( x) no If yes, please explain: References (please include name and daytime telephone number): Mike Novotny 360-733-9226 Signature of applicant: As a candidate to a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. 458 PETE KREMEN County Executive O Gy COUNCILMEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner urie Caskey-Schreiber Sam Crawford Seth M. Fleetwood RSfilrl ,1 U L 10 2006 Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson G�� PETEKREMEN Carl Weimer COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Name of board or committee• -please see reverse: W VA 13 Which position on this board are you applying for (if applicable)?ExfG. Which Council district do you reside in? ( ) One ( ) Two N Three Are you a US citizen? 04yes ( ) no Name: S"o�r�sr�r-� Are you a registered voter? N yes ( ) no Date: 4:�)% �6�. Street Address: vr8zao e171ZG'1'1 AZe�9 City: ,fC12�yr�.�i cr Zip Code: Mailing Address (if different from street address): wlz �o Day Telephone:Evening Telephone: Fax Number: E-mail address: 6&Wel604,ys` -117 eyC �'rdJ�T Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): Prof essional/Community Activities: Adw lye's Ris �%; Gr1_Z �k+C.I.,el � 9 ,4V��rr�.�F Education: X5re, Qualifications related to position: z0�4W Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: ;vVef /ILL—��v✓.S �� .mac-'T• Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes C__-'�Lno If yes, please explain: References (please include name and daytime telephone number): 1�V21'r11?6WT-V_ 7/ ,2oo Signature of applicant: 6f!�%�ohZ As a candidate to a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. 459 PETE KREMEN COUNCILMEMBERS: Count yam �� Barbara E. Brenner y Executive '�G'y askey-Schreiber .4 R E C E I V E 'D He CSam Crawford Seth M. Fleetwood Dan McShane �c0 J U L 10 2006 L. Ward Nelson hnNr' Carl Weimer PETEKREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Name of board or committee -please see reverse: Which position on this board are you applying for (if applicable)? Which Council district do you reside in? ( ) One Are you a US citizen? (Y)"yes ( ) no ( ) Two ( ) Three Are you a registered voter? ( _yes ( ) no Name: O L`f LAND��x Date: 07/0's /�y Ar Street Address: P0 . l6ox Is"3 City: U&GUAIM 1A A Zip Code: q8 227 Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone:6�no,) O 1 2 Event Telephone: Sf MC- QMLNumber: (ao) .303' 979E-mail address: Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): S jC. �iPr Professional/Community Activities: Education: Qualifications related to position: V. 5. /e- Describe why you are in Do you or yourrspouse have a f agency that does business with If yes, please explain: F-A d in serving on this board or commission: ' ., . icial int t in or are you an em�yee or officer g7any bus' ss or atcom unty? ( ) yes ( no References (please include name and daytime telephone number); •, r e o ) '73.3 - y22 Signature of applicant: As a candidate to a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. 460 PETE KREMEN County Executive COUNCiLMEMBERS: aE. Brenner a,�Go �c°L R C E E aurieCaskey-Schreiber Cask Sam Crawford Seth M. Fleetwood oa' �ShiNG� U 1 0�06 Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson Carl Weimer PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Name of board or committee -please see reverse: �GI� l• V /' r� Which position on this board are you applying for (if applicable)? Which Council district do you reside in? &f one ( ) Two Are you a US citizen? (Yyes ( ) no Name: Street Address: 5 G. V 4.� G It ( ) Three Are you a registered voter? 'yes ( ) no N Date: l 6 City: h Zip Code: In `.� 2 r fg Address (if di erent from street address): ��- S U. —c3 ✓ Day Telephone: �Oa (� �(} _ Evening Telephone: 3 6z7 - 6 � 9 - s Y 50 Fax Number: E-mail address: Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): V 6 P F, fa S2c.u�r.� Professional/Community Activities: t1re ^.PJ' �144T PAV, IeA. (.40.21 LZZ eu7h '5 1�^_ AI# Education:o Qualifications related to position: 'P.sAtg'b Vf4&,A"'`� C//- ,� V4 3 r�fn�act!/ Sv-j-C , S �f� Ile. Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: G) 0 9& L -4, 7-9 If Ce4 Veld-eR-H- S , Di S/AL& P v - .i k Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an emp yee or officer Of any busineN or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes o If yes, please explain: References (please include name and daytime telephone number): V 4- �" I R aa� (� 0 Signature of applicant: As a candidate to a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. 461 PETE KREMEN County Executive �GoM cov �. _. -�r;- •i�., ;'%�a R E C E I COUNCILMEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner urie Caskey-Schreiber Sam Crawford Seth M. Fleetwood �9stirGot J 0 L 10 2006 Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson PETEKREMEN Carl Weimer COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Name of board or committee --please see reverse: COys r -z12fiN'S Which position on this board are you applying for if applicable)? �A�-r AQ��S� P Y ( Which Council district do you reside in? ( } One } Two ( ) Three Are you a US citizen? (X) yes ( ) no Are you a registered voter? V) yes ( ) no Name: 1 &14 OV (9 r IV `7 Date: r 4 Street Address: 0 t'/ T!2 cl GK 040 City: ,PgMAIr W— w A Zip Code: 5'1r_)K `' Mailing Address (if different from street address): 38oy gS,,j'iZ`f . A '1Jmv, 9�'22'/ Day Telephone: 2 3 3 92-2- 6 Evening Telephone: 5_92- - ':� 32- r Fax Number: 7 3 3 c? / / 7 E-mail address: hl/r Iasf- . N oyoTAI`7 a M5o j14 . GVV Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): 5ac,1A-r' L-vmrj-"A- ,/,!SoV ✓S�u,2 Professional/Community Activities: M�i•y bqd & bSrySla �hhS, V Ili! /lilarw. U&"reo r.�,r} 144u' ' GA , *t'*.i' ✓fir C_LNTS/'?— -0 A-6wo-t Education: B Sw , ta�1>-,PM& 1/ 4�t-e fc-y A141�4 IA, . V Qualifications related to position: ET`}"S^j 5t" !J uGyyd-d If- Z'- peerare'vcc_. Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission:, A J� . Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes 6G} no If yes, please explain: References (please include name and daytime telephone number): RIUG 14A44rGw,./ P/,w� (3 &o ) 3 21 - SG$S 3 G e7 9 �-�a 3 0 7 Signature of applicant: As a candidate to a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. 462 PETE KREMEN County E xecutive COUNCILMEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner Laurie Caskey--S chreiber S am Cra wford Seth M. Fleetwood Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson Sharon Roy APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISS/ ONS, j ' UDALM, Name of board or committee -please see reverse: ��'tCC) 00,41;.4V6" Vlei- Which position on this board are you applying for (if applicable)? Which Council district do you reside in? { ) One () Two (y) Three Are you a US citizen? (Pl'y-es { ) no Are you a registered voter? (ryes { ) no Name: t—'_ s. ��--�' — Date: 05-1O. a Street Address:<g 1 Z ��N lJ�-1 A" �1 City: kw -a_ Zip Code: Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone"'�O Evening Telephone: 'im 0 - 31 1 TL 7? g Fax Number: 3g0-•'i3_:5 1�1-7 E-mail address: CLJ_-�-T &_ M5� Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): iz�0 Professional/Community'Activities: Education: e', 6. Q e -,:=- Qualifications related to position: 1-4U F-W Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: �� L yyc� Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? O yes no If yes, please explain:. References (please include name and daytime_telephgne number): Signature of applica As a candidate to a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. 463 PETE KREMEN Count Executive 'iG�M ��G Y COUNCILMEMBERS-. Barbara E. Brenner ie Caske Schreiber am Crawford 0 �' 9sFriH�� Seth M. Fleetwood Dan McShane JUL 2��6 L. Ward Nelson Carl Weimer PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Name of board or committee -please see reverse: \jtXed_.>rft • Qet;•.-ri Which position on this board are you applying for (if applicable)? we, QeAr"Ws y6boldd 14 Which Council district do you reside in? (\() One ( ) Two ( ) Three Are you a US citizen? (W yes ( ) no Are you a registered voter? � yes ( } no Name: KP �ut�e"Eth S. �:a�«,-o�s�w Date: 7 Leg, (ok Street Address: 1q8( AcOt4-A"ww0oal CA City: Q.c•1,u��cun - (A) fv- Zip Code: Q9aAq Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Tel'ephone:�360� F o3 - -7 �' Evening Telephone: t3 65l 733-973a Fax Number: E-mail address: K-T �•c, ram_ couwcas�• ruG� Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): Professional/Community Activities: Education: Qualifications related to position: 0el"Jd ny 64 0L�A uva JV Describe -why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: to . Ptt+t OLZIII. WC aA-k w S Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ( ) yes l no If yes, please explain: References (please include name and daytime telephone number): Mr- 9mun.e4k) Signature of applicant: As a candidate to a pulflic board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. 464 PETE KREMEN Ga M o` COUNCILMEMBERS: County Executive '' Barbara E. Brenner uric Caske Schreiber Sam Crawford �' �Strtr J �� L 14 ZQ�� Seth M. Fleetwood Dan McShane c- L. Ward Nelson PETE KREMEN (Carl Weimer COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Name of board or committee -please see reverse: W44fc.oky cdady i/C- f eveks /W y(SoYY Which position on this board are you applying for (if applicable)? Which Council district do you reside in? jN One ( ) Two ( ) Three Are you a US citizen? N) yes ( ) no Are you a registered voter? �,-) yes ( ) no Name: /�• L= G�'W1 ti 0701e1� Date: ? "� "a� Street Address: 63 6 oocl o u ah Ave, City: 8 elf c ke a "rs1 Zip Code: 9� �-�5- Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone: -V O 73 C� --)-6 7% Evening Telephone: Fax Number: E-mail address: e dcy; q (g� elf c040 . C0"1 Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): rJ( v'e4 suon�ev('oY court COAVAY . Professional/Community Activities: Wkd (cCq'W 6vy� gQU �6sSdcl'cl `7e11 r Education: uy` { S d C o L Qualifications related to position: I?? e 4 ev ¢� �-t% �d / ��jf',` ��iree� Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: 7-, � c (,o �eSs r ' l O r11% & Q q e Do you or your spouse have a financial interest in or are you an employee or officer of any business or agency that does business with Whatcom County? ()c) yes { ) no If yes, please explain: o;r--teal( -su 6yf-r l4f e s Caw,"-r(ssi t re es— Referencel!lIs (please include name and daytime telephone number): t J L e 6-✓el YrrVq ��N� lor-- "L- Signature of applicant: r As a candidate to a Dublic board or commission. the above information will be available t165 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006-318 CLEARANCES .initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: SM 7117106 7125106 Council Originator: r� ` 1 t I 1 18 2006 J V Lp+ Division Head: Dept. Head: Proseculor: p g �y n: HATCOM CLdUNPI CONCIL Purchasin /Bud ei: Executive: �i$-�4 TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Appointments to the Bellingham-"atcom Public Facilities District ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT 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.) County Executive Pete .Aremen recommends the confirmation of the reappointment of Dean Brett, Dunham Gooding and Charles Self to the Bellingham-Whatcom Public Facilities District. The City ofBellinghant is being asked to confirm these same members COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whateofti.wauslcouncil. M•• WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #108 Bellingham, WA 98225-4082 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Whatcom County Council FROM: Pete Kremen, County Executive DATE: July 17, 2006 SUBJECT: Public Facilities District Reappointments Pete Kremen County Executive The Belli ngham-Whatcom Public Facilities District was established in 2002 for the purpose of pursuing ownership, financing and operational requirements of Public Facilities Projects within the county. The first term is set to expire on July 31 st for several of the board members. These board members are being jointly reappointed by Mayor Asmundson and myself. I respectfully request confirmation for the following members to serve a second term on the Bellingham-Whatcom Public Facilities District Board of Directors: Dean Brett Dunham Gooding Charles Self 467 Office (360) 676-6717 County (360) 384-1403 FAX (360) 676-6775 TDD (360) 738-4555