Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket Apr 10 2007WHA TCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007-180 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Qffice Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: E. stroebel 4/10/07 Natural Resources Division Head: K. Christensen Dept. Head.- F. Abart Prosecutor: D. Gibson PurchasinglBudget- B. Bennett Execitrive: P. Kremen TITLED DOCUMENT. Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District and Marine Resources Committee 2007 Update A TTA CHMENTS. SEPA review required? ) Yes X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? )Yes (X) NO SEPA review completed? ) Yes ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENTOR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE.- (If this item is an ordinance or requires apuhlic 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 Staff will provide an update on recent accomplishments and current priorities for the Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District and Marine Resources Committee. 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 wehsiteat. www.co.whatcom.waus/counciL Page 0 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK ABART Director MEMORANDUM STORMWATER 2011 Young Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98225 Telephone: (360) 715-7450 FAX: (360) 715-7451 www.whatcomcountV.us RECEIVE MAR 3 0 2001 TO: The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive PETE KREMEN The Honorable Members of the Wha com County Council COUNTY EXECUTIVE THROUGH: Frank M. Abart, Public Works Director _r FROM: Kirk Christensen, Stormwater Manager RE: Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District and Marine Resources Committee 2007 Update DATE: March 19, 2007 The Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee was originally formed in 1998 following a downgrade of the area's tribal shellfish growing areas. Since the closure of the shellfish areas, the Advisory Committee has worked with County staff and other groups to develop and implement a closure response strategy. In May 2006, the remaining "Restricted" growing area was upgraded to "Approved" by the State Department of Health. Public Works staff will provide an update on activities that are being pursued to monitor water quality and ensure that Portage Bay shellfish beds remain open for tribal harvest. The Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee (MRC) was established in 1999 and is one of seven committees formed around the Northwest Straits. The County receives funding on an annual basis to support MRC priorities and projects. Public Works staff will provide an update on recent accomplishments, current priorities, and projects targeted in the 2007-2009 MRC Action Grant application. Please contact Erika Stroebel at extension 50692, if you have any questions prior to the Committee meeting. 2 Page 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director STORMWATER 2011 Young Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98225 Telephone: (360) 715-7450 FAX: (360) 715.7451 wwwmhatcomcounty us Marine Resources Committee (MRC) — Annual Update April 2007 MRC Current Grant Project Update The terms of the current MRC Action Grant are July 1, 2005 - June 30, 2007. Below is a summary of the projects implemented during this grant period. Program Area: Community Education and Outreach • Public speakers series — The MRC hosted the following talks, which were widely advertised to the public: o "Fish and Wildlife in the New Waterfront" a "Connecting with the Beach: Community Benefits of Habitat Restoration and Open Spaces" o "l800s Patterns of the Lower Nooksack. When and why did people first start diverting the river to Bellingham?" o "Controlling the Asian Sea Squirt (Styela clava) and Other Aquatic Nuisance (Invasive) Species in Puget Sound" o "Sea Level Rise: Effects and Policy Considerations in Washington State" • Community events — The MRC hosted the nearshore session of the annual NRT Salmon Summit and sponsored 20 community scholarships for students and/or community members to attend. The MRC will be a co-sponsor the annual Drayton Harbor Shellfish District Open House. • Website, fact sheets,_disnlays --- Whatcom County staff maintain, update, and expand MRC information on the website, in fact sheets, and in displays. In 2006, there was a monthly average of 3,940 unique visitors to the Whatcom MRC website. Program Area: Nearshore Habitat • Project prioritization and ranking — The County is contracting with a consultant on behalf of the MRC to refine the coarse scale ranking provided in the Enhanced Nearshore Assessment report and prioritize projects in the Point Roberts, Birch Bay, and Chuckanut Bay shoreline reaches. • Cliffside Beach wood debris removal Phase I (assessment and feasibility) — The MRC and County are partnering with Ecology, DNR, and PSAT to conduct an assessment and feasibility study for removing the wood debris at Cliffside Beach. Anchor Environmental was selected to conduct this work. The project will be completed by June 15, 2007. • Saualicum Creek estuary restoration Phase I (design and permitting) — Through a pending ILA with the Port, the MRC and County will contribute funds towards the design and permitting task of the estuary restoration project. Program Area: Shellfish • Clam surveys —The MRC recruited 37 volunteers to conduct clam surveys at Marine Parkin Blaine, Lummi Island, and Point Roberts to evaluate clam species and numbers in these areas. Volunteers spent approximately 205 hours on this project. The clam inventories are used to fill 3 • data gaps, identify potential locations for clam enhancement and restoration, and maintain citizen involvement. • Water quality monitorine — The MRC recruited 17 volunteers to collect monthly water quality samples at 28 sites in Drayton Harbor, Birch Bay, and Chuckanut Bay to evaluate fecal coliform loading to these areas and maintain citizen involvement. Volunteers have spent approximately 164 hours on this project. Results will be used to identify priority areas for community outreach and other water quality improvement projects in the watersheds. • Pilot seeding —The MRC will recruit volunteers to conduct a pilot clam seeding project in Birch Bay. The goals of this pilot project are to define and clarify methods of planting seed and identify challenges in monitoring, site preparation and permitting, seeding, and wave energy/predator control. This information will be used to help refine the methods for future native clam enhancement projects, should native clam -seed become available. • Community outreach —The MRC is partnering the NSEA to prepare a "State of the Birch Bay Watershed" newsletter for distribution to the public. Program Area: Rockfish • REEF cards — The MRC will distribute fish identification cards at local dive shops to educate divers about rockfish and assist in collecting information about -local rockfish habitat from community members. • Surveys — The MRC is partnering with WWU to conduct rockfish surveys in Whatcom County to assess rockfish populations, distribution, and habitat. MRC Proposed Projects for Next Grant Cycle The MRC and County are preparing a grant application for the next two-year grant cycle which continues many of these projects as well as new nearshore projects. The NWSC is anticipating that a total of $184,000 will be available for the next two-year grant cycle. The projects will be phased to spend approximately $92,000 per year. Program Area: Community Education and Outreach The MRC will continue the projects conducted during the last grant cycle and add an invasive species training program, focusing initially on non-native tunicates. Program Area: Nearshore Habitat The MRC will select a priority project for an assessment and feasibility based on the ranking and prioritization strategy developed during the last grant cycle. The MRC will partner with other agencies to implement the Cliffside Beach wood debris removal project. Program Area: Shellfish The MRC will continue to conduct clam surveys and water quality monitoring to build data sets and maintain citizen connections. The MRC will also monitor the pilot seeding project. Program Area: Rockfish The MRC and County will continue working with WWU to develop and conduct a rockfish survey program in Whatcom County. Information gathered through this program will be used to estimate rockfish distribution in Whatcom County, evaluate the relationship between rockfish density and habitat types, and develop recommendations for the tribes and WDFW regarding critical rockfish habitat in Whatcom County that should be considered for protection. M WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007 — 160 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 3/19/2007 3/27/2007 Natural Resource Division Head: Dept. Head. - Prosecutor: Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Discussion regarding the County's various natural resource programs ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review coinpleted? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public !rearing, you must provide the language for use in lire required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Discussion regarding the County's various natural resource programs and how they are distributed amongst county departments 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: ww►v.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 5 WHA TCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL No. 2007-181 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Ofiginator 3129/07 it V 2 4/10/7 Finance/Coun Division Head., Dept. Head. Ptosecutor. VVP, 1r,0, U TY :7C PurchasingVRud,;).\ jM 3129/07 ,J Executive: 19- ;t-0 TITLED DOCUMENT. Approval to Award Bid #07-15, Miscellaneous Interior & Exterior Painting ATTACHMENTS: Memos from Finance and Facilities Management SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? Yes x NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (x ) NO Requested Date: SUMMA RY S TA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (if this item is an ordinance or requires a public heating, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCWor WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Administrative Services Facilities Management Department is requesting award of the bid for miscellaneous interior and exterior painting of County buildings. They would like to award to the low bidder, Miller's Painting. Facilities Management further requests authorization for the Executive to enter into an agreement with Miller's Painting not to exceed $120,000.00 including state sales tax over a two year period. Funds are available for this project in 2007 and 20011 from ASR 2007-172, 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. ail 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: 28 March 2007 AGO M COG .f �QSkr NG�0 TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, AS Finance Manger SUBJECT: Award of Bid 07-15— Miscellaneous Painting FINANCE/ACCOUNTING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 503 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 Finance@co.whatcom.wa.us BRAD BENNETT Manager `AECEI V sew MAR 30 ?.lFll FETE ."'4UNTY EXT-Culi t Background & Purpose Bids were duly advertised for a square foot and per lineal foot cost for painting various surfaces both in and outside of the County buildings, as needed. Two bids were received and are noted below: Miller's Paintinq 1 .79 I 1.05 1 1.35 I 1.50 Hunnicut's Inc. 1 2.50 1 3.25 1 - 5.00 1 6.50 Facilities Management is requesting approval to award the bid and to enter into a contract with the low bidder, Miller's Painting at the above rates. The bid is for two-year period. ■ Funding Funds were approved in the current budget in ASR 2007-172 for $ 60,000.00 and for the same amount in 2008. 1 concur with this recommendation. AS Finance Manager Approved as Recommended: County Executive Date of Council Action Administration Facilities Management Finance/Accounting Human Resources Information Technology County Residents (360) 676-6717 (360) 676-6746 (360) 676-6734 (360) 676-6802 (360) 676-7684 (360) 398-1310 7 Fax (360) 676-6775 Fax (360) 676-6789 Fax (360) 738-4553 Fax (360) 738-2521 Fax (360) 676-7727 TTY (360) 738-4555 WHATCOM COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA 98225-4083 DDeslerC@co.Whatcom.wa.us DEWEY G. DESLER Director MEMO TO: Brad Bennett, Finance Manager FROM: Michael Russell, Facilities Supervis DATE: March 28, 2007 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Lottie Street Annex 316 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225-4010 Facilities@co.whatcom.wa.us MICHAEL RUSSELL Facilities Manager RE: Recommend to Accept Bid Award #07-15 Miscellaneous Painting Projects On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 two bids were received in response to Whatcom County Bid #07-15, Miscellaneous Painting Projects. The following bids were received: ✓ Hunnicut's Inc., 3910 Bakerview Spur, Bellingham, WA 98226 in the amount of. Interior Painting Exterior Painting Square Foot Lineal Foot Square Foot Lineal Foot $2.50 1 $5.00 $3.25 $6.50 ✓ Miller's Painting, 2146 Erie St., Bellingham, WA 98225 in the amount of: Interior ainting Exterior Painting Square Foot Lineal Foot S uare Foot Lineal Foot $0.79 $1.35 $1.05 $1.50 Miller's Painting met all of the required specifications for performing the work required for this project. It is the recommendation of this office that the low bid submitted by Miller's Painting be accepted. Funding for this project is provided in ASR# 2007-172 in the amount of $60,000.00. If you need additional information, please contact me at extension 50575. 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 Fax (360) 676-6775 Fax (360) 676-6789 Fax (360) 738-4553 Fax (360) 738-2521 Fax (360) 676-7727 TTY (360) 738-4555 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007-182 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council O ice Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 3/30/07 �[ _ _ 4/10/07 Finance/Coup Division Head.'_ - 7 rn =, De t. Head:. Prosecutor. Purchasi, e 3130/07 Executive: TITLE O DOCUMENT: Approval to Award Bid 07-21, On -Call Rental Equipment List ATTACHMENTS: Memos from Finance and Public Works SEPA review required? { ) Yes ( x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing 7 ( ) 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.) Public Works is requesting approval to award Bid 07-21, On -Call Rental Equipment. They would like to award to all 11 names on the list. The intent of this bid is to obtain firm pricing on rental equipment that could be used by Public Works and any other department that may need to rent equipment for regular projects or emergencies. When equipment is needed, the County will select it for rental from the list, based on equipment availability and suitability, with preference to low bidders. It is possible that more than $35,000 could be spent with a single vendor. 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. :il 9 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: 30 March 2007 TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager SUBJECT: Award of Bid 07-21, On -Call Rental Equipment FINANCE/ACCOUNTING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 503 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 Finance@co.whatcom.wa. us BRAD BENNETT Manager RECEIN i , MAR u 0 2007 COUNTY EXECUTIVE' BACKGROUND The purpose of this bid is to establish prices and identify firms that are interested in providing rental of construction equipment to the County on an on -call basis. When equipment is needed, the County will select it for rental from the list, based on equipment availability and suitability, with preference to low bidders. The following list is of the responsive and responsible bids that were submitted on Tuesday March 20. A list of available equipment and labor rates is attached. Aggregates West Birch Equipment Rentals Courtney Excavating Farmers Equipment Hertz Equipment Rental NC Machinery Rental Store Pape' Rents Service Pump & Compressor United Rentals Volvo Rents Whatcom Construction It is possible that more than $35,000 could be spent with a single vendor. Public Works recommends award to the multiple bidders as listed above and on the attached tabulation. Public Works is also requesting approval at this time to enter into contracts with each of the above vendors. I concur with the recommendation. Administrative Services Finance Manager Approved as Recommended: County Executive Date of Council Action Administration Facilities Management Finance/Accounting Human Resources Information Technology County Residents (360) 676-6717 (360) 676-6746 (360) 676-6734 (360) 676-6802 (360) 676-7684 (360) 398-1310 10 Fax (360) 676-6775 Fax (360) 676-6789 Fax (360) 738-4553 Fax (360) 738-2521 Fax (360) 676-7727 TTY (360) 738-4555 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 1, GRAVEL DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR rf��':_r� y C1 -�nftirr'h '•�i�f';.11lI ,�y.L FCiL',l'� {Y 'ii'SE 'S }yam' V�— ,I�M1 9�' ,•+ ,r<� �:j�° �I:•;i'i.?t`..`1a-Al �I:EaE]<PYi'�1�C .' ���f+ <� ;;t :���rYXrtj€4a rxiva x��.i,�t.yF�t ,a'BIbD,ER�IPONEi.N-KE��OrEL i;r }4`u`$�UhIITiS:s��Yl]d,URL�YY�'1;IgAILFY, �-Y' '3• rYq"r. Y Y,1I.l�i�IfS;c..__'L"91titi 'i'' l' '�. a•f' i`f71�-�'r zIYI 'S�:,. ;;,k?yµ`•�; ..i, s,!`.� i f. 1WEE�L4Lit#� ie.Ei r �M Volvo Re'ntsf13MA2381440-0924 Cell Location: Femdale; WA Mobillzatlon: $651 hr. 1 NA NA $330.00 $1,320.00 $3,960.00 Hertz Equipment Rental Corp!! 734-290017%6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $35 per VI within 15 miles. $50 per VI from 15-25 miles $65 per Vi for more than 25 miles. 5 NA NA $500.00 $1,750.00 $5,000.00 GROUP 1, GRAVEL DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR i l!�'ti �✓�"j� }� p�r�..��7p� k k" {l,, •••{'. '��.����1. _ S9Q�f'` •• U++ '°`�f� �j,{�•�,,{r(,���ay d:`��'yA��+.,�r';I 'f>�Ji'.4i�5ilk'L.T�11�4'�`SLit , f 5� �' + r�l[t+.�%1:1�sA +1 i�'��LY'�a�0.� ' � �•e� � ( 1 r �SiC:1fZ , IL'� =s.",�.s�'4•�u ��.��r'�r£ 'i ��iJF;Yit6�i ' N0, 'VENDOR$-AVAIIAALE ' GROUP 1, GRAVEL DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR 'Iu.T;±'�}; '� Jn•'M"e Kr,".a�''�• ' �-r'` 'p i,,". `�"�'y ."1', �[, �•y`Q�'�-i^r�.i:�,inS �- :.L=:-''t:;,;;i: �'S?iV': " �' " ��1%.f �;r:7%?�=4,:�i1'.'*: OR �' - i h �In �;v S�? .•,i-',•`,a ,`'''•�`i'7 4, r"i' �l„k �5'.. w,i`'�.•,,,}e, ,•,Y tP' I"r P3 _ R rO ;S-. ,;�,�n.�r' � kY � ,�Y�?rPysv +r r�f�-"� �ila. =��1},.-.r �i!_. �i. "0,7" {�nP 'y s.i,r s.�v+.'r!� �t; 'i'-C•r.�rl '�4r,� 1 I .��,.ea.rlx•..� Y I.i�52 .2,. 1�5f: '+ r•' r4 - �,. �.r r : ...< I �>•r .u,,., . � ;i': �,r;k'`ns!`i!1•fi f �;r�c�..,. �r�; '�!t='.c4 � . k''i r•, i!!`�r,c�n�,i x �., ) ; P. ERy P D E,LMAI(_ } 4�UE 43�� . bt; o-','r::a ftv�r iIU�IITnS a" y Y , lE sr�e imd NO VENDORS AVAILABLE GROUP 1, GRAVEL DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR y:} �� ,:r, _�{�,Ir5�s ,5r(r,.''.Il r r X 1.:' � 1 �j }_ 6f'�' �L} ' "L+'/ � `Y ' � � ��L � {' �. �• ��'�:t5� '. 4' [, r 'j �t'!1�7�ry�'':-j'#•Ir,iFl111111��� I�r .ti r.42,.1.. `+�urifi:.'t�*d .cY`.h:•i ? '' n' •a�'i m 4' C+It) VENDORS. AVAILABLE GROUP 1, GRAVEL DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR 1 i 1'!r IJ i�fW, „� f. L 4 `5"� ��r,.'4�i4i�Ra}�"'. ir.• "Fc'' `. r +j'T�'�,vM I uK _ ..�'i� p p�. IL7�� � S �E�� a 1 0 o cL�tii�.t�.. ��.. � . ,�_-.-f�� � A " I.1 i� „4�p�y�kK„ :fin U � • �+ 1 n GROUP 1. GRAVEL DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR � fS'�r: rtE ��^;•� ' -• �- - r r -, �u�Sl 'r _ i _ --- .i>r� r r! .. �. _ �Y_ �,,... rr;r�'+ ar;rr i`�'i",-� Y. 5�I Si v-�F-•' �„11 �. V h> n. rr �v1 h�.s ,.r ti yyy--yy�r 0 i�rr 0 U ?vt 'ttt. Y a 1�c..7'T�''" },'k�tt'•.l'.�,i'! H R �y r;' �;}jsf;, �'{-, +- -{;' „y � ,!� t I� F r�9 '+'�s ,ix ! �•}�Y�rtrU�y.�. "liv�v} ',uyCjcl(,Y,y-�rrMY'. � rtsf':' l� y r ,ham` �• l-.� w - p p �.4�� .'��ICL°i�_ `1 ��;�t�.,al`,�.•r��! ..n;:�lt a�b��tp.l�'ST?:�� 1;�',!fl���ht�F�l'.+.;Jn�����'��r'nl,!?������7� r I.A. �Y���� �'7.�r sl.� A. r p p0- GROUP 2, ROCK DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR L�tl4.�l' E=I ct "iHr ,1� - s�.� 4 Cal 4 �'f •'- o : p - '..'�' u r a r • i s.trry�'i1�jus��kir�ti5 r{{y�r s �1:•y �.,} s �Jy'{{t .� R � A .r •'' - � ---yry,1���C" .I y� ,(. .. .I;J�,n p 1 fir. IY`SAL`,il lllp�<ltA.. �6 _ L .1f'_ i y'?`' •}i 47 p^rJ r F511'�'" e. p �•, A1L'h1� �' ._ p rs , :S .• U pr MCA .v r 6 pp' GROUP 2. ROCK DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR 1"1 B D i t s'a P' `�Q�EI,i s'w�L ti : 0 ' , Ono— I 7u a' � �}I U L; 2 ' 0 +r is ...� ice.'- . 'NO,VENDdRS'AVAIL•ABLE_ Page 1 11 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 2, ROCK DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR dRf� I '"ff- U 'X N"'90 W. NO - a 60 N v QM N !T ;_ 5 NO vENbOIRS AVAILABLE GROUP 2, ROCK DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATOR 41 g%1" "� "' pe nIR --,Tirol_, vin p-I! J0 A. B -ij WS, e i N UE 0 R0 a EK r_q;Q AggregatbsWe6tl/966-364i./4i6--i238'be'il' Location: Everson, WA Mobilization: $165.001hr Plus Permits Tereic2766C', $ 1105.00 per hr.. 2 NIA $125.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 GROUP 3, LOWBOY & PUP TRAILERS WITHOUT OPERATOR N. llffll&� � I -rz . 11 , " 'l 6 &0 p NE ISE I @1 MID t zlp, Ni GROUP 3. LOWBOY & PUP TRAILERS WITHOUT OPERATOR -3� -LC dj,.ffi N JLE— ptr-,p IV p ; .44 F, "I 'i 01 yo MISS p'. 051. 1 "'. L 5n , . - § IR NoWNIlon GROUP 3, LOWBOY & PUP TRAILERS WITHOUT OPERATOR N I g, !J03I •lg� US 00T I M 1-1M iQN 0 M,VIIL#TpAWAR m , GROUP 3. LOWBOY & PUP TRAILERS WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 3. LOWBOY & PUP TRAILERS WITHOUT OPERATOR 4,Mi IWl� 4 21 Rp GROUP 3. LOWBOY &PUP TRAILERS WITHOUT OPERATOR �.l .1i, . ... A, •ffil MR5.0 40V B N an MR. 114 _ w0ph rr ll t; Reffill 81 3 mlz AQ V.E LE _NQ%S:AVAlLAB Page 2 12 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 3, LOWBOY & PUP TRAILERS WITHOUT OPERATOR `i l;l:i STY F. -I' .�iA_ IN eS ur,.tr -•:I'� SZ:, /'.� ny � .4 P•I ._ •� I..%1. '�:K .Lha i ':[I..r,,. �'�:, � •ri.�' "fi'(.k il.� SI:. Vn _ � p"r` , h,' .';'G.i_'�?,3 - .r'S".,:" .-Fi:�i=•i: [i.-�etiy-• - F,.r,,,.r Ir.�l:l;�`� �s s LiEQ, .TgA R�i`1 Hyl�1C ,i r:. l , : �� : �, x }:,fie .:��!'•,s.t. rr, l!'i. ":,.v I_'v `,'r7..1 ;;, . .;.;Its'!(' . eIC •I,r .19rr'}..1c'.. �l dy id , .r• +;! - P ii4T-'t! ` . i•_ G il. 'n� f 'o - t,.�; } ., .T5' t ':l :.� i 3 %"y«�cc' fis'.r! :, '", i•.�� t>•�' 1::q;:a• .F �. 4r%lY� ! I � ' I 1 �i 5 i � 'i'ti 7iA'•'I � BIDDLR� �.�A.�'' .' ' l �. ?s i (,�. NO VENDORS AVAILABLE GROUP 4, SEMI -BOTTOM DUMP TRUCKS. WITHOUT OPERATORS GROUP 4, SEMI -BOTTOM DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATORS m' . [�: I.:V � T PI dlh L( , Y. 4 ` °k's,'4 s /�� d`; .'1 �S ;L F, �1'..0 1..>i 1„ -" r fi7 ) L .Di- i L, U 3 "T I I. ,,�y .,h , IS, f ray' ' { ;fix 4 ice' .4 4M. 'P,I i -i y P 4 4 14. �'r �la't;.:I�. .:.;Z�i �„7.;, H�� ` p Er �, F'�YP 3: �+qL�d.��s ,�k� d� NO WNIYOK AVAILABLE_ GROUP 4, SEMI -BOTTOM DUMP TRUCKS WITHOUT OPERATORS N a' FfgZ `e ti� L ��''-Yµilk , �' 1 K-f ' Iris �1Yit+h i '1 ➢ y�7� ` # &' "It'I, ���'��l�i'.l � ,��' � :15 ti o ,� AI�� ;NO VENDORS AVAIL ABLE GROUP 5, FRONT END LOADERS WITHOUT OPERATORS t,.., , t�r k�_ `�.'{,rs 7 1 • -[: '..� [ _ •CT�,. C 0 �NVINAN �i ... 0 oe• GROUP 5. FRONT END LOADERS WITHOUT OPERATORS :c I .� h .,yk •. Via, v':. 'yis.11r; SI A "-� 1�C �i6 tiQW3 i 4 r 'Fl vNI I� II :^.:, k 9� L41 0 oe• GROUP 5, FRONT END LOADERS WITHOUT OPERATORS Elk . IT�Y„�{u. �Js.�'r4, r.,.C#?' 6p 11 4 CP-�U rAl KLI� �,:`_v,.T �''o�rl'�I�1V GROUP 5, FRONT END LOADERS WITHOUT OPERATORS t�',rnj"m. Fin[,3 yips �' su�ls� 9 1 �r fl o o a ++ i „gh ' jM14, - ', uL•]LC.�°�I �`d-yI�C��riL•'L!.7 �L3'dYllul� if C : � r r I r� L � C ��.'�l[4 1 � � ��C� r ���'i}"l�xti:. >, rr.� � 1l;I.� +,.ci•„ '�'„tn, 6 II ' � I e ' '��� . , s G a !�,• ,, c . l • r,`� c eo- GROUP 5, FRONT END LOADERS WITHOUT OPERATORS , 1 LiO l.11+ L•1L71�a���il' �_�IYII a`lnff�,{i., FE�+-I.r.r.?�-°s, ,,5�,{�f?fl�r��slz r�d�tY�fY L�t;,7 umo,l[knjii�' ' oeAV - Page 3 13 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 6, FRONT END LOADER WITHOUT OPERATOR INNFr'. TER 110 11ZA 'ZIEMIRNA FEM'IR'S •tT 164ffl�� 8 I.1-Q - OR - a RIM NC Cat RentW It 424A2921425-608-i 665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: $250.00 in& out $250.00 30 $61.00 $485.00 $1,575,00T$4,700.00 8aroA U- " R j Volvb Rents 113D02381410.0924 C611 Location: Femdale, WA Mobilization: $65.001hr. I NA $300.00 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 United Rentals 1164777800181R7116Cell Locatl6n:,t e,!Iinghqm, WA.. Mobilization: $25.00 eachvq 7 Z:•7 NA V25:00 $11,300-GO $V50.00 I'lleft. 734-2900 -175416074CeTe Locfl6n: 13dllinghiifi,;'WA Mobl1Izatl6fi:..$ - _35ft III within 15 miles, $50 per-fA from. 15-28 miles t6`6p`er 6 tr'mo're6�a n05 infl6s� N/A 1 0 NA w5!.0 0 $1,356;00 $3 600.00" NC Cat Rental l/424-42921425-508-1665 Cell Location: Mount Vernon, WA Mobilization: V50.'00-in Vbut $250:00 $75.00 .$595.00 $2;050.00 $5,975.00 A '�R � '_tF' N MINE N "t 3M L Yff?, B ARM Av wrvim -,200 y No i., k PN IVIP NC.Cat ROW /1424-4292 425-508-1665. Cell Location: ;WuntVemon, WA Mobilliatift: .$250.Q0h&61Jt,� $2 50.00 �0 $85.60 $675.00 $2j400.00, $6,950.00 Ag4regatdg West /I 966-3911-14110-1238C611 Location- Mitcdm County., WA Permlo $106.60r+p ftit 3. $1000 006.00. $4,000.00 $16,000.00 M1, AggrdgoWd,Wett11,966,3641/410-'123.8.Cdll- - 1oc6ddn:;WhatcornCounty, WA, Mobilization: $10.5.001h.r'Plus Permits $105.601hrOarmit iol, $125..00 $1,000.60 $5-j000.00 $20,000.'0p WDDR "IA8 A MW I 'B 'ffi g Aqgrdg'*sWbtf11 9W3134144101,1238,.'Cell to C' INK d6flon,-Whatdoirh '()U[ItYL 'j- g:p Permits &Pi Pilots MdbilliAtibri:4 01fi( �,Ju. 0 cubic and 1150.,00�i�l? rrnii e 1,:, $ .275.'00 $1,2.00 .0 $11-100' 0 -$44,000.0 0. Mobillibdow! $3'51fir. 0.within -15 m:116s-,460'*r18 from 2 g miles $65peg Yl:for:more' 'Ihan25,miles .- 4:5 ubic Yard 12- NA $550.00_ $1.800:00 $5,1300.00 GROUP 7. ROAD GRADER WITHOUT OPERATOR A49 rdpWt ;Wdttfi. 96NB41 14104,11238-00111. L66atldffEveraon-,. A p, obillidfidn; $110 1hr' 10 &pilots Cham:Olon-.766 I. , -,. " I �i-- ,, ", . I T $1105.00 $846.00 $4,-200.00$16,800.00 NC'.Cat ;Rental '/1"424-4292/42&508'-1 65'C.dll Locidon M664J\tbrnon,.A MbbilizAdn': $2500"0:, 685-Lebboy 18 12 $63.00 00.00 $1.625 $4,850.00 Volvd Rents 1I383-0238 /41H924 Cell location ."Tim- 616i WA Mobilhticin: $651hr. Volvo 11 Ok 14' Blade. NA. $550.00. $2,200.00 $6,500.OQ Page 4 14 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 8. DOZERS WITHOUT OPERATOR rrsrq ii' . f: ,t, jgg.`; vi,`s"7x •Y� Y, i , o'. f.. Q-aJh �O_ RiR_C..�J"7-[ vle- rf'I:"r n my La' •ran i1 i4,i l'.I'„....�+t'�If'�''F 'r`S,:n� �•}s: �"' . g ODE�if _ IIp. y S _ U ITS.lgouRYrsi�'�SLti,^-` " =1JVJrEI�' rMONLxs;:Y Courtemy Excavating Inc It 319-9737 Location:. Deming.WA Mobil iiatlon:.1150:00 John Deere 550 wl winch tsi rake. No 1 $45.00 NA NA NA Farmers i_qulp Co 11354A4511815=7244 Cell Location:: Lynden, WA Mobilization: $751hr New Holland D75 Yes 2 NA $200.00 . $800.00 $2,400.00 Pape Material Handling 11756.65721815-6415 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $601hr JD 450 J No 2 NA $200.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 Birch Equip U 73447171815-2658 Cell Localiori: Bellingham, WA; Mobilization: $100'00/hr John Deere 450 Yes . Unlimited. NA $215.00 $675.00 $1,830.00 United Rentals,11647-78001815-0716 Cell ' Location' BellinghamWA. - :',Moblllzatlon :$26.0blackimay',; .' JD 950 J No, .2. • NA. $240.00. $900-00 $2,80000 . Volvo Rents 11383-0238/410.0924'Cell Location: Femdale, WA Moblliiat ri% $65:001hr 1D 450 J' No 1 NA $240.00 $900,00 $4,200:00 Heitr�Egulp KW61,11734-29001754-0074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA` Mobilization.- $35 per tll within 15 miles, $50 per fn tram 15-25'miles, $65- per fn for more than 25•miles JD 450 J Yes 11 NA $265.00 • $875.00 $2.600.00 NC Cat�Renta1'11..424-4292742M08=1665'Cell L6caf1dn: Mount Veman; WA Mobilization: $300.00. .' 636-k-70 1? , Yes . 40 $44.00- $550.00 $1;125.00 $3,300.0 Page 5 15 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 8, DOZERS WITHOUT OPERATOR t �L , i• � > r rf, rrr•a �:. .n �r ; :: • Ur....,o,:i •'::i:•< f.,.. f . - u,::.r ., .. D-6 O_ZE ;r� . _: t 1`f ,,.. "� sv^r,,::'m.`•78a-_ ..•}:'u.1-.. ..,i, .'i', ;' v.5 3:'a?F se , I - ,Y ,-L� ...-7 =a 7' ,r : a,-:a.[r,.a,, A'� h .�,.: _ R k ,, J. i, h!:. 'ilL�i,.;!l..., '.1 ,f, :3r' ti.Rr-; ,•. �^Y.&'nl: \.,�iF.Sati.... wj;'L:..�;�IT}�-' ;�. e ..yYL..-. :,lA.s ,-� [��[,�f `�. .:: �iiy n'v2., �,,..�h,. vT ax'!=r-,?g•`'a: � ,,. _ i:,,,in.�:, :l�y:r`��i:.4,1- L'a. r_. �f1K""�", - ' �:iiB��RY?PQN�L MAx1�DE� f. r F r s �laia�„ir i L fJ ,S 0[1 F _FYI ..'H7i5 D I Yt w�'W �l icS'. �I�:S?-_t4���!_�.j3y'•i e irNl5i+ Farmers.Equip'Co,H-354- 4511815-7244Cell Locations .Lynden, WA Mobilization: $75mr New Holland D95 No 2 NA $225.00 $900.00 $2,700.00 Pape Material Handling 11756-6572 J 815-6415 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $601hr JD 650 J No 2 NA $250.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 Hertz Equip Rental 11734-2900 J 754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $35 per t1E within 15 miles, $50 per to from 1545 miles, $65per fffor more than 25 miles JD 550T': Yes 10 NA $295.00 $1,000.00 $2,900.00 Birch ,Equip 11,734-57171815.2858 Cell Location- Bellingham, WA Mobilization- $100.00/hr . John Deere 656 Yes Unlimited NA $295.00 $1,225.00 $3,650.00 Volvo Rents 11383-02381410.0924 Cell Location:, Femdale; WA Mobilization; $651001hr JD'650 J Yes 1 NA $350.00 $1,400.00 $4,200.00 United, Rentals 11647-78001815-0716 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $25:00each.way JD.650:J.o0D 650 J. LGl3 - No., 2 NA' $375.00 $1;400.00 $4.200.00 NO Cat Rental 11;424=4292`J"42"08-1'665'Cell' Location:' Moupt'Vemon', WA Moliilizallon:. $300.00 D6lV-XL 145. HP , , Yes, 24 $88:00.:. $700,00 _ $2;325.00 $050.00 , GROUP B. DOZERS WITHOUT OPERATOR ?' � "if'•�R, r;r�i' -rrTL Y�};'k4'�E;i�'� "y� ji: d �i �sk4a i w.+`� �1��"���i4L{� i�A�:Iri''�`Er�!'Ih�S�'�'r [ � :( '� C Hertz Equlp.RentM 1/ 734-29001754-6074 Cell t acavd' h:,8elfingham, WA Mo6iliiation:.,$35: per. UI within 15 miles, $50.per t8 from .15=25 miles; $65: par. UI-for more than25 r miles JD,650;J;,, _ ..:;:::.:.: ,...: ...... Yes:`. ,.... 7 .NA $350.00 $1,005.00 $3.245.00. GROUP 8, DOZERS WITHOUT OPERATOR YN S"�ii y�7 � �• �1� , � � '�a'I ��: 00 , ,`ih11� .- Viz �ir 17•', •Scs1'� � r, tt"r. 'l.�rx.t_ '� ' f E {a R�14 U Hertz Equip- Rental11734-29001754.6074 Cell Locatlon: Bellingham, WA ' Moblb4bn: $35-per In within 15 miles; $50 per in from 15-25 miles; $65'por tll for more than.25-miles Na 1 :. '., ..:NA .. $540.00 ' . $1 c750:OD $4;740:00 Aggregates West 11,96fi-0641 d 410-1238 Cell," Loyatlon Everson .WA Moblllration $105 00lhr pemnts: pllois D81`...i: :;.. 1 ..,, $185 - $7,400.00 $29A00.00 - Page 6 16 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 8, DOZERS WITHOUT OPERATOR 3r;C' ;'.A, r,'�'r" n F:�d1 if!.' a._y", zT r-.J:i Ns'r:r s. o- cr c e;,�, ti . _,� S{J`ai t=. ji.c A7 L� C! Nram} �� , . �.Y iC' 14 :rla5-'I�.L�C141E"�US ,f :. ur 6f a k '�. .tiu'!s_• ,�I.rg�7."GPi�in:•�:}.�'a;fi .`? lay �e��Y "' ,;�=�`a �<<;�;��R�"�h�' .���z��ia�R4Y�:� s!r_:,c.;,bAILI'v'� ri�:,},WEEKLY,�r�� ., . • • r �. S!iy;: ��:41�19 .H[••Xkk 2,, Hertz E4bip Rental 1I 734-29001754-6074 Cell Location: Bellingham, WA Mobilization: $35 per to within 15 miles, $50 per to from 15-25 miles, $65 per tll for more than 25 miles JD 450J LGP (widetrack) . No 5 NA $360.00 $1,080.00 $3,245.00 JD 550J LGP (widetrack) No 2 NA $385.00 $1,160.00 $3,500.00 JD 650J LGP (widetrack) No 9 NA $435.00 $1,285.Q0 $3,915.00 Page 7 17 H z W 2 IL V W z O U 6L N z O O U 06 W U la- Z 7 w O H T z O U- U) W J z W a 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 o O O" O O O O O a 0 0 0 0 0 O O o N ID ID O 0 0 0 ci V1 O L7 a0- 1f1 fti O 1� d O O O O p p 6 6 6 0 0 4 o O co N fn O O O O p O O O Yi O O til Q O O O to O N O M p p O O O O 0 S l[7 0 O O O p p O 0 0 0 0 0 4 O 0 0 o p o o O • „- ; '+- • • p M Q2 V m r to 4J m Z 0 Q 1� ti M m t!'Y N �D 1� N fD M Lo m , m r Ow 20 �-• V 1D O m Oi ;V_I. ;.'•` � N •A•�� tlN4 l[O7: 6N!Y M Ni 6�9 y9 bi /� EN9 ENR 664 !!! 6,R 1iO4 ffY INfY cq co co w A•:�'"'I 4'�' ,'•r c] 0 O 0 0 0 4 O O o Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o p O O O O 4 o O O o 0 0 0 O O O O o o O Q p O 0 0 o p O O O O o O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 i� ,-�•_.;%C' 1' O O O ri] U,% p W o 0 1� n d Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 O t0 V N m N 4� u? 0 4 0 p 0 O ll'1 m p O O 0 0 N N 0 p p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ;� �c = w p W 1f1 l[7 O M V O N V m Q� ll'1 OQ O O N �- l[7 Ol N mN lf) 1-t. [+] O O O O O N M Vm1 f^A V�1 !fY 64 b> vi efT NN 69 TN 69 69 dM9 19 in INFi fmA H04 efT efT 1n '�' •r•: : J� p O O O O O ID o 0 0 o p o p O p p 0 0 0 0 p o 0 o p o o,o 0 0 p O o O O o C. o 0 O O O 0 0 o p p o 0 O O O O O O O i_ tlai � A_ m o Z n `n m +on �_ um-,r�i o n o m o N o N T ',';:�!�+ v- M_ N coo Lo7 cQQav QQo Goppp •��i Qn lu[ol['''J�� Lr1 N w Hi M NT INfY IN/� N 6`S W fM/1 6f3 6fT Hi M Vf 1fl N3 6f} fA W 6`T W N3 6fT 69 LO •ti Q Q Q d Q d d d d o Q Q d d d Q Q Q i -;;� 0' Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z m Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z i„-AI E E_ E E E E E .- v v v N r � m Lo m m r r� M _ ID N D N N N N N Cl z r r r r> r 61 r N N N N CS C. G > r r r r z z N N Ol Gl 41 N N N r> r r r r> r N N N, d W. 91 r> > H I o o N N N, N N N N N r r r r r r r ��i3•'�'�� O z ..¢ d 4 4 d d d Z Z Z Z Z Z Z N •c Q d d d 4 4 d z z z Z z z z Q 4 d Q Q d d 4 z z z z z z z z N m N N N N N N u m m N N m iv � L Lo in in io � a E a ?� - [+1 [+1 V V Co ' (O - - - [7 m m ol k-•Mr Cl) O vUp U y� #Q #Q L) 0 N M A O O O O u� m U L N a m Op �I o 4 Q Q pp o 0 0 0 0 0 OO- 00 OO OO CL % a H w a 77 1 y II� to m °� ## O N O m [m] v» m Lo O P 47_ y N= D o 0 0 0 0 p s .4o - m O V[ in ^ O u? O O_ o_�M (O �clVi � .COV r' m U N M 'N cV Y Y Y Y Y'Y Y m m P m tl m J J, J J 31 X L!J 11J Y Y am m r '?f LLl fi to to co co co CD ~ ~ Y T O L_ L L U U U p p p p _O1 O O L > > 7 J O (4-i M �`7 i'7 [+1 c�! T 2 QV1 .2 a 2 2, .0 S 2 J -J O O d O Y .Y Y Y -a T O O O O O O O Y -Y Y Y Y Y Y [0 W (o N p Q p � H H 1- 1- •� d d Q U U U p O O O p p O [g c0 m W-- 7TY.i OI N + O N r0 m o m 4 d •Z+L�_. Wi N c- t of o L y `r E p= t o C. Lon c a y j o m Lnw N 'o x o d � cc m o 2 c . .a..� O, c 'y C o N o m W W 5, o N c n O O L' O O W M O is :C O OOI J '� L P .i. J 'L' O O J '2 E O J M p 42 J S CO U u O U J d O J S` L) LL 2 z d. co m Ql a Z w CL a a LU Z O U a o° U W LU CL 00 z z 0 L� O r TL r Q a O LL U) w r Z LU Ix ",=I 0 4 4 4 p 0 9 0 0 0 0 o p `FZ 6 6 6 a 0 0 . 0 O O O 0 0 0 I O p p N N N ('] r` N N N N LK L N vs vs 4 O O O Q O p p O ' O O O O O O O O O O p lI] O Q Q 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 to w to,. -� O O O 0 O p O Q O p O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O ',��,:. •'— . ll7 4'1 4-) 5Ci m O r- O N O N 0 0 0 co o ll'f O p O (O 1� co .u`.,-.•;.-� f"1 1� w �sr �sr � ' a9 N N N N [`J en e» w w Z Z Z Z Z z z z Z Z Z �L'VG�Ia•-;��•Zi co m 4 N N Q N N N r N N r Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z Z cow O L L N m N N N L c iD f0 N c' aN- N �;:rrS a-.•< J•J ``� L1.1�' S NC Y NC Q c NC cp O o 0 Q 0. p N O L� 1N 'm O jR'ir2�"J c4 �xj.ci ,jN(( p xx XX�Xu( ryxOryx i'xO W W ��.�'Fi•C r:�' to 4 ,L Lµ�jl c0 r d .1�ry4 Qy 1 Q U � W V Q ,j3'� ' ~ f•'S�'"l` c to rSE LL m D ` O ARJ 'y J- yt-._.>5 h 7 4 MO] WC BIO#07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 10, LOG LOADER WITH HYDRAULIC GRAPPLE -WITHOUT OPERATOR Hitachi Ekl 20 No :NA NA NA GROUP 11, TRACK -TYPE DITCHING EXCAVATOR WITHOUT OPERATOR .1 , - I ; 0,� GROUP 11, TRACK -TYPE DITCHING EXCAVATOR WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 12, SCRAPER WITHOUT OPERATOR BLE ' GROUP 13, SHOULDER SPREADER WITHOUT OPERATOR r ea 011 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 14, BROOMS, REGENERATIVE AIR SWEEPER VACUUM TRUCK SWEEPER, & SELF-PROPELLED BROOM WITHOUT OPERATOR Volvo:Rerits,lf383 42381;410.-0924 Cell Locatl0h..,Femdale WA Moblhiation $65:00Ihr . ieramite 8':Aw Iie Broom .:... ; 1 NA $120:00 $440:00 $1,275.00 Hertz �quEp;Rentall[ 734 2900Y':754'607`4 Ce11 � ' . .. `. ;. Lo'cation::;BelhnghamI WA - Mobilization $35:per Vil Within i 5 miles, $50 per=fn irom 15 25 miles, $65' . :per to tor.more th3n.25,miles La' more BNC:- 8''Broom=Swee er;' . .: 10 :' ; ' -NA- .. $195 00: ,- _ $595:00 $1,675.00 Birch Equlo:/1734 6.717 J 815 2858 Cell `: Location:.Bellmgham WA � f - Mobiy¢ation $.BOO g0lhr. •. .. .:,.. .:. _ - ;: ;'Bohca[wlSwee e�A.ttachrnQlnt, :. . .. .. . :...:. . :; .::.... Llnlirfi6d: ; ..NA _$.200:0.0- $7 90;00 ..• :':$1.;890;00.. Unifed Rentals I[ 647 7800 J 815 0716 C211 ' t Locations Bell�pgiani'WA w Mobilization $25 00 Eacli Laymoo�Broom NA $225 0� $700 00 $1,600.00 ..NA . 250.00 :.:$99500 : ,: , $2800.00 . Page 11 21 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 15A, ROLLERS WITHOUT OPERATOR Aggregates 1141est 11.966=3641.l;410-123.8Cell:.' - Location -Everson V Mobil iz'ion $105.00/hr , V. - RexSP1000, i7000; , :.60 ... Yes• 1,:...:. $85.00 :.$68000 $3,400:00 .. $13600.00. Birch Equip117345717.181�2$58 Celi Locatlod: �Bellinghain WA 'Mobifization $100�OOlhr : - . Bomag:BW120AD` :' _ S;995 48 Yes Unlimited NA $1,35,00 $425.00: $1,295.00 `•Boma `:BW75AR .2,650 , .'=30" Yes. Unlimited NA $90:00 $375.00°% $985.00 Herb Egwp Rgnfai J. 734 2900.1754 6074,'Celi Locat1dh Bellingham WA . Mob! IR4(gri $35 per XW(hin`.,1.5°miles; $50 pet ,tll:from 15'25 miles,.$65.perUl for more Ilan 25 miles W6kei Rd 1'ikl R DD-12, .2900 35.4" Yes 15 NA $130.00 $450.00 $1,200.00 1 R DD-24 .. 6400 _'.:. 49.2" Yes 8 NA $150.00. $540.00 $1,500.00. Pape'. Materlal,Handling N75$,$5721815=6415-Coll Location.,Tellingham, WA Motiillzation $60:00/hr Yes 2. .. NA . $150.00 $500.00:.:. $1,500:00. united Renta1s11647=78001815 0716 Cell Location _Bellingham WA ' Mobilization $25 00 Each Way Bomag BW900 3;000 36" �` Yet 1 NA $560:00 . $1200.00 1B►1V12D v " �!es, Z_ NA, $18000:.; $,67600':......$1,•;575:00 :Boma' , il ; , . <.. 5,700 48 .,. ... Volvo`RbhtsY�-383 02381410 0924 Cell '� l.ocatloit. Ferndale„ WA Mobilization $65:OOlhr Bomag BW901) :: 1.5 Ton 36 Yes 1 . NA $135 U0 . $440 00 $1,350.00 Bomag_BW120 ,:. 2 Tons; :: : 48" :::...:Yes ..: `, 1- ....:. NA $145:(}0. . , $450.00.. $1;400.00. . Page 12 22 WC B0907-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 15B, ROLLERS WITHOUT OPERATOR T: - MER". '14 � 01 mv, V Wi, N . -t, ,81JOhl A 3 ffisM J�&A k!@EE8,, H 41. A MP LYw& -N Loca.fion:- Bellingham,* A. on 6mdale: WA -600.00 GROUP 15C, SHEEPSFOOT ROLLERS WITHOUT OPERATOR Elm ME�N�M�mm GROUP 16, MOBILE CRANES WITHOUT OPERATOR To Pmgo13 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 17, PILE DRIVERS WITHOUT OPERATOR TMIBEW f l'JMAK IS 919fl;g.61) kR1, M II! RgERS ZE ffi t' R bk aON Whitc6fii'Cbh'§'t.://.67,1-78'58' lbidation'.-o 6jll'h66aq: WA Mobilization: $6500'.00 P&H, 670 70 Tons 2: $750.00 $7,500.00 $3.0,000.00 $120,000.00 &H P -43&,. $725.00 $7-j2p.'00' $29,000.00 $1161000.00.l GROUP 18, DRAG LINES OR CLAMS WITHOUT OPERATOR PH 0 R. R m W E RK LoC416 -136.1 idg Am,, A A- 70Tons 2 $550.00 $5,500.00 $22'000.00 '$88,000.00 _&H'670 35L Tqns 1, 1... $5J00.00 $20,400.00 141,600.00A GROUP 19, LAYTON BOXES WITHOUT OPERATOR N i NO- T, AR117-IN G. GROUP 20, PAVEMENT PULVERIZER WITHOUT OPERATOR �6 �As lip "0" R - - - . N. MY A GROUP 21, SELF -LOADING DITCH CLEANER WITHOUT OPERATOR "[Ur /-J�t mm ul 00 llk9 I L: 4 T'' Woo X kyi 15:1111 GROUP 22, HYDROSEEDER WITHOUT OPERATOR & b 6t 16 Rd f1l" n2 fm D t- LL Page 14 24 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 23 BACKHOE WITHOUT OPERATOR Birch Equip ll-734=57171815-2858-Cell,. Location. 'Bellingham; WA ." Mobilization $100:OOIhr 6hota B21 Tractor Unlimited; NA $120`K $395.00 $1,235.00 JD 310 4X4 " _ .Unlim! ed NA $1. K06 $550;00 $1480;00 JD4304X4 Unlimifed; NA $170'00 $680.00. $1,670.00 Case 580 4X4'Eztend A Hoe Unlimited' HA $170.00 $680:00 $1,670:00 He& E4yip�Rental 11734=29001.75'4-6074 Cell.' Locakfori:�8ellingham;`WA Moblhzallon $35 per VI within-15 miles. $50, per to from 15-25 miles,: JD 4210 = 281-0'4x4 Tractor 41 NA $130.00 $350.00 $1,150.00 %JD,4510 35HP 4z4,Tract6r. - • 5 NA- . $145A0 $450.00; $1,350.00 JD 310G1Case 580M,8ackfioe . _ 75 .:':. NA $195`:00 ;' , . $695.00:. $1,900;00 RC Cat Rental7l°424-42921425'508-1665 Cell Lbcatbn:. Mouhflleman; WA. Mobilization.: CAT 4201) 4x4,'B.'9tick 100 -. $35.00 $300.00 $925,00 $2,600.00 Pape! Material Handling 11756-6572 f 815-6415 Cell Location Bellingham WA Nlob�lization $60 0b(hr - `. ' ` �7D 310G 4X4;. 2 NA 41.75100 .$700.00 $2J00.00 United RertalVt6477;8001$15 07.•16'Cell Loc +Belli$n6g5h,.a m Mobaitla(o 00EaWcAh W, y JD 310.Ba6khoe NA. OQ. . 9.50. :00$215 $1 VAlvii Renfs;71$3 023.61410 0924 Ce11 Locatiorf l.'Indale`WA M8blltzat1'0`1!$65,001ht 'Volvo BI 70 1 NA $195.00' $76000 $2�200:00 NA , . $195 00: $760.00 `_ $220000 GROUP 24, TRACTOR -MOUNTED MOWERS & BRUSH CUTTERS WITHOUT OPERATOR Blrctt:Eq�lp'!l,734'57i�7 ! 815 2858 Cell- Lucakion Belhngham,lNA Moblliza6on $100001hr B2.Z:1 Gji14B'�.cck � N. .006ted NA . ' $125.00'` "S47500.; $1;425.00 . Hertz.Eg6lo-, dntal 11734 2900!•7546074 Cell Locatiortr ;Be111ngha'm, WA - - M0bihzatibn $35 per t4 within 15 miles $50 per Ul.tromi 16 26 miles $65pr to for more than 25 miles:. JD 4210 w160 NA 15 . i` NA $48Q=00: ,: $475 00' $1;525.00 15...... NA ..- :. $195:00. :: $5_5.00 $1;725:00 Vofvo Rents"?13$3:023.81410�0924'Cell•" - --' �1,'' � ' Location Ferndale WA MOIII Ilz5flbn $65 blhl 'JD 332.060" i ti t °N!A $2Q0 00 $800 00 5100..00.> ..... ...... .. _.. . � ........ .... ,,.. s.;NA ., •.. ,1$2 Page 15 25 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 24, TRACTOR -MOUNTED MOWERS & BRUSH CUTTERS WITHOUT OPERATOR �. � 0' arso-tyl � ,1-km N"ENDORS AVAILABLE� . GROUP 24, TRACTOR -MOUNTED MOWERS & BRUSH CUTTERS WITHOUT OPERATOR r�,�a{�, rr n O RlffiE `;�B D � !i GHQ � q , NO VENDVAII.ABI:E. .... . GROUP 24, TRACTOR -MOUNTED MOWERS & BRUSH CUTTERS WITHOUT OPERATOR �iAls,a4 K•' ,� �... , ` � •F; ;'t���;4'��1 �.�- 6(+tl, _ _ �`.N"�iT•�.5�_�_, � � �h� i k` ' �� NO`V NDOi25,'AVAILABLE GROUP 24, TRACTOR -MOUNTED MOWERS & BRUSH CUTTERS WITHOUT OPERATOR ' ��� � �` }- -` Tfi ,�, 1'^•iI'?' � ! vy�'.Y Z7'� S � � O • G: }p UI��F �:. S.� -, i .aS4r4 �,�, ��+n:. � �,x:� . x, , o o r f�.n�iG,�u ' � � a o �r��. '�'��`5�=� M+.' . , � +.� F --.: ; 'k�. ' ' � n .! , : `. ` U „� � ° e • _ -�a �ss 1 `, �,',��+ (.:'� k?;�''� � � , a a �o• GROUP 24, TRACTOR -MOUNTED MOWERS & BRUSH CUTTERS WITHOUT OPERATOR ,Y♦ ts. -x: i:, r r .,. -' ��. 3r ,r 1 �p C h r - 4 a`. �„ i'#r' ✓zr t 6 G•, tom.: Y?ETT, 3' t.: a ! 4rq [�t1'Yi �i i�Sigl, u �itj41 a�ar'ii�t�.{ ;i'{��i�- i� k I� �9,. � �,�A �%.e n�lt. �i";-1�i1:.U���� B 94' GROUP 24, TRACTOR -MOUNTED MOWERS & BRUSH CUTTERS WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 25, SKID -STEER MOUNTEDVOWER & BRUSH CUTTER WITHOUT OPERATOR Her`t=Egil�p?Ri��t�l f1734�290�`T754 607�'Cefl ' •' - - L`ocat�on MoblhzationI`,wiEfiin 15 rniles` $' per y[ from'15 25 miles $65 pr tl[ rorsmore than, 25 miles , ... Bobcat 5220 I wIS' brushcut(Rotan]lFront Mount).. NA �7 NA $260 00 Bpbcat'79001,TakeuGhi:TL150 Rota.: lFrontMaurlt$3,275,00" NC Cat Rerl"tal 11424-42921425=608-1665 Cell = . Ldcationr Mount Vernon, WAz 7 ilAW 00 liArdk$260 41 � 2::. $50.00 $450,00 $1.450:00 $3'850.00 Pape' Material:Handririg�Yl"75fi=657218�"5';54�5Cell - l ' "' - - . Location;>,�Bellingham, WA � - ' "Moblhz t�oA". Q;0'0lhr z - =' . Botibit T`300 Loaderr�lS Brushcai.(Fronl Moum) , , } NA 6 NA $460L00 500.00 Page 16 oz= WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 26, WALKING LEG -TYPE HEAVY-DUTY BRUSH CUTTER WITHOUT OPERATOR 2K'.Ij'GME_Gr)T&YAjN;, &EIA 'M I 9;7 fflW§rL .,03 t! J P . -T � ­- - _,_�l WSH C WER -` k1,7%,&F,Nm1f _ 1, 260..� 3211 V., a 6 4 :wu Birch Equip11734-571TI 815-2858 Cell Location: 'beilingha�,h, WA m Nloblilzatloin: $25.00/hi Bill y..Goat'w1biHiqhWeedV *er. Unlimited:, 'NA: $9 .00 306: .00 $875;00 383-02384A10-0924,C6ll,', Volvo RbRts 11 .` L t Qca i6rP' F emdale'i,.VVA Mobilization $65:001hr 2 NA $200.00 $800.00 $2.100.00 GROUP 27, SEWER JET WITHOUT OPERATOR .0Gam..., A ig "'4 Eo,"4I1 .1 "-"VM).) : �" ' " R P BE M O 0E UN1T9t 1 � i1E LmA1� dfTk� RS AVAILABLE GROUP 28, WATER TRUCK WITHOUT OPERATOR 3 64 14.41-O'n, A L& A on -".�tV6 ii­ Truck 1 '00 A 'A GMC Fire P , Urhoer,--.Trudk t $95 Qp., NA, :'NA NA Bitch Equip �l1734-5717'T815z2858Cell'- Lk�dffbk,,:13611 Nghatn:WA Ill 001 zatidn, 425; QWT wwi t orl NA'. $50:00, $210.'90 $59 H bftfqUfpRental-'//7341-290'01"/'754,607.4 Location'66iling'Kam- VA, fdM 'H .4#orb 6 NA: 0..'L::'��.� biibb - 2:90 0' 0., ..V .: . 7� lH, QQ­ -4 N 'A :'-$460.00' $1.5Q0.00 .0 $ 4,400.00 'it - ''-'l 665 Cell mcc16fitkl. lt?44 _KW .00, $5k w.. $1 14,20. . CeN 136111righ-alft, A MbbIlizati6a,'$65 4D Each Way -F M6116rff5Cft'dtO 756' n 'sT A . . ... .. ? GROUP 29, DUST RETARDANT TRUCK WITHOUT OPERATOR Nt .4 o M90a t !9� ISM .4 vo A.- �v v, K., �,�Irjiyl 9 u Page 17 27 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 30, UTILITY BORING MACHINE WITHOUT OPERATOR Birch Equip 11734157.171815-2858 Cell Location: Bellingham,.WA Mobilization,:.$25.00lhr ' 3 Pneumatc Borilti Tool,. Rierce:Arrow Unlimited NA $150.00 $600.00 $1,850.00 Iieitr Equip Ren0I1! 7.34 29001:754 6074,Ce11 " Location 'Belfing}�am WA MoEaifiiation $35:per tll within 15 miles: $50 per Ul froin 15 25 miles: 466ortl1formore than 25 miles, DW PT.20 2' Pneumatic Boring Tool-. 6 N.A. $150.00 $595.00 51;750.00 DW PT 30 3 Pneumatic, Bonng Tool; 3 NA $150.00 $595.00 $1,750.00 DW PT 40:- ka2 PneuniaticBonri .Tool " .. "- 1. NA. - $200.00 $700.00• . • $1,950.00 VolVo R6n-t01383"0238'1410-0924 Cell , = Location :.Ferndale WA fNobllization No Charge Vermeer {3h PgeumaUc,";Boring 4145.00 $550.00.. $1,800.00 . GROUP 31, UNDER BRIDGE INSPECTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR uNd RTIG it . �� r rues y7, N 4 Z^ _ Ufti -4,'. ii,: f �.1C*v.�iF., - af.. yr , >Ip �,s F n LA1 � '.. i.^,nt 1','' f:d';�'. - ;�1 3•�& i�{ U a ,. c- " ''RL"1! `':s,DAI 6;. ;` itiY1 Birch Equip 11.-734571.7 ! 8,15=2$58 .611 . Location ;;Bellingham,,V41A , ' , _ Mobd¢ation $140:OOlhr _ - , $kYjackTK66 Boornlift GROUP 32, SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR }l > ry� �-y n-. ,� T� �-y �y— r i tir � � � [ �` � � .4 r � v c�' "ryy�y��/ a `�i. F y���,•,/' � w1 �'�yl Yj �v7�.�.x crJ;jj.�.'�`��r��'{/ 6 p0- Page 18 WC BID #07-21 RENTAL RATES FOR MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHOUT OPERATOR GROUP 33, MISCELLANEOUS WITHOUT OPERATOR v.•FYV�. i TEL`YA Aggregates'Westfl. CAD-Conveyored;Ag0�6gafi .." 1 $110,00 NA' NA NA 966-36411`410-1238 Cell delivery system (S(oneslinger) ' Location:: Ev6moii,' WA Mob'ilizatloh: '$110::001hr 1 Hertz Equip" Rental,71-7,34-2900).1%6074 Cell See:Aftached BogK Rate Guide ' NA 5% 10% -150 Location;: Bellmgh'am WA Reterto t)a"y, Week -and Month Mobihzatlon $35 per th wdhm" 15 miles. $50 per U{ Columns for?disc6unt off items -not ` from 15-25'mifes'.;$&5" r"tn'far fiore than 25:miles s` "eafed,ip}lid Rape' MatenarHandhng :Genie TMC 4UOQLight Towed, 5 , -NA $200.00 $500.00 756.6572 ! 815, fi415iCell 185 cm Alr Compressor (Diesel) 6 tJA, $60.00 $200.00 $600 00 Location f3egm�harn WA Genie 5519 Compact Reach f ork ' 10 NR $150.00 $500 00: $1,50'0:00 Mobliization. $60.00lhr Genl6JJ2 5 BoomliEt" Unlimited. NA $20000 $600.00 $'1;800.00 don! e-U Baninhft_ ". Unlimited NA_ $25.0.00 $800:00 . $2;4'00,00 , Gene S85 Boomhff;, Unlimited". NA $600.00 ' $2',000 00 " $5 000:00 Genie 9125 8aomlift Unlimited NA. $1,000.'00 $3,000 00 $9,000:00 ., Koshin 3' Trash Pumps.., 6 NA $30.00 $90:00 $250.00 MBW Vibrato" , , FEaIe,Com actor NA.. $50.00 Odd: Q0 ," .: $600:00 Service Pump& CompressorM 3" Electric Subm :304T- ` 20 5HP $50:00 " $150.06' _ 1450.00 (425) 33' 49491(425) 508 2699'Coll 4 Electric Gnndex Subm 10 13HP $90.00 2400 $720.00 Location 'Everett;.WA 6' &ctr Subm M702T 4 :, 16HP $90:00 $240.00 $720.0Q Mobilfzation $135 QQlhr M F.' ;4 Vac'Assist Diesel Pump Open " 20 ." " NA' $t40.00 $378:00 " $1;071.00 7ampm4" Vac Asst;DieselQuieGPack 10�-- NA' $185:00; $,5,00.00 6 UacAssf Diesel Pump 0 on. 15 . ' NA, : $18U'00" " $486 00 "-" $1377.00 6° lac Asst:Die`sel`Pump QUjet Pac ,10 NA, $275 00 $742'00 .2;100.00 Diesel>Pump'"Open 15 NA' $288:00 $7t30:00. '$2',210.00 8' Vao Asst:Dlesel Quiet Pack'.. .7 NA „ $495.ao: $1 30li:00:" $9 350.00 United Rentals Straw Blower.Trailer Mounted 1 NA $130.0.0 $380.00 $1,200:00 647-7800 7 t315 0716°Cell "Offal more than 600 different Location: Bellingham; WA produi:t ca'tNd.let`wf 10%,.off ' Mobilization $33.00 -Varies: with `_ahy rOtgI thaf lallsoutside _ .. AI me0t rented,; .:. ; , :: i . cote ibd'gcts thaf:weYe bid" _. Volvo1 Rant$ IF�393"023"B!'44'0=0924. Cell , LitTwefs` t 4 NA $50 DQ $200 00 ="4525 00 Locat�oo Fetnale WA "` 4.b'zBaot li+faP(ks +� v unlimited " NA• $200 00 $600 °Mobffatioi No'Charge z U yyypO�,Bca�nlan'r s " `" Unlimited NR' 1;25D 00:. $800 00 $2;4t10:00: " MoblllzatEoh $�65 OOlhr "" �5' Boom Mahli 1 ivA" $500 00 $,000 00 $S,OOI}00. ($125 OOmr dt Road TnJck) 12� doomlanlifts l NA $900 OD $3 000 Qb $B4OOb 00 ti 35on O(t fadl0ump Truck $4,006r00 .. ....NA.. - Page 19 CO WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007-183 CLEARANCES initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: originator. 3/30/07 p 4/10/07 Finance / C ou Division Head: r� 7 � u 3 LF �'Y Dept, Head.,:," Prosecutor. Purchasin g B 3/30107 r' +? ;' f t' j ;..::tip �y � Executive:` TITLE O DOCUMENT: Approval to Award Bid 07-30, Two Hybrid Sedans ATTACHMENTS: Memos from Finance and Public Works SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( J 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.) Public Works is requesting approval to award Bid 07-30 for two hybrid sedans that will replace two units used by Planning & Development that are due to be retired. One bid was received on March 20 from Bud Clary Toyota for a total cost of $49,841.25. Public Works would like to award to the sole bidder. This is a planned purchase and the funds are in the current Equipment Services budget. 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 30 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 �O M CO r �RSNrH�t°c* DATE: 30 March 2007 TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Finance Manager SUBJECT: Award of Bid 07-30 Two Hybrid Sedans FINANCEIACCOUNTING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 503 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 Finance@co.whatcom.wa.us BRAD BENNETT Manager R E CEI1V MAR 3 0 Z007 PETE KREMEN COUNT `( EXECUTIVE a Background & Purpose Bids were duly advertised for the supply of two hybrid sedans to replace two units that. are due to be retired. One bid was received on Tuesday March 20 and is noted below. Vendor Model Price Each Subtotal for Two Sales Tax Total Bud Clary Toyota Toyota Prius 23,032.00 46,064.00 3,777.25 49,841.25 Public Works ER&R is requesting approval to purchase the units from the sole bidder Bud Clary Toyota for a total amount of $49,841.25. ■ Funding This is a planned expenditure and funds for this purchase were approved in the Equipment Rental budget. I concur with this request. Q Admin. Services Finance Manager Approved as recommended: County Executive Date of Council Action Administration Facilities Management finance/Accounting Human Resources Information Technology County Residents (360) 676-6717 (360) 676-6746 (360) 676-6734 (360) 676-6802 (360) 676-7684 (360) 398-1310 Fax (360) 676.6775 Fax (360) 676-6789 Fax (360) 738-4553 Fax (360) 738-2521 Fax (360) 676-7727 TTY (360) 738-4555 31 EQUIPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director .CC,d M cdb 3rP: ti{ �9SMING�d� MEMORANDUM 901 W. Smith Road Bellingham, WA 98226 Phone # (360) 676-6759 Fax # (360) 380-8115 Eric L. Schlehuber, Division Manager TO: Brad Bennett, AS Finance Manager THROUGH: Frank M. Abart, PW Directory -- FROM: Eric L. Schlehuber, PW Equipment Services Manager RE: Bid #07-30, Hybrid Sedans DATE: March 30, 2007 ■ Requested Action After researching the costs fora hybrid sedan, I am requesting Executive and Council approval to purchase two 2007 Toyota Prius vehicles from the sole responsive bidder, Bud Clary. Toyota, in the amount of $49,841.25 to replace the units: DEPT REPLACE UNIT # MAKE ! MODEL EST. MILEAGE PDS 100 1992 Ford Taurus Sedan 106,669.0 PDS 102 1994 Pontiac Grand Prix SE 97,667.0 ■ Background and Purpose These units were approved as a replacement in the 2007-2008 Equipment Rental and Revolving Capital Equipment Budget. The above listed department will use these units in the performance of county business. Bids were duly advertised for these hybrid sedans. One bid was received Tuesday, March 20, 2007. Below is the detailed bid tabulation for the sole responsive bid that meets minimum specifications. VENDOR MAKE ! MODEL BASE PRICE FOR 2 SALES TAX ON BASE TOTAL (8.3%) Bud Clary Toyota 2007 Toyota Prius $ 46,064.00 $ 3,777.25 $ 49,841.25 ■ Funding Amount and Source This amount was budgeted during the 2007-2008 Budget process. I am requesting Executive and Council approval to purchase these units from Bud Clary Toyota in Yakima, Washington for the base price of $23,032.00 per unit for a total of $46,064.00 for two units plus sales tax of $3,777.25 on base, for a total of $49,841.25. Please approve this purchase and forward to the Executive and the Whatcom County Council for approval at the April 10, 2007 Whatcom County Council Meeting. Please contact Eric L. Schlehuber at extension 50607, if you have any questions or concerns. Encl. 32 WHA TCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007-184 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 04/10/07 Finance, Paulaj. Cooper 1/04— Council Division Head: Bruce Roll Dept. Head: Frank Abar-i 0 3 Prosecular.. Dan Gibson (figr 03128107 Pia-chasinglBeidget: W I i C Ct �A Coo; .4,71� Exectifive: C 0 U C' L Pete Kremen TITLE OFbOCUMENT.• Contract for Services Agreement - Acme Early Chinook Restoration ATTACHMENTS: Memo from Frank Abart Professional Services Agreement with Wilson Engineering, LLC SEPA review required? ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? Yes X SEPA review completed? ) Yes (X )NO )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 RCWor WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) The contract provides consulting services for developing a design with the multiple objectives of limiting lateral channel migration and restoringfish habitat on the South Fork Nooksack River near the town of Acme. COMMITTEE ACTION.- COUNCIL A CTION,• Related County Contract Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: ADD ,—e) o'ely Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing andprinting on the County's website at: ww;v.co.iphatcojpn.wa.itslcouncil. QK1 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcorn County Contract No. ,260 -,Y0 3el 51'1/ Originating Department: Public Works Contact Person: Paula J. Cooper Contractor's Name: Wilson Engineering, LLC 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 I5, 000 or a Bid is more than and any prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $ 86,000 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 Evaluating reach -scale alternatives and developing a project design having the multiple objectives of limiting lateral channel migration and restoring fish habitat on the South Fork Nooksack River Nature of Contract Amt: ( Check one) Fixed Amount Not to Exceed _X_ Open Ended _ Term of Contract: Expiration Date: December, 312007 Renewal Option Yes No X Last Renewal Expires. Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: 1. Prepared by: Christina Omdahl 2. Attorney reviewed: Daniel L. Gibson 3. AS,Knance reviewed: bbennett 4. Corrections made.• 5. Attorney signof .- Daniel L. Gibson 14, 6. Contractor signed: 7. Submitted to Exec Office 8. Reviewed by DCA 9. Council approved (if necessary) 10. Executive signed. 11. Contractor Original Returned to dept; 12. County Original to Council Date 3-27-07 [electronic] Date 03128107 [electronic] Date 3128107_,(electronic] Dater (_electronic] Date 03128107 Date—' Date ummary via Date Date Date Date Date hard copy printed electronic; hardcopies] this form may need to expand to more than one page 34 WHATCOM COUNTY {r �o Frank Abart PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. s`yDirector 322 North Commercial, Suite 120 Bellingham, WA 98225-4042_ RECEIVED SH 1 fi G� MEMORANDUM MAR 3 0 2007 CPOUNTTY EXECUTIVE TO: The Honorable Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council THROUGH: Frank M. Abart, Public Works Directo a__ FROM: Paula J. Cooper, P.E. RE: Acme Early Chinook Restoration Professional Services Agreement with Wilson Engineering, LLC DATE: March 27, 2007 Enclosed are two (2) originals of a Professional Services Agreement between Whatcom County Public Works River and Flood Division and Wilson Engineering, LLC 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 $86,000 with the selected consultant, Wilson Engineering, LLC, for developing a design with the multiple objectives of limiting lateral channel migration and restoring fish habitat on the South Fork Nooksack River near the town of Acme. ■ Background and Purpose The project site is an approximately 1/4-mile long section of eroding bank located along the left bank of the South Fork Nooksack River in the community of Acme. The site is located on a strip of land that runs between the South Fork River mainstem and a tributary channel locally known as Landingstrip Creek. The river regularly overtops its bank at this location, and is close to eroding through the strip of land and capturing the lower reach of Landingstrip Creek. This would impact existing high -quality tributary/slough rearing habitats and could increase flood risks to the Acme community. The scope of services includes a review of reach -scale alternatives for flood hazard reduction and habitat improvements for the Acme reach, to provide a context within which to develop a design for the project site. The scope also includes development of a project design to the 30 percent complete level. ■ Funding Amount and Source The contract amount is $86,000. Funding for the contract is through the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) with a local match from the Whatcom County FCZD. 35 Wilson Engineering, with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants as a subcontractor, was selected in accordance with the County 2007 RFQ selection process utilizing RFQ #07-01. Please contact Paula Cooper at extension 50625, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. Encl. MET Whatcom County Contract No. CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT Acme Early Chinook Restoration _ Wilson Engineering, LLC , hereinafter called Contractor, and Whatcom County, hereinafter referred to as County, agree and contract as set forth in this Agreement, including: General Conditions, pp. 3 to 8 , Exhibit (Scope of Work), pp. 9 to 13 , Exhibit B (Compensation), pp. 14 to 17 , 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 11th day of April , 2007, and shall, unless terminated or renewed as elsewhere provided in the Agreement, terminate on the 31st day of December , 2007. The general purpose or objective of this Agreement is to: evaluate alternatives and designs having the multiple objectives of limiting lateral channel migration and restoring fish habitat on the South Fork Nooksack River, as more fully and definitively described in Exhibit A 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 $ 86 000 . 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 .20 _ CONTRACTOR: Wilson Engineering, LLC Margar urtis, P.E. Managing Member STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF �� ) On isday of arC 20 D"Jbefore me personally appeared �1e CtAXI to me known to be them! (title) of 1iJ i 5onrrq.eLc (Company) and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and seating thereof. V� y zc�: Lda C� � ' � Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration L NOTAF6PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, resipling at � ev. Gr`e& . My commission expires O Page 1 v 1.0 37 WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for Approval: 3 Frank A6art, Public Works Director bate A roved as to form: Daniel L. 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: Wilson Engineering, LLC Margaret Curtis, P.E. Managing Member Address: 805 Dupont Street, Suite 7 Bellingham, WA 98225 Mailing Address: 805 Dupont Street, Suite 7 Bellingham, WA 98225 Contact Name: Andy Law Contact Phone: _(360) 733-6100 Contact FAX: _(36W 647-9061 Contact Email: _alaw(@milsonengineering.com Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 2 v 1.0 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: The duration of this Agreement may be extended by mutual written consent of the parties. 11.1 Termination for Default: If the Contractor defaults by failing to perform any of the obligations of the contract or becomes insolvent or is declared bankrupt or commits any act of bankruptcy or insolvency or makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, the County may, by depositing written notice to the Contractor in the U.S. mail,' first class postage prepaid, terminate the contract, and at the County's option, obtain performance of the work elsewhere. Termination shall be effective upon Contractor's receipt of the written notice, or within three (3) days of the mailing of the notice, whichever occurs first. If the contract is terminated for default, the Contractor shall not be entitled to receive any further payments under the contract until all work called for has been fully performed. Any extra cost or damage to the County resulting from such default(s) shall be deducted from any money due or coming due to the Contractor. The Contractor shall bear any extra expenses incurred by the County in completing the work, including all increased costs for completing the work, and all damage sustained, or which may be sustained by the County by reason of such default. 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 casts 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." Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 3 v 1.0 39 21.1 Taxes: The Contractor understands and acknowledges that the County will not withhold Federal or State income taxes. Where required by State 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. 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 stale and federal requirements, as applicable, pertaining to payment of wages and working conditions, in accordance with RCW 39.12.040, the Prevailing Wage Act; 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 all 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/shefit 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. Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 4 v 1.0 i M 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. 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 patentor 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 - $600,000.00 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 V. 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, whether such injury to persons or damage to property is due to the negligence 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, Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 5 v 1.0 41 except only such injury or damage as shall have been occasioned by the sole negligence of the County or its appointed or elected officials or employees. 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: 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, sexual orientation, age, marital status, 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, sexual orientation, age, marital status, 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, 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 apprenticeship, and participation in recreational and educational activities. In all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by them or on their behalf, the Contractor shall state 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 Non -Discrimination in Client Services: The Contractor shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, disability, or veteran status; or deny an individual or business any service or benefits under this Agreement; or subject an individual or business to segregation or separate treatment in any manner related to hislherlits receipt any service or services or other benefits provided under this Agreement; or deny an individual or business an opportunity to participate in any program provided by this Agreement. 36.1 Waiver of Noncompetition: Not Applicable 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 lake 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 State of Washington, and political subdivisions of the Stale 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: Paula J Cooper River and Flood Manager 322 North Commercial, Suite 120 Bellingham, WA 98225-4042 Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 6 v 1.0 W 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. 40.2 Contractor Commitments, Warranties and Representations: Any written commitment received from the Contractor concerning this Agreement shall be binding upon the Contractor, unless otherwise specifically provided herein with reference to this paragraph. Failure of the Contractor to fulfill such a commitment shall render the Contractor liable for damages to the County. A commitment includes, but is not limited to, any representation made prior to execution of this Agreement, whether or not incorporated elsewhere herein by reference, as to performance of services or equipment, prices or options for future acquisition to remain in effect for a fixed period, or warranties. 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 condifion 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: Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 7 v 1.0 43 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 Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page B v 1.0 EXHIBIT "A" (SCOPE OF WORK) Acme Early Chinook Restoration - South Fork Nooksack River Wilson Engineering LLC, in partnership with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (nhc), has been asked by the River and Flood Division of Whatcom County Public Works to develop a design to enhance early Chinook habitat and address the flood hazard reflected in an eroding bank along the South Fork of the Nooksack River near the town of Acme, Washington. A top priority of the WRIA I Salmonid Recovery Plan is to improve habitat diversity through the placement of logjams in the South Fork with a special emphasis on areas of cool groundwater emergence such as occurs at this site. Floodplain tributary/off-channel habitats also currently exist behind the eroding bank. If the erosion is not addressed, these tributary/off-channel habitats will be altered and the South Fork may eventually increase flooding hazards for the community of Acme or the SR 9 bridge. The primary goals of the project will be to develop a solution that: 1. Provides improved habitat diversity and complexity (i.e. cover, pool habitat, thermal refuge) using large woody debris designed to interact with the South Fork Nooksack River; 2. Provides improved bank stability to lessen the potential for channel avulsion and/or increased flood overflow to Acme; 3. Complements future reach scale or local flood protection and habitat restoration projects; 4. Is supported by landowners, local community members, Indian tribes, and resource agencies; 5. Can be constructed for a reasonable cost. To develop the solution, the consultant team will complete the tasks described below which are grouped under the following four headings: I. Existing Conditions Assessment 2. Habitat Enhancement and Flood Protection Concepts 3. Solution Development 4. Detailed Engineering: 30% Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates (PSE) 1. Existing Condition Assessment In order to develop an effective solution, the consultant team will first need to gain an understanding of the physical processes that have caused the bank to erode. The team will do this by completing the following tasks: 1.1 Reconnaissance and Data Collection 1.1.1 Collection of Existing Data The consultant team will collect all readily available existing information and data that may be useful for the project. This may include existing study reports by other consultants, historical aerial photographs, past river surveys, design and study documents for previous bank revetments, WRIA 1 Salmonid Recovery Plan and associated documents, habitat and spawner surveys, easement and land ownership information, etc. 1.1.2 Project Kick -Off Meeting and Site Visit Key members of the consultant team will meet with Whatcom County officials, affected landowners, the salmon co -managers (Nooksack Tribe, Lummi Nation, and WDFW) and key stakeholders at the site to inspect the study area. The group will then meet at the County's office (or a local facility) to discuss the project in detail. Topics will include project goals, site history, landowner and community concerns and needs, land ownership and issues, salmon habitat restoration objectives, environmental issues, permitting requirements, construction techniques and access, etc. 1.1.3 Field Surveys and Processing of the Survey Data The County recently prepared two -foot contour mapping of the South Fork Nooksack River floodplain, therefore, only limited field surveys will be required. Surveys will focus on documenting current conditions in the vicinity of the eroding bank and will include: Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 9 v 1.0 45 1. A survey control benchmark will be set at the project site. The vertical datum will be NGVD29 (a WSDOT Monument is located on the SR 9 bridge). 2. The existing bank will be surveyed to provide a topographic map for design of the project improvements along eroding bank. 3. Existing bed elevations and local scour depths along the toe of the eroding bank will be surveyed. 4. Planimetric and vertical elevations surveys will be collected along the strip of land that separates the river from Landing Strip Creek including sufficient cross -sections of Landingstrip Creek to identify and define the existing swales that provide connections between the river and Landing Strip Creek. 5. Cross sections of the river channel will be surveyed as needed. The survey data will be processed and combined with the topographic contours to generate a DTM of the study area from which a detailed topographic map will be created. The topographic information will be used for a variety of activities. It will be overlaid on an aerial photograph to create a digital base map for project design and drawing preparation. The new topographic information will also be used to improve the detail and accuracy of the existing hydraulic HEC-RAS model in the vicinity of the project site. 1.2 River Engineering 1.2.1 Hydrology No new hydrologic analyses will be conducted for this investigation. Existing hydrologic information developed for the on -going numerical modeling study will be utilized. 1.2.2 Hydraulics The existing HEC-RAS unsteady model of the study reach will be refined to includc the new survey data. It will then be used to evaluate hydraulic conditions within the study reach and along the eroding bank for a range of discharges. In a subsequent task, the model will be used to compute the hydraulic information needed to design and evaluate the performanee of the proposed solution. 1.2.3 Geomorphic, Sediment Transport, and Channel Stability Assessment The consultant team will need to gain a thorough understanding of the river processes that have caused the bank to erode and insight into how the river will likely adjust in the future. The County will provide the consultants with copies of those geomorphic assessments of which they are aware. These reports and unpublished materials will be reviewed and utilized. However, it is anticipated that the consultant will need to conduct limited additional geomorphic and channel stability analyses which are focused on the project site and the associated river reach. Historic and on -going planimetric changes can be significant indicators of sediment transport trends and characteristics. Data related to these changes will be reviewed. However, these sediment transport trends and characteristies are not expected to be a significant issue in the development and selection of a solution. Therefore, only a limited qualitative assessment of sediment transport characteristics will be conducted. 1.3 Environmental Baseline Assessment A baseline environmental assessment will be completed to document existing conditions and identify potential constraints. The consultant will review pertinent sections of the WRIA 1 Salmonid Recovery Plan (WRIA 1 SRB 2005) and Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout (USFWS), and County Shorelines Restoration Plan and will confirm which species are federally listed by NMFS and USFWS. The consultant will also provide the priority species and habitat information from (1) the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitats and Species Program, (2) the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Washington Natural Heritage Program, and (3) the County GIS. . Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 10 V 1.0 The consultant shall verify the presence and availability of potential habitat for terrestrial species of concern in the project action area. These may require confirmation of potential habitat for bald eagles and other federally listed species. The Consultant will prepare a Biological Resources Memo. The memo will document the observed and potential species that occur within the project area, the salmonid habitat restoration priorities and opportunities, and the potential environmental limitations (such as instream work windows) that could be placed on construction. The memo will be incorporated into the Existing Conditions Summary Report described below. 1.4 Cultural Resource Assessment The consultant will review available information and perform a site reconnaissance to identify possible historic and archaeological resources. This will include .conducting a historic resource inventory and preparing a technical memo in accordance with applicable Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) and U.S. Secretary of Interior standards. The inventory and memo shall cover the likely Area of Potential Effects (APE). The inventory and memo shall be used in partial fulfillment of Section 106, SEPA, and other regulatory requirements. The memo will be incorporated into the Existing Conditions Summary Report. 1.6 Existing Conditions Summary Report A brief summary report will be prepared which documents the results of the Existing Conditions Assessment. It will include descriptions of the project goals, hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, the physical processes that have caused the bank to erode, and salmon habitat recovery objectives and other environmental issues important to the development of a solution. 2. lnteclrated Habitat Enhancement and Flood Protection Concepts 2.1 Possible Habitat Improvements The consultant team, working with the County, will prepare a list of possible reach scale and localized habitat improvements that may merit future consideration. Although these will not be developed or evaluated in detail as part of this project, they will be considered in the design of the integrated salmon habitat/bank protection solution. The goal will be to develop a design that can be enhanced or modified to accommodate future opportunities to restore habitat forming processes and habitat projects within the reach. Such future improvements might include providing more area for channel migration and formation of off -channel habitat. For example, channel migration area might be increased by removing a portion of the levee on the right bank. 2.2 Possible Flood Relief Alternatives The consultant team, working with the County, will prepare a Iist of possible reach scale and local flood relief alternatives that may merit future consideration. As in the previous task, these will not be developed or evaluated in detail, but the consultant team will consider the alternatives as they design the integrated salmon habitat/bank protection solution. The goal will be to. develop a design that does not compromise or limit future flood relief features. 3. Solution Development 3.1 Concept The consultant team will develop concept sketches of the alternative they believe will best satisfy project goals. To minimize construction costs, construetability issues will be examined which may include such things as determining material sources, equipment requirements, access requirements, etc. A short memo will be prepared to present the pros and cons of the recommended solution and will describe how it is likely to complement future flood proteetion and habitat enhaneement projects. A rough ball park cost estimate will be computed. Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 11 v 1.0 47 The consultant team will not develop multiple alternatives that cover the range of possible solutions for the site (e.g. from riprap revetment to engineered logjams). Rather, because the solution must focus on the use of large woody debris, the consultant team will develop a single solution which they believe best meets the needs and goals of the project. Variations of the design or refinements will considered as noted below. The consultant will also identify interim measures to enhance the protection of the at -risk bank until the project can be constructed in 2008. 3.2 Site Meeting with County to Discuss Concept Key members of the consultant team will meet with County officials and others identified by the County at the project site to review the proposed solution and discuss possible variations or refinements. 3.3 Concept Refinements Following the meeting with the County, the consultant team will modify the design to include agreed -upon refinements. The concept drawings will be updated and simple sketches will be prepared for use in a public meeting to help citizens, tribes, agencies and community stakeholders visualize the proposed solution. 3.4 Public Meeting to Present the Concept Key members of the consultant team and the County will hold a public meeting to present the proposed solution to the primary landowners and local community members. 3.5 Public Involvement as Needed Includes preparation of letters, impromptu meetings, preparation of key graphic materials, and miscellaneous communications with the public and agencies. 4. Detailed Engineering, 30% Design and Specifications 4.1 Design Refinement The consultant team will refine the concept to include modifications recommended by the County following the community meeting. 4.2 Final Hydraulic Evaluation If the proposed solution will have a significant impact on local river hydraulics, the geometry in the HEC- RAS model will be modified to include key features of the design. The model results will then be used to finalize calculations for such things as scour depths, hydraulic forces on log jams, rock ballast size, etc. 4.3 Final Geomorphic Evaluation To the extent possible, the consultant team will attempt to determine how the river will adjust or respond to the solution. If needed, the design will be refined to reduce undesirable impacts. 4.4 Final Review of Future Flood Protection and Habitat Enhancements The consultant team will review the final solution to determine how it will interact with possible future flood protection and habitat enhancement projects. If needed, the design will be modified to increase the likelihood that it will complement these future activities. 4.5 30% Plans, Specifications, and Costs The consultant team will prepare 30% plans, specifications and an engineer's estimate of construction costs. 4.6 Assist the County with Permits Provide a completed SEPA Checklist and completed application forms and exhibits for a JARPA package. It is assumed that the County will administer the permit application process. Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 12 4.7 Maintenance Requirements Short and long term maintenance requirements will be identified. 4.8 Post Construction Monitoring Recommendations Future fish and wildlife and geomorphic monitoring requirements will be recommended. 4.9 Design Report A design report will be prepared which includes the following: 1) 30% Plans and Specifications 2) Estimated Construction Cost 3) Maintenance Requirements 4) Post Construction Monitoring Recommendations 5) Environmental Impacts and Benefits 5. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Wilson Engineering will manage the activities of the consultant team. Responsibilities include: monitor the project budget, submit monthly invoices, administer subconsultants, and actively keep the County informed of project progress. 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE Estimated Completion Date Kick -Off Meeting and Site Visit April 19 Field Surveys April 24 Survey Maps May 1 Complete Existing Conditions Assessment May 15 Flood Protection and Habitat Enhancement Concepts May 22 Conceptual Solution Development (memo) June 15 Interim Measure Solutions (memo) June 15 Site Meeting with County to Discuss Concept June 18 Concept Refinements and Preliminary Cost Estimate July 3 Public Meeting to Present the Concept July 24 Final Conceptual Design and Evaluations August 14 Draft Plans, Specifications, and Costs September 10 Draft Design Report and Draft Permit Applications September 19 County Review Comments October 3 Final Design Report and Final Permit Applications October 25 Assumptions • No bid ready documents will be provided. 30% drawings and specifications will be provided for use by the County in construction of the project. Additional construction phase engineering assistance will likely be required. • Construction phase engineering will be provided under separate contract • The County will administer all permit applications. • As -built drawings will be provided under separate contract as needed. Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 13 V 1.0 an cYmm mv' 7gym.2 omT aNaoN nri c mmmw r r � N Orb wi �i - N v •9 u - MN N NN N N,N' �N N_ - NN NN NN • � � � • _ � O � � m N � � f0 N� Oi Q- 8 m T � b __ N - ,Y; ,- N N N 4 ~ N W •" _� ESL-]J7J _ - _ - 6i _ N � _ o Y Z r - c 07 N � - W N zF? rF - ^ u_ a Y A N m m m N *1r N N N U V. L N NNN NN u 3 N r c o c : a , N O: }r O- WN _- m W 'c E c u ry "k t_ V W E «f N 4t� N A A 6 a G t N q N .0N p V O p p -u - wq o c 3 c c n m r a W N W 6 G r] p 6 `° w EE° p'n rmOc caEr E-5m c om 4m rip c = p c o 9 o f m p V1 w w ro C j 0 j) V a m oero�y`a ec��k rrmati � a Nr��ae cmoa Uc -QW?- aemm CnoE arc 4 C N V1 W NUN m U U 1 o x x G7 ± C_ C J~ A L f LL 6 c a m w`u'u]J a �u° inuaa N W LL N p FZ r N [V N N wt ''i •'IA ri v N co IL 50 • 4R "S 5L! EEO -j" NI EN 4t 9 Ea zz' lu E m 13 uj E w U iL- u) L) M w3 w la Eaca a IL 1p -:14 N Yi Mi YIN NN..D...... Tv' CD 0 < cn 0 0 LU La w • -E E Z. 0 0 0 < 51 WILSON ENGINEERING RATE SCHEDULE (Effective January 1- December 31, 2007): Principal Engineer, $114 per hour Senior Project Engineer, $102 per hour Project Engineer, $97 per hour Design Engineer (EIT), $81 per hour GIS Analyst, $81 per hour CAD Design Technician, $62 per hour Clerical, $52 per hour Inspector, $62 per hour Professional Land Surveyor, $102 per hour Survey Technician, $76 per hour 2 Person Survey Crew (conventional), $130 per hour GPS Survey Crew, $145 per hour 3 Person Survey Crew (conventional), $156 per hour Hydrographic Survey Crew (fully equipped boat), $225/hr* Marine Survey Activities (dredging, piles, bulkhead, etc.), $191/hr* Inspection Diver (includes boat and standby diver), $450/hr* REIMBURSMENT FOR NON -LABOR ITEMS Auto Mileage IRS rate($0.485/mile 2007) Subconsultants No subconsultant mark up will be included for Northwest Hydraulic Consultants services. All other subconsultants will be reimbursed at cost plus 2% 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 services 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 or rented specifically for the project *Includes U.S.Longshore and Harborworkers Insurance Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration Page 16 v 1.0 52 NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS RATE SCHEDULE (Effective 1 Jul 2006) LABOR Principal Senior Engineer Engineer Jr. Engineer Technician/Drafter Jr. Technician/Drafter Word Processor/Secretary Administrator REIMBURSMENT FOR NON -LABOR ITEMS Transportation Auto Mileage IRS rate 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 services 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 or rented specifically for the project Contract for Services Agreement Acme Early Chinook Restoration FEE RATE Ihr 193.87 145.02 112.27 92.50 79.06 57.56 71.55 95.67 Page 17 v 1.0 53 WHA TCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007-185 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Offke Agenda Date Assigned to: Originotor.- DEbergsoA 312&07 4/10/07 —Finance/Counc Division Head. U 2 Dept Read Prosecutor: Purchasna"dg'X\ Executive: TITLE 6 V DOCUMENT: Contract between Whatcom County and Geiger Engineers for Consulting Services for the Civic Center Building Beam & Column Base Repair ATTACHMENTS. Contract, Memo, Information Sheet 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: This contract is between Whatcom County and Geiger Engineers for Consulting Services for the Civic Center Building Beam & Column Base Repair at Whatcom County Civic Center, 322 N. Commercial Ave., Bellingham, WA in the amount of $24,887 00 COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Pleas Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. wwjv.co.whatconLwaus1counei1. 54 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 3� e IN MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Michael Russell, Facilities Manager RE: Geiger Engineers DATE: March 29, 2007 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Louie Street Annex 316 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225-4010 Facilities@co.whatcom.wa.us MICHAEL RUSSELL Facilities Manager RECEIVED MAR 3 d Z007 CQEW.. � E Enclosed for your review and signature are two (2) originals of the Consultant Services Agreement between Whatcom County and Geiger Engineers for the purpose of Civic Center Building Beam & Column Base Repair. ■ Background and Purpose This agreement is for the Civic Center building beam & column base repair consulting services. 11 Funding Amount and Source Funding amount needed for this contract is $24,887.00. The funds are provided by ASR #2007-338 for the total of $25,000.00 for this project and Have been approved in the 2007 budget. ■ Differences from Previous Contract This project is a one-time agreement. Please contact Michael Russell at extension 50575, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. Enclosures Administration Facilities Management Finance/Accounting (360) 676-6717 (360) 676-6746 (360) 676-6734 Fax (360) 676-6775 Fax (360) 676-6789 Fax (360) 738-4553 Human Resources (360) 676-6802 Fax (360) 738-2521 Information Services (360) 676-7684 Fax (360) 676-7727 County Residents 55 (360) 398-1310 TTY (360) 738-4555 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMA TION SHEET [WHAT�coM ;NTY CONTRAM ±�O. Originating Department: AS -Facilities Management Contact Person • Michael Russell, Facilities Manager Contractor's Name: Geiger 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 _ 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 $24,887.00 memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than This Amendment Amount: $10,000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an agenda bill $ and supporting memo. !f less than these thresholds, just submit to Executive with Total Amended Amoun(: supporting memo for approval. Scope of Services This contract between Whatcom County and Geiger Engineers is for Consulting Services for the Civic Center Building Beam & Column Base Repair at Whatcom County Civic Center, 322 N. Commercial Ave., Bellingham, WA. In the amount of $24,887.00. Nature of Contract Amt: ( Check one) Fixed Amount Not to Exceed _x_ Open Ended _ Term of Contract: Expiration Date: Completion prior to December 15", 2007 Renewal Option Yes No Last Renewal Expires: Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: 1. Prepared by: AS -Facilities D Edson 2. Attorney reviewed. 3. Finance reviewed: 4. Corrections made: 5. Attorney signof) ►� 6. Contractor signed: 7. Submitted to Exec Office 8. Reviewed by DCA 9. Council approved (if necessary) 10. Executive signed. 11. Contractor Original Returned to dept; 12. County Original to Council Date 01-04-07 Date I r [electronic] Date g12,SLd Date electronic] hard copyprinted Date Date Date rmmary via electronic; hardcopies] Date Date Date Date Date this form may need to expand to more than one page 56 WCPO# �tn1H! 71 COM COUNTY C'%'_) NTRACT NO. _,?_od430 Administrative Services Department Consultant Services Agreement Civic Center Building Beam & Column Base Repair COMR ORI THIS AGREEMENT is made this 5th day of January, 2007, by and between WHATCOM COUNTY, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and Geiger Engineers, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"' for the purposes of Civic Center Building Beam & Column Base Repair. 1. Scope of Work: As consideration for the services provided pursuant to Exhibit A. Scope of Work, the County agrees to reimburse the Consultant a sum not to exceed twenty-four thousand eight hundred eighty seven ($24,887.00) Dollars, to be paid in accordance with County payment procedures upon receipt of valid invoices and documentation for reimbursable expenses. Payments will be based on milestones identified in Exhibit A. 2. Consideration: As consideration for the services provided pursuant to Exhibit A. The County agrees to compensate the contractor according to the hourly rates provided in Exhibit B of this agreement. Other reasonable expenses incurred in the course of performing the duties herein shall be reimbursed. Mileage at 38.5 cents per mile, other expenditures such as printing, postage and telephone charges shall be reimbursed at actual cost plus 10% (receipts required). Any work performed prior to the effective date of this contract or continuing after the completion date of the same unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, will be at the contractor's expense. All payments under this Agreement are considered reimbursement for services rendered. Each request for payment is to be submitted by invoice showing what services were rendered, and shall be supported by detailed documentation of those services actually performed, so as to comply with municipal auditing requirements. The County agrees to make payment for services provided promptly in accordance with the County's customary procedures. 3. Time Schedule: The services as outlined shall be completed not later than December 15`h, 2007. 4. Extension: The duration of this Agreement may be extended and the scope of services may be expanded by mutual agreement by both parties; provided, however, that any extension of time or expansion of scope of the Agreement shall be by mutual written consent of the parties. 5. Modifications: No change or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such change or additions be in writing and executed by both parties. 6. Licensing in Compliance with Laws & Regulations: The Consultant 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 Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law, including laws pertaining to public works projects. The Consultant is in compliance with RCW 18.27, the State Licensing Law, with a Certificate of Registration to be in effect throughout the work. The Consultant agrees to pay wages in accordance with RCW 39.12.040, the Prevailing Wage Act. The Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Agreement — Geiger Engineers Civic Center Building Beam & Column Base Repair Page 4 57 7. Property Rights: When the Consultant creates any copyrightable materials or invents any patentable property, the Consultant may copyright or patent the same, but the County retains a royalty - free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, recover, or otherwise use the material or property and to authorize other governments to use the same for state or local government purposes. Consultant further agrees to make research, notes, and other work products produced in the performance of this Agreement available to the County upon request. 8. Communications: Communications between the Consultant and the County shall be addressed to the regular places of business. In the case of the Consultant, the address shall be: Geiger Engineers H 4 W. Magnolia Street, Suite 505 Bellingham, WA 98225 Phone: (360) 734-7194 Fax: (360) 734-7399 in the case of the County, communications shall be sent to: Michael Russell, ADS -Facilities Supervisor 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225 9. Administration of Contract: The County hereby appoints and the Consultant hereby accepts the Whatcom County Executive, and his or her designee, as the County's representative for the purpose of administering the provisions of this Agreement, including the County's right to receive and act on all reports and documents related to this Agreement. 10. Relationship of the Parties: The parties intend that an independent Consultant/County relationship will be created by this Agreement. The County is interested only in the results to be achieved; the implementation of services will lie solely with the Consultant. Neither the Consultant nor any agent, employee, or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee, or representative of the County for any purpose. 11. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: The Consultant shall protect, defend, save harmless, and indemnify the County from and against all claims, suits, and actions arising from negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, authorized subconsultants or assigns, and their agents or employees in the performance of the work for the County as prescribed herein, but between the consultant and the County the consultant shall be responsible for his proportionate share of said claim. 12. Social Security and Other Taxes: Consultant assumes full responsibility for the payment of all payroll taxes, use, sales, income, other form of taxes, fee, licenses, excises, or payments required by any City, County, Federal or State legislation which are now or may, during the term of this Agreement, be enacted as to the Consultant and all persons employed by the Consultant as to all duties, activities, and requirements by the Consultant in performance of the work pursuant to this Agreement and shall assume exclusive liability therefor, and meet all requirements thereunder pursuant to any rules and regulations that are now and may be promulgated in connection therewith. 13. Wages, Overtime and Safety: The Consultant agrees to comply with 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 Agreement — Geiger Engineers Civic Center Building Beam & Column Base Repair Page 5 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. 14. Proof of Insurance: The Consultant shall carry for the duration of this Agreement general liability and property damage insurance with the following minimums: General Liability & Property Damage for bodily injury- $1,000,000.00 Property Damage per occurrence - $500,000.00 15. Reduction in Funding: In the event that funding from State, Federal or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after .the effective date of this Agreement, and prior to its normal completion, the County may summarily terminate this Agreement as to the funds withdrawn, reduced, or limited notwithstanding any other termination provisions of this Agreement. If the level of funding withdrawn, reduced or limited is so great that the County deems that the continuation of the programs covered by this Agreement is no longer in the best interest of the County, the County may summarily terminate this Agreement in whole, notwithstanding any other termination of this Agreement. Termination under this section shall be effective upon receipt of written notice as specified herein. 16. Suspension/Termination: If the Consultant fails to comply fully with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the County may pursue such remedies as are legally available, including but not limited to, the suspension or termination of this Agreement in the manner specified herein. 16.1. Suspension or termination for cause, If the Consultant is unable to substantiate full compliance with the provisions of this Agreement, the County may suspend or terminate the Agreement pending corrective acts or investigation, which suspension or termination shall be effective upon seven (7) days written notification to the Consultant or its authorized representative. 16.2. For any other reason this Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part by either party hereto upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party. 16.3. In the event of termination under this clause, the County shall be liable only for payments in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for services rendered prior to the effective date of termination. 17. Non -Discrimination in Employment: The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, Vietnam -era or disabled veteran status, or disability, except where such constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification. The Consultant 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, Vietnam -era or disabled veteran status, or disability, 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 apprenticeship, and participation in recreational and educational activities. Agreement — Geiger Engineers Civic Center Building Beam & Column Base Repair Page 6 59 18. Assignment and/or Subcontracting: The performance of all activities contemplated by this Agreement shall be accomplished personally by the Consultant. The Consultant shall not assign or subcontract performance to others unless specifically authorized in writing by the County in advance. Authorization is hereby made for the consultant to retain Advent Construction Services #ADVENC 1081 BA to perform certain demolition and disposal services. All terms and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to any approved subcontract or assignment related to this Agreement. 19. Safeguarding Client Information: The Consultant agrees that confidential information obtained from the County shall not be disclosed except upon the written consent of the County. 20. Non -Waiver of Breach: 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. 21. Time for Performance: Any work performed prior to the effective date of this Agreement or continuing after the completion date of the same, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing herein, will be in violation of this Agreement and municipal auditing requirements and will be at the Consultant's expense. 22. Venue Stipulation: This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington. It is mutually understood and agreed by each party hereto that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and performance. Any action in lawsuit and equity or judicial proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision thereof, shall be instituted and maintained in the courts of competent jurisdiction located in Whatcom County, Washington. 23. Severability: It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that if any part of this Agreement is determined to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed as if the Agreement did not contain the particular illegal part. 24. Extent of Agreement: This Agreement, with attachments, contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto. The parties agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. Agreement — Geiger Engineers Civic Center Building Beam & Column Base Repair Page 7 FOR THE CONSULTANT: Geiger Engineers Date Signed: 1--Z RH ff7— Kris P. Hamilton, PE Principal STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF W hQ-+ CO-- ) On this 21eday of AAare-t- , 200�, before me personally appeared Kris P. Hamilton, PE to me known to be the Principal of Geiger Engineers, and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereo . NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, iding at 04-CLr, My Commission expires: t of t Q1 tp Replace Air Cooled Chiller at the Courthouse Blythe Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Page 1 v,.0 61 FOR WHATCOM COUNTY By Date Signed: Dewey Desler, Administrative Services Director STATE OF WASHiNGTON } ) ss. COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this _ day of , 2000, before me personally appeared Dewey Desler to me [mown to be the Director of Administrative Services of Whatcom County, and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. Washington, residing at _ My Commission expires: My Commission expires: APPROVED AS TO FORM: -I—,,) el'R " N' �'� - - — Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Replace Air Cooled Chiller at the Courthouse Blythe Plumbing & Heating, Inc. V 1.0 Page 1 W Exhibit A Scope of Work ➢ Investigate the condition of beams supporting the main floor of the Civic Center Building and prepare contract documents for the repair work, if required. Our proposal assumes that significant repairs will be needed to a few beams. ➢ Investigate the condition and construction of the bases of exterior columns of the building, where they sit on the concrete wall. These column bases are part of the moment -resisting frame of the building, which provides all of the building's lateral support. At least one of these is known to have been very poorly installed, with many field changes and cuts which render it nearly useless for resisting lateral loads. This proposal assumes that there will be a few column bases needed repair and/or improvement ➢ Prepare contract documents for permit, bidding and construction for providing new fireproofing on the steel beams, and for any repair and retrofit work that may be required to the column bases Replace Air Cooled Chiller at the Courthouse Blythe Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Page 3 1.0 63 GEIGER ENGINEERS FEE PROPOSAL. CIVIC CENTER BUILDING BEmn?l AND COLUMN BASE REPAIR Exhibit B PROJECT NAME: ICivic Center- ;Oijildihd..--PaO itig Gara&­ PROJECT #: 2`06808 01 1 Date: 127-D66-06, TEES DETERMINATION Enter values into shaded boxes; other values will be calculated ITEMIZE TASKS Principal/ Project Staff Project Mgr Engineer Engineer Drafter 1 Kelmt) Task Time Time i Time Time Costs CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Retain, coot omate 'and -ditdc.t.,cOhtrac-tor to,r6rho,v'e�-'a'nd:di'sp'-'o's'e of ek,1!Ain§ triV bogra to n sales tax -4: 2.: -3122 Coritingen6y f6r-cohiract'or;=15% 43.-2 Mea . su . re: . a . nd ph6togrg0h:b6am corrosion losses 5.. 5 Examine column suopd ftUacid b earn o �C-6nri6ctkns 5 m 7 7 7, Calc,ulati5bb�a 6SObsOS . Calculate.,any column stress . es, " not id p Y. fo.Vu's SAW",' reviOusl�.tiW.4,.Jhmp. 2' 10. Design.-sup'plorihetts.'a'n'd/.o'r-"r''e'p--a,ir's't'o' co_umn..ba-:esoil! �J 6- Design repairs' to:.be'a.'m'.,c.'bnh'ections-,tt affected c0lumn§ aff T 81 epart ddta-jls Pie 2 T Determine.fire-prodfind fot- , all. structural" steel expo­ik,b�,-fhis: 0.5. 31 _1: Pre are tbdhhi6lspecificatlons �,leak 4. Pre :are ;dei-ails'ftit"sp6t,�;r00a(e,"-6f 1,66k 0.5. ;Pre .e, r . 6 p . errnitA06 . urri, Submit for.L.p it: .0, :2 CONTRACT DOCUMENT HOURS'� 8 3 0' 80, 42 CONTRACT DOCUMENT PHASE FEE' $ 12,700 to Equal 76 1 % of Tota BID -PHASE Att id-,ft bid,4. 6*i JfAOWr;T. "Ar t7 r .6 Re'and ; t 6) n 4u 1 d 0 i s I r"' M' p 0 n U 4 2, - Issue: �:adddhdat6:!the 7 7� 8: BID HOURS : � 12 BID PHASE FEEi $ 1,450 Equal to 9 % of Tota'"' 06 _0 :CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Rev q in ht on bids 1. 7711: Sheetl PAGE 1 OF 2 . 315107 64 GEIGER ENGINEERS FEE PROPOSAL CIVIC CENTER BUILDING BEAM AND COLUMN BASE REPAIR CONSTRUCTION HOURS 1 8 : 20' 2 CONSTRUCTION PHASE FEE. $ 2,650 Equal to 16 ' % of TotalFee: METHOD 3 TOTAL FEE; $ 16,833 TEONTRACTOR + GEIGER 15% SUMMARY:, SUGGESTED NTE. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS THROUGH PERMIT APPLICATION $ 12,700 $ 15,000 BIDDING PHASE SERVICES: $ 1,450 $ 1,800 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES' $ 2,650 ._ $ 3,500 TOTAL GEIGER SERVICES $ 16,800 $ 20,300 _ REIMBURSIBLE SUB -CONTRACTOR $ 4,087 $ 4,200 Total' $ 20,887 $ 24,500 Sheets PAGE 2 OF 2 315107 65 Whatcom County Civic Center Building Exhibit B Parking Area Study and Repair Design RATES AND CHARGES Geiger Gossen Hamilton Campbell Engineers P.C. (GGHC) fee arrangements for Time -plus -Expense billing will be as follows: PERSONNEL CHARGES Personnel Charges for Time -plus -Expense basis billing will be equal to Direct Personnel Expense (DPE) for all employees involved in services performed; times a multiplier of 2.40, covering overhead and profit. DPE includes payroll taxes and fringe benefits, and is taken as 1.33 times actual salary rates. Individuals not in the permanent employ of GGHC may occasionally be engaged under Personal Service Agreements to meet specific project requirements. Charges to the client for such personnel will be equal to the multiplier times actual salary expenses but not in excess of the amount charged for a comparable full-time GGHC employee. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSE The following will apply to all expenses directly applicable to the project for Time -plus - Expense basis work, and to Reimbursable Expenses for fixed fee work, where noted. A 10% mark-up will be added to all expenses except mileage. 1. Mileage expense will be calculated at a rate of $0.385 per mile. 2. Actual travel and subsistence expenses incurred by employees and principals when away from the home office on business connected with the Project. 3. Courier and express services. 4. Invoice costs of outside services, construction sub -contracting, soils testing and laboratory services. 5. Actual reproduction costs such as blueprinting, photo -graphics, multi -copies, printing, and binding, for other than in-house use. 6. Miscellaneous direct costs applicable to and required for the Client's work. Where services such as blueprinting or copying for other than in-house use are performed in-house by GGHC staff and/or equipment rates charged will be equivalent to the available commercial rates for similar work, and will not be marked up. HOURLY RATES The following ranges of billable rates apply. These rates subject to change as and only as direct labor costs change. Principal $154.68 /hour Project Manager $ 95.93 /hour Engineer 1 $ 99.74 /hour Engineer II $ 82.22 /hour CAD Drafter 1 $ 61.61 /hour CAD Drafter li $ 44.69 /hour Clerical $ 46.30 /hour f include all multipliers, and are Exhibit B - Rates and Charges Page B-1 of 1 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007-186 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Date Received in Council O ice Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator. �/�/j,e x +/�� ! �� 4/10/07 FinancefC011rlcil i 1 F, V .+ �. • +� Division Head: Dept. Head: �J% Prosecutor: Purchasing/ et. °�l�o b7 r Executive: V d -- TITLE bF DOCUMENT. - Supplement No. 1 to the Standard Consultant Agreement with Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. (R&E) in the amount of $103,838.69 for the Final Design of the signalization at Hannegan Road and SRS44 intersection. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo to County Executive and Council 2. • Contract Information Sheet 3. Supplement No. 1 (2 originals) SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X) 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.) This Supplement Number 1 in the amount of $103,393.69 adds scope to the design contract for R&E to perform additional geotech work, revise the drainage, coordinate with WSDOT on access issues, add 13 R/W parcels to the acquisition process, and draft up the additional legal descriptions for the deeds. In addition, construction support services were added to the contract (to be exercised at the County's option) should they be required during the bidding and construction phases. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers. Ordinance or Resolution Number: 200509019 -1 CRP 904002 Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing andprinting on the County's website at: www.co. wl:atcotn. wa. tts/counciZ 67 Whatcorn County Contract No. WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Originating Department: PUBLIC WORKS Contact Person: James P. Karcher Ext. 50633 Contractor's Name: Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc . Is this a New Contract? Yes a No IQ If not, is this an Amendment to an Existing Contract? Yes ® No ❑ If an Amendment, previous number(s): 200509019 Is this a renewal? Yes Q No Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract aml 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 $205,860.00 This Amendment Amount: memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than $10, 000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an $103,838.69 agenda bill and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Total Amended Amount: Executive with supporting memo for approval. $ 309,698.69 Scope of Services Reichhardt & Ebe (R&E) was selected, through a qualification based selection process (RFQ), to provide final design services to prepare a bid package to signalize the Hannegan Rd 1 SR 544 (Pole Rd) Intersection. This Supplement Number l in the amount of $103,383.69 adds scope to the design contract for R&E to perform additional geotech work, revise the drainage, coordinate with WSDOT on access issues, add 13 RIW parcels to the acquisition process, and draft up the additional legal descriptions for the deeds. In addition, eonstruction support services were added to the contract (to be exercised at the County's option) should they be required during the bidding and construction phases. Nature of Contract Amt. (Check one) Fixed Amount ❑ Not to Exceed ® Open Ended ❑ Term of Contract: I Ex iration Date: 12131108 Renewal Option Yes ® No ❑ I Last Renewal Expires: Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: 1. Prepared by: Jim Karcher 2. Attorney reviewed-:-1-1micl 1.C��bS Date: March 30 2007 � Date: �3Q o7 3. AS -Finance reviewed: Date: S 3b G7 4. Corrections made. Date: 5. Attorney signoff.• Date: 0-9 30%7 6. Contractor signed: Date Z Submitted to Exec Office: / Date: ,� Jqo Ip - 8. Reviewed by DCA: Date: �7�� 9. Council approved (if necessary): Date: 10. Executive signed: Date: 11. Contractor Original returned to dept. Date: 12. County Original to Council: Date: M WHATCOM COUNTY �oM oo JOSEPH P. RUTAN, P.E. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT re> Assistant Director/County Road Engineer s• ' '`�' s� 2011 Young St., Suite 201 Frank M. Abart ` �f Bellingham, WA 98225-4052 Director �$ 10Phone: (360) 715-7450 Fax: (360) 715-7451 MAR 3 0 2007 Memo PETIE KREMEN Cli� ;WVI Ev."CUT-IWE To: The Honorable Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive and The Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council Through: Frank M. Abart, Director From: Joseph P. Rutan, P.E., Assistant Director/County Road Engineer Date: March, 30, 2007 Re: Hannegan Road/SR 544 Signalization Project CRP #904002; WCC 4200509019 Supplement No. I Enclosed are two (2) originals of Supplement No. 1 to the Standard Consultant Agreement between Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc., and Whatcom County for your review and signature. Requested Action Public Works respectfully requests that the County Council authorize the County Executive to approve Supplement No. 1 to the Standard Consultant Agreement with Reichhardt & Ebe. Said supplement adds scope, payment and time to the Final Design effort required to prepare the construction bid documents for the signalization of the Hannegan Road / SR544 Signalization Project. Background and Purpose The intersection of Hannegan Road/SR 544 is currently controlled by a four-way stop, with flashing red overhead lights. With no turn lanes on any of the approach legs, the intersection operates at a low level of service during peak hours. Reichhardt & Ebe was selected, through a qualification based selection process (RFQ), to provide design services to implement the intersection improvement. This contract represents Phase 2 of the design process to prepare contract documents for the bid and construction of the chosen improvement alternative — a traffic signal. The improvement is planned for the 2007 Construction Season and is being undertaken primarily to improve the level of service, but also in anticipation of WSDOT's Guide Meridian (SR539) construction in 2008. Funding Amount and Source The original Agreement was $205,860. Supplement No. 1 in the amount of $103,838.69 will increase the total contract amounfto $309,698.69 on the Standard Consultant Agreement. Sufficient local funds exist within the 2007/2008 Road Fund budget. Please contact Jim Karcher at extension 50633 if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. I.JCRP CURRENTPROJECTMennoganSR544 519nariraHan 90400ZC4nsulanAR&ElContradWamo to 16emen SLp0ament 1.*c 69 AW COUNTY OR1C11��AL � Washington State WI/ Department of Transportation WNATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT NO. Supplemental A pp Agreement g Organization and Address Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. Number 1 423 Front Street Lynden, WA 98264 Original Agreement Number Wh Co Contract No. 200509019-1 Phone: (360) 354-3687; Fax (360) 354-0407 Project Number Execution Date Completion Date CRP No. 904002 4/10/2007 12/31/2008 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable Hannegan Rd 1 SR 544 Signalization Project $ 309,698.69 Description of Work This Supplement No. 1 in the amount of $103,838.69 to the Final Design Contract will cover additional design services (drainage, geotech, access, utility), additional R/W services (13 added parcels) and potential construction support services (Count}ls option) during the construction phase. New Total Contract Amount, including this supplement, is $309,698.69. The Local Agency of Whatcom County desires to supplement the agreement entered into with Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. and executed on 9/28/2005 and idenffied as Agreement No. Wh Co # 200509019 All provisions in the basle agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: Additional Scope is detailed in attached prime ("onsultanLq Rxhibi B-2 which includes SuhConsultant work for geotechnical and survey discipline; R/W Subronsultan s work is detailed in Exhibit R-3_ 11 Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: Completion Date of December 31, 2008_ Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: Tntsl of Supplement Nn_ 1 = $103,939.h9_ Reichhardt & Rhe Rngine.Pring, Inr.. S69,173.69; Certified Land Services 125,665; GeoEn4 neers $4,000;_Comnass Pt Surveying .�5,000. as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. Consultant Signature Gregory D. Ebe, P.E. DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 912005 Approving Authority Signature Date 70 Hannegan Rd 1 SRS44 Signallzalion CRP 904002 Final Des[gn Contract— Supp! No.1 WHATCOM COUNTY: . Recomm e r proval: D artment Director Date L A raved as to form: 11 Jam• �� � O;i/3b%� 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: Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. Gregory D. Ebe, P.E., PRINCIPAL -IN -CHARGE Address: 423 Front Street, Suite 201 P.O. Box 978 Lynden, WA 98264 Mailing Address: Same as address above Contact Name: Luis Ponce, P.E. Contact Phone: (360) 354-3687 Contact FAX: (360) 354-0407 71 EXHIBIT A Hannegan Road/SR 544 Slanalization Protect Manhour and Cost Estimate Supplement No.1 Approx Length {LF) From: Hannegan Road, Approximately 500' North and South of Inters 2,000 SR 544, Approximately 500' East and West of Intersection Date: March 30, 2007 Plans_ Snedfieallens_ and Esllmara Task No. Task Description Classlnration and Level Engr. Lovol 7 Engr. Leval B Engr. Level 8 Engr. Level 6 Engr. Level 2 Tech. Laval 5 Tech Level 2 Cler. Level2 2.0 Drainage Report 2.1 Sile Vislt 21 4 2.2 Infiltration Trench Design 2 4 4 2.3 Infiltration Trench Conveyance 7 3 3 6 e 2.4 Drama a Report 1 2 8 2 2 2.5 en Meat[n s[Goordinatlon 6 41 1 2 Sub -Total 21 15 231 01 121 61 0 4 3.0 Right of ay Acquisition 3.1 Provide Support far Right of Way ulsIdon 10 8 8 6 8 3.2 Provide ROW Plans 8 8 10 24 3.3 ReAWU data Desl n Base Maps 2 4 8 3.4 Field Verify Base Maps 41 4 Sub -Total 0 201 01 241 221 381 0 8 5.0 Geotechnical Investigation 5.1 Coord[natlon of Field Concrete Coring investigation 6 5.2 Analyze Pavement Core Logs 2 Sub -Total 1 01 al 01 01 01 01 01 0 6.0 Plans, Specifications and Estimate 6.1 Final Design 6.2 Review Franchise UdlltV Proposed Relocations 10 2 10 6.3 Coordinate Relocatlons with U01111es 12 4 12 10 6.4 Rovisa Utility Relocations on Base Map 3 3 12 9.5 Coordinate Review/Approve[ with U81it[es al 61 8 101 2 6.6 Storm Drainage Conveyance 4 8 6 16 0.7 Revise Accesses 10 18 16 6.8 1 RevlewlEvaluate Revised Accesses with Property Owners 8 2 12 e.9 Prepare WSDOT Access Permit e 6 4 2 6.10 Revise PreviouslLApproved Channeltzatlon Plan 1 4 4 8 8 6.11 Submit Revised Channellzadon Plan to WSDOT 2 6.12 Iricarporate WSDOT Channelization Plan Comments 3 2 8 8 6.13 Finalize Channelizal[on Plan 1 11 31 1 11 21 4 12 Sub -Total I2 73 al 211 oil 941 01 6 7.0 Assistance During Pre -Bid, Bid Process, Const. 7.1 Respond to Bidder Questions 16 12 7.2 Interpret & Clarify Bid Documents 16 6 18 7.3 Prepare Contract Addendums i6 16 16 2 7.4 Review/Respond to RFI's During Construction 24 24 16 2 7.5 Review Site Conditions and Work Methods 4 30 a 40 7.81 Provide As Built Record Drawings 121 10 16 1 4 Sub -Total 1 41 1141 141 1181 01 481 01 8 TOTAL HOURS 8 23 6 HOURLY RATE $117.48 $94.79 $91.92 $86.87 $54,74 $82 T5 .06 $36.72 SUB -TOTAL 1 $9401 $21,8011 $4,1361 $14.1271 $0.8421 $11671 $0 $1007 Sub Total $60.523.89 8.0 SUBCONSULTANTS 8.1 ROW - Certified Land Services $25,605.00 8.2Geolechnlcal Engineer -GeolEnIntors $4,000.00 8.3 Surveyor - Compass Point Surva n (legal descriptions) $5 000.00 Sub -Total $34.685.00 9.0 REIMBURSABLES 9.1 Title reports 13 $250.00 leach $3,250.00 9.2 Escrow services for each parcel 18 $300 /each $5 400.00 Sub -Total $8,050.00 GRAND TOTAL $103,838.69 P:WrojeGs105011LSOWBudgetivuppll%SuppiemenllMHlfin.xls 72 EXHIBIT B-2 HANNEGAN ROAD/SR 544 SIGNALIZATION PROJECT, CRP 904002 SUPPLEMENT NUMBER 1 SCOPE OF WORK Whatcom County Public Works, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, desires to supplement the Agreement entered into with Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT, executed on the 28"' day of September 2005. All provisions of the Agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by Supplement No. 1. The changes to the Agreement are described as follows: SCOPE OF WORK Add the following: Work Item 2 — Drainage Design: a. Delete the proposed open infiltration trenches on the south leg of Hannegan Road, the east and west leg of Pole Road, and prepare a revised design for an enclosed infiltration trench for the entire project. The south and east legs will overflow outfall to Four Mile Creek; however, the west leg will not have an overflow outfall. The enclosed infiltration system for the east and west leg will be designed to store and infiltrate all runoff into these two systems. 2. Work Item 3 — Right -of -Way Acquisition a. The project will require ROW acquisition from 18 parcels. The CONSULTANT will acquire right of way (ROW) from eight (8) parcels as described in "Exhibit B-3, Certified Land Services". b. The CONSULTANT will provide legal descriptions for the13 additional parcels. c. The COUNTY will use their personnel to negotiate ten (10) of the eighteen (18) strip take acquisitions. The COUNTY scope for this works is as follows: i. Prepare offer packets for the ten (10) parcels using legal descriptions supplied by CONSULTANT; ii. Make personal contacts with each owner with the intent of reaching settlement for the conveyance of property or property rights needed from each parcel. iii. Explain the County's offer verbally and in writing. iv. Provide detailed written diaries for each parcel. v. Provide fully executed & recorded packages for the ten (10) parcels that will be combined with CONSULTANT work to facilitate tumback to WSDOT if required. The CONSULTANT shall assist the COUNTY when requested to provide all other tasks described in "Exhibit B-3, Certified Land Services, Task 6 — Negotiation". d. The COUNTY will review the escrow services cost and documentation for all parcels. 3/29/2007 Page 1 Rev. 2 73 Supplement No. 1 Project No. CRP 904 002 Hannegan Road/SR 544 Signalization Project 3. Work Item 5 — Geotechnical Investigation: a. Provide additional concrete borings. Concrete was discovered below the existing asphalt surfacing during the initial geotechnical investigation. Additional borings are required for the concrete. 4. Work Item 6 — Plans Specifications and Estimate: a. Coordinate directly with impacted utilities, review utilities' proposed relocation to assure the utilities do not conflict with the proposed roadway improvements, revise utilities' location on CONSULTANT base map, submit revised base map for utilities' for review and approval. b. Revise property owners' accesses, coordinate with property owners to assure revised accesses address owners' concerns, prepare WSDOT access permit, and revise base map to reflect the new accesses. c. Coordinate the review and approval of the revised accesses directly with WSDOT. d. Revise and resubmit the previously approved Channelization Plan to reflect the revised accesses. 5. Work Item 7 — Assistance During Pre -Bid, Bid Process, & Const a. The CONSULTANT shall perform construction support services as directed by the Client and as required for the Hannegan Road/SR 544 Signalization Project. These services shall include the following: 1. At the County's request, provide shop drawing review of items such as, but not limited to, retaining walls, signal hardware (mast arms/strain poles) and electrical components, traffic control plans, project sequence. 2. At the County's request, make intermittent site visits for inspections, analyze and respond to requests for information and review and respond to changed conditions and disputes that may arise. 3/29/2007 Page 2 Rev. 2 74 Exhibit B-3 L A N D 5 C O R Supplemental No. 1 Scope of Work - Hannegan/SR 544 Signalization Project, Whatcom County -- CRP 904002, Project Overview. The project originally consisted of acquiring approximately 5 strip/partial takes in fee or permanent easement, and 1 mutual benefits right of entry. The project design has been revised to include 18 partial/strip takes in fee; one of the partial take parcels will include a permanent easement for powerline overhang. There are no mutual benefits rights of entry. In accordance with Whatcom County's revised Right of Way Procedures, the County will act as acquisition agent on 10 of the 18 parcels; CERTIFIED Land Services will act as acquisition agent on the following 8 parcels: Parcel 2 - Muenscher Parcel 3 - Muenscher Parcels 6,7 & 8 - Sangha Parcel 9 - Sangha Parcel 12 - SeaMar Community Health Center Parcel 15 - Hendricks CERTIFIED Land Services will serve as subconsultant to Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, who will act as Prime to Whatcom County Department of Public Works who is the client. There is no relocation of persons or personal property on this project. Whatcom County acquisition policies and procedures guide all acquisition activities. Deviations from these policies will not occur without approval from the County. CERTIFIED will work closely with all project stakeholders including project managers and staff, engineering project managers and designers, property owners and their representatives and the public. It is the intention of the consultant to have a project that is certification ready by the time of completion of the task. 4 5 3 5 4 4 t h Avenue SW l, 5 e a t f le, W A 9 8 1 1 6 Phone: 206.287.9858 Fax: 206.938-6717 e-mail: info@certifiedlandservices.com 75 L A N D S E R V I C E S C 0 R P 0 R A T 1 0 N Task I - Project Management Assumptions: ' • The PRIME will act as general right of way project manager. • CERTIFIED will provide staff management/advisory time for its staff, but will not consider itself in any way the project manager for the project. 1.1.1 Prepare a project schedule for the right of way phase. Monitor and update the schedule as needed. 1.1.2 Prepare and submit a monthly progress report that will include identification of work performed in the previous month's schedule, measures for mitigating schedule slippage, if necessary, and identification and discussion of potential problems that may arise, including issues resolution. 1.1.3 Manage quality in coordination with the prime's Project Manager. 1.1.4 Submit detailed monthly invoices. Task 2 - Preparation • CERTIFIED staff will review all documents, files, maps, title reports, legal descriptions and other information provided. Errors, questions and clarifications will be reviewed and discussed. Task 3 - Appraisal Assumptions: • In accordance with funding source requirements CERTIFIED will determine parcels that may be acquired with appraisal waivers and those parcels that require full narrative appraisals. 3.1.1 CERTIFIED will prepare a preliminary funding estimate for the 18 fee parcels describing each parcel, its ownership, the estimated cost of any acquisition, labor, escrow', condemnation and summary of total right of way phase project costs. 3.1.2 Appraisal Waivers will be written for those parcels valued under $25,000 in the Preliminary Funding Estimate process, in accordance with the County's revised Right of Way Procedures. CERTIFIED will hire and manage appraisers who will provide full narrative before and after appraisals for parcels. Task 4 - Appraisal Review Assumptions: • Appraisal Reviews are not necessary for parcels valued under $25,000 according to the County's revised Right of Way Procedures. • CERTIFIED will hire and manage review appraisers who will provide. review services for any parcels being appraised. • The County will set just compensation for all parcels from which offers to property owners will be made. Task 5 — Administrative 5.1.1 CERTIFIED will provide signature ready legal documents that will be used to convey fee or permanent easement rights for the 6 parcels assigned by the County. 5.1.2 The Prime will provide title commitments for each parcel with Schedule B showing exceptions listed. 5.1.3 The Prime will provide all legal descriptions. 5.1.4 The Prime will provide approved right of way and or exhibit maps for the project. 4 5 3 5 4 4 t h A v e n u e SW & Seattle, W A 9 8 1 1 6 Phone: 206.287.9858 Fax: 206.938-6717 e-mail: info@certifiediandservices.com 76 5.1.5 CERTIFIED staff will maintain all records, files, documents and reports in accordance with statutory and County guidelines and regulations. 5.1.5 CERTIFIED will provide the Prime with written status reports on a monthly basis and will provide verbal status reports on demand, as requested. Task 6 - Negotiation Assumptions: • CERTIFIED agents will act in good faith at all times. • CERTIFIED staff will never coerce owners in an attempt to settle parcels • CERTIFIED will provide Administrative Settlement Letters for all requested administrative settlements to be reviewed and approved by the County. • CERTIFIED staff will work whatever hours are necessary, including evenings and weekends, to make themselves available to owners and their representatives. 6.1.1 CERTIFIED will prepare offer letters for the 6 parcels assigned by the County. 6.1.2 CERTIFIED agents will make at least 3 personal contacts with each owner with the intent of reaching settlement for the conveyance of property or property rights needed from each parcel. As many contacts as needed to reach settlement will be made, until it is mutually agreed between the County and CERTIFIED that negotiations should be suspended or given to the County Attorney to pursue eminent domain actions. 6.1.3 CERTIFIED staff will explain the County's offer verbally and in writing. 6.1.4 CERTIFIED staff will provide detailed written diaries for each parcel. 6.1.5 CERTIFIED staff will transmit organized parcel files containing all pertinent information, documents, forms, diaries, and Disclaimer Statements. 6.1.6 CERTIFIED staff will prepare a condemnation summary memo for any parcel that the County deems it is necessary to acquire through the exercising of its power of eminent domain. Task 7 — Relocation Assumptions: • There are no relocations on this project. • Sign relocations will be considered cost to cure items addressed in appraisals and negotiations. Task S - Closing and Conveyance Assumptions: • Title Clearance is not required on parcels valued under $5,000 according to state and federal funding source requirements. • CERTIFIED will clear any liens and encumbrances that are in conflict with the County`s intended use of the right of way acquired to ensure certification and that there are no conflicts of ownership or use of the land required during construction. • The County will pay property owners and/or leinholders/encumbrancers for any property or property rights acquired through the closing process. 8.1.1 CERTIFIED staff will review title for each parcel. 8.1.2 CERTIFIED will prepare any documents needed for clearing any liens or encumbrances as noted above. 8.1.3 CERTIFIED will provided the County with complete files at the close of negotiations for each parcel. Included in our transmittal packages will be conveyance documents ready for the city to record. 4 5 3 5 4 4 1 h Avenue SW - Seattle, W A 9 8 1 1 6 Phone: 206.287.9858 Fax: 206.938-6717 e-mail: info@certifiedlandservices.com 77 COST ESTIMATE This proposal is based on charging only for those hours worked. The outline of tasks and hours provided above are a guide to our understanding and approach to work. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Original scope: $3,388 (based on 2 hrs./parcel @ 5 parcels + 4 hrs.-Open House) Billed to date for preliminary meetings w/ County & owners in 2005-2006, solicitations of appraisal bids in 2006 & 2007, attendance @ Open House, oversight of PFE process, etc.: $12,105 ($8,717 more than original cost estimate) Senior Project Manager 12 hours @ $154 per hour = $1,848 (Based on 2 hrs each fee parcel @ 6 parcels) NEGOTIATION — additional 1 parcel from original scope Senior Acquisition Agent: 35 hours @ $95 per hour = $3,325 (Based on 35 hrs for 1 additional fee parcel) TITLE CLEARANCE — additional 3 parcels from original scone Senior Acquisition Agent: 45 hours @ $95 per hour = $4,275 (Assuming 3 additional parcels may require title clearance) TITLE REPORTS/PAYMENT TO OWNERS Title Reports will be provided by the prime and are not included in this cost estimate. The overall project scope of work calls for the County pay directly for any escrow services and payments of just compensation to the property owners. PRELIMINARY FUNDING ESTIMATE — additional parcels from original scope CERTIFIED staff will prepare a PFE for the additional parcels in the revised project plan (17 in all, as 3 parcels are combined). For each parcel valued under $25,000 CERTIFIED will prepare an Appraisal Waiver Summary Sheet. 12 X $500 = $6,000 REIMBIIRSABLES In addition to the above costs, reimbursable costs such as mileage, postage, phone and fax charges, or other reasonable costs will be billed at straight cost (includes mileage based on 10 trips, and calculated @ 215 miles round trip from West Seattle @ current IRS mileage rate of $.445/mile). Estimated Reimbursables = $2,000 ($1,500 more than original cost estimate) TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ADDITIONAL PARCELS, PROJECT MGMT. TIME & REIMBIIRSABLES = $25,665 NOTE: IT IS OUR COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH EFFECTIVE AND COST EFFICIENT SERVICE. SINCE WE WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE A NOT TO EXCEED COST ESTIMATE, WE HAVE PROVIDED THIS ESTIMATE FOR YOUR BUDGETING PURPOSES. ALTHOUGH IT CANNOT BE GUARANTEED, IT IS OUR GOAL TO DELIVER THIS PROJECT WELL WITHIN THE ABOVE TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS. WE WILL UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEED THIS ESTIMATE WITHOUT YOUR FULL CONSENT AND APPROVAL. BILLS WILL BE SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH OF EACH MONTH. STATUS REPORTS AND EXPENSE REPORTS WILL BE SUBMITTED WITH EACH INVOICE. 5 3 5 4 4 t h Avenue SW - Seattle, W A 9 8 1 1 Phone: 206.287.9858 Fax: 206.938-6717 e-mail: info@certifiedIandservices.com NQ WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL No. 2007-187 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: PenniLem eres 13 0 r ' L - 4/10/07 Finance/Cou Division Head: Bruce Rol! 1 i 3 `_ ., . Dept. Head: Frank Rbarr 3l/ Prosecutor: l /U Dan Gibson p i 3 6 % ti� i �lr� r `is tr E `u i Purchasing/Budget: Brad Bennelt IR I V ZG Q 7 1 L L �i � C! L Executive: Pete Kremen lio I , _ -0 TITLE OF OCUMENT. July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2009 Community Litter Cleanup Grant to Whatcom County Public Works, Solid Waste Division, from the Department of Ecology. ATTACHMENTS. Cover Letter to County Executive Community Litter Cleanup Grant Contract SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x ) SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (x ) NO NO Requested Date: S UMMA R Y STA TEMEN T 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 RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of fire action.) The attached grant agreement will provide up to $62,100 in funds to the County for the Educational, Adopt-A-RoadlTrail, and Juvenile Offender Litter Cleanup Programs. The programs have been in operation since 1998, and this will allow us to continue the cleanup of our county for another two-year period. The funding provides $50,100 for cleanup costs and $12,000 towards litter and illegal dumping education. 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.whatcomwa.us1councA icil 79 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Frank Abart Public Works Director TO: THROUGH: FROM: RE: DATE: 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: co.whatcom.wa. u s MEMORANDUM The Honorable Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council Frank M. Abart, Director Bruce Roll, Assistant Director_4(� Public Works Department 2007-2009 Community Litter Cleanup Program March 13, 2007 RECEIVED MAR 2 0 ZOO? PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE ■ Requested Action v Public Works respectfully requests that the County Executive enter a grant agreement with Washington State Department of Ecology for the sum of $62,1OO.for community litter programs. Enclosed are two originals for your review and signature. ■ Background and Purpose The Whatcom County Solid Waste Division has received a contract agreement for the 2007- 2009 Community Litter Cleanup Program with the Department of Ecology. This is a concurrent two-year program, which we have participated in since 1998. The grant will allow us to continue our anti -litter education efforts, as well as litter and illegal dumpsite cleanup in our county, with the help of a Juvenile Offender Litter Crew and the Adopt -A -Road programs. ■ Funding Amount and Source The Department of Ecology two-year grant amount is for $62,100. ■ Differences from Previous Contract For this two-year grant period, the funding provided is $1,900 less than the previous grant, which was for $64,000. Please contact Penni Lemperes at extension 50291, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. Encl. :1 WHA TCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. ';2CA:P 7o3d35 Originating Department: Public Works, Solid Waste Division Contact Person: Penni Lem eyes Contractor's Name: Washington State Department of Ecology 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 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 $62J00 memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than This Amendment Amount: $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 Executive with Total Amended Amount: supporting memo for approval. Scope of Services [Insert language from contract (Exhibit A) or summarize; expand space as necessary] Grant for Community Litter Pickup The grant will provide for continuation of our anti -litter education efforts, as well as litter and illegal dumpsite cleanup in our county. Nature of Contract Amt: (Check one) Fixed Amount Not to Exceed X Open Ended Term of Contract: Two Years Expiration Date: June 30, 2009 Renewal Option Yes X No Last Renewal Expires: Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: Contract Routine Steps & Signofl: (sign or initiall (indicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: DB�- Date_3113107 [electronic] 1 2. Attorney reviewed: Gtn i e G.77 i Dale o3 ig o r [electronic] 3.AS Finance reviewed: Date o G [electronic] 4. Corrections made: Date electronic] hard copy printed 5. Attorney signoff ✓ Date 0 6. Contractor signed: Date 7. Submitted to Exec Office ,/ Dates j d . summary via electronic; hardcopies] 8. Reviewed by DCA Date 9. Council approved (if necessary) Date 10. Executive signed. Date If. Contractor Original Returned to dept; Date 12. County Original to Council Date thisform may need to expand to more than one page r __ __ Interagency Agreement No. C0800007 W HA—TOC)I 4 C 0 U N T Y Community Litter Cleanup Program Agreement with Whatcom County Solid Waste - CON�FE)" C T NO. ORIGINAL INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND WHATCOM COUNTY SOLID WASTE This is a binding agreement entered into by and between the State of Washington Department of Ecology, hereinafter referred to as ECOLOGY, and Whatcom County Solid Waste, hereinafter referred .to as the RECIPIENT. The purpose -of this agreement is to provide funding for the RECIPIEN.T's Community Litter Cleanup- Program. RECIPIENT ADDRESS Whatcom County Solid Waste 322 North Commercial Suite 220 Bellingham WA 98225-4042 RECIPIENT PROJECT COORDINATOR Penni Lemperes TELEPHONE 360-676-7695 FAX 360-738-4561 E-MAIL " plempere@co.whatcom.wa.us ECOLOGY PROJECT OFFICER TELEPHONE FAX lE-MAIL FUNDING, SOURCE ESTIMATED COMMUNITY INVESTMENT STATE SHARE FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. Steven Williams 42S-649-7048 425-649-7098 stwi461@ecy.wa.gov Waste Reduction, Recycling, &. Model Litter Control Fund $ 47,000 $ 62,100 91-6001383 The -period of performance of this Agreement begins -on July IL, 2007. Any work performed p'rior to the effective date, of this agreement without prior written authorization. and specified in the Scope of Work will be at the sole expense and risk of the RECIPIENT., Therwork will be completed on June 30, 2009, unless terminated sooner as provided for herein. PURPOSE STATEMENT: To remove litter and illegally dumped material from public (ands and/or provide. litter and illegal dump prevention education to citizens and other organizations. I of 7 82 Interagency Agreement No. C0800007 Community Litter Cleanup Program Agreement with Whatcoim County Solid Waste It is agreed that the RECIPIENT shall furnish the necessary personnel, equipment, material and/or services, and/or otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of the scope of work set forth below. SCOPE OF WORK Recipient Responsibilities; 1. PROJECT: Litter & Illegal Dump Cleanup Maximum Eligible Cost:. $ 50,100 Schedule: July 1, 2007 through June.30, 2009 Goal Statement: The goal of this project is to continue cleanup of county roads, illegal dumpsites, trails and other -Public areas. The RECIPIENT hopes to improve_ the cleanliness -of county roads and target areas that potentially impact area waterways. Proiect Description: The RECIPIENT shall continue to operate a juvenile offender crew of up to eight crew members. The crew will operate on the weekends during the school year and five days a week,'Monday through Friday, during the summer. One to two supervisors will be present at all times to monitor the crews.. The supervisors will be responsible for the safety, training, and efficiency of the,crews. The RECIPIENT shall provide safety equipment for all cleanup crews. The vehicle used by the crew shall be properly equipped. Each supervisor shall be trained in first aid .and CPR. The RECIPIENT will assist crews with pickup of heavy items as needed. The'RECIPIENT shall also organize an.Adopt-a-Road program to target litter and illegal dumping in neighborhoods, trails and other public areas.. Cleanup of private property is not eligible for reimbursement, unless prior authorization is granted by ECOLOGY and if cleanup of the private property conforms to CLCP guidelines. Eligible Costs: The RECIPIENT shall use awarded funds to pay for supervisor salary and benefits, equipment/tools/supplies, and disposal costs. Community Investments: Community Investments include the following:- program administration, equipment/tools/ supplies, disposal•costs, and donation of offender time. Expected Outcomes/Impacts: • 1;200 Road miles to be. cleaned 0-105,000 Pounds of litter collected • 6 Acres to be cleaned • 45,0'00 Pounds of debris from illegal, dumps • 12-Illegal dumpsites to be cleaned • 1,400 Supervisor hours • 16,000 Pounds of material recycled • 7,300 Total crew hours 2 of 7 83 Interagency Agreement No. C0800007 Community Litter Cleanup Program Agreement with Whatcom County Solid Waste 2. PROJECT: litter Prevention Education/Outreach Maximum Eligible Cost:' $ 12,000 Schedule: July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2009 Goal Statement: The RECIPIENT hopes to expand its current litter prevention education program by providing anti -litter educational material and providing outreach to the community. The RECIPIENT will target ,youth with its messages. , Project Description: The RECIPIENT shall continue .its `'You, Otter not Litter" ,prevention campaign to educate both children and adults about'the need -to-keep public lands. clean:. Outreach will occur at various 'communityevents including Whatcom County's annual Ski. to Sea Parade and the Whatcom County Home Show. Andy Otter is a well known symbol of anti -littering in Whatcom County and will attend community events and school functions. The RECIPIENT will also feature "Andy Otter's Kids Page" in the RECIPIENT's Solid Solutions newsletter and distribute recycled pencils and rulers to school age children who participate in outreach and education programs at local schools. The RECIPIENT shall distribute additional otter logo products such as bags, magnets, coloring books, pencils, rulers, and t-shirts. Eligible Costs: The. RECIPIENT shall use awarded funds to pay for supplies and promotional materials in support of its prevention efforts. Expected Outcomes/Impacts: The RECIPIENT expects to reach over 90,006 households, and 'make '8,000 contacts at county events and school programs. Progress Reports: Progress Reports must be submitted with each payment request. Progress reports may not contain information for more than one quarter. For example, if the RECIPIENT is permitted to submit.a payment request for a period from July 1, 2007 through_ December 31, 2007, the RECIPIENT shall submit two separate progress reports - one report for July 1, 2007 through September 30, 2007.and a second report for October 1, 2007 'through December 31, 2007'. The final payment request shall include Final Project Assessment form, which. is used to summarize and evaluate the entire project. Please also include details about community investments on this form. On -Site Visits: ECOLOGY staff may make periodic on -site visits. -to the RECIPIENT's litter'cleanup activities/projects. 3 of 7 84 Interagency Agreement No. C0800007 Community Litter Cleanup Program Agreement with Whatcom County Solid Waste BUDGET 1. Litter & Illegal Dump Cleanup I $ 50,100 112. Litter Prevention Education/Outreach 1 $ 12,000 N I , TOTAL $ 62,100 . FUND SOURCE ADDITIONAL BUDGET CONDITIONS 1. The fiscal office will monitor expenditures at the task level. 2. There is a limit'of 10% administrative costs of the total contract amount. 3. Recipient contact for billing/invoice questions is: Kolleen Kilpatrick 360-676-6692 PAYMENT Compensation for the work provided. in accordance with this agreement has been established underthe terms of RCW 39.34.130. The parties heave -estimated the cost of completing the work herein will not exceed $62,100 unless the partles mutually agree to a higher amount prior to commencement of any work which will cause the maximum payment to, be exceeded. Compensation for services shall be based on the budget above this section. Overtime compensation; including. straight salaries and benefits for employee hours in excess of 40 par week, is allowable only with prior written approval and only when 100% of an employee's time rs spent on tasks specific to the Scope of. Work of the Agreement. Billing Procedures:: The RECIPIENT shall submit invoices no more frequently than once a month and 'no -less ffequently than once per quarter. Invoices are due'30.days following the end of each quarter, and shall be done on the accepted forms. The RECIPIENT must show that. they are using the funds by submitting invoices -and progress reports to Ecology.. At its discretion, Ecology may amend or revoke contracts if a recipient does any ofthe following: •. Submits no invoices by October 31, 2007 (that is, within 30 days of the quarter ending September 30, 2007) • Submits no invoices withih 30 days after the end of any subsequent quarter • Submits invoices that show insufficient activity 4 of 7 85 Interagency Agreement No. C0800007 Community Litter Cleanup Program Agreement with Whatcom County Solid Waste. Upon expiration of the contract, any claim for payment not already made shall be submitted within 30 days after the expiration date or the end of the fiscal year, whichever is earlier. Payments shall be made payable to: Whatcom County Public Works Attn: Solid Waste 322 N Commercial Suite 220 Bellingham WA 98225-4042 RECORDS MAINTENANCE The parties to this contract shall each maintain books, records, documents and other evidence which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended by either party in the performance of the services described herein. These records shall -be subject to inspection, review -or audit by personnel of both parties, other personnel duly authorized by either party, the Office of the State Auditor, and federaliofficials so authorized by law. All books, records, documents, and other material relevant to this Agreement will be retained for six years after expiratlon 'and. the Office of the State Auditor, federal auditors, and any persons duly authorized by the parties shall have full -access and the right to examine any of these materials during this period. Records and other documents, in any medium, furnished by one party to this Agreement to the other party, will remain the property of the furnishing party, unless otherwise agreed. The receiving party will not disclose or make available -this material to any third parties without first giving notice to the furnishing party and giving it a reasonable opportunity to respond. Each party will utilize. reasonable security procedures and protections to assure that records and documents provided. by the other party are not erroneously disclosed to third parties. RIGHTS IN DATA Unless otherwise provided, data which. originates from this Agreement shall be "works for hire" as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 and shall be owned by ECOLOGY. Data shall include, but not be limited to, reports, documents, pamphlets, advertisements, books magazines, surveys, studies, computer programs, films, tapes, and/or sound reproductions. Ownership includes the right to copyright, patent, register, and the ability -to transfer these rights. PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS A copy of all promotional and educational materials developed as part of this Agreement shall be submitted to ECOLOGY concurrent with public distribution or quarterly payment requests. ECOLOGY will be acknowledged for providing funding In all published materials that result from this Agreement. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY The employees or agents of each party who are engaged in the performance of this Agreement shall continue to be employees or agents of that party and shall not be considered for any purpose to be employees or agents of the other party. AGREEMENT ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS This agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties.. Such amendments shall'not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement,upon 30 days prior written notification to the other party. If this Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in.accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. 5of7 86 Interagency Agreement No. C0800007 Community Litter Cleanup Program Agreement with Whatcom County Solid Waste TERMINATION FOR CAUSE If for any cause, either party does not fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if.either party violates any of these terms and conditions, the aggrieved party will give the other party written notice of such failure or violation.- The responsible party will be given the opportunity to correct the violation or failure within 15 working days. If the failure or violation is not corrected, this Agreement.may be terminated Immediately by written notice of the aggrieved party to the other. DISPUTES In the event that a dispute arises under this Agreement,'it shall be determined bya Dispute Board in the following manner: Each party to this agreement shall appoint one member to the Dispute Board. The members so appointed shall jointly appoint an additional member to the Dispute Board. The. Dispute Board shall review the facts, contract terms and applicable statutes and -rules and make a determination of the dispute. 'The determination of the Dispute Board shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. As an alternative to this process, -either of the parties may request intervention by the'Governor, as provided by RCW 43.17.330, in which event the Governor's process -will control. GOVERNANCE This contract is entered into pursuant to and under the authority -granted by the laws of the state of Washington and any applicable federal laws. The provisions of this agreement shall be construed to conform to those laws. In the event of an inconsistency in the terms of this Agreement, or between its terms and any applicable statute or rule, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the failowing order: a. applicable state and federal statutes and rules; b. scope of work; and C. any other provisions of the agreement, including. materials incorporated by reference. ASSIGNMENT The'Wbrk to be provided under this -Agreement, an&any claim arising thereunder, is not assignable or - delegable by either party in whole or .In part, without the express.prior written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. WAIVER I A failure by either party to exerclse its rights under this agreement shall not preclude that party from subsequent exercise of such rights,and shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights under this Agreement unless stated to be such In a writing signed by an authorized representative of the party and attached to the original Agreement. 6of7 87 Interagency Agreement No. C0800007 Community Litter Cleanup Program Agreement with Whatcom County Solid Waste SEVIE RABILI rI If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document• incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, -such invalidity shall .not affect•the other provisions of this A reerr ent which can be given effect without -the invalid provision, if'such remainder conforms to the requirements of applicable:law and the fundamental- purpose of this Agreement, and to'this end the provisions.of this Agreement are declared to be severable. ALL WRITINGS.CONTAINED HEREIN This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed uporr•by-the parties. No other' understandings, dial or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of -this Agreement shall•be deemed to exist or to -bind any of the parties hereto. In Witness whereof, the parties have-exgcuted this Agreement. STATE OF WASHIN'GTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Cullen Stephenson Title:. Program Manager Solid -Waste•& Financial Assistance Program Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY Assistant Attorney General Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County Pete, Kremen, Whatcom County Executive Date STATE OF WASHINGTON) . )ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) WHATCOM COUNTY SOLID WASTE 4By:FrMank Abaft Title: public Works Dire'cfdr im Date: Approved as to form: G o3/r3/n7 . Daniel L Gibson, Prosecuting Attomey Date On this day of March, 2007 before me personally appeared Pete Kremen, to me known to -be the Executive of Whatcom County, who executed the above ihstrument 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 7 of 7 WHA TCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL No. 2007-188 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: S.C., 4110107 Finance E. Stroebel Ir U Division Head: d6k. '31301-07 4110107 Council K. Christensen - Dept. Head: 440-�,, F.Abarl - cr 0 3 2`37 Prosecutor: Oq /0 D. Gibson Purchasing/Budget: VZ/07 B. Bennett C'0 U "N'C! L Exccufive: FV 6/�a I P. Kremen -0 2 TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Bellingham for Design and Permitting of the Squalicum Creek Estuary Restoration Task of the Squalicum Creek Delta Restoration Project ATTACHMENTS. Memo, contract information sheet, and interlocal agreement with attachments SEPA review required? Yes ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? Yes NO SEPA review completed? Yes ) NO Requested Date: SUMA1AR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (Ithis item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in Ilse required public notice. Be specific and cite RCWor WCCas appropriate. Beclear in explaining the intent of the action.) The Squalicum Creek Delta Restoration Project has been identified as a high priority by the Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Whatcom Country Nearshore Restoration Plan, and the Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee (MRC). This project will restore, conserve, and enhance natural habitat far the benefit ofmarine species in an area that has been degraded by past shoreline modifications. Whatcom County, on behalf of the MRC, has an opportunity to partner with the Port, Department of Ecology, and DNR by contributingfunds towards the design and permitting of the estuary restoration task of the project. The Port, as landowner, has agreed to manage the project. The purpose of this interlocal is to define the activities that will be conducted by the Port for the estuary restoration design and permitting, and the County's contribution to the project budget. This contribution will support the following activities, to be completed by the Port: hire a consultant to conduct a bathymetric and topographic survey ofthe project area, complete an engineering design and the necessary permits, submit permit applications to permitting authorities, and submit an intermediary estuary restoration design report to the County and MRC. 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 websiteat.- Pvw;p.co.witatcom.itauslcorencil. 1:\MAR1NE1Contracts120071Port ILA\Contract—Covers—AB—Memo-CIS.doc 89 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director STORMWATER 2011 Young Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98225 Telephone: (360) 715-7450 FAX: (360) 715-7451 www. wh a tco m co un ty. us MEMORANDUM RECEIVED APR 0 2 2007 PETE KREMEN TO: The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive and COUNTY EXECUTIVE The Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council THROUGH: Frank M. Abart, Public Works Director Yo.Y- FROM: Kirk N. Christensen, PE, Stormwater Manager P RE: Interlocal Agreement between Whatcom County and the Port of Bellingham for Design and Permitting of the Squalicum Creek Estuary Restoration Task of the Squalicum Creek Delta Restoration Project DATE: March 22, 2007 Enclosed are two (2) originals of the 2007 Interlocal Agreement between the Port of Bellingham (Port) and Whatcom County for your review and signature. • Requested Action Public Works respectfully requests that the County enter into an interlocal agreement with the Port to use Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee (MRC) grant funds for the design and permitting of the Squalicum Creek Estuary Restoration Task of the Squalicum Creek Delta Restoration Project. ■ Background and Purpose The Squalicum Creek Delta Restoration Project has been identified as a high priority by the Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Whatcom Country Nearshore Restoration Plan, and the Whatcom MRC. This project will restore, conserve, and enhance natural habitat for the benefit of marine species in an area that has been degraded by past shoreline modifications. The project consists of three tasks: estuary restoration, dock and piling removal, and fish passage improvement. Whatcom County, on behalf of the MRC, has an opportunity to partner with the Port, Department of Ecology, and DNR by contributing funds towards the design and permitting of the estuary restoration task of the project. The Port, as landowner, has agreed to manage the project. The purpose of this interlocal is to define the activities that will be conducted by the Port for the estuary restoration design and permitting, and the County's contribution to the project budget. This contribution will support the following activities, to be completed by the Port: hire a consultant to conduct a bathymetric and topographic survey of the project I:IMARINBIContracts120071Port ILAIContract Covers_AB Memo-CIS.doc 90 area, complete an engineering design and the necessary permits, submit permit applications to permitting authorities, and submit an intermediary estuary restoration design report to the County and MRC. Details on each of these activities are provided in Exhibit B. ■ Funding Amount and Source This interlocal agreement in the amount of $30,700 is funded through the Year 6 MRC Grant (G0600028) between Whatcom County and the Department of Ecology. Please contact Erika Stroebel at extension 50692 or Atina Casas at extension 50777 if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. Enclosures 1AMARINDContracts12007Tort ILA1Contract Covers AB Memo-CIS.doc 91 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contact No. 0Ro67 wo L Originating Department: Public Works - Stormwater Contact Person: Erika Stroebel, Senior Planner Contractor's Name: Port of Bellingham 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 $_30, 700.00 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 The Squalicum Creek Delta Restoration Project has been identified as a high priority by the Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Whatcom Country Nearshore Restoration Plan, and the Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee (MRC). This project will restore, conserve, and enhance natural habitat for the benefit of marine species in an area that has been degraded by past shoreline modifications. Through the MRC, Whatcom County has an opportunity to partner with the Port, Department of Ecology, and DNR by contributing funds towards the design and permitting of the estuary restoration task of the project. The purpose of this interlocal is to define the activities that will be conducted by the Port (who will be managing the project) for the estuary restoration design and permitting, and the County's contribution to the project budget. This contribution will support the Port in hiring a consultant to conduct a bathymetric and topographic survey of the project area, completion of an engineering design and the necessary permits, submittal ofpermit applications to permitting authorities, and submittal ofan intermediary estuary restoration design report to the County and MRC. Nature of Contract Amt: ( Check one) Fixed Amount Not to Exceed _ Open Ended _ Term of Contract: Expiration Date: Renewal Option Yes No Last Renewal Expires: Special Dates or clauses that require calendaring: 1. Prepared by: 2. Attorney reviewed.• ^i 3. AS -Finance reviewed: 4. Corrections made. 5. Attorney signoff. 6. Contractor signed: 7. Submitted to Exec Office 8. Reviewed by DCA 9. Council approved (if necessary) 10. Executive signed: 11. Contractor Original Returned to dept; 12. County Original to Council Date 3 o o [electronic] Date ,, o 1) [electronic] Date o electronic] Date electronic] hard copy printed Date ei Date Date (summary via electronic; hardcopies] Date Date Date Date Date this form may need to expand to more Than one page I:IMARINEIContracts120071Port ILAIContract Covers AB Memo-CIS.doc 92 Whatcom County Contract No. COUNTY ORIGINAL 2007 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PORT OF BELLINGHAM— WHATCOM COUNTY MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE SQUALICUM CREEK ESTUARY RESTORATION PROJECT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the Port of Bellingham, 1801 Roeder Avenue, Bellingham, WA 98225 (Port") and Whatcom County, County Courthouse, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, WA 98225 ("County"). WHEREAS, the Port and the County desire to establish an arrangement wherein the County will provide funding to the Port to perform Phase I Work (design and permitting) for the Squalicum Creek Delta Estuary Restoration Project to the mutual advantage of each jurisdiction; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34, Revised Code of Washington provides for cooperation between local government entities through contractual agreement; and, WHEREAS, the County and Port participate in the Bellingham Bay Demonstration'Pilot (Pilot); and, WHEREAS, the Pilot uses cooperative approaches to expedite source control, sediment cleanup and associated habitat restoration in Bellingham Bay; and, WHEREAS, the Pilot developed the Bellingham Bay Comprehensive Strategy, Final Environmental Impact Statement, October 2000, that identifies and ranks the Squalicum Creek Delta Restoration Project ("Project") within the Squalicum Industrial Zone; and, WHEREAS, the Pilot considers the Project as a priority project; and, WHEREAS, the Port, as the land owner, has agreed to manage the Project on behalf of the Pilot and to coordinate the Project with current and future commercial and industrial activities that use the federal Squalicum Creek Channel and adjoining land uses; and, WHEREAS, the Project consists of three tasks that are identified in the Squalicum Creek Delta Restoration Conceptual Design, March 2005 and Cost Estimate Update, June 2006, which are Estuary Restoration, Dock and Piling Removal, and Fish Passage Improvement; and, WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Resources (DNR) is contributing to the Dock and Piling Removal task of the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is contributing to both the Estuary Restoration and Fish Passage Improvement tasks of the Project; and, WHEREAS, the County and Port participate in the Whatcom County MRC; and, WHEREAS, Whatcom County MRC Grants are administered by the County; and, WHEREAS, the County received funding to support design and permitting of the Estuary Restoration task through an amendment to the Year 6 Whatcom Marine Resources Committee (MRC) Action Grant (Grant #G0600028, County Contract #200507036-1); and, WHEREAS, the source of County funds for this project are Coastal Zone Management 310 funds (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, CFDA # 11.419) passed through the Washington State Department of Ecology; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Intedocal Agreement in order to define their respective obligations for this transaction, 2007 Interlocal Agreement -Part of Bellingham Page 9 of 15 93 NOW THEREFORE, the Port and the County agree as follows: Purpose: The purpose of this agreement is to set the terms whereby the County will make available funds to the Port so that the Port can manage the necessary components of the design and permitting for the Estuary Restoration task of the Project, including hiring a consultant to conduct a survey of the project area, submit an intermediary estuary restoration design report to the County and MRC, and prepare submittal - ready documents for permitting. Il. Administration: No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this agreement. As a sub -recipient of grant funds, the Port must, and as a condition of this agreement agree to comply with all requirements for sub -recipients set forth in the Sub -Recipient Agreement between the County and the Port, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Ili. Port of Bellingham Responsibilities: The Port hereby agrees to perform the work described in Exhibit B. IV. Whatcom County Responsibilities: The County hereby agrees to reimburse the Port in an amount not to exceed the total grant contribution allocated to the MRC budget, as shown in Exhibit B, for the costs of providing and performing the services stated under Sections I and Ill, based on the actual costs of labor (including fringe benefits), equipment rental, materials and contract services involved, and consultant fees and expenses pertaining to the Phase I Work. V. Payment: All payments by the County to the Port under this Agreement are considered reimbursement for Phase I Work performed by the Port or its consultants. Each request for payment herein is to be submitted in the usual form of a claim for services rendered, which claim shall be supported by detailed documentation of the services actually performed so as to comply with auditing requirements. Payment shall be upon approved claims and in accordance with customary procedures. The County will compensate the Port for work performed within thirty (30) days following receipt of a detailed invoice, provided all other terms and conditions of the contract have been met and are certified as such by the County's Contract Administrator. VI. Term: This Agreement shall be effective for services performed from April 10, 2007 through June 15, 2007. It may be terminated by either party upon the giving of ninety (90) days written notice to the other, at which time any remaining financial obligations for services rendered shall be paid in full according to the provisions of V. Payment, stated above. VII. Responsible Persons: The persons responsible for administration of this Agreement shall be the Whatcom County Public Works Director and the Port of Bellingham Executive Director or their designees. Michael Stoner Director of Environmental Programs Port of Bellingham 1801 Roeder Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1677 Bellingham, WA 98227-1677 Phone: (360) 676-2500 Fax: (360) 671-6411 Kirk Christensen Public Works Stormwater Manager Whatcom County 2011 Young Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98225 The Port contact and telephone number for billing/invoice questions is Alan Birdsall, Manager of Strategic Projects, (360) 676-2500, Ext.383. 2007 InWoml Agreement -Port of Bellingham Page 2 of 15 94 Vlll. Treatment of Assets and Property., No fixed assets or personal or real property will be jointly or cooperatively acquired, held, used, or disposed of pursuant to this Agreement, except that the products of the Phase 1 Work shall be deemed the property of both of the parties to this agreement. IX. Future Acts: The parties anticipate that this Agreement may be amended to address further actions, following an evaluation of the specific management options to be developed during the Phase 1 Work. X. Liability: Each party agrees to be responsible and assume liability for its own wrongful and/or negligent acts or omissions or those of its officials, officers, agents, or employees to fullest extent required by law. It is further provided that no liability shall attach to the Parties by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. XI. Modifications: The terms of this Agreement may be changed, modified, amended or waived only by written agreement executed by the Parties hereto. Waiver or breach of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not be considered a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. XII. Applicable Law.- In the performance of this Agreement, it is mutually understood and agreed upon by the Parties hereto that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and performance, and the venue of any action arising herefrom shall be in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Whatcom County. XIII. Severability. In the event any term or condition of this Agreement or applicationthereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions, or applications of this Agreement that can be given effect without the invalid tern, condition, or application. To this end the terms and conditions of this Agreement are declared severable. XIV. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. All items incorporated herein by reference are attached. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties hereto. XV. Recordation: Upon execution of this Agreement, Whatcom County shall file a copy of it with the office of its County Auditor pursuant to the requirements of RCW 39.34. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement this day of 2007. PORT OF BELLINGHAM WHATCOM COUNTY By James S. Darling, Executive Director Approved as to form: By Pete Kremen, County Executive Approved as to farm: & �I"�t� o - Daniel L. Gibson Whatcom County Deputy Prosecuting homey Frank M. Abart, Director of Public Works 2007 inferlocal Agreement -Port of Bellingham Page 3 of 15 95 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of , 2007, before me personally appeared PETE KREMEN, to me known to be the County Executive of WHATCOM COUNTY and 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: -STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of , 2007, before me personally appeared, to me JAMES S. DARLING known to be the Executive Director of PORT OF BELLINGHAM, and 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: 2007 Interlocal Agreement -Port of Bellingham Page 4 of 15 96 EXHIBIT A: SUB -RECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE PORT OF BELLINGHAM Squalicum Creek Estuary Restoration Project THIS SUB -RECIPIENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into, by and between, Whatcom County, hereinafter referred to as the County', and the Port of Bellingham, hereinafter referred to as the 'Agency'. This is a subgrant of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S. Dept. of Commerce) and the . Washington State Department of Ecology, CZM Grant Agreement No. G0600028, entitled Northwest Straits: MRC Year 6 Administration and Action Protect, passed through by the following entities: Washington State Department of Ecology, and Whatcom County, for Federal fiscal years 2005-07, CFDA No. 11.419. The purpose of this subaward is as follows: The County, on behalf of the MRC, will partner with the Agency, Department of Ecology. and DNR by contributing funds towards the design and permitting of the estuary restoration task of the Sgualicum Creek Delta Restoration Project. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Statement of Work: The Agency will hire a consultant to conduct a bathometric and topographic survey of the Proiect area, submit an intermediary estuary restoration design report, and prepare submittal -ready documents for the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) and the Special Proiects Information Form fSPIF). Period of Performance: Subject to its other provisions, the period of performance of this Agreement shall commence after April 10, 2007, and be completed by June 15, 2007 unless terminated sooner as provided herein. In Consideration Whereof: The maximum amount of this Agreement allocated to the Agency is $30r700, subject to a detailed budget as described in Exhibit B and completion of the Statement of Work as described in Exhibit B. The Agency shall provide invoices documenting all actual direct costs, such as: salaries and benefits, materials, travel expenses, contracts, or equipment incurred by the Agency. All reimbursement requests must be submitted to the County no later than 30 days after the grant completion date. The County shall reimburse the Agency within 30 days of receipt of reimbursement from the granting agency, Washington State Department of Ecology. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Administrative Requirements: The Agency shall comply with all requirements within OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments or OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non -Profit Organizations; OMB Circular A-102, Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments or OMB Circular A-110, Administrative Requirements for Non -Profit Organizations; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Govemments, and Non -Profit Organizations, as are applicable. The Agency shall comply with all federal and state laws and regulations, including all nondiscrimation laws, but not limited to, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC 12101 et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and Chapter 49.60 RCW. 2, Single Audit Reporting: Non-federal entities receiving financial assistance of $500,000 or more in federal funds from all sources, direct and indirect are required to have a single or a program -specific audit conducted in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and 2007 Intedocal Agreement -Port of Bellingham Page 5 of 15 97 Non -Profit Organizations. Circular A-133 is available on the OMB Home Page at hfp://www.omb..qov, If this is applicable, the Agency has the responsibility of notifying the State Auditors Office and requesting an audit. Non-federal entities that spend less than $500,000 a year in federal awards are exempt from federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in OMB Circular A-133. The Agency shall maintain records and accounts so as to facilitate the audit requirement and shall ensure that any subcontractors also maintain auditable records. The Agency shall include the above audit requirements in any subcontracts. The Agency is responsible for any audit exceptions incurred by its own organization or that of its subcontractors. Responses to any unresolved management findings and disallowed or questioned costs shall be included with the audit report. The Agency must respond to County's requests for information or corrective action concerning audit issues within 30 days of the date of request. The County reserves the right to recover from the Agency all disallowed costs resulting from the audit. Once the single audit has been completed, the Agency must send a full copy of the audit to the County and a letter stating there were no findings or if there were findings, the letter should provide a list of the findings. 3. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions: The Agency certifies, by submission of this proposal or contract, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. The Agency further agrees that it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transactions (a transaction between the Agency and any other person) with a person who is proposed for debarment, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, and the Agency agrees to include this clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -- Lower Tier Covered Transaction" without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier transactions. The "General Service Administration List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Non - procurement Programs" is available to research this information at http://epls.amet.govl. 4. Termination of Contract: If, through any cause, the Agency fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract or if the Agency violates any of the stipulations of this contract, the County shall thereupon have the right to terminate this contract and withhold any remaining allocation, if such default is not corrected within thirty (30) days after submitting written notice to the Agency describing such default or violation. Otherwise, either party may terminate this contract by providing written notice of such termination, specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days prior to such date. Reimbursement for services performed by the Agency and not otherwise paid for by the County prior to the effective date of termination, shall be as the County reasonably determines. The County reserves the right to terminate all or part of this contract, or may reduce its scope of work and budget, if there is a reduction in funding from the source of these grant funds, provided that such funds are the basis for this contract. 5. Sub -recipient Obligations: The Agency recognizes that the source of funding for the work to be performed hereunder is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, a branch of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce) and the .Washington State Department of Ecology, by means of grant funding passed through Whatcom County. In addition to the requirements contained above, the Agency agrees to fulfill federal and state requirements that are placed upon the RECIPIENT in the General Terms and Conditions Pertaining to Grant and Loan Agreements of the Department of Ecology (DEPARTMENT) and of CZM Grant Agreement No. G0600028 2007 Interlocal Agreement -Port of Bellingham Page 6 of 15 98 between the Department of Ecology and Whatcom County as abstracted below. In addition, the Agency will ensure that its subcontractors will also comply with any applicable terms and conditions. A. RECIPIENT PERFORMANCE All activities for which grant/loan funds are to be used shall be accomplished by the RECIPIENT and RECIPIENT's employees. The RECIPIENT shall not assign or subcontract performance to others unless specifically authorized in writing by the DEPARTMENT. B. SUBGRANTEE/CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE The RECIPIENT must ensure that all subgrantees and contractors comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement. C. ADMINISTRATION OF THIS AGREEMENT For the administration of this agreement the RECIPIENT shall follow the "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans", current edition. D. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY The RECIPIENT shall ensure that in all subcontracts entered into by the RECIPIENT pursuantto this agreement, the state of Washington is named as an express third -party beneficiary of such subcontracts with full rights as such. E. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES (BIDDING) Contracts for construction, purchase of equipment and professional architectural and engineering services shall be awarded through a competitive process, if required by State law. RECIPIENT shall retain copies of all bids received and contracts awarded, for inspection and use by the DEPARTMENT. F. ASSIGNMENTS No right or claim of the RECIPIENT arising under this agreement shall be transferred or assigned by the RECIPIENT. G. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS 1. The RECIPIENT shall comply fully with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, orders, regulations and permits. Prior to commencement of any construction, the RECIPIENT shall secure the necessary approvals and permits required by authorities having jurisdiction over the project, provide assurance to the DEPARTMENT that all approvals and permits have been secured, and make copies available to the DEPARTMENT upon request. 2. Discrimination. The DEPARTMENT and the RECIPIENT agree to be bound by all Federal and State laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination. The RECIPIENT further agrees to affirmatively support the program of the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises to the maximum extent possible. The RECIPIENT shall report to the DEPARTMENT the percent of grant/loan funds available to women or minority owned businesses. 3. Wages And Job Safety. The RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the United States and the State of Washington which affect wages and job safety. 4. Industrial Insurance. The RECIPIENT certifies full compliance with all applicable state industrial insurance requirements. If the RECIPIENT fails to comply with such laws, the DEPARTMENT shall have the right to immediately terminate this agreement for cause as provided in Section K.1, herein. H. KICKBACKS The RECIPIENT is prohibited from inducing by any means any person employed or otherwise involved in this project to give up any part of the compensation to which he/she is otherwise entitled or, receive any fee, commission or gift in return for award of a subcontract hereunder. I. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS 1. The RECIPIENT shall maintain complete program and financial records relating to this agreement. Such records shall clearly indicate total receipts and expenditures by fund source and task or object. All grant/loan records shall be kept in a manner which provides an audit trail for all expenditures. All records shall be kept in a common file to facilitate audits and inspections. Engineering documentation and field inspection reports of all construction work accomplished under this agreement shall be maintained by the RECIPIENT. 2. All grant/loan records shall be open for audit or inspection by the DEPARTMENT or by any duly authorized audit representative of the State of Washington for a period of at least three years after the final 2007 Interlocal Agreement -Port of Bellingham Page 7 of 15 99 grant payment/loan repayment or any dispute resolution hereunder. If any such audits identify discrepancies in the financial records, the RECIPIENT shall provide clarification andlor make adjustments accordingly. 3. All work performed under this agreement and any equipment purchased, shall be made available to the DEPARTMENT and to any authorized state, federal or local representative for inspection at any time during the course of this agreement and for at least three years following grant/loan termination or dispute resolution hereunder. This includes any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the RECIPIENT involving transactions related to this grant. The RECIPIENT agrees to include the substance of this paragraph into all grants and subcontracts payable from contract funds in whole or in part. 4. Unauthorized Expenditures. All payments to the RECIPIENT shall be subject to final audit by the DEPARTMENT and any unauthorized expenditure(s) charged to this grant/loan shall be refunded to the DEPARTMENT by the RECIPIENT. 5.Overhead Costs. No reimbursement for overhead costs shall be allowed unless provided for in the Scope of Work hereunder. J. PROPERTY RIGHTS 1. Copyrights and Patents. When the RECIPIENT creates any copyrightable materials or invents any patentable property, the RECIPIENT may copyright or patent the same but the DEPARTMENT retains a royalty -free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, recover or otherwise use the material(s) or property and to authorize others to use the same for federal, state or local government purposes. 2. Publications. When the RECIPIENT or persons employed by the RECIPIENT use or publish information of the DEPARTMENT; present papers, lectures, or seminars involving information supplied by the DEPARTMENT; use logos, reports, maps or other data, in printed reports, signs, brochures, pamphlets, etc., appropriate credit shall be given to the DEPARTMENT. 3. Conversions. Regardless of the contract termination date shown on the cover sheet, the RECIPIENT shall not at any time convert any equipment, property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this agreement to uses other than those for which assistance was originally approved without prior written approval of the DEPARTMENT. Such approval may be conditioned upon payment to the DEPARTMENT of that portion of the proceeds of the sale, lease or other conversion or encumbrance which monies granted pursuant to this agreement bear to the total acquisition, purchase or construction costs of such property. K. RECYCLED/RECYCLABLE PAPER All documents and materials published under this agreement shall be produced on recycled paper containing the highest level of post consumer and recycled content that is available. At a minimum, paper with 10 percent post consumer content and 50 percent recycled content shall be used. Whenever possible, all materials shall be published on paper that is unbleached or has not been treated with chlorine gas and/or hypochlorite. As appropriate, all materials shall be published on both sides of the paper and shall minimize the use of glossy or colored paper and other items which reduce the recyclability of the document. L. RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS TO RECIPIENT The right of the RECIPIENT to retain monies paid to it as reimbursement payments is contingent upon satisfactory performance of this agreement including the satisfactory completion of the project described in the Scope of Work. In the event the RECIPIENT fails, for any reason, to perform obligations required of it by this agreement, the RECIPIENT may, at the DEPARTMENT's sole discretion, be required to repay to the DEPARTMENT all grant/loan funds disbursed to the RECIPIENT for those parts of the project that are rendered worthless in the opinion of the DEPARTMENT by such failure to perform. Interest shall accrue at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per anrlum from the time the DEPARTMENT demands repayment of funds, If payments have been discontinued by the DEPARTMENT due to insufficient funds as in Section K.2 above, the RECIPIENT shall not be obligated to repay monies which had been paid to the RECIPIENT prior to such termination. Any property acquired under this agreement, at the option of the DEPARTMENT, may become the DEPARTMENT'S property and the RECIPIENT'S liability to repay monies shall be reduced by an amount reflecting the fair value of such property. M. PROJECT APPROVAL The extent and character of all work and services to be performed under this agreement by the RECIPIENT shall be subject to the review and approval of the DEPARTMENT through the Project Officer or other designated official to whom the RECIPIENT shall report and be responsible. In the event there is a dispute 2007 Inledocal Agreement -Port of Bellingham Page 8 of 15 100 with regard to the extent and character of the work to be done, the determination of the Project Officer or other designated official as to the extent and character of the work to be done shall govern. The RECIPIENT shall have the right to appeal decisions as provided for below. N. DISPUTES Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this agreement which is not disposed of in writing shall be decided by the Project Officer or other designated official who shall provide a written statement of decision to the RECIPIENT. The decision of the Project Officer or other designated official shall be final and conclusive unless, within thirty days from the date of receipt of such statement, the RECIPIENT mails or otherwise fumishes to the Director of the DEPARTMENT a written appeal. In connection with appeal of any proceeding under this clause, the RECIPIENT shall have the opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of this appeal. The decision of the Director or duly authorized representative for the determination of such appeals shall be final and conclusive. Appeals from the Director's determination shall be brought in the Superior Court of Thurston County. Review of the decision of the Director will not be sought before either the Pollution Control Hearings Board or the Shoreline Hearings Board. Pending final decision of dispute hereunder, the RECIPIENT shall proceed diligently with the performance of this agreement and in accordance with the decision rendered. 0. CONFLICT OF INTEREST No officer, member, agent, or employee of either party to this agreement who exercises any function or responsibility in the review, approval, or carrying out of this agreement, shall participate in any decision which affects his/her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he/she is, directly or indirectly interested; nor shall he/she have any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this agreement or the proceeds thereof. P. INDEMNIFICATION 1. The DEPARTMENT shall in no way be held responsible for payment of salaries, consultant's fees, and other costs related to the project described herein, except as provided in the Scope of Work. 2. To the extent that the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington permit, each party shall indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any liability for any or all injuries to persons or property arising from the negligent act or omission of that party or that party's agents or employees arising out of this agreement. Q. PRECEDENCE In the event of inconsistency in this agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order. (a) applicable Federal and State statutes and regulations; (b) Scope of Work; (c) Special Terms and Conditions; (d) Any terms incorporated herein by reference including the "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans"; and (e) the General Terms and Conditions. R. RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING Each biddedapplicantlrecipient/ subrecipient of this agreement is generally prohibited from using Federal funds for lobbying the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Federal Government in connection with this award. This agreement is subject to Section 319 of Public Law 101-121, which added Section 1352, regarding lobbying restrictions, to Chapter 13 of Title 31 of the United States Code. The new section Js explained in the common rule,15.CFR Pad 28 (55 FR 6736-6748, 2126/90). The Special Terms and Conditions and General Terms and Conditions contained herein apply towards the Agency unless expressly revised by this Agreement. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. 2007 Intedocal Agreement -Pod of Bellingham Page 9 of 15 101 Whatcom County Pete Kremen, County Executive Agency Date Date APPROVED as to form: a'"'`-Ibv - 4 o qla' 67 Civil Deputy Prosecutor 2007 Intertocal Agreement -Port of Bellingham Page 10 of 15 102 EXHIBIT B: SCOPE OF WORK Squalicum Creek Estuary Restoration Project PROJECT OVERVIEW: The Whatcom County Marine Resource Committee (MRC) has an opportunity to join with the Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot (Pilot), Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Port of Bellingham, Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association, Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Salmon Recovery Funding Board, and others to enhance and restore the Squalicum Creek estuary. Through the Pilot, DNR has identified this location as a priority site for creosote piling and debris removal, and the Port of Bellingham has received funding for design and permitting of fish barrier removal. Funding the design and permitting of the estuary restoration will allow the third component of this project to move forward. Shoreline modification of the- Squalicum Creek estuary has resulted in a loss of nearshore and estuarine habitat. The intertidal, nearshore and estuarine area has been dredged, filled, and armored with rip -rap. Large numbers of creosote pilings, hundreds of which no longer support active uses, are an ongoing source of contaminants to aquatic life. A bench of shallow water habitat that historically was continuous around Bellingham Bay has been fragmented and the migration corridor function for out -migrant juvenile salmon has been significantly altered. The free flow of Squalicum Creek has been restricted by railroad beds, roadways, and urban infrastructure including gas and water pipelines. The Squalicum Creek estuary is located within the Squalicum Industrial Subarea of Bellingham Bay. The Bellingham Bay Comprehensive Strategy, Final Environmental Impact Statement, October 2000 (Strategy/FEIS), states that this subarea begins west of Little Squalicum Creek and extends to the eastern boundary of the Seaview North Boatyard located within Squalicum Harbor. Relevant characteristics of the subarea include: • Harbor Area Designation; • Mt. Baker Plywood; • Federal Navigation Channel; and, • Bellingham Cold Storage. The recommended strategy in the Strategy/FEIS is to integrate current and future land uses with habitat resources by using innovative project designs for water -dependent and maritime uses. The restoration of habitat needs to be balanced with the maritime and water -dependent commerce uses associated with the Squalicum Creek Waterway federal navigation channel. The Strategy/FEIS calls for developing innovative projects and plans that incorporate habitat restoration and enhancements. The current schedule for the Project has the restoration of habitat and environmental conditions without a development project. Therefore, it is proposed that the Project include actions that will improve estuary habitat and provide better habitat linkage that will be coordinated with current and future navigation and commerce within the federal Squalicum Creek Channel and adjacent industrial activities. Improvements include conserving existing functioning habitat areas, such as the existing creek delta where it consists of natural substrates. It also includes a number of restoration actions, such as using clean dredge material to create a more continuous and higher quality nearshore habitat, In coordination with land use and channel activities, specific habitat types, such as fringing estuarine marsh and woody riparian buffer vegetation, are proposed in several areas to improve the overall conditions and connectivity of the habitat corridor. Project objectives include: • Conserve 0.75 acres of existing functional intertidal habitat; • Use clean dredge material from the Squalicum Waterway to create shallow water habitat; • Restore estuarine fringing saitmarsh; and, • Restore woody riparian buffer habitat. TASK DESCRIPTION AND RATIONALE: A preliminary plan for the Squalicum Creek Waterway Restoration Project was prepared by Anchor Environmental L.L.C. (2005) which would conserve, enhance, and restore the following Priority Habitat: 20071nterlocalAgreement-Port of Bellingham Page ii of 15 103 • Squalicum Creek pocket estuary; • Freshwater tributary to Bellingham Bay and Puget Sound;• a intertidal marsh habitat; and, • Potential habitat for native eelgrass (Zoslera marina). The conceptual design drawing and aerial photo of the site are included as Attachment A. The Port will work with a consultant to complete the design and permitting work by October 2007. The design and permits will encompass the following elements: Estuary Conservation at Creek Delta The approximately 0.75 acre creek delta includes one of the few areas of the Project where natural, fine- grained substrates exist. The intent is to conserve this aspect of the creels delta while enhancing other aspects, such as removing derelict creosote timber pilings, and concrete rubble, and replacing rip rap shoreline armoring with riparian vegetation, where feasible. Beneficial Re -Use of Clean Dredged Material The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regularly dredges the Squalicum Waterway for maintenance of navigation. Beneficial re -use of this clean dredge material has been conducted on two projects in Bellingham Bay since the year 2000: the Georgia Pacific Log Pond Habitat Cap (GP Log Pond) and the Gate 2 Boatyard Mitigation site. The former example is most similar to the Squalicum site because it is a low energy wave environment. Monitoring of the GP log pond site has documented colonization by eelgrass (Zostera marina) which is linked to the Squalicum Waterway material. For the Squalicum Creek estuary restoration project, 'approximately 25,000 cubic yards of clean dredged material from the Squalicum Waterway is proposed to be placed in a two -acre area of the former shipyard and log storage area to depths ranging from 2 to 6 feet. The placement of fill material will be coordinated with current and future land use activities and protect the economic vitality'of upland commercial property. Per the preliminary plan prepared by Anchor, the placement of this material will achieve several objectives for habitat: • A wider shelf of intertidal habitat between elevations +8.5 feet, MHHW, to elevation -4 feet (MLLW datum) will extend from the creek mouth north and west. • Re -use of dredged materials will improve the likelihood of colonization by eelgrass by creating a wider band of optimal elevation and substrate. • Between elevation +6 and 8.5 feet (MLLW datum), a wider and gently sloping area will be created for restoration to estuarine fringe marsh. • Above elevation +10 feet (MLLW datum), clean dredged material could be used as the primary substrate for restoring woody riparian vegetation where there is currently rip -rap armored shoreline. Fringe Estuarine Marsh Restoration Restoration of a 17,000 square foot (0.4 acre) fringe marsh is proposed in the area where the former shipyard launch ramp was located. Currently this area contains a large number of piling stubs from the former ship way. This is an ideal area for marsh restoration because it is near the creek delta and is an area of low wave energy, The area is protected by the existing breakwater, and placement of dredged materials will further flatten slopes and reduce wave energy. Clean dredge material is an ideal and normal substrate for marsh colonization due to the fine grain size, which provides high moisture retention. Key species for marsh colonization include Lyngby sedge (Carex lyngbyei), pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), saltgrass (Distichlis spicala), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), American beachgrass (Elymus mollis), Puget Sound gumweed (Grindelia integrifolia), and others. Woody Riparian Buffer Restoration Riparian vegetation consisting of a mixture of native and non-native trees and shrubs is found along both banks of the 180-foot portion of the creek between the railroad and Roeder Ave. Bridge. The proposed riparian buffer significantly increases the length of vegetated shoreline by adding approximately 1,100 linear feet of restored native vegetation. The width of the planted area will be relatively narrow, 2007 Intedocal Agreement -Port of Bellingham Page 12 of 15 104 approximately 10-15 feet wide, so that there is not a conflict with existing upland land uses. Installing vegetation will require removal of rock and debris in the planted band and installation of clean dredge material, organic amendment, biodegradable erosion control fabric, and wood or bark mulch. Key species for riparian restoration include: scouler and hooker willow (Salix scouleriana and S. hookeriana), red alder (alnus rubra), Oregon crabapple (Malays fusca), shore pine (Pinais contorta, var. contorta), Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziesiz), nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), snowberry (Symphoricarpos alnus). PRODUCTS: Topographic and Bathymetric Survey — Survey of project area in hardcopy and electronic formats. Survey will include topographic and bathymetric features, elevations from above ordinary high water mark (OHWM) upland to project area boundary and below OHWM to existing project area boundary, identification of structures and debris, and shoreline profile inclusive of uplands and bathymetric features. Intermediary Estuary Restoration Design Report — Delivery of intermediary design report in hardcopy and electronic formats. The estuary restoration design will be of sufficient detail for inclusion with permit submittals. The report will include a project description, vicinity map, topographic and bathymetric map, current biological conditions map, estuary restoration details, and section drawings. Permits — Submittal -ready documents for the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Submittal of Special Projects Information Form (SPIF) to the Corps to satisfy ESA requirements. Delivery of copies of applications and permits in hardcopy and electronic formats. TRABLINEMELIVERY DATE: 6/15/07: Topographic and Bathymetric Survey Intermediary Estuary Restoration Design Report Submittal -ready documents for JARPA and SPIF CONSULTANTS: Consultant Selection- The Port has selected Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. (Anchor) to perform the work described herein. The 2007 billing rates for Anchor are provided in Exhibit C. BUDGET: The following table presents the cost of each product and the County/NBC's and Port's respective contributions. Product Cost Coun /MRC Port Topographic and Bathymetric Survey $25,615 $10,000 $15,615 Estuary Restoration design $44,055 $15,200 $28,855 Permits (DARPA and SPIF) $11,068 $5,500 $5,568 Total: $80,738 1 $30,700 1 $50,038 Total County contribution not to exceed: $30,700 Deadline for Reimbursement: The County/MRC budget for this project will supplement Port funds for completion of the topographic and bathymetric survey, the intermediary estuary restoration design report, and the JARPA/SPIF completion and submission. The County will reimburse the Port for expenses following receipt of deliverables. Due to the deadline of the Year 6 MRC Action Grant, which is providing funds for this project, these products must be delivered by 6/15/07 for reimbursement. 20071nterlocal Agreement -Port of Bellingham Page 13 of 15 105 EXHIBIT C: RATE SCHEDULE Squalicum Creels Estuary Restoration Project Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. 2007 BILLING RATES Professional Level Hourly Rates Principal Engineer/Planner/Scientist ..................................................................................... $170 Consulting Engineer/Planner/Scientist...................................................................................... $158 Senior Engineer/Land Arch/Planner/Scientist........................................................................... $140 Engineer/Planner/Scientist...........................................:............................................................. $125 Senior StaffEngineer/L.and Arch/Planner/Scientist.................................................................. $105 Staff Engineer/Planner/Scientist............................................................................................... $92 Staff 1 Engineer/Planner/Scientist:.............................................................................................. $82 FieldTechnician..........................................................................................................................$65 SeniorDesigner............................................................................................................................ $90 Designer/Graphics................:...................................................................................................... $80 ProjectAssistant.......................................................................................................................... $70 Administrative............................................................................................................................. $65 Special Hourly Rates All work by a testifying expert .......................................................1.5 times professional level rate EXPENSE BILLING RATES Expense Rates DivingServices (per day).........................................................................................Project Specific CAD/GIS/Modeling (per hour).............................................................................................. $10.00 Graphic Plots (varies with plot size) ......................................... .............................................. $3-6/sf Photocopies(per copy)...................................................... ..................... .................................. $0.10 Faxes(per page)...................................................................................................................... $1.00 Mileage (per mile).....................................................................................Current Federal Standard FEE ON LABOR AND EXPENSE CHARGES Subcontracts/suboonsultants.......................................................................................................10% Traveland other direct costs......................................................................................................10% Fieldequipment & supplies........................................................................................................10% 2007 IntedocalAgn:ement-Poftof Bellingham Page 14 of 15 106 ��., 1:; _ ;=.ter �'- _ >�' �.t _�- �. F � � �� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007-189 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator. 3/30/07 4/10/07 Finance/Coup Division Head. - Dept Head: ProsecutorMO/0-7 W HATC TA C C Purchasin 3/30/07 @(Ocutive: MW TITLE 0# DOCUMENT: Setting a hearing to declare property surplus ATTACHMENTS: Resolutions & list of property to be declared surplus SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X ) Yes { ) 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.) The attached list of equipment has been determined to be surplus and available for disposal by public auction. The Council may find by resolution, following a public hearing that it is in the public interest to declare the property surplus and make said property available to sell by public auction. 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 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: DATE INTRODUCED: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AND THE SETTING OF A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THEREON PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10 WHEREAS, the following described property listed in Exhibit "A", hereby incorporated by reference, is now and has been the property of Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, the County Purchasing Agent has determined that it is in the best interest of the County to sell such property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that a public hearing on the matter of the sale of such property be held on the . 2007 at or as soon thereafter as is possible, in the Whatcom County Council Chambers at 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington, for the purpose of admitting testimony for and against the propriety of selling such equipment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County Council is directed to give notice of such hearing in the manner prescribed by law. APPROVED this day of 2007 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Council Chair ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROV D AS TO FORM: ivil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 109 EQUIPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT SERVICES DIVISION FUND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SURPLUS REQUEST MARCH 2O07 - FINAL 901 W. Smith Road Bellingham, WA 98226 Phone # (360) 676-6759 Fax # (360) 380-8115 Eric L. Schlehuber, Division Manager MEN I IRIEW, 009 1996 Ford Ran SIC4X2 NWD 1FTCR14U5TPB06154 107,119.0 073 1998 Ford F150 Ext Cab 4X4 M&O 1 FTZX18W8WNC07328 118 319.0 074 1998 1 Ford F150 Ext Cab 4X4 M&O 1 FTZXIBWXWNC07329 107 654.0 079 1999 Fad ExMorer4X4 PDS 1FMZU34X7XUB55230 111,532.0 081 2000 DWW Ram 15001l2-TON 4X4 M&O 3B7HF12Y8YG101370 125 603.0 087 199E GMC Savanna 15-Pass 1-Ton Van PRK iGJHG39R7VV1044798 110,442.0 094 1993 Nissan Pathfinder FLD JNBHD17YXPW-129612 109,682.0 095 1993 1 Ford Crown Victoria JUV 2FALP71W3PX171072 116,028.0 155 1990 Dodqe Ram 150 Van M&O 2B4HB15X7LK777381 85,777.0 178 1995 FORD Ranger XL SIC 4X4 M&O 1 FTCR15U9SPA73043 113,700.0 227 1991 Western Star 4864F 6-Wheel Dump Truck M&O 2WLNCCJE9MK929095 324,947.0 321 1998 Fond TS100Tradorwwwt= M&O 104077E 2,066.0 Acddent 338 1987 CAT LoWer966C M&O 18B00624 8,985.0 494 1983 Eager Beaver Trailer M&O 112TX203EA200009 NIA 503 1975 Kenworth 6-Wheel M&O 1476995 210,075.0 521 1998 US Mower NUMAC W Mowenw,oi M&O 98-142 WA Aoddent 828 1994 Chevrolet S-10EXTCAB4X4 ENG 1GCCS19Z7RB239266 94,125.0 866 1994 1 Utility Trailer PRK 1R9FS1713RS241007 NIA 873 1995 GMC Sierra 3/4-Ton 4X4 PRK 1 GTFK24H2SZ558253 106,366.0 897 1996 Fad F-155 Cab & Chassis SIC PRK 1 FTHX25HOTEB72450 106,320.0 994 1993 Ford Taurus SHF 1FALP5240PA770863 65,177.0 Engine Problems 6012 1994 Ford Taurus SHF i FALP5246RA245954 85,042.0 Engine Problems 6028 1995 Ford Taurus SHF 1FALP524XSA255635 81,587.0 BvineProbWns 6034 1996 Ford Crown Victoria SHF 2FALP71W5SX1645M 98,749.0 6053 1997 Ford Crown Victoria SHF 2FALP71W9VX163717 116,551.0 6059 1998 Ford Crown Victoria SHF 2FAFP71W2WX109448 111,896.0 6063 1998 Ford Crown Victoria SHF 2FAFP71W6WX109452 113,135.0 6071 1999 Ford Crown Victoria SHF 2FAFP71W4XX1696i9 116,266.0 6074 1999 Ford Crown Victoria SHF 2FAFP71WIXXI79961 108,5M.0 6078 1999 Ford CrownVrdaia SHF 2FAFP7IWXXX169624 106,136.0 6082 19% Ford ExpeditionXLT4X4 SHF I 1FMPUlBLlXLC03748 101,302.0 6085 200O Ford Crown Vidaia SHF 2FAFP71MYX167036 104,735.0 6091 2000 Fad Crown Victoria SHF 2FAFP71WTYXI67041 104,749.0 6092 2000 Ford Crown Victoria SHF 2FAFF71MYX167039 107,432.0 Accident 6099 I MI I Fond Crown Victoria SHF 2FAFP71W21X156709 109,485.4 March 2007 Surplus List FINAL 0 y061200110 Capital Equipment Surplus Request — March 2007 (FINAL) March 6, 2007 Page 2 of 2 -tea[ �jpr M.. J,� �r �r .-.-� A � _. ._. �i�f 4•i -� �- �._..�,�. 1:Z1. �� Y -7.L' �� � d k � � � � ' � rh l l,�r� �� r v -:. _ � ..=---'� ,u• L � err � � �- � •u.��.,._�.�. ,� ..y �� :�� ;�..:�.,-���-�=- • 1 11 / / / ra ® .ly 1. i 1 Ili / / / •/ ® .•, 1 �rr/- 799 1999 Old Town Canoe PRK 91035C-M 843 1980 Kay Paris Pedal Boat PRK KAX03226 844 1980 !k Park Pedal Boat PRK KAX03224 845 19W Kay Paris Pedal Boat PRK KAX03225 846 1980 Kay Park Pedal Boat PRK KAX03212 847 1980 Kay Park Pedal Boat PRK KAX03211 848 1980 Kay Park Pedal Boat PRK KAXO3219 849 1980 Kay Paris Pedal Boat PRK KAX03222 850 19M Kay Park Pedal Boat PRK KAX03215 851 1980 Kay Park Pedal Boat PRK KAXO3216 852 1980 Kay Park Pedal Boat PRK KAXO3218 B53 1980 Kay Park Pedal Boat PRK KAX03217 879 1995 Old Town Canoe PRK XTC72091 F494 880 1995 Old Town Canoe PRK XTC29833H596 881 1995 Old Town Canoe PRK XTC08840F595 884 1996 Tripper Canoe PRK XTC47598E6% 885 19% TripW Canoe PRK XTC47612EM 888 19% Contour Pedal Boat PRK 81426 889 19% Contour Pedal Boat PRK 815M �nr+.r.,,=•irJ cr:r�-- -t � .:iu � a` - x+-s T2 4 '�° .! � z �:.�.z• ti EL .F-T��� Miscellaneous broken and unus&e tools, parls & supplies u and unsgkagaige / //• decks Miscellaneous copiers 1hat have notrade�n r u / / / / /' ► / / /• a ./ - - / r ., r i /- - March 2007 Surplus List FINAL: 03/062007 111 WHATCOM CO UNTY CO UNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 7 nn 7-1 90 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council O ice Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator- Chris Brueske, P.E. 3IZ'1'0 ----• s1 4 1 10 / 0 7 Fi►►ance, Council Division Head: Joe Rutan, P.0 /L��^'1 Dept. Head: FrankAbart Prosecutor: Dan Gibson �'�_� W :5It i; 3/2�1 Purchasin /Bud et: Brad nn rf�] Ij �i• a _p] Executive: Pete Kremen TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Construction Contract Award for Hannegan Road Improvements, Various Intersections (CRP 902005) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memorandum to County Executive and Council 2. Resolution amending County Road Project (CRP) Number and Contract Award 3. Approval for Contract Award endorsed by the Executive 4. Project Summary and Vicinity Map 5. Project Cost Break Down 6. Bid Tabulation 7 Low Bid Proposal SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? O Yes (X ) 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.) Resolution amending CRP #902005 for the Hannegan Road Improvements, Various Intersections. Also approval of construction contract award to Wilder Construction as low bidder in the amount of $1,268,393.00 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: wfviv.co.wlzatconi. rva.tis/cotttzcil. 112 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JEFFREY M. MONSEN, P.E. Director .' C'0 M.. co ,J MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive, and Through: Honorable Members of the W�hllaattcom County Council Frank M. Abart, Director 41t✓ From: Joseph P. Rutan, P.E., County Road Engineer/Assistant Director Date: March 29, 2007 Re: Hannegan Road Improvements, Various Intersections CRP 902005 Construction Contract Award JOSEPH P. RUTAN, P.E. County Road Engineer/Assistant Director 2011 Young St., Suite 201 Bellingham WA 98225AO52 Phone: (360) 715-7450 Fax: (360) 715-7451 MAR 3 0 2007 PETE KRE.Nf COUNTY EMCUT 1Vr 0 Attached for your review is the standard construction contract award package for the Hannegan Road Improvements, Various Intersections (CRP 902005). Said package consists of a copy of a Whatcom County Council agenda bill, resolution for amendment of the CRP, project summary and vicinity map, project cost breakdown, tabulation of all bids, and the low bid proposal. Requested Action We request that the County Council authorize the County Executive to enter into a contract for the subject project to the low bidder, Wilder Construction in the amount of 81,268,393.00 including all taxes. This recommendation is based on a review of the four bids received. Background and Purpose Bid proposals for the subject project were opened at 2:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 27, 2007. This project is listed as Item No. 5 on the 2007 Annual Construction Program that was adopted by the Council on October 24, 2007. This project includes construction of left turn lanes on Hannegan Road at the intersections with Kelly Road, Laurel Road, Ten Mile Road, and Van Dyk Road. Funding Amount and Source This project is funded by local funds coming from the approved 2007 Road Fund budget. Please contact Chris Brueske at x50617, if you have any questions or concerns regarding these items. In accordance with W.C.C. 3.08.230, I concur with this recommendation: JAA1'L-- Chris Mohnkern, Purchasing Coordinator 3 Z9.7- Date 113 INTRODUCED BY PROPOSED BY DATE RESOLUTION NO. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APRIL 10, 2007 AMENDING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 902005 AND THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR "HANNEGAN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS" WHEREAS, this project is included in the officially adopted 2007 Annual Construction Program as Item No. 5; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council: That CRP 902005 is formally amended for the construction of Hannegan Road Improvements, Various Intersections. The Contract for this project is awarded to Wilder Construction in the amount of their bid of $1,268,393.00 An appropriation from the officially adopted Road Fund Budget and based on the County Road Engineer's estimate is hereby made in the amounts and for the purposes shown: PURPOSE AMOUNT OF APPROPRIATION Preliminary Engineering $ 121,000 Right -of -Way $ 85,000 Subtotal $ 206,000 Road Construction Contract $1,268,393 Construction Engineering/Testing/Contingency $ 100,000 Total $1,574,393 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the construction is to be accomplished by Contract in accordance with RCW 36.77.020 et. seq. PASSED this day of 32007 ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis Clerk of the Council roved as to Form: k1l, �. ha� 0328 u'7 Daniel L. Gibson Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer Council Chair 114 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Frank Abart Director 4CoM co 4Sk IN4� Hannegan Road Improvements Various Intersections CRP #902005 JOSEPH P. RUTAN, P.E. Assistant Director/County Road Engineer 2011 Young St., Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98225-4052 Phone: (360) 715-7450 Fax: (360) 715-7451 APPROVAL FOR CONTRACT AWARD Approval is hereby granted to award the Contract as follows: Project: Hannegan Road Improvements Various Intersections To: Wilder Construction Company In the amount of their bid proposal $1,268,393.00 including all taxes. Whateom County Executive Approving Authority rov as to F�✓ Daniel L. Gibson Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Ma-w' ay, )-64 Date 115 Whatcom County Public Works 2007 Annual Construction Program Project Narrative Hannegan Road Improvements- CRP #902005 2007 Annual Construction Program Construction Funding Year(s): 2007 Project Narrative: Hannegan Road is a designated bike route and major north -- south connector that runs from Bellingham to Lynden. This project is a multi - intersection improvement that will install left turn lanes on Hannegan Road at the intersections of Kelly, Laurel, Ten Mile and Van Dyk Roads. This project is listed #5 on the 2007 Annual Construction Program. Project Status: Construction will begin May 1, 2007 and will be com New Construction Features: Total Width 36'- 48' Lane Width 12' Shared Shoulder 6' Curb 1 Gutter No Sidewalk No Turn Lanes Yes , 2007. Project Funding (100% local funds) 2007 Total Estimated in 2007 budget: $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Total actual cost: $1,574,393 $ 1,574,393 Environmental Permitting (Agencies/Permits): US Army Corps of Engineers, Ecology Water Quality Cert, CZM Cert, SEPA, Land Disturbance. Right -of -Way Acquisition ($ Estimate): $85,000 Day Labor ($ Estimate): There may be a minor amount. CUSCER -- WILLEI(S WIE oE {Ir1� I r,Il r L it$ 1` TNDRNN FJ tRNDALE tI III : all' is—� a it WilleyFa r�toP Lake .. _. ' .. MLLEY5 LAKE.. _'µ0• F5 - 3 .River .: WISER �5i Qi `n - � Nil wEsr Gt. li ej POLE RD.` _. i JL....._ J1 c I•wlcc�r .. .. _..... C IENNING_Rlr_ _ yUnwRE x!I i; oil PTPETi-RD:,, f . 1 �,1e 41 RD LAUREL i.R i r < - — 1S0 -- W II LAUREL_ :!RDA _ �,'. _E. LFUR t . { _ I ottel�D `�- - - et Greek -•l w r.:.-� #ham I '. �. , •.: •. Ij it .. :i-- AB9o1T__. . I INOLTE Q D .N r WfE RO, jff II 1 ,r nfain�! Fi`l9RS6N oke z,, . i �',� L_ _ 4: S�. POLE �- ,j Ra_ to G- i1 Lake _ is li All RD- If : PROJECT l t lEN____ua R L OCA T10NS I JF�',bn I .f Lake - _ _q I II c it 1f LINEi..___.p�- 3 !ll!Nawrok 116 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director Funding Source Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Contract Construction Engineering, Testing and Contingency JOSEPH P. RUTAN, P.E. P a� Assistant Director/County Road Engnineer 2011 Young 5t., Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98225-4052 Phone: (360) 715-7450 Fax: (360) 715-7451 Project Cost Breakdown Hannegan Road Improvements Various Intersections CRP #902005 Whatcom County Total $121,000 $121,000 $85,000 $85,000 $1,268,393 $1,268,393 $100,000 $100,000 Total $1,574,393 $19574,393 Ftamegm Rd 902005PpJact Cast Omakda .xLs 117 c f' O O ZS ` iyy5 25 g g 25 'v N $ g 8� �2p5 25 Cs N a V $ $ r u Z 6 J LL J J ypg 8 c V8 J J LL J m vpR ai H 5; y N - oo y8 a� � C U F" U IlJ � Iq 1Il qq •1 pp O a Q Y1 tll 1Il C� fJl h G o G o �R �R p p p W p p p Q «f m H 8 8 g g 8 8 8 8 8 8$ 8 8 8 8 g 8 8 8 8 c a a d 8 8 n M F wi � ir' Q N N VI ep ep N y N N y N y P r v} G 8$ d S yd 16 n L£ O F Q R V N N h R N m bl pg N h H N r cLa V F^ U Iq JJ tlJ C 8 O 8 C 8 8 V/ tl/ J �/j $ p 8 p 8 $ pp Q $ 8 l l 8 gtz g g g 8 8 8g 8 14 48 s8 Q8 m Q8 df z� vF h W 66666C oa. � u J � `= N `^- J J LL J "• 5S iG � � � � g id �i K w z w Q J �W U c w z o Q ❑ � W U Z❑ J w O C.)O W U u¢l ¢ � ❑ 7 0 U SN 5 4 O W JJ Z Q z T . (r O D N ❑ Gl U 4 u c7 g P rq ¢ ¢ zD LL ~ O a�g o µ 0 ix 0. W Z z u❑ �i a y a u qUq W u$$$�F 2rw W q o 1 O a O ¢D ¢O pzimr 118 m C 8 8 '4tit 8 S S 53 8 8 a mm 8 8 g 8 g 8 8 8 p g 8 _ 0Q Q yON� N H O N tn-� N N mm N ~ Ym� M G� N N 1� x N qoy� ^ x N H m X U F U 4 8 � g 8 8 8 8 8 g N g 8 8 u� pqp mti f{8�v �s8{ P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 p o 8 v R 8 RR :5 8 8 Si R U° F U_ L < Z S S S � Ins, O G S S S Y 80 8S [SV ppN�pp YS� uG� CG mG m8 pO pQ � 2 8„ 8.12 8 g 8 g 8 8 N N a g g S 8 g S 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 o g$$ s s L � 2 d ty o 8 St 8 c 8 8 8 "� � 8g O � S 8 8 8 o 0 5O� pO 5Os� g8 48 g8 4O SYG�i g8 sO 5�� 5�� Q o 8 �88 N N 4 U li li 1L: LL LL LL U U U U U U ULC 4 s 0 a = r N y Y o 0 0 o z,ee, z r i o P: x W wo w w w w 4 Z O c� ¢ Q 2 ¢ w f4. yay l'1 pia ¢ r v o w r r r m w z m w m C�C �] ci w u w 5 z v yy a a U wo a z U o o u cai c� u a a H ¢ o a� w N tiz ry N N N N &6 IrV h Cp1 G PI {7 S S P C V V 119 W 8 O "' a G O �o O pP P O O ppo pO Ca ^ p$ 8� CH 80 pP pO P D F Q N tb N N N ~ N m N A - m N N N N N N N P per. Nj N N tl1 N N z� c U LQ z U $ g g $ 4 4 gnry ? 'oap .oppt cmop'f co�p'f g $ n g tgNr eat `Qg N t` 8 a 8 p Q pN p R R p p p p .? F 5O� • !0 OO ua1 c Q� Q P O 8 a pp� O g O p O O $ O SO pO 80 8o Qg aO U r a 'd oap O G O 8o a 1 p� lNoI, �o to'1 H " m o � {L oN ua� a a oS $ a sp S 88 oa 88 Ss p¢$ 8s ps p$ Sa Qa �s 8a yps� z� li z U u: li U U U d z z LL LL 14 LL LL U I4 Ii IL h a a 7 n a 8 n a iG m 8 2S � 2S pi m 8 E r o `^ Z w a z z z W 9CL a a 3 w z ['.1 W W ¢W¢ Lxi a z z JL i 0 4 W U, IiTW7 F I� 7 Q rr Ir a Z a F w y = w W 7 WF? ZF < d $ F °o m 7 tr , m l7 C7 L7 C7 c7 w � z0 Y 5 p W 0 Iu 4 Q Q J a J I Ili 111LI F LL LL m m m m m mp IA i{y O US aye a a^ Rm apt ap 4 0. m y 120 C Z $ ? cs as` Q o o �U $ 4 � � v C9 �i 4 go i5 q .�. 9qq E g_ a= a 00 g 75 L m� F 2 cii a N t- $ 0 e $� F � e ce �• 8 N N p z v S+i O Ci x O k IL LL O � a 7 W CL a FW 7 CL CL O ui K K F Z � c 3 xC u O W W c L4 � a a �3 Q�i N A V 4 u ' h CD o CD � O u � w •33 '7 u A oAo A m Uyy 7. U N \ 06 K c 'a •a5i � E.5 �I m 0 osA °zap 5 c m LU OC 0 U 121 f9- 67-- w6 Z 74t' . r� CONTRACT' DOCUMENTS HANNECAN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS' Z .`3oPm VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS oly CRP No. 902005 90 ti1�k; G OM CO -� i CONSISTING OF Ex�ia��g PROCEDURES AND- CONDITIONS PECIFICA TIONS AND CONDITIONS CONTRACT FORMS PLANS MARCH 2O07 .. �'`�1N �1•� � `ice" �JwA+ :2 � � �• BID PROPOSAL FOR IIANNEGAN ROAD EffROVEMENTS VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS CRP NO.902005, Date March 21, 2007 TO:. Whatcom County Executive and Council Wha_ tconi County Courthouse 3.11 Grand Avenue' Bellingham, Washington 98225 Gentlepersons: This certifies that the Undersigned: has examined the location of the project site and the conditions of work; -and has carefully read and thoroughly understands the contract documents entitled:- "Hannegan Road Improvements, Various Intersections," Whatcom County, Washington, including the "Bid Procedures and -Conditions," "Specifications and Conditions," "Contract Forms,' "TemporaryTraffiic-Control," "Construction Plans," and "Appendix," ]governing the work embraced in'this project, and the method by which payment.will be made for said work. The Undersigned hereby proposes- to' undertake and complete the work embraced in this project in accordance with said contract documents, and agrees to accept as payment for said work, the schedule of lump sum . and unit prices as set forth in the "Bid" below. - The Undersigned acknowledges that payment will be based -on the actual work performed and material used -as measured -or provided for in accordance with the said contract documents, and that no additional compensation will be allowed for any taxes not included in each lump sum or unit price; and that the basis for payment will be the actual work performed and measured or provided for in accordance with the said contract documents. W4NEOAN ROAD BUROVEME M VARIOUS OnERSEMONS CRP 902005 -9- 123 HANNEGAN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS CRP#902005' Bid Proposal Form , Bidder: W Idex C aAjsl t,-Jle"j 1 LUMP MOBILIZATION L.S. L.S. $ sum QdC� 2 FORCE EROSIONMATER POLLUTION CONTROL F.A. F.A. $15,000.00 ' ACCOUNT 3 LUMP SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL AND L.S. L.S. $ O p SUM COUNTERMEASURESPLAN 4 LUMP TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR L.S. L.S. $ SUM 5 HOUR FLAGGERS AND SPOTTERS 5,000 $ `i ' c $ r per HOUR 6 HOUR OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL LABOR 500 $ $ per HOUR 7 EACH PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE 2 $ SIGN Per EACH 8 HOUR OPERATION OF PORTABLE CHANGEABLE 2,000. $ co $ GO MESSAGE SIGN . per HOUR 9 LUMP OTHER TEMPORARY•TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. L.S.- $ O dw , 00 SUM I J 10 LUMP CLEARING AND GRUBBING L.S. 'L.S. $ SUM 11 FORCE ROADSIDE CLEANUP F.A. F.A. $10,000.00 ACCOUNT • 12 LUMP REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND L.S: L.S. SUM OBSTRUCTIONS 13 CUBIC' TRUCK -MEASURE ROADWAY EXCAVATION, 5,400 $ `' ' co YARDS INCLUDING HAUL per C.Y. 14 CUBIC TRUCK -MEASURE UNSUITABLE. . • 500 $ $ 1 �( Qd[j , YARDS FOUNDATION EXCAVATION; INCL HAUL Per C.Y. 15 M. WATER 200 $ Z0, C0 $ Q. GALS, per M. Gal. 16 SQUARE CONSTRUCTIONGEOT»CTILE 4,160 $. YARD per S.Y. 17 TONS GRAVEL BASE 13,000 $ f 12. $ per TON 10 124 HANNEGAN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Bid Proposal Form - VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS , . `� CRP#902005 Bidder: WI ��er 18 TONS CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE 850 ' $ 7 ,5-,00 $ 3 Z perTON 19 LINEAR PAVING FABRIC, 12-INCH WIDTH 8;. $ , 50 /450 $ 1ZJ FOOT LF .20 TONS HOT MIX ASPHALT CLASS 1/2"' 3,700. //per $ $ ✓ Z4 zoo:cb per TON 21 TONS- COMMERCIAL HOT MIX ASPHALT 350 $ 7Z • $ 7- per TON 22 FORCE CRACK SEALING F.A. F.A. $5.000.00 ACCOUNT 23- EACH ASPHALT CORES . 10 IO .06 $ ) � $ f L�Da, 00 f per EA. 24 LINEAR SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT 8,460 $ FEET per LF 25 LINEAR SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAVATION 950 $ 00 J $ o0 �.50 , FEET CLASS B er LF- 26 LINEAR CLASS 4 REINFORCED CONCRETE 20 ii $ J� '�� 61 $ 6111� l e (9 FEET STORM SEWER PIPE, 18-INCH DIAMETER per LF 27 LINEAR CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM 351 $d� $ FEET. SEWER PIPE.,12-INCH DIAM. per LF 28 LINEAR CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM 534 $ $ 3� f Z FEET SEWER PIPE, 18-INCHDIAM. per LF ►Qa 29 LINEAR CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE STORM 45 $ 107- 00 $ , 7, S f67, 00✓ FEET SEWER PIPE, 36-INCH DIAM. per LF 30 EACH CATCH BASIN TYPE-1 1 $ 6 00',�yj $ Q per EACH 31 EACH CATCH BASIN TYPE-1 L 6 $ 11 6"Q . D� $ (7,?00,00 per EACH 32 EACH CATCH BASIN TYPE-2 60-INCH 1 $ $ C9C� ✓ per EACH ��' 33 EACH CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING CATCH • 2 $ c::0• OD $ �L)60 , aD Vol BASINS per. EACH 34' EACH . ADJUST EXISTING CATCH BASINS TO 3_ 2�O,00. $ :.J $ f d p� GE � � RAD .per EACH ' - II 125 G HANNEGAN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Bid Proposal Form VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS , / l �l J CRP#902005 Bidder: IN ! 1 e- r 35 EACH ADJUST EXISTING UTILITY VALVES 24 $ 3 Z 5' dd $ TO GRADE per EACH 36 EACH MOVE FIRE HYDRANT 1 $ QOd $ CC) er EACH 37 ACRE SEEDING, FERTILIZING, AND MULCHING 2 $ Z, CAW '� $ per ACRE 36 LINEAR SILT FENCE 1,600 $ 3, % $ �� 0on , fix? FEET per LF 39 EACH. FABRIC ENCASED FOAM CHECK DAM 10 $ I Zo' D0 $ I� z 60, p0 per EACH 40 EACH ROCK CHECK DAM 3, $ Zoo p° $ per EACH 41, FORCE LAN DSCAPERESTORATI ON F.A. FA $10,000.00 ACCOUNT 42 SQUARE SEEDED LAWN INSTALLATION 4,500 $ 3. 76- $]S� YARDS perS.Y. 43 LINEAR EXTRUDED ASPHALT CURB TYPE 3 75 $ 16.60. $ !� zoo FOOT per LF 44 HUNDRED TYPE 2- RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS 2.5 $ S Sa'aD $ _ j 7r per HUND 45 EACH FLEXIBLE GUIDEPOST 100 $ Z 7' 00 Lb $ - per EACH .46 !_INEAR BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 1 .100 $ $ �� pc) C10 FEET' per LF 47 LINEAR BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 1- 9 FT LONG POSI 344 $ dO $ . ✓ �01 3?-0 Da FEET per LF . 48 EACH BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 1 1 $ i� ] $ 75 QQ per EACH 49 EACH BEAM GUARDRAIL NON -FLARED - 2 $ 2 60O .'O� � $ -s-24d 690 TERMINAL ET PLUS T1-3 per EACH / 50 .EACH BEAM GUARDRAIL NON -FLARED 1 $ � 1 LYJ ��a $ TERMINAL . -2) per EACH 51 FORCE FENCE RELOCATION AND iNSTALLATiON F.;�jA F:pi $15000.00' ACCOUNT 12 126 HANNEGAN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS CRP#902005 yy Bid Proposal Form Bidder: W) /we r {t•-^.+ i''1" .7' liJ�x�t�vcc,,'o/�E �,s :3' "'SS-,;,T',.;, t'::s"a,'C�1'✓'% `'.Ys ut 44'�yi, ;.i-; � '�'?'jy �. ,""I' `�(17an�y.F):,�_�`:�}yi"_ €- .`.. ,cam L l'" —,�7L rt_:. '�r3•=TV a.q�l �f`,�i `Y!' �?�.,r�.t..,�_V�Lq..r�'?;:y��'-i^,p�rt-'y1���i. �y ��3 ��i�'����U� 4. klis•a�i !! ,f.x tsis^ ,1 2 � - n •i�'�7�&7j uF .j.�.1�fI.�`j��•rC`l?tl! 52 FORCE MONUMENT F.A. F.A. $3,000.00 ACCOUNT :3c ' UO 53 TONS QUARRY SPALLS 500 $ $ per TON 54 TONS CRUSHED LIMESTONE 400 $ 156''CXD $ �z/ dod OCi per TON 55 LINEAR PAINTED DOUBLE YELLOW CENTER LINE 6,240 $ <. `S— $ FEET per LF 56 LINEAR PAINTED EDGE LINE 800 $ a /s $ % 2-4�5 . 00 FEET per LF 57 LINEAR PAINTED WIDE LINE 8,000 S " sd $ FEET per LF 58 LINEAR PLASTIC WIDE LINE (LEFT TURN LANE) 1,000 $ + Z6"- $ 2 Z - C•7� FEET per LF 59 LINEAR PAINTED DOTTED WIDE LINE 300 $ z- $©, Q� FEEL' per LF 60 EACH PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW 16 $'J J�0 �� per EACH I 61 LINEAR PLASTIC STOP LINE 200 $ FEET perrLF 62 LINEAR REMOVING PAINT LINE 300 1 1.60 $ • 6 0 $ L/80 co FEET per LF 63 LINEAR BIOSWALE 675 $ 2 5' C'0 FEET per LF J 64 EACH RESIDENTIAL MAILBOX 32 $ z ld • LYE $ 6172- O. 00 per EACH 65 FORCE REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING PUBLIC AN F.A. F.A. $50,000.00 ACCOUNT PRIVATE FACILITIES TOTAL BID AMOUNT (Bid Items 1-65) $ . 2 8 93 13 127 NON -COLLUSION DECLARATION HANNEGAN ROAD EW PAGVEMENTS VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS CRP NO.902005 I, by signing- the proposal, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the laves of the United States that the following statements are true and correct: That the undersigned person(s) firm, association or corporation has (have) not, either. directly or indirectly, entered into any agreement, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free. competitive bidding in connection with the project for which this proposal is submitted. That by signing the signature page of this proposal, I am deemed -to have signed and have agreed to the provisions of this declaration. NOTICE TO ALL BIDDERS To report bid rigging activities call: 1-800424-9071 The U-S. Department of Transportation. (USDOT) operates the above toll free "hotline" Monday: . through Friday, .8:00- a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time: Anyone with knowledge of possible bid rigging, bidder collusion, or other fraudulent activities should. use the "hotline" to report such activities. The "hotline" is part of USDOT's continuing effort to identify and investigate highway construction contract fraud and abuse,and is operated under the direction of the USDOT Inspector General. All information will be treated confidentially and caller anonymity will be respected. HANNEGAN ROAD IMPROVENIEWS VARIOUS IMMSEMONS CRP 902005 -14 - 128 I BIDDER IDENTIFICATION The namd.of the Bidder submitting this proposal,, the address and phone number to which all . coinrnunications concerned with this proposal shall be made, and the number which has been assigned indicating the Bidder is licensed to do business in the State of Washington are as follows: Firm Name: U ode✓ Cans�r�c o� C� Address: PaAr-1 . n k. . JL Telephone: ��� "��� ��-�� . Contractor's Number: The Firm submitting this proposal is -a. Sole Proprietorship Pa3rt#iership X Corporation4�� S� i�c �o ►� The names and titles of the principal officers of the corporation submitting this proposal, or of the partnership, or of all persons interested in this proposal as principals are as follows: �Q nc� I off- Mc�✓ C �. . ... �res,c��ti � - � � ►�Cl•�� Y\' ranch TanaG (fltt a/ pid _ eC - MCiL n e NOTE: Signatures of this proposal must be identified above. Failure to identify.the Signatories will be cause,ior considering the proposal irregular and for subsequent rejection of the bid. HANNEDAN ROAD ARROVM,MtM VAM6US IN1F1C4EMONS CRP MtO5 - 15 - 129 BID PROPOSAL SIGNATURE AND ADDENDUM . ACKNOWLEDGMENT The bidder is hereby advised-- that by signature of this proposal he/she is deemed to have acknowledged all requirements and signed all certificates contained herein. The undersigned hereby agrees to- pay labor not less than the prevailing rates of wages or less than the hourly minimum rate of wages as specified in the Specifications and Conditions for this project. CASH CASH CERTIFIED CHECK PROPOSAL BOND [] IN THE AMOUNT OF IT ($ ) PAYABLE.TO WHATCOM COUNTY N IN THE AMOUNT OF 5%OF THE BID. Receipt is hereby acknowledged by addendum(s) No.(s) I Z- ' , & SIGNATURE OF AUTHO • ED CTAL(S) (PROPOSAL MUST BE.SIGNED) � P� (Se-a1). . FIRM NAME: �i 1 d r C�yn�uCb,� Cb STATE OF WASHINGTON } . } ss. COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of, 2007; before me personally appeared I<U1C- ze-n chef tomopersonally known tobethe person described in' and who executed the above ' d who acknowledged to me the act of signing thereof D �E ,....••0 , �•. �5S10 F_.• oiAR`� NO Y PUBLIC and for the `� • ~'� "'• State of Washington, residing at: 1611(tcr�+�i K, ��, `f'�•, �G.U$►-�G� My Commission Expires: `J This proposal form is not trams prior permission from Whatcom subsequent rejection -of the bid. d�y alteration of the Rrm's name entered hereon without will be cause for considering theproposal irregular and for HANNEOAN ROAD MROVEMWM VARIOUS Q+I=EMONS CRP 9MOD5 . - -i6=130 91I3ATCOM CO LINTY DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC WORKS SUBCONTRACTOR LIST Prepared in Compliance withRCW'39.30.060 as amended TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE BID PROPOSAL Project Name: Hannegau Road Improvements Various Intersections, CRP NO.902005 Failure to list subcontractors who ' are proposed to perform work of heating, ventilation and air conditioning, plumbing as described in Chapter 18.106 RCW, and electrical work as described in Chapter 19.28 RCW, will result in your bid being nonresponsive and thereforevoid. Subcontractor(s) that are proposed to perform work of heating, ventilation and air . conditioning, plumbing as described in Chapter 1$.106 RCW, and electrical work as described in Chapter 19.28 RCW-must be listed below. The work to be performed is to be listed below the subcontractor'(s) name. If no subcontractor is listed below, the bidder acknowledges that it does not intend to use any, subcontractor to'perform those items of work. Subcontractor Name Work to be Performed Subcontractor Name Work to be Performed HAMEGAN ROAD WROVEMUM VARIOUS RTrMECIIONS CRP MOOS 131 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007-174 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council D tce Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 3115107 3127107 Introduction Elizabeth K. Olsen �`;Irtii �i t1 � � 7 L U f Division Head: Linda Peterson Dept Head: Flal Hart t b -7 Prosectaor: Royce Buckingham < . Q Purchasin Bud et: Executive: Pete rem n TITLE OF DOCUMENT: An Ordinance to adopt a Minor Addition to the City of Everson Short Term Urban Growth Area far Public Road Right -of Way. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Proposed ordinance (2) Staff report with exhibits (3) Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2007 (4) Correspondence from the City of Everson through Rollin Harper, Everson City Planner, 2108107 (Exhibit "C') Note: The Planning Commission was unable to reach a majority vote on the proposed amendment. SEPA review required? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a (tearing ? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: 411"7 SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: The City of Everson requests an amendment to the official Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan map far expansion to the southeasterly Short Term Urban Growth Boundary of Everson for approximately 3.28 acres to allow improved public right-of-way access to the existing Urban Growth Area and provide additional residential development. Lacking a Planning Commission recommendation a Public Hearing is required. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 3/27/2007: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution PDS Staff Report CMP2006-00002 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. 132 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. AMEND THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO THE CITY OF EVERSON'S SOUTHEAST URBAN GROWTH AREA, FOR IMPROVED ACCESS TO THE EXISTING URBAN GROWTH AREA. WHEREAS, Pursuant with the requirements of the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.020, RCW 36.70A.070, and the County Wide Planning Policies of Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WCC 20.10.010, proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be docketed for consideration once per year; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council adopted Resolution #2006-029 initiating the proposed Comprehensive Plan map and official Whatcom County zoning map amendments as part of the 2006 annual docket of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to RCW 36.70.390, legal notice for a public hearing was published in the Bellingham Herald on Sunday, January 28, 2007, and the site posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007, and WHEREAS, on Thursday, February 8, 2007, the Whatcom County Planning Commission failed by a lack of a majority vote to come to a decision on the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment, and sent the proposal up to the Whatcom County Council with no recommendation; and WHEREAS, the County Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendment and considered all testimony; and WHEREAS, the County Council finds the amendment in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare, based on the following findings of fact and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to surrounding property owners on January 29, 2007. 2. Pursuant to RCW 36.70.590, legal notice was published in the Bellingham Herald on Sunday, January 28, 2007, and the site posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007; and 3. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing was posted on the County's website on I: IPlanning\CNIP2006-00002-Ord. P. 1 133 January 29, 2007. 4. The SEPA Administrator for Whatcom County issued a Determination of Non - significance on February 8, 2007; and 5. The Planning Commission held a public hearing relating to the subject amendment on Thursday, February 8, 2007. 6. The Whatcom County Planning Commission could not reach a majority vote on the proposed amendment, and the proposal was sent up to the Whatcom County Council with no recommendation. 7. The proposed City of Everson's amendment is not consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) planning goal 1: 1) Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 8. The proposed City of Everson's amendment is not consistent with Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goal 2A, 2K and 2V; and Policies 2A-1, 2A-4, 2K-1 and 2V-1, and is not supported by Goal 8A, Policies 8A-3 and 4: Goal 2A: 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. • Policy 2A-1: Concentrate urban levels of development within designated urban growth areas. • Policy 2A-4: Designate land uses that reflect the best use of the land. Goal 2K: Discourage development in areas prone to flooding. • Policy 2K-1: Limit lands in one -hundred year floodplains to lovesintensity land uses such as open space corridors or agriculture. Goal 2V: Set an Urban Growth Boundary for Everson which accommodates future growth needs and recognizes constraints imposed by Nooksack River flooding and mineral resource mining issues. ■ Policy 2V-1: Work with Everson to adopt measures to limit development in floodplains. Goal 8A: Conserve and enhance Whatcom County's agricultural land base for the continued production of food and fiber. Policy 8A-2: A long range conservation strategy should include: (3) Required mitigation in the event that designated agricultural land is converted to another use. (4) Required buffers on all new non-agricultural uses located adjacent to agricultural activities. 9. The proposed City of Everson's amendment is not consistent with Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan County -Wide Planning Policy C-5. 10. The latest population projections by ECONorthwest and the Everson Comprehensive Plan, 2004, do not show a need to increase the acreage of Everson's existing UGA. Based on their 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Everson can accommodate the projected growth for the next 20 years' without additions to their UGA. IAPlanninglCMP2006-00002-Ord. P. 2 134 11. The proposal as submitted further reduces the County's designated agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. 12. A road right-of-way extending south down the western side of the current UGA and looping east to the south end of Greene Lane would provide improved access to the southern extent of the City of Everson's southeastern UGA. 13. The road right-of-way will serve as a buffer between residential development to the east side and agricultural activity on the west side. 14. The proposed amendment in its entirety is not consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Growth Management Act, County -Wide Planning Policies, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan or the lnterlocal Agreement. 15. The proposed amendment in its entirety is not consistent with the public interest because it does not maintain or increase the designated agricultural land base, does not promote in -fill, but does promote low -density development, reduces agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance and encourages additional development in the floodplain. 16. Analysis of the proposal as submitted provides no compelling basis for enlarging the UGA boundaries to the extent proposed beyond that required for a road right-of-way and utility easement. CONCLUSIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan map is hereby amended from Agriculture to the City of Everson Urban Growth Area (southeastern UGA west boundary) exclusively for a dedicated public right-of-way of 60 feet for road purposes and an additional utility easement of 10 feet for improved access to the southern portion of the UGA, see Attachment "A". Section 2. This Comprehensive Plan map amendment is subject to the following conditions: a. The legally described road right-of-way plus utility easement shall be restricted to the development of road and utility uses only. This limitation shall be included in the lnterlocal Agreement amendment associated with the future annexation of this land identified by the legal description as attached to this ordinance. b. Denial of any acreage for further residential growth expansion on the west side of the recommended 70 feet road right-of-way and utility easement. Section 3. Adjudication of invalidity of any 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. I:\Planning\CMP2006-00002-Ord. P. 3 135 ADOPTED this ATTEST: day of , 2007 Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED as to form: Rof6e Bud ' gham, Civil Dety0tv Prosecutor WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Chairperson ( ) Approved () Denied Pete Kremen, Executive Date: 1:\Planning\CMP2006-00002-Ord. P. 4 136 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, REASONS FOR ACTION & RECOMMENDATIONS AMEND THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO THE CITY OF EVERSON'S SOUTHEAST URBAN GROWTH AREA, FOR IMPROVED ACCESS TO THE EXISTING URBAN GROWTH AREA. WHEREAS, Pursuant with the requirements of the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.020, RCW 36.70A.070, and the County Wide Planning Policies of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to WCC 20.10.010, proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be docketed for consideration once per year; and WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council adopted Resolution #2006-029 initiating the proposed Comprehensive Plan map and official Whatcom County zoning map amendments as part of the 2006 annual docket of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to RCW 36.70.390, legal notice for a public hearing was published in the Bellingham Herald on Sunday, January 28, 2007, and the site posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007; and WHEREAS, A Determination of Non -significance was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on February 8, 2007; and WHEREAS, The request as submitted by the City of Everson is for 3.28 acres to expand their existing Urban Growth Area; and WHEREAS, The requested was for a road right-of-way and utility easement of 70 feet of total width by 927 feet, and additional area for a small number of residential lots, and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on Thursday, February 8, 2007, and considered all testimony; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission failed by a lack of a majority vote to come to a decision on the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment on Thursday, February 8, 2007; and NOW THEREFORE BE -IT RESOLVED: THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARDS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, REASONS FOR ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF: I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION (:Comp Plan Amendment\ 20061CMP2006-00002 138 The request from the City of Everson is for an addition of 3.28 acres to Everson Urban Growth Area to allow improved access and additional residential development to Everson's southeastern UGA from the west. 2. The City of Everson's proposal is not consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) Planning Goal 1: 9) Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 3. The City of Everson's proposal is not consistent with Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goal 2A, 2K and 2V; and Policies 2A-1, 2A-4, 2K-1 and 2V-1, and is not supported by Goal 8A, Policies 8A-3 and 4: Goal 2A: 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. • Policy 2A-1: Concentrate urban levels of development within designated urban growth areas. • Policy 2A-4: Designate land uses that reflect the best use of the land. Goal 2K: Discourage development in areas prone to flooding. • Policy 2K-1: Limit lands in one -hundred year floodplains to low -intensity land uses such as open space corridors or agriculture. Goal 2V: Set an Urban Growth Boundary for Everson which accommodates future growth needs and recognizes constraints imposed by Nooksack River flooding and mineral resource mining issues. • Policy 2V-1: Work with Everson to adopt measures to limit development in floodplains. Goal 8A: Conserve and enhance Whatcom County's agricultural land base for the continued production of food and fiber. Policy 8A-2: A long range conservation strategy should include: (3) Required mitigation in the event that designated agricultural land is converted to another use. (4) Required buffers on all new non-agricultural uses located adjacent to agricultural activities. 4. The City of Everson's proposal is not consistent with Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan County -Wide Planning Policy C-5. 5. The latest population projections by ECONorthwest and the Everson Comprehensive Plan, 2004, do not show a need to increase the acreage of Everson's existing UGA. Based on I:Comp Plan Amendment\ 20061CMP2006-00002 139 their 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Everson can accommodate the projected growth for the next 20 years' without additions to their UGA. 6. The from the City of Everson's proposal as submitted further reduces the County's designated agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. 7. A road right-of-way extending south down the western side of the current UGA and looping east to the south end of Greene Lane would provide improved access to the southern extent of the City of Everson's southeastern UGA. 8. The road right-of-way will serve as a buffer between residential development to the east side and agricultural activity on the west side. II. RECOMMENDATION The Whatcom County Planning Commission could not reach a majority vote on the proposed amendment. The proposal was sent up to the Whatcom County Council with no recommendation. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4 Ken Mann, thairperson (1 a7 Date r , Hal H. Hart, Secretary 3),;4 0 DateV ggg:y` Vote taken February 8, 2007 at a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner; voting: Present: Ken Mann, John Lesow, John Steensma, David Hunter and Jesse Salomon. Absent: John Belisle, Rabel Burdge, Ron Roosma, and Geoff Menzies. Attachments: CMP2006-00002 Staff Report Exhibit "A" - Minor Addition to Everson UGA to allow Improved Access to Everson's southeastern UGA. Exhibit "B" — Page 5-8, Chapter 5 — Housing Element, Projected Housing Needs (Everson Comp. Plan) Planning Commission Minutes for February 8, 2007. Exhibit "C" — Letter from Rollin Harper, Everson City Planner, February 8, 2007 I:Comp Plan Amendment\ 20WCMP2006-00002 140 Fife # CMP2006-00002 February 8, 2007 Ciof Everson STUGA Expansion Page 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT . Clarification in Staff Report CMP200&00002, Minor Expansion of the City of Everson Southeast UGA Whatcom County Planning staff has added further clarification to certain parts of the ori,47al Staff Report of February 8, 2007. These addedunderlined sentences in the Staff Report clarify: 1. The prime agricultural soils description is expanded, giving the NRCS number and name, and the soil characteristics of this soil for possible septicdrainage systems. 2. The reference to the Critical Areas Ordinance is further clarified with direct reference to the pertinent statements in the Ordinance regarding development within I04year flood prone areas. I_ BACKGROUND INFORMATION File # CMP2006-00002 File Name: City of Everson — Expansion to the southeastern Short Term Urban Growth Area for road purposes. Applicant: City of Everson through Rollin Harper, Sehome Planning. Summary of Request: Minor expansion of the City of Everson's Urban Growth Area by amending the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan map from the Agriculture (AG) designation to Short Term Urban Growth Area. This addition is to allow improved access to Everson's southeastern Urban Growth Area in the vicinity of the south end of Greene Lane, and an addition of eight (8) residential lots, see Exhibit "A". Location: The subject strip of land is 154 feet by 927 feet and abuts the westerly side of the Short Term UGA. It is located 360 feet south of the 1000 block of East Main Street, Everson, contiguous with the existing city limits, and is fully within the FEMA 100 year flood zone. Use of Subject Site: Arable crop fields and. some pasture. Use of Surrounding Properties: North: The city limits of Everson define the northern end of the subject parcel. East: The easterly line of the proposed UGA expansion abuts a portion of the Everson city limits and the existing Short Term UGA to the south of the city limits. West and South: The land to the west and south of the proposal is in one ownership, with the 50 odd acres in arable land under cultivation, all being prime Agricultural soils (#115-Oridia silt loam, drained, 0-2% slopes) and within the FEMA flood plain of the Nooksack River. Planning/Comp. Plan Am./ 20061Staff Reports 141 File # CMP2006-00002 February 8, 2007 City of Everson STUGA Expansion Page 2 IL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT Pursuant to Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.10.080, the County must find that the following criteria are satisfied in order to approve the proposed amendment. A. That the amendment conforms to the requirements of GMA, is internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with the County -Wide Planning Policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. Growth Management Act The proposed amendment must be in compliance with the following Growth Management Act (GMA) planning Goal: 1) Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. The City of Everson revised, updated and adopted changes to its 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan in December 2004. In the process, population projections were scrutinized together with the amount of land needed for the subsequent development. Although there is a slight difference between ECONorthwest population figures and those supplied in the Comprehensive Plan between the years of 2004 and 2024 (see Exhibit "B"), by taking the more conservative figure supplied by the City of Everson, it is apparent that their higher figure can be accommodated through infll and within the existing UGA boundaries. The Everson Comprehensive Plan of December 2004 states in Chapter 5, Housing Element: "Supply of land for housing. As described in the land -use element, a total of 1,357 new dwelling units can be accommodated within the UGA and the existing city. This total easily exceeds the expected demand for 998 new units mentioned above, and also accommodates the 50 percent market factor required by the county -wide planning policies." See Exhibit "B". Based on this information, at this time, expansion of the Everson UGA is premature. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment must be in compliance with the following Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Accommodating Growth Community Value Statements encourage concentrating growth into urban areas. This allows for efficient provision of services and preservation of rural areas as quiet, open spaces where development pressures are not such that extraordinary regulations must be imposed. A distinct boundary is also encouraged between rural and urban areas, discouraging sprawl, maintaining desired rural lifestyles, and conserving agricultural land. Planning/Comp. Plan Am./ 2006/Staff Reports 142 File # CMP2006-00002 February 8, 2007 City of Everson STUGA Expansion Page 3 GOAL 2A: 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. • Policy 2A-1: Concentrate urban levels of development within designated urban growth areas. Everson's present and predicted urban levels of development to the year 2024 can be accommodated within the city and present UGAs, as'noted in Chapter 4 of the Everson Comprehensive Plan, 2004. • Policy 2A-4: Designate land uses that reflect the best use of the land. The proposed expansion is in prime agricultural soils (Oridia silt loam, drained, 0-2% slopes) and is in active agricultural use. It is also in the flood hazard zone. These properties have traditionally been farmed and are still in active use. The best use of the land is to remain in agricultural use and not in reserve for future growth. Goal 2K: Discourage development in areas prone to flooding. • Policy 2K-1: Limit lands in one -hundred year floodplains to low -intensity land uses such as open space corridors or agriculture. The soils, #115-Oridia silt loam, drained, have a high seasonal water table that requires longer than normal septic tank absorption lines to help alleviate absorption field failure. GOAL 2V: Set an Urban Growth Boundary for Everson which accommodates future growth needs and recognizes constraints imposed by Nooksack River flooding and mineral resource mining issues. • Policy 2V-1: Work with Everson to adopt measures to limit development in floodplains. Although Everson is constrained by the 100-year flood zone, there are no changed conditions at present to require expanding the southeastern UGA into the Nooksack River FEMA floodplain. Goal 8A: Conserve and enhance Whatcom County's agricultural land base for the continued production of food and fiber. Policy 8A-2: A long range conservation strategy should include: (3) Required mitigation in the event that designated agricultural land is converted to another use. The removal of +i- 3 acres from agriculturally designated land of long term -commercial significance and in prime ag. soils, has an eroding impact on maintaining agriculture in Planning/Comp. Plan Am./ 20061Staff Reports 143 File # CMP2006-00002 February 8, 2007 City of Everson STUGA Expansion Page 4 Whatcom County. This would require mitigation per Chapter 8, Resource Lands, in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. (4) Required buffers on all new non-agricultural uses located adjacent to agricultural activities. A roadway would act as not only a buffer between residential development on the east and agricultural activities on the west side, but can provide an unobstructed rural view over farmland. People in Whatcom County, through the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Visioning Process, defined rural character as a variety of low densities, open spaces, privacy, peace and quiet with less traffic noise and congestion than found in urban areas. The roadway will define and clearly separate the two opposing zone designations while preserving compatibility. County -Wide Planning Policies The proposed amendment must be in compliance with the following Comprehensive Plan County -wide Planning Policies. C. Urban Growth Areas Policy C-5: Urban Growth areas should be established in a way that preserves agricultural land, forestry, mineral resources, water resources, and critical areas. Urban growth shall maintain proper buffers from natural resource areas to minimize conflicts with natural resources and industries based on them. The proposed amendment will decrease -the amount of agriculturally designated land in Whatcom County. Interlocal Agreement The proposed amendment must be in compliance with the Interlocal Agreement between Whatcom County and the City of Everson. The Interlocal Agreement applies to development within the City's UGA and annexations initiated by the City. Expanding a UGA is not mentioned in the Interlocal Agreement. B. That further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and Development services and Planning Commission indicate a need for the amendment or that changed conditions indicate a need for the amendment. The City of Everson has provided no findings to support the need for the additional residential area included in this proposal. Apart from the need for a looped road connection with Greene Lane, there are no changed conditions to indicate a need for the proposed amendment. Planning/Comp. Plan Am./ 20061Staff Reports 144 File # CMP2006-00002 February 8, 2007 City of Everson STUGA Expansion Page 5 Greene Lane itself is an older, narrow 40 foot roadway with one or two homes dating back to the early 1900s. There are 17 homes in all, the newest having been built in the mid '90s. Because of the narrowness of the right-of-way, it is difficult in the extreme to update facilities such as sidewalks, ditches and utility lines. Emergency vehicles have no other exit than the one they came in on, and there is no emergency turn -around in the length of the street, which is 1300 feet. County staff acknowledges that this is an unsafe situation. The proposal to loop a road access from Main Street in the north and west of Greene Lane to link up with the southern end of Greene Lane will help ease a difficult situation. The length of the proposed road (south of the existing city limits) is roughly 950 feet. It will lie west of and parallel with Greene Lane by roughly 630 feet. C. That the public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: • The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan states that for planning purposes cities should plan to provide urban growth boundaries that accommodate a land supply at least 50% greater than the anticipated need. As mentioned previously, population projections for the next 20 years can be accommodated within the City of Everson limits. This is borne out in the Everson Comprehensive Plan update, December 2004. (See Exhibit "B"). • The anticipated effect upon the ability of the County and/or other service providers, such as cities, schools, water and/or sewer purveyors, fire districts, and others as applicable, to provide adequate services and public facilities including transportation facilities. There is no anticipated need for County and/or other service providers. Additional services would be required if the existing UGA were to develop. The water distribution system extending east from Washington Street to Greene Lane is undersized, and will be upgraded before further development. There is a need to facilitate emergency vehicles, pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the proximity of Greene Lane, within the City of Everson. Road access to the west, from the southern end of Greene Lane, to connect up with a parallel access road back north to Main Street is a possible answer. Discussion with city staff indicate that a road right-of-way of 60 feet in width with a 10 foot utility easement would be sufficient area to accommodate the city's needs. • Anticipated impact upon critical areas. Planning/Comp. Plan Amd 2006/Staff Reports 145 File # CMP2006-00002 February 8, 2007 City of Everson SZUGA Expansion Page 6 Increasing the potential for development within a flood prone zone is inconsistent with Whatcom County's Critical Areas Ordinance. As stated in the Critical Areas Ordinance, 16.16.410, frequently flooded areas shall include, but not be limited to, areas subiect to a one percent recurrence interval of flood water inundation or a 100-year base flood as mapped on the current effective Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Development within such areas can require mitigation (16.16.420). Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands. Redesignating prime soil agricultural land depletes the overall acreage of Whatcom County's commercial resource land. D. That the amendment does not include nor facilitate illegal spot zoning. The proposed amendment will not constitute spot zoning. III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to surrounding property owners within 300' of the proposed UGA expansion on January 29, 2007. 2. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing was posted at the subject site on January 31, 2007. 3. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Bellingham Herald on Sunday, January 28, 2007. 4. Notice of -the Planning Commission hearing was posted on the County's website on January29, 2007. 5. A Determination of Non -significance (DNS) was issued under SEPA on February 8, 2007. 6. The Planning Commission held a public hearing relating to the subject amendment on February 8, 2007. 7. The proposed amendment from Everson is not consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) planning goal 1. 8. The proposed amendment from Everson is not consistent with Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goal 2A, 2K and 2V; and Policies 2A-1, 2A-4, 2K-1 and 2V-1, and is not supported by Goal 8A, Policies 8A-3 and 4. 9. The proposed amendment from Everson is not consistent with Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan County -Wide Planning Policy C-5. Planning/Comp. Plan Am.120061StafF Reports Fife # CMP2006-00002 February S, 2007 City of Everson STUGA Expansion Page 7 10. The latest population projections by ECONorthwest and the Everson Comprehensive Plan, 2004, do not show a need to increase the acreage of Everson's existing UGA. Based on their 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Everson can accommodate the projected growth for the next 20 years' without additions to their UGA. 11. The proposal as submitted further reduces the County's designated prime soil agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. 12. A road right-of-way extending south down the western side of the current UGA and looping east to the south end of Greene Lane is would provide improved access to the southern extent of the City of Everson's southeastern UGA. 13. The road right-of-way will serve as a buffer between residential development to the east side and agricultural activity on the west side. IV. CONCLUSION 1. The proposed amendment in its entirety is not consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Growth Management Act, County -Wide Planning Policies, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan or the Interlocal Agreement. 2. The proposed amendment in its entirety is not consistent with the public interest because it does not maintain or increase the designated agricultural land base, does not promote in -fill, but does promote low -density development, reduces agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance and encourages additional development in the floodplain. 3. Analysis of the proposal as submitted provides no compelling basis for enlarging the UGA boundaries to the extent proposed beyond that required for a road right-of-way and utility easement. However, staff does support the need for improved access to the southern portion of Everson's southeastern UGA, other than Greene Lane. V. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above findings and conclusions, staff recommends: 1. Approval of the addition to Everson's southeastern UGA west boundary of a dedicated right-of-way of 60 feet for road purposes and an additional utility easement of 10 feet for improved access to the southern portion of the UGA. 2. Denial of any acreage for further residential growth expansion on the west side of the recommended 70 feet road right-of-way and utility easement. ATTACHMENTS: • Exhibit A — Map of the Subject Properties. • Exhibit B -- Page 5-8, Chapter 5 -- Housing Element, Projected Housing Needs. Planning/Comp. Plan Am./ 20061Staff Reports 147 File # CMP2006-00002 February 9, 2007 City of Everson STUGA Expansion Page 8 CMP2006-00002 -- Minor Addition to Everson UGA to allow Improved Access to Everson's Southeastern UGA. Planning/Comp. Plan Am.120061Staff Reports Um File # CMP2006-00002 February 8, 2007 City of Everson STUGA Expansion Page 9 Exhibit T11 Everson Comprehensive Plan December 2004 Revision Excerpt from Chapter 5, Housing Element, page 8. "Projected Housing Needs Amount of Housing. Due to the growth occurring and expected in Everson, the housing stock will need to be expanded to provide for the needs of the community. Table 5-7 identifies the projected housing demand for Everson over the course of the 20-year period. The table reflects the main assumptions, as shown in the upper half. The assumptions related to population and household size have been discussed previously (Chapter 2). The third assumption relates to Everson's goal of increasing the moderate- and middle -income segment of the community to higher levels. Table 5-7. Projected Housing Demand ECONorthwest population figures inserted, in italics. ECO NW Ev. Ci ECO NW Ev. City ECO NW Ev. Ci ECO NW Ev. City ECO NW Ev. Ity Year 2002 2004 2007 2009 2012 2014 2017 2019 2022 2024 Population 2,321 2,065 Z579 2,457 2,870 2,939 3,184 3,514 3,536 4,202 Persons/Unit 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 Lower half of Table 5-7 omitted. The table shows that the city plans to contain 1,751 housing units in the year 2024, which is 998 more than today. 291 of the 998 units (29 percent) should be targeted for low- and very low- income persons. Supply of land for housing. As described in the land -use element, a total of 1,357 new dwelling units can be accommodated within the UGA and the existing city (Tables 3-3 and 3-5). This total easily exceeds the expected demand for 998 new units mentioned above, and also accommodates the 50 percent market factor required by the county -wide planning policies. Planning/Comp. Plan Am./ 20061Staff Reports 149 o� z �'S''aon x-ro February 8, 2007 CITY OF EVERSON Whatcom County Planning Commission 5280 Northwest Road Bellingham, WA 98226 Subject: , City of Everson Minor UGA Expansion Dear Commissioners. - Exhibit "C" The City of Everson is asking for your support of a relatively minor expansion of the City's southeastern urban growth area (UGA). The requested UGA modification would add a 154- foot wide strip of land adjacent to the boundary of the existing City limits and UGA. The total amount of land included in this request equals approximately 3.25 acres. The County staff, in their staff report submitted to, you, support adding a 70-foot wide strip (approximately 1.5 acres) rather than the full 154-foot wide strip as requested. The difference between the staff recommendation and the City request equals approximately 1.75 acres. It is the City's hope that we can work together to come to an understanding that allows the City to include the full width of the proposed UGA expansion while also addressing the County's concerns. ISSUES County staff has raised a number of issues in the staff report dated February 2, 2007. While the City recognizes the validity of some of the issues raised, such as the potential loss of agricultural land, the City finds that many of the other issues raised by staff are of minor importance of have been inaccurately presented. Alternative to Greens Lane The City appreciates the County's recognition of the public safety problems posed by the sub -standard nature of Greens Lane. It is important to note that reliance on Greens Lane could also lead to reduced levels of urban in -fill within areas planned for urban development due to inadequate access. Need for Full Width of Expansion Area County staff have indicated their support for adding a 70-foot wide strip of land to the City's UGA to accommodate a standard 60-foot right-of-way plus a 10-foot wide utility easement on one side. The proposal that is before you is the result of a cooperative effort between the City and a local property owner, Mr. Robert Skillman. The bottom line is that the City does not have the resources to purchase the needed land and build a new road to serve these undeveloped areas within City limits and the adjacent UGA. Such costs should, most appropriately, be paid by new development. Mr. Skillman has taken the initiative to negotiate Everson Letter re UGA Expansion February 8, 2007 Phone_ (360) 966-341 l Far: (360) 966-3466 city Hall I I I W. Main Street P.O. Box 315 Everson, Washington 98247 150 the potential land purchase and plan the development of a portion of this area. The width of the strip proposed to be added to the UGA is in alignment with the width of property frontage owned by Mr. Skillman directly north of the subject property. The width of land in excess of the 70-foot strip supported by County staff would accommodate stormwater facilities and possibly a small number of residential lots. The economics of development make it very difficult to build a major road that only serves development on one side. If the County only approves the 70-foot width, then it is likely that the project will not be economically feasible and will, therefore, not happen. The public safety issues and limits on planned in -fill would remain unresolved. As an indication of the City's commitment to this project, the 154-foot wide strip of land was included in the City of Everson 2006 docket for comprehensive plan map amendments. The proposed amendment went through the full public participation process between September, 2006 and January, 2007. On January 9, 2007, the Everson City Council adopted a Report Decision approving a modification of the City of Everson comprehensive plan maps to add this 154-foot wide strip as a "provisional" UGA, subject to approval by Whatcom County. Loss of Agricultural Land Although the amount of land potentially removed from the agricultural land base as a result of the City's proposal is not large, the City is cognizant of the pitfalls related to incremental loss of resource lands. If the County sees this issue as significant enough to warrant denial of the request, the City would like to explore options and opportunities available to both jurisdictions to work together to find a mutually agreeable solution. One example might be for the County to approve the City's requested UGA expansion with the express condition that the City remove an equal quantity of agricultural land from areas already included in the unincorporated portion of the City's' UGA. City and County staff have discussed the possibility of such a "trade" in the past. Although the City has not linked the subject request with an equivalent trade area, the relatively small size of the requested expansion would suggest that it would be better to identify an appropriate "trade" area as part of a larger review of the City's UGA. The City would be willing to have a condition added to the approval of the UGA expansion that the City agree to remove an equivalent or larger area of suitable agricultural land from the City's UGA during the next major review and adjustment of the City's UGA. Such a condition could also be included in an amendment to the City's Interlocal Agreement with the County. GMA Consistency County staff have suggested that the City's proposed UGA expansion is inconsistent with GMA Planning Goal 1, which states- 1 ) Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. The staff position appears to be that expansion of the UGA is premature because an adequate supply of land remains available in the current UGA. First of all, it is important to note that the City has not brought this proposal forward based on a supply -based need for additional land. As stated previously, the purpose of the expansion is to provide an economically feasible solution to the access issues posed by Greens Lane. From the City's perspective, the minor expansion of the UGA would very much support GMA Planning Goal 1 by allowing urban in -fill in areas that might otherwise not be readily developed. That having been said, the City could make the case, supported by the City's comprehensive plan, that additional land is necessary to meet the demand for residential land over the next Everson Letter re UGA Expansion February 8, 2007 151 twenty years. I have attached two pages from Chapter 3 of the City's 2004 update of the comprehensive plan. These pages, 3-10 and 3-11, show that to meet the growth anticipated through 2024, the City would need to have a land supply sufficient to accommodate a population increase of 3,221. Based on the City's analysis, in -fill within the existing City limits could accommodate 1,484 people, leaving 1,737 people to be accommodated within the UGA. The City's analysis of the residential capacity of the UGA indicated that it was large enough to accommodate 1,766 people, which is 29 more than was required to meet the planning projections (including the 150% market factor). Two and one-half years have passed since the 2004 population numbers were made available from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). According to OFM, between 2004 and 2006 the population of Everson increased by 80 people. if the UGA only had an excess capacity of 29 people back in 2004, then if the estimated growth for the next twenty years (2007-2027) is equal to or greater than what was calculated in 2004, then the City would not have a sufficient land supply to meet the 20-year requirement established under the GMA. Flood -related Issues The staff report identifies several goals and policies related to floodplains. A large portion of the City of Everson is within the 100-year floodplain, so the City is very familiar with the need to address the potential impacts associated with development in flood -prone areas. Policy 2V-1 encourages the County to work with the City to limit development (not avoid altogether) in floodplains. To this end, the City already has some of the most restrictive regulations in the northwest in effect that place limits on development in the floodplain. These regulations include a prohibition on the placement of fill unless it can be demonstrated that all adverse impacts to neighboring properties can be mitigated AND the base flood elevation of the 100- year flood is not raised by more than 1120t' of one foot. Moreover, Whatcom County River and Flood Division has reviewed the subject site and has indicated to County planning staff that this area is at the edge or outside of flood -prone areas and would not be of significant concern. See attached e-mail message from Travis Bouma to Elizabeth Olsen dated January 22, 2007. Impact on Critical Areas The staff report erroneously states that "[lincreasing the potential for development within a flood prone zone is inconsistent with Whatcom County's Critical Areas Ordinance." The County CAO does not preclude development within the 100-year floodplain. In fact, Section 16.16.420(B) states: "Development within frequently flooded areas shall be allowed pursuant to the mitigation sequence in WCC 16.16.260." As stated previously, the City's regulations pertaining to frequently flooded areas are more protective than the County's regulations. Proximity to Agriculture The staff report raises concerns about allowing urban development adjacent to agricultural lands and the need to provide a buffer. The City finds this to be a very weak basis for limiting future development within Everson, given that Everson is a rural community that is already surrounded on many sides by agriculture. Existing residents are well familiar with the potential impacts from agriculture, since many of them have come from farming families. In addition, all new developments located near agricultural uses are required to have a Notification recorded that runs with the land that informs potential buyers of the proximity of such uses and the associated impacts. Everson Leiter re UGA Expansion 3 February 8. 2007 152 Interlocal Agreement Finally, the staff report claims that the proposed UGA expansion is inconsistent with the Interlocal Agreement between the County and the City. This is not accurate. The Interlocal addresses development within the UGA and annexation of property in the UGA; the Interlocal Agreement does not address expansion of the UGA. The fact that an agreement does not address a particular circumstance is not a valid basis for a claim of inconsistency. CONCLUSION Setting aside all of the minor or insignificant issues raised in the staff report, the only major issue that the City sees is the potential loss of agricultural land. The City of Everson is willing to work with the County to reach an agreement that meets the City's needs while fully addressing the County's concerns related to the preservation of the agricultural land base. We urge you to support the City's proposed UGA expansion -- with appropriate conditions -- to allow the City to fulfill its role in providing locations for urban levels of development. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Rollin H. Harper Everson City Planner Everson Letter re UGA Expansion 4 February 8, 2007 153 least 150 percent of projected growth. This recognizes the wide margin of error in growth forecasting, and makes what is hopefully adequate provision for any underprojection during the twenty years of the plan's intended effective life. From the preceding sections it is obvious that there is a shortfall in available land if Everson grows as projected over the coming two decades. Table3-4 illustrates the projected shortfall in accommodating projected population growth if Everson were limited to its current boundaries. In its visioning, Everson addressed perceived shortcomings in the existing character of the community. Greater commercial and industrial development was seen as an area in particular need of improvement, both for the services and tax support provided by these activities, and as sources of local employment. At the same time, residents do not want these activities at the expense of the quality of life which Everson currently offers. Residents would also like to see expanded recreation opportunities for the town, as well as continued residential growth. Map 9 shows proposed future land use for Everson and its surrounding UGA. Everson chose its UGA through a process of community visioning and attempted to focus future growth in areas which are appropriate both environmentally and in terms of provision of services. Table 3-4. Growth Accommodation Requirements Current Projected Population to Infill Population not Population Population Accommodate Potential Accommodated (2004) 2024) 150% ofgrowth) 3,221 2,055 4,202 1,484 1,737 Table 3-5 shows the build -out capacity of the identified UGA. The second column shows the gross acreage within the UGA (i.e., the unincorporated UGA). The third column shows developable acreage, after accounting for areas that are not expected to develop further, such as the Jordan's Acres neighborhood, which is already built -out in 2-acre parcels. The fourth and fifth columns show the capacity of the developable acreage according to the densities of intended use described earlier. Table 3-5 shows a total of 735 dwelling units. At an average of 2.4 people per unit, these units will accommodate 1,756 people, which is slightly more than the shortfall identified in Table 3-4. 3-10 12-14-04 Revision 154 Table 3-5. UGA Build -out Capacity Zone Gross Acrea a Developable Acreage Dwelling Units Square Foota e Residential: Single Family Multi -Use Residential subtotal 339 7 346 229 7 236 683 32 715, - - - Commercial 40 35 7 297,300 Light Industrial 201 174 1,613,900 Public 0 0 Agriculture 58 58 14 Recreational/Open Space 13 Nooksack River 18 Total UGA 676 503 736 1,911,200 Neighborhood -specific reasons for zoning The following area -specific discussion is linked to Map 9 -- each numbered area listed below has a corresponding number on the map. The discussion centers around in -city areas proposed for zone changes and the new zoning proposed for the UGA. In general, the locations of zones are based on factors such as environmental constraints, proximity to relevant transportation and capital facilities, and proximity to potentially conflicting uses. Area north of well field. This 20-acre area is now zoned residential in the city, but the majority is in use as a farm. A portion of the area has been approved for development of a church facility. The northeast part of the area lies in the 100-year flood plain. The city's Wellhead Protection Plan shows that most of the area is within the 10-year time -of -travel zone for the city wells (meaning that contaminants spilled on the surface have the potential of reaching the wells within ten years). Time -of -travel is shorter in the south part of the area, closer to the wells, and part of the area is within the 1-year time -of -travel zone. The area has good access to major roads: to the north and west it fronts on SR544, and to the east it fronts on Everson Road, a city arterial. Single-family residential zoning is proposed for this area, but pursuant to provisions of the Wellhead Protection Plan, there may be limitations on development density or on the location of development. 2. Area north of Kale Street. This area is now zoned residential but a portion is in use as pasture. A 24-unit multi -family housing complex exists at the east end of the area. The River's Edge subdivision is currently being developed in the central portion of this site. FEMA maps show the entire area within the 100-year flood plain, but local knowledge indicates that the area doesn't flood. The area fronts on SR544 (Kale Street) to the south 12-14-04 Revision 3-I I 155 Rollin H. Harper From: Travis Bouma [TBouma@co.whatcom.wa.us] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:34 PM To: rollinh@sehome.com Subject: Fwd: Everson UGA PG -FOR, FYI... >>> Travis Bouma 1/22/2007 9:33 AM >>> Elizabeth, Attached is a map showing the proposed Everson UGA, FEMA Floodplain, Topography and Ortho-imagery. The subject area is within a FEMA designated Floodzone AE with Base Flood Elevations (BFE) of 84.6' toward the south boundary and 84.4' toward the north boundary (NGVD29 Datum). However, comparison of the FEMA BFE's with detailed topography indicate that only the Northeasterly portion of the proposed UGA area would be inundated by shallow (less than l') flood waters during a 100-year flood event. Based on this info, we would expect that Flooding in this area would not be frequent, would only occur during a major flood event and flow velocity's would not be of concern. Diver and Flood staff also checked more recent Hydraulic studies of the floodplain in this area and the results were approximately the same as stated previously. We would advise that any structure built in this area be built according to FEMA's guidelines for building structures within a floodplain/floodzone_ I hope this information was helpful, if you need anything further or have any questions feel free to contact me. Travis E. Bouma Engineering Tech. - River & Flood Division Whatcom County Public Works 322 North Commercial Bellingham, WA 98225-4042 (360) 676--6876 Ext. 50688 (360) 738-2468 Fax 156 W.V" I a ou N ,Pl a O ��'k AKNwi.Ap- A, .7... V1 j , M r. its ,BgaKpoWr Llm tL Ear"-`` - jr' ov 1.- 14 rig INN iwp IL — WIT G]P 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 February 8, 2007 Call To Order: The meeting was called to order, by Whatcom County Planning Commission Chairperson, Ken Mann, in the Northwest Annex Conference Room at 3:10 p.m. Roll Call: Ken Mann, Jesse Salomon, John Lesow, John Steensma and David Hunter. Staff Present: Hal Hart, Linda Peterson, Kraig Olason, Elizabeth Olsen and Becky Boxx. Director's Dialog Hart: I just confirmed that we will have a Short Course on Planning on February 28, 2007, between 6:00 and 9:00 p.m., at the County Council chambers. The Planning Commission is invited. The League of. Women Voters is the group that pushed to have this. It will start with a planning legal overview. We will then have a planning 101. Finally there will be a discussion of urban villages. There has been a lot of discussion lately about what is concurrency? Concurrency means getting the infrastructure in place within six years after the development was permitted. As a community we can change this. The elements of concurrency are transportation, fire districts and school districts. Fire districts have been a real problem in the past year. We are trying to work out whose role it is to ask for impact fees from the developers. School districts are a little more straight forward because the RCWs are more thought out. There will probably be some interim ordinances in the next few weeks. We have set up a committee to help advise staff on the issues. The Planning Commission will begin seeing some of these issues come before them this year. Mann: Who is on the committee? Hart: I will get you the list. Hart: The Shoreline Program and the CPAL program are both moving through Council. The Council will begin discussion on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan docket. Trillium has some significant proposals. We have bundled together all of the agricultural issues. Tonight there will be a meeting at Birch Bay to discuss where the community center really is. They will also be looking at design standards. Lesow: What is the status of building permits? Hart: They have continued at about the same level since last August. They have dropped about 50 percent on single family residential. The commercial permits are still very strong. The permits for people dividing land is way higher than it has historically been. The Bellingham Herald reported that there has been a boom in high-level housing which I think is very true. Open Session for Public Comment John Templeton, Whatcom County: I would like to ask that the Commission consider, in the future, some way of making proposals that are given to you some feedback. I have been working on a proposal for five years which is an annexation of 60 acres to the City of Bellingham. Everyone I have explained the proposal to, which is an urban village concept, is in support of the proposal. I have spent a couple hundred thousand dollars trying to get the area annexed. I don't get any feedback from anybody. I don't think that's fair. I have a great rapport with the Planning Commission 'but there doesn't 158 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 February 8, 2007 seem like there is an opportunity for me, as a developer, to really sit down and explain to you what is going on. I still really don't know what is happening with the submittal of my project. Commissioner Comments 2 Lesow: I want to make a comment about two presentations we have had here by the Pt. Roberts Alliance for Sound Public Health Policies. I was not present for either presentation however I have been present in Pt. Roberts for two presentations. There was one in November 2006 with industry experts testifying as to the hazards of cell phone radiation. I was also present in January 2007 which was held the day before the Parks. Board approved the cell phone tower. I was impressed by the meeting in November. I was disgusted by the Parks Commission meeting. They broke procedural rules, there was deliberate lying by a Parks Commissioner and the unsettling presence of a Whatcom County Sheriffs officer. I believe that the Parks Board has deliberately put the health of Pt. Roberts school children behind the purpose of securing some monetary gain for the Parks Department. It's impossible for me, from this point forward, to not be swayed one way or another to the merits of this proposal and I will refuse myself from any further discussion should this come before us. I do intend to pursue this matter before the Whatcom County Council. Hart: This issue will go before the Hearing Examiner not the Planning Commission. Approval of Minutes The approval of minutes was postponed to the next meeting due to lack of a sufficient number of Commission members present to vote. Public Hearing File #2006-00002: A Minor addition to the Everson Urban Growth Area to allow improved access to Everson's southeastern Urban Growth Area. Elizabeth Olsen presented the staff report. This request came from the City of Everson to amend the short term Urban Growth Area to add a strip of land for improved access. The area is near the south end of Greene Lane. This would allow for a small amount of housing on the western side of road improvement. This area is within the flood plain. The City of Everson does have enough land for the projected 20 year population. The Planning Department does support the addition of this property for road purposes. This would be 70 feet. Greene Lane is very narrow and can't be widened because of houses built there. The addition of this property would provide a good boundary for potential development and the agricultural area to the west. We are mandated to maintain as much agricultural land as possible. Salomon: Why can't this road be in the UGA rather than go into the agricultural zone? Olsen: The representative for the City of Everson can answer that for you. Salomon: Do we know why part of the UGA is within a floodplain? 159 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 3 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 8, 2007 Olsen: The City of Everson put this in when the UGA for the City was proposed. Olason: A lot of what dictated where those boundaries were had to do with urban services. That area does have sewer and water. The hearing was opened to the public. Rollin Harper, City of Everson Planner: Unlike the County, the City of Everson has the role, under GMA, to provide areas for urban infill. The City is a historic entity going back decades. The UGAs came into being in the 1990s. What we find in this particular part of Everson's UGA is that there is a large area, south of Main Street, that does not have a decent way to get development to it. We appreciate that the County staff has recognized the need for an alternative route into that area. To answer your question as to why not put it in the existing UGA the problem is that along Main Street there is existing development in the way. South of that property, within the City limits, there is one uninterested property owner. The City is not in the position to condemn these properties. So we are proposing to expand the UGA, with a 154 foot strip, to allow a road and utilities to serve the rest of that UGA. The whole proposal is about 3.25 acres. We aren't unaware of the impact to agricultural lands. The Planning staff is proposing a 70 foot strip which amounts to about 1.5 acres. The difference between the City and staff proposal is about 1.75 acres. The answer as to the question about why this is in the floodplain is that the City of Everson grew up along the Nooksack River and the Burlington Northern Railroad. We can't change that fact. This property is at the very margin of the FEMA designated 100 year flood plain. Because the City is in the flood plain we have some very restrictive development rules. We have looked at the issues raised in the staff report and while we could have some discussions about the flood plain I think the City of Everson is quite able to work with development there. The real issue is there is some loss of agricultural land. The City of Everson would like to see the County work with us to find a way to meet the City's need to get a road in there as well as not lose any of their agricultural land base. One of the things I have discussed with the Planning staff is a trade. There are at least three areas within the County, within the Ciity's UGA, that are zoned agricultural, that could be removed from the UGA. I don't know how the owners of those properties would feel about this. There may have to be some public participation that would have to take place before you take someone out of the UGA. We couldn't take.just a portion of someone's property out of the UGA and leave the rest in. It would have to be a well thought out decision. The City does not have the resources to build the road itself so we would be working with the developer to do this. The new development should pay for itself. Mann: I'm not understanding the urgency of this matter. Harper: Right now we are just asking to have this included in the UGA. The timing of the development will be determined by the market. The City has seen quite a bit of development lately. In January 2007 the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment to designate this land as a provisional UGA hoping it would happen. Mann: What is the zoning density in the area you are trying to access? Harper: The minimum lot size is 9,500 square feet with some allowances for cluster subdivision. That translates to a gross acreage of about 3.8 units per gross acre. 160 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 4 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 8, 2007 Bob Skillman, Whatcom County: This all started about 1 Y2 years ago when I heard of possible development down Greens Lane. I have a house there and have invested quite a bit of money into my house. Greens Lane is very, very narrow. There are no sidewalks. Two cars can't safely pass each other. The fear was if this eight acres was going to be developed, with maybe 25 homes, the City is going to want a 60 foot right of way and they would have to condemn the 19 homes along there. started looking for opportunities to see how we could get a road in. As far as the flood issue, I have lived on Greens Lane since 1980 and have never had floodwater within one mile of my home. As far as being the developer if we put in a 60 foot street I would rather have the 154 feet proposed so we could use that extra area for stormwater, water filtration ponds on the west side of the road and possibly a berm. If I don't have an area for stormwater to the west it is going to have to come right out of the heart of the development. Right now Greens Lane has no stormwater system so it is an area of town that needs some stormwater. Hunter: Is it your feeling that if we are inclined to say you can have the 70 feet but you can't have the 154 feet would this make it financially not manageable for you? Skillman: Pretty much. There is a possibility of seven or eight lots on the west side of this proposed street. If I don't put lots there I could do a water filtration area out there and save lots in the proposed development area. More area is better than less when it comes to water filtration. Steensma: Do you own the property where the road is proposed? Skillman: I own part of it and have an option to buy the other. John Matzinger, Whatcom County: Most of my career has been spent in land oriented engineering. For five years I was the Whatcom County Flood Engineer. I have some experience with flood issues. would like to talk to you about the flood plain, utilities, stormwater, economics and general philosophy. We are all here because of the Growth Management Act (GMA). We are trying to implement a plan for this county and these communities that makes sense both for the current generation and into the future. I came from Idaho where we didn't think about these things. I thought this GMA was an act of communism. Who is the State to tell us what we can do with our land? Since that time I have developed quite a respect for it. I think its principles are well founded in that we concentrate development in existing urban areas where infrastructure exists. We try to preserve agricultural land to the greatest . extent possible and we make this whole thing a very arduous process so that the end result, hopefully, is a good one. The process proposed for this land is a long way from development. One of the things I have found, from my experience, is that it's very important to have a good working relationship between the planners, the regulators, the developers and the landowners. They all form a team. We can plan all we want to but it's up to the developer to be the implementer. When you can put a team together with a conscientious developer, who in this case is being supported by the City, there is the makings of a good partnership. I know Bob and his work. He is a resident there. I think the support you are seeing here today is indicative of that. The flood plain we are dealing with is called the Nooksack River overflow. It occurs maybe every 5 to 10 years. It's a phenomenon that is kind of baffling in a way but what really happens is the water rises to a level that is mainly due to the rapid runoff coming down a little faster than the channel can carry it. It reaches a high point just to the west, spills over the bank, heads up towards Canada and actually joins the Sumas River and then up into the Fraser River. It is over an old lake plain and flood plain that is quite flat so the floodwaters are generally shallow. In fact they are so shallow that with the tools that FEMA had back in the 1970's, when they made these original flood plain maps, there was some 161 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 February 8, 2007 unsurity. Maps weren't very good to begin with and the methods that FEMA used at that time were not the same methods that we use today. Since that time the County has worked with agencies and has caused new models to be developed. What we are finding, in applications of the new maps and models, is that there is really less of a flood plain out there. There is a lot of develop that has occurred out there with the blessing of the City of Everson under very strict rules. The flood plain is not a huge deal in the matter before you. Janice Howell, Everson: We own the property that Bob Skillman is wanting to develop. We have lived on that street since 1970. We built two other homes in the area. They are close to the main street that we travel on. That is the reason why it can't be widened. We have known Bob since he was 12 years old so we know that he builds nice homes. Our property has never flooded. Mann: Are you in favor of the proposal? Howell: Yes. The land is too small to do anything else with. The hearing was closed to the public. Work Session Lesow moved to accept the staff report. The motion failed for lack of a second. Hunter moved to accept the proposal from the City of Everson with the caveat that there must be at least a two for one return on property being removed from the UGA and put back in the County. Lesow seconded. Salomon: Would the acreage you want removed the UGA be farmland? Hunter: Yes. We would want a return of like land. Mann: Why is the proposal coming forward now? Why wouldn't it come forward as a more coordinated effort once this land is proposed to be annexed to the City? It seems a little piecemeal to me. Harper: If a proposal had been put forward to annex this land we would be ahead of this step. That's why this step has to come first. All the land needs to be arranged before going through the annexation process. Mann: What is the timeline for the actual development? 5 Harper: From the City's perspective we would be satisfied .that we did our part, which is to set the table for logical development in the UGA. The developer may move forward with an annexation later this year and development next year but if the market goes belly up than it stays agricultural land. Mann: Has there been any feedback from the residents of that area? Is there any resistance from the neighbors? Harper: We've had no resistance. Last September we actually docketed this as a Comprehensive Plan map amendment so public notice went out and we had public hearings in November and December. We did not have anyone speak against this. Lesow: Could you outline on the map the areas that may be exchanged? 162 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 February 8, 2007 The areas were pointed out on the map. Steensma: Who's going to pay for taking this land out of the UGA? That could be a very costly thing. Harper: You could call them the losers. Their land will no longer be developable at urban densities. Steensma: Don't you think they will hire a lawyer to fight this? Harper: My understanding is that yes the people can be upset but I don't think they have any inherent rights based on the UGA being designated on a map. It's just like zoning, there may be some anticipation but you aren't guaranteed that your zoning won't change. The UGA is even less guaranteed than that. 1.1 Olason: We have had some discussion with the City about mitigating agricultural land loss. It is a difficult issue because unless you are going to buy it there is a question about compensation. We would want to be in a position where we would want to have a lot of that detail worked out before we would feel comfortable with something moving forward. There are some questions about why some of these properties are in the UGA because they are agricultural land or in the flood way. The proposed property would be a good candidate to add to the UGA because it would make for a good border. Mr. Skillman has a good point about the property to the west being needed for drainage. We need to explore the policy for those drainage systems within the developing portions of the UGAs. I don't know why we aren't looking to the areas south of the proposal for the drainage area. That should be part of the conversation as we are looking at building this area out. Hunter: I'm not adverse to holding onto this and seeing if we are able to establish some specific property that we could take out of the UGA. I don't believe there are any compensation issues with regard to taking property out of the UGA. We have discussed that issue for the past year in the Bellingham UGA. It's never been suggested that somebody had some sort of vested right in their UGA status. Regarding the land needed for stormwater I do see the need and I also understand staffs feeling that if it were just a road that would be a clear delineation between the area to be developed and the area that would remained farm land. I think there is a risk that if the land to the west just becomes something more ambiguous it creates an area for some risk for the farmlands. I would like to add something to this that establishes a definite buffer. Lesow: It isn't necessarily binding that this easement be straight, is it? It could move east to retain more farmland and jog around the existing development. Is that something that could be done? Olason: We did discuss that -and it's probably up to the City to respond. We are open to it. Salomon: If we move the road into the UGA is there enough developable land left to make it profitable? Hunter: I would prefer we table this to see if the staff could negotiate with the City to see if there is an area that could be taken out. Harper: In Nooksack we did a proposal to trade property at one to one. Staff was supportive of that. am a little miffed that this proposal would be thrown out with the hopes of some future, large discussion 163 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 7 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 8, 2007 to specifically identify a property for trade. That would be a future.discussion that would involve a lot of people. Remember all we are asking for is 3.25 acres with the trade issue put in writing. There is no chance the County would miss out on that not happening because it would be in the interlocal agreement. I really don't want to see this issue put off. Mann: I don't like the idea of downzoning somebody and taking them out of the UGA just to create this enlarged UGA without some sort of compensation. We may not be legally obligated but in general I think we try to be fair. Perhaps we could have the discussion of Mr. Skillman buying some of those properties to be taken out of the UGA. Olason: One of the issues we have discussed in our Agricultural Advisory Committee has to do with looking at what the conversion factors are. In the staff report we aren't recommending any kind of mitigation for the roadway. We look at this as a life/safety issue and it really isn't enough acreage to worry about. By adding the additional units out there it puts more people on that edge and increases the size of that area and adds a lot of value to that property. So when you look at these different acreages it's really not acre for acre at all. The other option to this kind of situation is looking at development rights themselves and looking at easements on properties to set that hard benchmark. The Planning Department felt the proposal was fair and didn't get into all of that. It's our position that we wouldn't be able to support additional housing in that area and I don't think that's a surprise to anybody. As we come here today the question is how can we work with this community to make sure they have a road? Hunter: I guess I am less alarmed by all of this. It seems to create a situation in which if they want to get it done that we aren't setting up a system that make it impossible and at the same time it gives us a return of land that should never have been in the UGA. Olason: I think what staff is struggling with is the expansion of the residential component or having that area just for detention. Mann: Do you mean proposed lots 1-9? Olason: Yes. The idea was to have that road provide an edge. The value of three acres of agricultural land for development is fairly high particularly if it's fioodplain agricultural land. I think a one for one in that situation is not really fair. It would really be better to have them buy some development rights or have that be a requirement on the development. What we usually see for a development right, for a larger undivided parcel, is $40,000 to $60,000 per development right. If it's an existing lot it could be over $200,000. This would probably be easier than swapping UGAs. Mann: How would you like to see this worked out? Olason: That is a question for Mr. Harper. Harper: I like the proposal that is on the table. All of this other stuff is a much larger discussion. One could argue that if we are going to trade you back the other land, which would have been urban, that you should be compensating us for the value. A lot of proposals could be made and we aren't going to come to an agreement in a timely fashion. I think two to one is a clear number that we could move forward with. Lesow: I like the plan that has be set forward and I think the only way you are going to do it is to set some kind of road improvement. Hunter: I want to make it clear that there should be some type of buffer west of the road. 164 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 8, 2007 3 Steensma: I'm not going to vote for this until the land to be traded is identified and the landowners show up here and give their opinion on this. Hunter: I still don't see that as an issue. Olsen: One thing you need to remember is if the City of Everson annexes this property they can use the land for whatever they want. Olason: We had discussed with the City having some sort of deed restriction on the strip of property. Salomon: If we moved the road to the east, into the UGA, does that make your development profitable? Skillman: No, I would loose too many lots. Olason: It may be good to remember that not all of the acreages in the UGA are developable or developable at a very low density because of site problems. It may be that be part of the review that's done. Hunter: That's a different issue for me. I see us taking out of the UGA perfectly good farmland. When we originally did these UGAs I don't think there was a lot of thought about how those areas would build out. Now we are left with trying to figure that out. Roll Call Vote to: Accept the proposal from the City of Everson with the caveat that there must be at least a two for one return on like property being removed from the UGA and put back in the County, there would be no homes put on the west side of the proposed road and there be a buffer between the developed land and the agricultural land. Ayes — Hunter, Lesow, Mann, Salomon; Nays — Steensma; Abstain — 0; Absent — Belisle, Burdge, Menzies, Roosma. The motion failed. Mann: Are there any other motions? Steensma: I'm not going to vote for this until I see what's on the table. Hunter: It would have to be fashioned in such a way that it became a part of the interlocal agreement. It would have to state that no development or annexation of this property could occur prior to an actual removal of 6.5 acres of like land. I am assuming that if my motion had passed we would set up the mechanism for that. Olason: We may want to talk to our attorney and Everson may want to do the same. What I am thinking is that to address that formally that would be a letter that would be part of an addendum to the interlocal or a letter agreement that would have some kind of timeline on it. If they do that it would have to be put on the Comprehensive Plan docket for next year. Harper: I understand the intent to put it on next year's docket but it possible that the County and the City may not ready to complete looking at the UGA. It may be the following year. if it is an amendment to the interlocal agreement the County has an absolute stopper. Olason: In my mind this would be part of the annexation of this property. What you are saying is this property would have an annexation allowed prior to the mitigation of the property. 165 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION lar Meeting February 8, 2007 Harper: Because it's a small piece of land and because we know there is a larger bit of trading that we have already been talking about allow this to go through with the IOU of the 6.5 acres and identify the correct property at the appropriate time, which will be during the large review of the UGA. Hunter: I am always reluctant to do something now for a promise by somebody else to do something later. Mann: It has been indicated that there is no real hurry to get this development in place. There is no urgent housing issue that needs to be addressed. Olason: In the event this didn't work out it could always be taken to the Boundary Review Board or we could go to court and sue the City for failure to comply with the interlocal agreement, which I have never seen. Hunter moved to accept the proposal from the City of Everson with the caveat that there must be at least a two for one return on like property being removed from the UGA and put back in the County, there would be no homes put on the west side of the proposed road and there be a buffer between the developed land and the agricultural land. Also, prior to annexation the City and County will attempt to have established the acreage to be taken out of the UGA. Lesow seconded. Steensma: It still doesn't clarify it for me. It makes sense but I want to be assured that (inaudible). Hunter withdrew the motion. The proposal will move forward to the County Council without a recommendation. The meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m. Minutes prepared by B. Boxx WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Ke6 Mann, Chair Hal H. Hart, A.I.C. ., Secretary 166 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2006 — 309 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 7/18/2006 8/8/2006 P & D Committee Division Head; 11/14/2006 Special Meet i Dept. Head: 12/05/2006 P & D Prosecutor: 1/30/2007 P & D Purchasin Bud el: Z/ 2 7/ 2 0 0.7' P& D IP & D Executive: 1 3/13/2007 TITLE OF DOCUMENT: 3/27/2007 P & D Discussion regarding Bellingham's Urban Fringe Subarea Plan 4/03/2007 Special P & D Me i ATTACHMENTS: 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 Ili language for use in the required public notice. Be speciric and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Discussion Regarding Bellingham's Urban Fringe Subarea Plan COMMITTEEACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. 8/08/06• Discussed in Committee. 11/14/2006: Special Work Session Recommendations will come to the County Council, from the Planning Commission in the future. 1/30/2007: Discussed. Held in Committee for two weeks 2/27/2007: Amended maps. Held in Committee for two weeks 3/13/2007: Did not discuss. Held in Committee for two weeks 3/27/2007: Amended maps -further discussion will he held on 4/03/07 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. ig ing WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, WA 98226 MEMORANDUM Hal H. Hart, A.I.C.P. Director r. _ r; i 6 ?k b7 TO: Whatcom County Council -Planning Committee FROM: Hal Hart, A.I.C.P., Director )CP AM Linda Peterson, A.I.C.P., ffoPb Range Planning Division Manager Troy Holbrook, Lead Planner DATE: February 16, 2007 RE: February 27, 2007 Council Planning Committee Meeting - Bellingham Subarea Plan Update On February 27, 2007, the Council Planning Committee will be reviewing the Urban Growth Area (UGA) zoning recommendations from the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County as part of the Bellingham Subarea Plan Update. A matrix containing the differing zoning recommendations between the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County Planning Commission, and the Whatcom County Planning staff is included to assist in the side -by -side comparison of each of the recommendations. Maps of all areas of Bellingham's UGA containing each zoning recommendation are also attached. At the last Planning Committee meeting on January 30t', a discussion of the Land Supply Analysis and the use of the terms "safety" and "market" factors occurred. These terms have been used interchangeably to account for uncertainties in future market conditions, individual choices on property development, or any other unanticipated issues resulting in land not being immediately available for development. Also, the "land availability factor" in the Land Supply Analysis has sometimes been referred to as a "market factor'. ❑ "Safety factor' is the term that has been used in the Land Supply Methodology utilized by the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County. ❑ "Land Availability Factor", applied only within the city limits in the Land Supply Analysis, is the term referring to the 15% historical under -building in the city where the zoning does not include minimum density requirements, and some neighborhoods have built out at suburban densities. ❑ The term "market factor" has been referenced in Growth Management Hearings Board cases, and other documents and comments submitted during the Subarea Update. For consistency, Whatcom County planning staff recommends use of the terms "safety factor" and "land availability factor' in the context of the Land Supply Analysis. To avoid confusion, the term "market factor" will not be utilized in this process. Office (360) 676-6907 County (360) 380-8110 FAX (360) 738-2493 169 The final sizing of Bellingham's UGA is partially determined by the recommended zoning of the current UGA. The intent of this meeting is to review the UGA zoning recommendation under the scope of the Land Supply Analysis. Following the adoption of any new zoning within the current UGA, those determinations will influence the overall population capacity of the Bellingham Subarea. The next steps after the UGA zoning determinations will be reviewing the Land Use Policies of the Subarea Plan, and a final determination of the sizing of the UGA. Office (360) 676-6907 County (360) 380-8110 FAX (360) 738-2493 170 ti N cv 7 L .0 Q LL � v Q ` D a1 0 n. r to 0 V � N C cc 0 .= C 0 m N my .9 O C N X O'DrC00 C,E Qa C ,.. m E ) o0 o .�a m •o E a Na •C y-SC .. c b(D�;�Ls al0 m a m oxat = O• F' o m2 3 � N 0 o d i o m=; ,� oU m nm d c N O _'a .�' 0 ti y O 0 �' y O 0 �` y O > > � : UE0 i�Em UEm p e a o U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U o U a m a rnW w MD w �� y m a w �y U U U E a o a v a a N c E N c E N ME a a 00 ld 16 f0 G1Np E a mo 0ao 16 tU .V, U � E 0O 0 E °o 0 E m 0 r U U U U U U U) fn C C C C C C C C E c p a v a n m ' N C O N C O N C N C O N C O N C O co N N O Na O - mC '0 '0c 'a= X E c c D a v o p a d m a a a U a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 p CD •C C C C •C Ci rn tm C 4 0. W cf •C C C y O N C N C N N C N C O .. C N w- C p N O N 0 rL a L ¢ i" O N C N C L1 E C 4; a r7 m G� Ql L 0 O a' G1 E p m , N N N N UI N F-lp'Y aN EA IN C N C C V7 CC N O 2 NC O O OO O .. o¢m UVCI O O CO CL m om a� => ? 3 a e m m mm m m m o a CD ca m E E E E E E IL E E c m m m m m x X x is w m N a m 0 v a La c rn m N 0: m N a j N m N a m C t 0 C m •N m C a z a Q N •� ; � m 16 .c (� p a C O C m � m S+ U3 m Q c Z Z Y uj p m �N} iq LO ti 0. a C6 rL C n a p• m p � 171 N A V LL N �1 w W � C a� � m ar m O �) _ 7 � U) E E E O .0 LL W O N ca a ado `m ) N CL C a�'w a N C a4--g `m N G C "O" a,'- 9 0 .. L O N L L 7 47 L L a N U _ O = d N U N O C~ O oUa ✓1•C W y k (� E O d= C~ O OUCL w C d Vl (D E 0 7 7 C~ O OUCL C N Vl (� E 0 7 O N N E C 7 p +L+ t N O R —:E O .Z U .N- �j y tm � 0 O R r 0 N N �. # # f�U6 y OI 4J 0,-- L 0.-,a 0 # y OI [D U 'N_„O„ OfG - '5 y cg fU6 GyLyr O) Op C 1U6 �- CL}}L O) C O� 0 0 C �.�.. C}LL L O. C y O C N •C O O SC al O Cf s? 7 a C C 41 a U .O+ 7 C C N 41 4, M N d 7 C N Gl CL U Ol = 7 a, a op 7 N LL m 0 N E C U N p O 4D y 7 0 E C U N O ,�, O d y 0 N E C U N O 41 S �oU m �oU m voV L C "cc - _ sa �� r— o 00 0 0 a� Ln C? E m V m U_ co O(� ULr 0U;� t MO .L-. V1d Old � � c ado .� ctoo E � 0 L O ��11 N m oUE a V' E �' m r � v Ul Co [E6 m O U c C N CL N O L _ 0! YQ a O C OL7 d C attic �'�� CL <n O a D a�ioox LO: o c xrnNm y= D •E p "' G dI E ME f0 - EO Q N a ED O) N N a N OCL }L� N C m G. wD N m d NL o Q y g N r rn 0 .010 .c OC y of — o c U arc pa aoi _ co v 9 r' aci 7 � H a IT .- O`� O C ALL N � cn S�6 47 c 07 r N co N ' cu N N to Q Q Q Q N L yW ca } m LLB CD }}y J N m C IA _ C C C r CV M CL m a m o. m a co rz 172 � 0 0 Of T N L% e � ■ LL ■ co ƒ22fa;E »a ai '.2\§m;� §¥�a0_AA $(__o_Ra �ooam� E§§ 000a0� -) � )§ o§ . o�-0o— �0Gmor_aoa(D d� 7§CDU' »�:222cn=(cn : §a aCL8cn 2CL m §�g N22O°%o§000 o , =I.. % . \{ &-0 «E0ON . / Q�§Q /D /0 a) j ; E G§§ §f[ 2 §20 E21m> § D G £ ) 2 ID 222� $ \Da 0 'o § 6h2E - oaE §/k� §�)- k =n =G § tm M. \ k\k �\L 2=$ Lo-$ dk aKe (6)§ t)k a �c0 D E 6 §k� 4 ® Ir 04 cc ( a: ° § Cl) 04 k k k < < < ] ] ) ) . tn § . U \ Lis a k � ƒ CL 9 173 CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION UR3 + _f r1 � _ � MCAIPINE I ' ,URMk. IU MAP #9: SHORELINE INDUSTRIAL PLANNING AREA March 13th, 2 Mx f-�- yo. U Legend: 3% ��,,a -�, -� ; ' W _ ��� fr 1- j_ j�` I I Proposed Zoning 8ndy RS+� ME NINECity Limits 4 LII r 1 �" Urban Growth Area 1 F21GCC� N �- �/ RS I 0 400 800 LIB I WC Fire '�-_-i .DU#8' _ & j N Feel stal. Hli 3 _ HII Lehigh NW - Cement Co. 6 — — ---- —= LII -ROS- Public PROS Publics\ `Bellingham �~T� yV3f Technical r r pt+' I !, College Hq 2 17. RM.' Bellingham Bay .I Hll IND RV IND �_ c - !g�-n+ `� � •i •� 4E'f ;%, �''}�� ';' 7 � c _ `� ' . e , a . r ' '0. '1 'r 1 s •. � ` i ,l?4+ �Sc4�'s•�L 1 �"'�a,1 i i �� �' y ' i L� 9 ��-'e�;fA7��,r� ��R', �L. ,- 3� L�+•�.y��n"` `�]� k- F''S' rre i o a. S 0 .��'�{k11e5 �'���y� i��� - } 1 y4 y�� u"" J --fl%V ` i� .�'•.�`SfA...+'4��• -F%£r4 1 Y. �- } 1 ! 1 I I 2. 1 1 1 1 1 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 ROS - • 1 Or 1 ! .1 .1 I Totals - 234 51 9 9 60 1 CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION 1 - 1 A Legend: E173 r Proposed Zoning Bndy O'� City Limits Urban [ Sao 1.ppp Feel S • h1 n� f f = F � Y �' '���r�:",`-G�n i'��T� 'Sib.`+ S: •.p p.4 _ q�•,-}�T. per .:. �� �4�� e � -�30� ��• A�`�d � � titi '._�' ���vFe r r � "�:;�t ;�, p � �,.= ��+° � ' A '_�.-r t -.r ���7^ 1�l; -f� f��y Y eF� p� � �-i��,CzC�r [ � �I -�i-$�SI��'-`h =2i.Fl.�}�. ,� - i �7 �]r�p � f riXY� Ll� ` :rl �'24•r�t r�.y_p?_ ��ci"��f `�fr� f� � �t6`1."f`�}.. ,.�e�L{� i• � �� j j } � 'i f;� � L �� - f .1 • ' • f f 1 1 1 ITotals 353 771 1 1 175 CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION L-11 I Water _ Reservt f L_—_ WC Fire — Slat #3 -7 _ _ L11 I u1 117 _TX a r= a c j MAP AM Gc - _l AIRPORTIGATEWAYICURTIS RD. 'N G 1 I I \ \ \ N\ � E,111..Y ,�• I , I . 1 r ,1 m I .` WC Fire Bellingham `: Slat International +AO:. r ~� Airport iI •: :I: .I q I AO- 3 UR3�_=_ ,I ftt' _ J.UR3,,. a PLAN IN AREA March 13ih 21 1 I AO ,' � L11 0 C URMX Legend: Proposed Zoning Bndy City Limits - - e Urban Growth Area 0 1.000 2,Ooo N Feet ��� v,1va RD WC Fi' Dist: A 1 I Stall A LL ll URM1$ .r :f ' ER Alderwood; UX�Ii= ,,_ RM Elementary TH?-'rr;a�,l�}{ ry School;i Egi EI ! Lq WC Fire Dist. 48 H l lstat"91- con Init! A FireU 1 ��rr�'�iS..� f•-•"--%••-•. y ��ti.•A � dot--�--y.5� �• ` 4 'Y f t '1 ������ f€..F= rr-= u ''••—^'- � S ti s .may., , 1 YLY C' I� � LC � of j�y f ,C-.e LL C `� I,' �'� _. 1� 1-1 1 0 5%_ � Sr� o Y �� ._ _l�.i-r.�4.L. � a �l � rl. Z, p� ' �` fs.'r`�'��ii '�E'. r J � �i 1�Y � 4i d. 4}�-���'�t'y~ Y� p �. � �•. 0 1 1 T"i J•r�=;_� Jf. w r� is �"•'Yb � 0 jr'ir ?'yi��il[1�,:r" � Sr J�•S. � s 12 ''�+-y• c c 'r'` - •�1.� � 1 1` L ��l'����1~T_�, � .f..fl }' y � 4 G Y - rF 'h'r�a4_� � `� t, _r �� �i� CIS � a?'�'r - ��li ��. ; ' -. tr�4 .i - 74 J'A. l: �: ,�5 y �y �p'L 1 S:� 1 -l}; ✓��f^- �. - I 'i• l �} r' { I a rE- - I(rt l_ 1 `F yF-'��` � f � �i• ¢`�� 4- r- ' 1 ,� S1 >r �1=.�y �s.y •q-: �',��� �,r •' �; C� •�r;Y w r - _ � Y .\ f - L T + +� � < i I -- Jy- 1 - %'+"r - 3*. ' r"-r �' i �- _ � `1 Tj �Prr� ;r i rr _yy- 1)� - `�. )fY'J��� .. •_ � �71 •w �+S r3 d-�•0,��' 1'+.f { ��"V �'1r�- .y 1 '�;i-n{4. n , ti�.��l�� t r 1},i }J�'L �T }��4� �i { Ifi�'I r F ' t} r. .£.v.- 'r R.• '� ou' f •sY}4� 1 :�d :r.u���LF �,��Shi.L y 5• c c 1J k� 3r71 J, yI 3 �.c--ti �-;:���Fl� LS+ � �,.i�j'frlf'iF/ ,. il. I S=� {L� - 'c rw h RW,ilk � � • 1 01 1 1 1 f 11 01 f 31 f 1 f • '� f 0 1 0 1 1 1 f 01 1 11 f 1 1 1 1LIF 1 1 I Totals 1,775 509 5 5 514 I 176 CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION 5A MAP #4: IN TERSTATE/NOR,rHWEST RD. PLANNING AREA March 13th, 2 JiUNE R L �JRT� GC BORON RD (R ally - L11 RD .40- LHD�R�ON-.-- I �VAt4 WKr-K RqW k A0 ji Bellingham International Airportf IWC Fire !Dist.'98 Stat.. #4 A I Legend: Proposed Zoning 13ndy City Limits Urban Growth Area 0 600 1.200 N Feet J.r -R5A Church I URMX 1M 11 55.9' GCi 91 0; 0! 9 2: 0, 0 3' 566.3 1-11 28:1 , 0! 0! 218 Totals 659 37 0 0 37 CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDAnON MAP #5: NORTHWESTALDRICH RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA March 13th, 2 Ir R5A I ; -- 0 Church i hurch VA WYCK RDI (ROq) 7 oil Legend: Proposed Zoning Bndy City Limits - - - Urban Growth Area 0 400 800 A i i N Feet RDj 'r, I LII TROUTIAK DR'' j La'N i 2 <1 Bellingham School District land for future --URIVIX elementary BEAUM school. STUART RD (ROW) T DR ,� 01; 3 %,LARRAPEE- RD I! URMX LL]i z Z. CCL JUNE RD (ROW) 3 ;ill ---T-NE RD (ROW) Pw URMX L 6A, L _T nam4pj) � W2, RIM' 1JRMXi URMXI 6- 10! L2 (�O - 356 98 109.1 M URMXj 6 - 119, 260�- 4356 55! -"21-- 16! 3 31 120-9 URMXI URMXi 6-10t 7260 - 43561 871 1451, Totals 421 67 223 376 310 178 CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION MAP #6: R5A NORTH MERIDIAN INDUSTRIAL PLANNING AREA C:l td i 0.1 L 1 KEly RD A Lil KLINE RD (ROW) IN uj U) X WALDRON RD uj w ND W HIJORORD INE R5A E 166.V Lit; LIV 12! i 1r o 12' CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION 1 ' MAP #l: KING MOUNTAIN RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA March 13th, 2006 + Legend: Proposed Zoning Bndy VAN W CK R . _ _ �_ --� I City Limits RR2 Urban Growth Area 0 400800 R5A �—t-I� Feel �--- 31113 The 22 New units included in the table are on these 2 parcels. Bellingham School I 3A X District land for lure elementary school. — r- Utility Service r J I I Contract allows 63 residential units (not included in table).- / r F� Future Water RM i I Reservoir l — Existing • 2%�' --F Water, I----URM 18 Reservoir UR6 1 I �MtITGOMEF�Y RD I Church RM Kr 1_1_0G URMX- I I I--- j (6 -10j l Hi _� (n — }-- —URM24I II ,�Fz- P —� I l_-� I �� - ❑ �ti i I I BAKERY URMX {li T Church Tl l �! _ I'l�i---l-- �_-.--: RS + U RM24 :RD lot tFlka ---�_.. RSIRM ❑ ❑ ' Slat. #3 a�l I ! ? j _ -_- __ _ , _ 1 64.7 URMX URM-181 12,420 - 0 25 25 25 2. 150-6' URMX! URMX' 6 - 10i 7260 - 4356• 85 95 162 180 2AI 80.6 URMX UR6 61 7.2601 66 72 72 138 3A 2,51 tJRMXI ROS 1 0 0 0 0 3BI 1.91 RR21 ROS 0 01 0 0 3GI 2.41 R5AI ROS 1 01 01 0 0 Totals 303 151 192 259 343 �i� CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION MProposed Zoning Bndy City Li6ts . • _� Urban Growth Area I •rChurchFeet �► N `N I N ' IE 111 Iq 1,H --- - - - - -- � � - 'i ■ ■ ' 2 dry' ■ I L-EG ..,. e� • . - i e • r -. r ROWAN - _i 111111111 o■ ����� y �fL�15�.� � a �+�.,-:.+�. _%...'.T, u' �.., .xu, � may. � � ..l , � H k��2,•Y. ii� �t� t Y ,s, .t; y�=c ;r� �fi;r:v=� his? - URM- 181 CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION MAP #9: DEWEY VALLEY PLANNING AREA L�.March Ll 13th, 2006 > o% Legend: ED Proposed Zoning l3ndy IND R5A no City Limits Urban Growth Area 0 400 80 , Feet FOSS RD i Rq L IND W —3 < L —LIRMX---x UR6 , V1 "d— is -E-BA — ­­ ;___ 717— 1 1F —URMX\ 3 \\\ �1 1 rn 4rrii Auto URMX URMX Wrecking < \\\(6 -12) (6-12) M IND LII DNR Land 11� IRS 42 to 84 potential units Z, under 6-121acre zoning Northem Heights Elementary School 3 > C-1 PUBLIC U1, 0- URMX I.." (6-12)MX, C�'�U - /.- A iu RMX i (6-- `1 )', I . 11, 2 Squalicum DNR Land. — 25 to 49 potential units High School _X under 6-12/acre zoning Q_ E CLEOD RD--- ,7 T'i IND_� PUBLIC RS V . . . . . . . . ...... 'IrTf J 1 19.2. Lill Llf i 4 Oi 01 41 21 68-3 UR4 URG 6 7;260 471 47 60 31 48.01 UR41 URMX 6-121 7260-36301 61 1221 2481 128 41, 59.11 LIRMX, URMX 6-121 7260 16330 1 18; 34'i 71 i 52 Totals 195 41 203 366 244 CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION 183 0 Q 0 N Q O Y m Vf om elf C Z. co a n � I�1"9la 185 CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S'FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION m CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION MAP #1 5: RF SAMISH CREST RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA March 13th 2006 ! E Legend: ,� U RMX 17-71 Proposed zoning Bndy ROS �; —� j frr- f� - I r 1 +f 4— City Limits U R6 l �. Urban Growth Area A u 4on 900 � ;— j UM Lj �tl -fr12 FAIY ki Units/Acre —r---� N � — ;� J Q) R- U R M— - X -fiF rROl r 6-12'Units/Acre Cascade I S URs J + Radio Group iX1. �1 1;, 1 + i —pALMER RD m ro Lu d 011 --- r �' k L 3 m RS ;Future Connections \'; ito San Juan Blvd..- o -_ ..__-U-R'6-- E- WC Fire —�r and ' 40th Street. ; I �, "S , Dist. #10 I I ; v oje o 11 O Gf H 7 U 11' L 11 j t6 LJL Ir URMX- t Y .'URMX 1 127-0 RR2 6 - 12 7.260 - 3,630 124 961196 220 2 46.0 RR21 URMX 6 -121 7,260 - 3,630 14 481 991 62 31 174.01 UR41 UR6 1 61 7,2601 66 1541 1541 O Totals 347 204 298 449 502 il CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION o MAP #16: GOVERNOR - SOUTH SAMISH RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA March 13th 2006 Legend: WC.F.ire Disk.#10 URMX Proposed Zoning Bndy _ ■ — City Limits URMX ■ Urban Growth Area U R6 y LL A i i o aoo aaa 'LL N Feet _ OTE � URMX $ 6-10.Unit9/A6re z CU Liu URMX - �6-1•Q Units/Acre r�U R�* !-, - -- - ROS R5A 8 'R A `1 4J j *Watershed Protection PUBLIC 11 38.0 UR31 ROS 1 01 01 01 01 0 0 21 99.0 UR3 URMX 6 - 10 7.260 - 3,630 182 35 58 217 31 77.0 RR2 URMX 6-101 7.260 - 3.6301 611 40 681 101 41 63.0 UR31 UR4 41 10,8901 921 81 81 100 Totals 277 335 83 134 418 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING. COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14,2006 UR3 MCALPINE RD MAP #1: SHORELINE INDUSTRIAL PLANNING AREA -URMX--i 4 X/ V, 'X. 2 5 H11 NC Lehigh NW Cement Co. Bellingham Bay WC Fire Dist: 98 slat, #1' 7 d r i IRS Legend: Proposed Zoning Bndy City Limits Urban Growth Area 0 400 Boo N Feel V_ 3 11 1_ H 11 4_4 1"711 U.. 7 4 L11 6 ROS --ROS-- Public 0. 7 R S ­,p-UR6/ _11F Public F I I F_J �E -J! RM seffingharn zi _hnical College Z 4­ V RM "s RS,' H11 IND F, L NUZ 10=141Y:a 'au. Elm R ,L•f i;� 2 M I La tZ, L 1 22: HIF Hit 0: 0 0 62, Hit1 1 0� 0 3 43 HIC Hit 0 0 0. 0 0­ 6' 6 6 7 Lit ROS 0. 0 0 -0 17 k(J ROS.- 0 0 b -0 8 25 UR4 UR6 6 7,2150 5 . 1 12 12 63 Totals 234 51 12 12 63 190 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14, 2006 191 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION -DEC EMBER 14,2006 GC V L-11 L L GC 110j: A Tw�t I. T � W �Err AO L11 IPA 7 _WC Fire Dist. #8 T Stat. #3 9 7 Lit L111 URMX I.% j��- Community VIC Fire S. LL kcollego a., Dist #8 Bel ,sta lnte=l A0. . I IT— -7 7 1 - r Airport C . �r f '-R2A---,-1 L t-j -q0UNrRWILN W F= WC Fire : U i -Dist: #8 T I _Ai T StaV #2 TANuSK > Lit V- �100 2 RRI U113' I AU_ kb- Ll it �5 1.15 URM18 5' -18 _URM -W- 7 1. 1 . I !:, z [Y! T F,� - . : .. .,111:1 -Shuksan P-N I 2 Middle .k URM 4" Sch A AQ �Alderwood 6L Elementary J:, School ;;.,City Fire. Birchwood T -A UR -1 -1 Stat. #5 'Elementary .L S�� 7 't0chool-Al 7�. 1.5 L 3 W14 N I ul : WC!Fire 1 frq 7' A I'm _ Dist.. Stat. Hill 0 .. gal A :­K E IS *'W" 1 918 AO; AOi o 0 I Lil AOi 0 0 0 0 3 211 0 0 12 3 0 0 3 3 ?,420 6 6 • Oki-, 1'.1 0 66 'Lli, Of: 0 0 0. 0 5 -: 1-11 'Lil LIC 3 0 0 3 2 00 LH 0 0 0 0 16 L11 Elf: 2- 0- 0: Totals 1.775 509 6 6 515 192 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14,21006 R5A( -4 - MAP #4: INTERSTATE/NORTHWEST RD. PLANNING AREA T 'LINE - !R, 4��Ui�D D C Gl RE) (ROW. (4 L11 -4-i AOHORTON RD (ROW) Cli QK RD SRO A r 0 T Belli.ngham I. Internation'al AirP ort, WC Fire Dist. #8 'Stat. 94 A Legend: Proposed Zoning Bndy City Limits Urban Growth Area 0 600 1.200 A N Feet R5A JIL$ L Church MONME-m-gamanow 0 �ua iu, WMWI -Llk-iAlrl-a-a� 1 56 GG. GC AO 02 0: 0 0 3' 566, Ul 1-11 7 2�j d 1-2& Totais 659 37 0 0 37 193 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMME . NDATION-DECEMBER 14,2006 MAP #5: NoffrHWESTIALDRICH RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA WLL1 3 E-J- R5A Church VA VVYCK RD I (RO, N L T KE DR L ROU 7- 2 'N' i----LIRMX-,[ STUART RD (ROW) SEALIII-iTDR 0! LU z W� CO! JUNE RD (ROW) Legend: 1:3 Proposed Zoning Bndy I — City Limits - - - Urban Growth Area 400 Sao Feet W HORTON Bellingham School District land for future elementary school- 3 &.LARRAOEF RD URIVIX JUNE RD (ROW) URIVIX ()f4 PI) K IND R RM/ i M M!m1 13M U, ?. if 191! URMX' 6 - 10! 7260 4356 30 90� --- . 15 0'. --.. 5 2 109 01 7260 - 4356 .--z 55 90, 150i 145 1'2 URMXj 6-1060-4356- 2� 114 1901 116 Totals 421 87 294 490 381 194 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14, 2006 - ---- ---- � ---- MAP #6: R5A NORTH MERIDIAN INDUSTRIAL PLANNING AREA —`r wonoww mom I Legend: Proposed Zoning Bndy City Limits +' I .r Urban Growth Area `, I ELLY RQ r� o soa boa Feet iL F'l -_ - L11 j KLINE RQ (ROW)Lu IND R5A w — -- z 'aI WAi.DROiV RD 5�� Lu w tU ND I W HOR 06 RD I - ' y ., L 1 t F �; 4,a�,•'. .r ! � fj � d5 A I � ,� K � f� Y -- Fr.y � �. - -- �,. _�r..�..'1 � � 'C s��.u�.::e�.�' t�:�d. tik:_�r�C'.. �:.r_cc �� t -•� •=��aJ�,:v.E`ss, wa,rl��_ ..:�',.alr'il .._ 1 1 195 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14, 2006 I I MAP #l: y�r KING MOUNTAIN RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA 1_ vA Wv cK R' _ Legend: Proposed Zoning Bndy ■ +� City Limits Urban Growth Area l 0 400 600 I 115A — Feel �1 The 22 New units Bellingham hSchool 3C District land for future included in the table � 3A ' • are on these 2 parcels. elementary school. I Utility Service • J� 1 Contract allows 63� residential units (not included in table)-- Of-4 NuI RM I Future Water Reservoir / Existing Water • UR i ! �� Reservoir + i I URM10 �I l ! I MOMTGOMEOY RAJ RM e.. Church !` :• ,mil r�~~ r URMX I -- T-._ (6 - 10) —1 Icl l i `j 7 _ �. � j URM24 , }— --- �� fz 05 I URMX; i I Church r BAKERY —RS i i o stF`aa I �':.—ii�j..__ �i .� RS(RM ❑ ❑ f I URM24 j Stat. #3 k��ili Z Z a Min _ Units .-..._ U.. 7 3,630--_..._: 0' 18' 1ST 18 2 151 URMX URMX: 6 - 10 7260 4356r 7 2A 81 URMX UR4 4. 10.890. 66, 64_ 641 130 - - -- — 3A 3< URMX ROS 0 0. 0: 0 38 2 RR2 ROS: 0. 0' 0 0 3C 2 R5A ROS 0. 0 0 0 Totals 303 151 208 292 359 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14, 2006 RM NO t_R MAP #8: 'EAST BAKERVIEWIJAMESITELEGRAPH PLANNING AREA �- --- R5A Legend: Proposed Zoning Bndy URM 18 t3cistin I • i II City Limits Water \ ' +■ Urban Growth Area --- Reservoir J 0 400 S00 Church ; \ OG {# , Feet N _EELS IVI I� ++4 L URMX 11I �U ! ^- P` I L LJ 1i 2A URMX I; URM24of ) I �i .6110� Church j EIBA VIEW R { pTL II-- We Hre I Dist. #4. ''� 2 RSIRM - I Stat. 93 - 1' - + ;I URMX; 10.-24 � I I - URM24 I f �r— TELEGRA� H - �� - J. FTI 4 I — 5 --- :, URM24 j �,UR6TL—�,� ROWAN LiV—� 1 I ! t E M L��D FAD - rt Min Units URM-24' 241 _ 4356 - 1815; 121 1531, _ 3671 165 2 85. URMX- URMX _24 4356. 1815: 491 94._ 1, 465i-- _ _ 243 2A 49 URMX; URMX -10 6-10 7260. 4356 _8 51' - .85.._ ..._ 59 8 3 81 - - URM 24 prov: URM 24 24 4356 - 18i5 16 196: 470 212 4 7 URMX URM-24 24 4356 - 1815 1 21 50; 22 5- 69 URMX' URM 6: 6 7,260 159- 32 32- 191 Totals 333 245 647 1.469 892 197 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14,2006 MAP #9: DEWEY VALLEY PLANNING AREA /0/0"' Legend: .1 Proposed Zoning Bndy ■City Limits R5A UrbanrGrowth Area 0 400 800 N Feet pn�q PF) i RC'_ 357 rn < IND > 3 URMX (6-12) DNR Land 25 to 49 potential units under 6-12/acre zoning PUBLIC L Z 3 -7- < .---URMX- 5 UR6 (6 ----42)--- 4 URMX URMX,\,-' (6 - 12),- (6-12) S DNR Land nits I ' lu 42 to 84 potential units under 6-12[acre zoning PUBLIC 4 'I Squalicum High School E CLEOD RD URMX Auto Wrecking I Northern Heights Elementary School M. _,7)114-"�L"_;e14,.- -K 19 o 4 2 68 UR4� UR6' 6. 7.260•---- 9 0-A-41 r - LIAM5�: b 21-2 _f2.0 - 3630 6 160 1 166 4 59 URMk' URMXr 6-12. 7260-3630. 8! go! 63 totals 195 41 268 474 309 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14, 2006 MAP #10: % I' BRITTON RD. RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA - ' ' R5A Legend: `R5A Proposed Zoning Bndy RD L : _—J -! --� : ■ w City Limits r+ Urban Growth Area � I_, w ¢ ' RR2 I{III' �,o N Feel ---$ ��`t�= �Il- -T= -- , U Rfi j - J LI RMX— ^ ' % ==:} �.�_-. �• - - L °��� LI R M X-,j Auto ' Wrecking .J R2A RSA a ` Northern Heights Elementary School _ �l�✓�/ PUBLIC URIVIX Squalicum Nigh Schoo{ �.• ` iCLEOQ RD RS _{ zo ca I IIp1RM i:=' '�^`��\\�,' ail•'J�•' ,';:'�r;�-- �'/ Q��j� ✓;� —l;✓ r- ~yam---^.iir��="';�!• ,li'--- I' 4 PUBLIC , ��. j. U RMX F (6 _;12. I - T' I ED- ,I, ���• Church 13RITTON IT r`A1q�5-1?i-3�I�T7 ry /j (—± 44. �UR3 r ✓NlhatcomlNati { -=y.�L`—�s:�� : �� I�r _� I ` r{jj; J _� : ,emu, - `'8 - - -- - - - - _ - - .7L. a axsyo w4 `s i�r=CiR�' S �ylnl'' b:; `'I >� f rat`; .��'�{I`�e�_ _ 2, b'.a. 'c�:n:t' -• ?, J I r s a s' �,-,� = kr �r� i —T i E I r z��t + si iYo ,�'3'., ' •(1 M i - WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14, 2006 200 Z E 0 D o 40 Z cm LL z 0 LLI w 20 2 LLI o 9 0 z 02 Z- z z Z w 0 z C) 0 w D w C) 2 0 in " O'Fglv fyCil I AV '01 -1 ' L&C i z Al. M MA- Z- AV 3PAO N, N., A U,- N1. IND .1-8 NIMV ..... ...... LL cl At -,A vzt4vNo9 .............. 'd Cl His ............... LL 201 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14, 2006 202 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14, 2006 MAP #14: SAN JUAN WEST RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA Legend: Proposed Zoning Bndy ■ r. City Limits Urban Growth Area 0 400 goo Feet Future Connection to Elwood & 1-5 ,5 4 �� 55 i 15 Future Connection to 40th Street �i i� L:Sli L Ful T-RS 2 ,• UR4 is URi 4 OS 2)-- F 4 f -UR4-6!il ROS r i I ,'UR6 RS -Limits URA 3 U R[ 4--6 URMX Cascade Radio Group Palmer Rd 1 E L>f i7- { �.� •...i7 s - ��`ya�-' 'k:ai.aa;".�S err ':'r'�...i fco.-.;...3�L�yY�ti:.::.:��;c.+�a.Fce.�S-�a^...�F�+:j: .a.�i e.�1-'.,:•_ �'��.::ivr,''-+1 S :�i�[bi ��'�� P.�S.v. s�.+,�:i �J ��1L.�_ . 1 :'i 108, 108 ROS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •! 4 31 : • 1 . 1 !169 Totals .. :! 180 363 203 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14, 2006 MAP #15: SAMISH CREST RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA Legend: Proposed Zoning Bndy ■■ ■ City Limits Urban Growth Area /r 0 400 800 Feet N UR •� i-- -} Cascade ROS U R6 Radio Group PAUVIER RD LJ m-% -- - ! z 1 LI i L 11 II RS �;. ]Future Connections 'to pp San Juan B1vd.._._-_.----�-IS --.- —• — 1� Elwood,-1-5, and 40th Street. � 15 IL 51 Ir LI , ; � ` � i .. �.-11� I ` Q r5i 1 1271 RR2 F URMX 15 2 .. 46 - -RR I - UR - 3 174 UR4 UR6 Aals 347 I111# JRMX. JRMX 2'UnitM /Acre WC-Fire- Dist- 910 RF OI R5A �i LU w f Q z o'd I ' >1 ca 2 � i 0 If =li— LI RM X 1241, 127 - 2551 251 10,890. 7,2601 14-L 49: 641 - - 57 6! 7,260; 66; 203: 203; 269 204 373 522 577 all= WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINAL UGA ZONING RECOMMENDATION-DECEMBER 14, 2006 alm PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division 2I0 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225 Telephone: (360) 676-6982 Fax: (360) 738-7306 TTY: (360) 676-6883 Date: February 15, 2007 MEMORANDUM DISTRIBUTED TO FEB 2 0 2002 ALL CC)UN!c::?L lEk,!BERS )AiHXI CU,.r COUI iY COUNCIL To: Whatcom County Council From: Tim Stewart, Director, City of ling am Planning & Community Development Department RE: PLANNING FOR BELLINGHAM'S URBAN GROWTH AREA: Urban Fringe Subarea Plan Update I want to thank the Council for the opportunity to clarify the City's position regarding Bellingham's Land Supply Methodology, specifically the `safety factor', Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board decision upholding the validity of Bellingham's 2006 Comprehensive Plan, and the City's recommendations for expanding its Urban Growth Area (UGA), and applying County zoning designations in Bellingham's UGA that reflect our community values and retain the quality of life we so enjoy. The issues I think are paramount to our discussion and which I want to address in this memorandum include the following: 1. Bellingham's Land Supply Methodology has a 17% `Safety Factor' not the 25% that has been widely reported. Z Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Decision upholding Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan, with a specific Conclusion of Law that "'there is no basis for finding that the City underestimated its net developable residential land by 830 acres." 3. The opportunity we have to develop and implement a Design Strategy for Bellingham and Whatcom County based upon two guiding principles that are inherent in both the City and County Comprehensive Plans: 210 the preservation and enhancement of the natural environment and the ecological processes that support it and the enhancement of our human environment by managing the future patterns of growth so that they improve, not detract from, our overall quality of life. 1. Bellingham's Land Supply Methodology - 17% `Safety Factor' On May 1, 2006, the Bellingham City Council voted to accept the City Land Supply Methodology, as revised, the City Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations on adjustments to Bellingham's Urban Growth Area boundary and County zoning for the UGA. On May 15, the Council adopted Resolution 2006-15 and forwarded its Findings and Recommendations to the County Council for consideration in accordance with the 1997 Interlocal Agreement (as amended) between the City and Whatcom County. (The Resolution, Findings and Recommendations are attached.) Land Supply Analysis - Safety Factor At your January 30, Council Planning Committee work session, you were told that Bellingham's safety factor was 25%. That is incorrect. The City arrived at a 17% safety factor after significant analysis of the vacant land supply within the city limits, its UGA and the 5-year review areas. The justification and why we have a safety factor can be found in Part 3 of the Appendices. Exhibit F from the City's 2006 Comprehensive Plan, beginning on page 8 of the Land Supply Methodoloqv narrative. (See Exhibit F, City of Bellingham Land Supply Methodology, attached) The 17% overall Safety Factor is clearly shown on the City of Bellingham Land Supply Analysis - Summary Table (Cable 13). page LU-16b of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. As explained in the methodology narrative, the 17% overall Safety Factor is arrived at through a variable deduction (ranging from 0% to 25% across the neighborhoods, urban centers, and UGA. Determining an appropriate urban growth area is not totally a numbers game. Both the City Planning Commission and Council recommendations were adopted after well over a year of work by city staff to evaluate historic development patterns, environmental constraints and opportunities, transportation corridors and circulation patterns, utility infrastructure and public facilities needs, residential densities, affordable housing, natural features for developing a clear distinction between rural and urban areas, planning for parks, trails and open 2 211 space corridors as natural buffers between Bellingham and Ferndale, opportunities for master planning large parcels of land, employing urban design, opportunities to transfer significant development rights from Lake Whatcom Watershed, industrial, residential and commercial land supply, and consistency with the state Growth Management Act, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Countywide Planning Policies and the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. The City's recommendations reflect not only this work, but also our community values, as expressed in our 2006 Comprehensive Plan. We are certainly frustrated that, after all this work, the safety factor is being considered for adjustment apparently without a similar level of objective analysis or rationale. We can find no support in the record for changing the safety factor, or any other aspect of the City's land supply methodology, and would urge that adjustments or changes not be made in an arbitrary manner. 2. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Decision upholding Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan In their petition for review to the Western Washington Growth Hearings Board (Growth Board), Donna and Harold Macomber, Helen Green and Larry Horowitz, contended the City's formula for determining the amount of park land needed to serve future population growth resulted in underestimating the amount of land available for residential development by 830 acres. Decision to uphold Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan On January 31, the Growth Board issued a decision in favor of the City regarding the land use methodology used in the City's 2006 updated Comprehensive Plan and upheld the validity of the land supply methodology used in Bellingham's new comprehensive plan, specifically concluding that "There is no basis for finding that the City underestimated its net developable residential land by 830 acres." (See the Boards Final Decision, attached.) The City's established level of service for parks reflects our community values as expressed in our new comprehensive plan. Our goal is to simply maintain what we have into the future. We heard loud and clear that, while the community is willing to infill and do our share to accommodate a large portion of the total county growth, we are not going to allow the level of service for parks and other public facilities and services to suffer as a result. The adopted forecast for the Bellingham urban area predicts the population will increase by 31,601 to 113,055 in 2022, an increase of roughly 39%. The adopted forecast means.that Bellingham must plan to accommodate over 50% of the total county growth over the next 20 years. 212 The 31,601 population growth forecast for Bellingham between 2002 and 2022 is reflected below: • 62% (19,610) are allocated to the Urban Centers and City Neighborhoods • 21 % (6,776) are allocated to the existing UGA • 17% (5,215) are allocated to the 5-year review areas recommended for inclusion in Bellingham's Urban Growth Area By 2022 the 113,055 forecast total population for Bellingham would be distributed as follows: • 80% (88,870) inside the 2006 City Limits • 15% (18,970) inside the 2006 Urban Growth Area • 5% (5,215) inside the 5-Year Review Areas recommended for inclusion in Bellingham's UGA The new housing units built in Bellingham and its UGA between 2002 and 2022 are expected to be split 66% multi -family and 33% single-family. (Page L.0 is Zoos Bellingham comprehensive Plan) Our comprehensive plan and development regulations require growth to provide the facilities and services a growing population needs to maintain the "quality of life" we currently enjoy. The City will not place the entire financial burden for financing new parks and other public facilities on existing residents, however. Having sufficient park land and trails and open space corridors to serve the projected population is a "quality of life" issue; it's a matter of policy that has been decided by the City Council. 3. The opportunity we have to develop and implement a `Design Strategy' for Bellingham and Whatcom County, based upon two guiding principles that are inherent in both the City and County Comprehensive Plans: • the preservation environment and support it, and and enhancement of the natural the ecological processes that • the enhancement of our human environment by managing the future patterns of growth so that they improve, not detract from, our overall quality of life. 4 213 While a great deal of effort, time and energy has been expended on the debate over the Land Supply Methodology, we should not forget that the outcome of successful planning is not just about data and numbers, it is about how we use our very limited resources and how we build a sustainable community for the future. Bellingham's Urban Growth Area is designed to help protect agricultural lands, resource lands and fish and wildlife habitat lands. The UGA is intended to eventually be developed for urban uses and to make the provision of public facilities and services easier and more cost effective by providing contiguous and compact urban development. These smart growth strategies will provide opportunities to enhance our urban environment while preserving and protecting our natural environment. Some of the 5-year review areas provide a unique opportunity to "master plan" new development to address a number of city goals. The City can require these developments to purchase a significant number of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) from the Lake Whatcom Watershed, construct utility infrastructure and link transportation systems, dedicate land for parks and schools, and provide for connections to existing trail systems. We also have an opportunity to incorporate additional land to meet the future demand for jobs. We now have an opportunity to work together to establish a "long term or ultimate City boundary" (Bellingham Comprehensive Plan, LU — 114) as we move forward with the update of the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. Expanding on this opportunity, I would encourage you to work with the City in defining strategies to ensure a sustainable future. For example, the City is in the process of forming an interdepartmental "Green Team" to promote environmental stewardship and sustainability through building and land use practices. Coordination between our jurisdictions is paramount to ensuring well planned and sustainable growth for our future generations and we would welcome County participation. As the County Council considers its options regarding Bellingham's Urban Growth Area, I hope we can move forward in productive steps to preserve and enhance our natural environment and build a human environment that improves, rather than detracts from, the quality of life of the Bellingham Whatcom County Community. Cc: Mayor Tim Douglas, Bellingham City Council Bellingham Planning Commission County Executive, Pete Kremen County Planning Director, Hal Hart 5 214 ALL ATTACHMENTS NOTED IN THIS MEMORANDUM ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE FOR REVIEW 215 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 Regular County Council March 13, 2007 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Laurie Caskey-Schreiber L. Ward Nelson FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS Absent: None Weimer announced that they would take a moment of silence in honor of City Council Member Joan Beardsley, who passed away yesterday. MINUTES CONSENT Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items. Motion carried 6-0 with Nelson absent. 1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2007 2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2007 3. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR FEBRUARY 20, 2007 OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated read John McAuliffe's comments about Joan Beardsley. It's time for a Lake Samish Subarea and a Chuckanut Mountains Parks District. The time has come to protect the area. There will be a vote on it in November. The cost of it is insignificant compared to what it can do. It's so much less expensive than having fire, stormwater, and school districts. Support the Chuckanut Mountains Parks Districts. The cost will be $50 per year for six years. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 1 216 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. Johnnie Grames, 1506 E. Maplewood Avenue, stated he thanks the Council for listening to the people. This is sunshine week, which means open government and access to public records. The Bellingham Herald prints a lot of misinformation. They printed an article about the County meeting the test of public access. The County hasn't done that for him. Their targets are peace advocates and war protestors. The County is spending a lot of money prosecuting and muzzling dissent. Juries have a lot of power. The people don't have to wait until the end of a judge's term to petition the government for redress of grievances. Barbara Forss, Olson Road, Ferndale, stated she represents her husband, Jamie. They began contacting Security Specialists Plus (SSP) in November 2004 about a herd of llamas they felt was being neglected. They witnessed that the animals were not getting proper nutrition. Their calls to SSP never resulted in any formal complaints. They were never asked to sign anything. After her husband made about half a dozen calls, he was accused of being a nuisance and harassing SSP. Over the next couple of years, they made another half dozen calls to SSP, again complaining about the mistreatment and neglect of these animals. A week ago, her friend went by the same property with the llamas. Three or four times, her friend went by and thought she saw a dead llama on the hill. She met her friend, and the llama owner and SSP were called to witness it. They were told that it was none of her business. At that time, they got the media involved. From then on, things have mushroomed. What they started out to do, which was find out why these animals were neglected, has resulted in a big deal. She hasn't seen anything that SSP has done that has been helpful. She's been told that they should not have gotten the media involved, because it hinders their investigation. She was told that they were on top of it. Over three years, many animals died. Seven of the herd had to be put down, as of this morning. According to the veterinarians, the ones that are left are existing off of their own muscle. Hold SSP accountable for this situation and find out why their contract was renewed, who is in charge, and what they're doing. Make sure this kind of thing never happens again. Caskey-Schreiber asked when Mrs. Forss first called SSP, and how many calls they made. Forss stated her husband called November 2004. They made approximately a dozen calls since then. The first paperwork they were asked to sign was at her request this week, when she asked Officer Andrus why a formal complaint was never offered. Officer Andrus told her that she didn't know anything, and that she'd only been there for two and a half months. Caskey-Schreiber asked if Mrs. Forss ever called the Sheriff's Office or 911. Forss stated they were told that SSP would look into it and not to hinder them anymore. Crawford asked if the County Executive could let them know what's happening administratively with this. Brenner stated the Sheriff's Office is doing a criminal investigation regarding this. Forss stated Tom McCarthy is the detective in charge of the investigation. He has to make a report to present to the Prosecuting Attorney. Her concern is not the prosecution of the woman who owns the field. Her concern is that they don't allow this to happen again. The taxpayers must take action to ensure that the agency directed to make sure these claims are investigated follows through when a neighbor calls. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 2 217 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. Caskey-Schreiber stated the contract states that the County may terminate the contract with 30 days notice anytime there is substandard performance by SSP. Forss stated their contract also calls for them to notify the Sheriff's Office if anyone complains. She was told by the Sheriff's Office that this is the first complaint, and it was only after they said they were getting the media involved. Weimer stated the majority of the Council appreciates Mrs. Forss's efforts. They are waiting to hear what the Sheriff has to say about the criminal investigation and the administration has to say about the contract. Kelly Wood, 3750 Sweet Road, Blaine, stated she dealt with SSP on January 2, 2007. Her alpacas were attacked by neighborhood dogs. Her husband called 911 while the animals were getting to the veterinarian. They were referred to SSP. Her husband called them immediately, at 2 a.m., and talked to the dispatcher, who said that someone would respond by 10 a.m. No one came. She called back at 12:15 p.m., and was told that they were at lunch. She called back at 1 p.m., and they finally arrived at 1:30 p.m., but they forgot the camera and had to leave. They didn't come back. They repeatedly lied to her. They didn't question one neighbor. One of the rottweiler dogs ran west. There is a set of rottweilers that have been reported to SSP six times. They live one mile west of them. SSP didn't question those owners. SSP told her they talked to the neighbors, but they didn't talk to any of them. She complained to the Sheriff's Office several times. Finally, the Sheriff's Office told her that they removed SSP from the investigation because they hadn't done their job. By then, it was too late to find any evidence against the dogs. Her veterinarian said it was the worst attack he'd ever seen, and that the dogs would come back. She or her husband always have be there at the house. They are under siege at their own house. They can't leave because they're worried that these animals will come back. Greg Rustand asked her not to call them any more, because she was calling and reporting loose animals running around. One of their officers said they will do something about the dogs if they're loose again. She called Greg Rustand, who told her not to call SSP and don't talk to the media because it obstructs their investigation. They were chastised by one of the officers because they called the Sheriff's Office. They got in trouble for trying to get something to happen. Brenner asked if they have a gun. Wood stated they don't. She would happily shoot the dogs if they came to her property. They will probably come at night. She would have to be out there to hit them, and not her animals. She talked to Bob Gardner and asked what's being done. The Sheriff's Office recommended that they declare these rottweilers dangerous because they've attacked people, also. They are unable to prove that it's the same dogs, because there was no evidence collected. They didn't talk to these people until six days after the attack. SSP refuses to tell her what's going on. It's like they're protecting the dog owners from her. All she wants to know is if those dogs have been destroyed or kept locked up. Caskey-Schreiber stated she doesn't advise anyone to take the law into their hands that way. The County pays a hefty amount of money for animal control services in this county. If they're not doing their job, the County should find another provider. Wood stated she would prefer not to shoot them. She just wants her alpacas to be safe on her own property. Five of her animals were killed. Two were very disfigured. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 3 218 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. Caskey-Schreiber stated she advises them to call 911 in the future. Wood stated she did. 911 dispatch told them to call SSP. She had to ask the 911 dispatch four times before they would take her report. She understands they are trying not to step on each others' toes. Caskey-Schreiber stated another constituent had the same kind of experience. She talked to Sheriff Elfo yesterday, who told her he would straighten it out and tell people at dispatch that he wants to know about any violation that threatens life, property, or animals. Wood asked if SSP is supposed to be on -call for emergencies 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Caskey-Schreiber stated they are, which is why she wants to fire SSP. John Lesow, 317 Madrona Place, Point Roberts, stated he is sad at the passing of Joan Beardsley. She was a strong, intelligent, and compassionate person. She will be missed. He advocates that health insurance be provided for Planning Commissioners and their families by the taxpayers of Whatcom County. He doesn't advocate for a salary, but twelve years ago, water commissioners for Point Roberts received $50 per meeting. That practice continues in the county for fire, water, and parks districts. County employees' time was factored at $100 per hour, for the purpose of the unified fee schedule. There didn't seem to be any serious opposition to that proposition. A Planning Commissioner's time is worth $100 per hour. Over the past two years, the County Planning Commission has met 42 times for public hearings and work sessions on the Bellingham land supply analysis and urban growth. Some of these meetings have gone from 6:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. If the average meeting time is two and a half hours, over 42 meetings that equals 100 hours of meetings on that subject alone. That totals $90,000 of professional citizen review that the County received on this subject. That doesn't factor in travel or preparation. There is honor in public service to Whatcom County. Planning Commissioners gladly serve without compensation or the expectation of compensation, however there is value in the service. A person's time is worth more than it ever has before. Having spare time is the ultimate prerequisite. Providing health insurance would recognize that value in a person and tangible way. Brenner stated Mr. Lesow does an incredible job on the Planning Commission. She appreciates the long hours he works. The problem is that there are many advisory committees, which is what the Planning Commission is. It's a voluntary advisory committee. She doesn't know if the County could do that legally. If they could, the question is where they would draw the line. They have many people on advisory committees. Part of the appreciation is that they do it for the love of doing it. She's been on many advisory committees. She appreciates his service, but they can't look at this in a vacuum of just the Planning Commission. Lesow stated he doesn't want the health insurance. He doesn't need it. In June, there were 31 board and commission vacancies. He served on the Sewage Control Appeals Board for four years. When he was appointed the Planning Commission, the vacancy was opened, and it hasn't yet been filled. There are many volunteers in the community, but many board positions are vacant because people don't have the time and there is no incentive to serve. Perhaps they should consider providing compensation for all these boards. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 4 219 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. Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated he is sad at the passing of Joan Beardsley. She was an interesting person who really cared about the community. He respected that. He thanked the councilmembers for the Trillium issues this afternoon. Soon, the Council will be asked to do another population projection. It can be done a couple of different ways. It is a contentious issue. An easy way to do it is to ask the existing citizens how they would like to see the county grow. The Council can put out a request for proposals (RFP) and contract to ask community groups to give a projection of what kind of land use guidelines would be in their best interest. Then, allow people to vote on those. They can get some good information. Look now at the rules they want to put in place and the population projection they need, to fulfill what the people in the community want. This way, each group could have its own say. This could be a way to update and revitalize the Comprehensive Plan. Allow all groups to come together, have their say, and put it to a vote. Brenner stated she thought that would be done with the legacy group. Pros stated the legacy project is slightly different. It will come up with critical area maps and many issues that should be factored in. There is an overriding issue of the amount of population they will have in the future. An advisory vote can be a strong guiding document. An election provides the opportunity to put the two issues together. Christine Monroe, 5225 West 33rd, Ferndale, stated she is a local veterinarian. She supports the public against the substandard care and efforts of SSP. Earlier this year, she had an incident at her clinic. A client had picked up a cat that had been hit by a car and was still alive. The cat began seizing in the car. The client was closest to SSP, so she phoned them and asked if she could bring in the cat to be euthanized. She was informed that SSP has no one who can perform euthanasia, and she needed to find help elsewhere. The client asked her what she would have done in such a case. She told the client what she is required to do ethically, personally, and by law. The client called SSP back and asked what they do with animals who are dying or are severely injured and that need to be taken care of. Her client was told by the person on the phone that they are to put the animal in the freezer if the animal is close to death, because hypothermia will kill them. SSP is supposed to provide animal control services. They have no right doing that if this is their true practice. She hopes that there is a profound review of their actions since they've had this contract. In the future, make sure there is some type of policing going on with any facility. From the numerous complaints and observations she's heard about, they would find that the facility is probably not up to State and County codes. Caskey-Schreiber asked Dr. Monroe if she has ever met her. Monroe stated she has not. Caskey-Schreiber stated Dr. Monroe has said everything that she's asked this administration to do for the last five years. At one point, an animal control commission oversaw operations. It has since been allowed to dissolve. She's asked the Executive to bring it back. It would be great if Dr. Monroe or someone she knows would be willing to serve. If the Council or administration does not want to revoke this contract, they need some oversight for this organization. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 5 220 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BIRCH BAY WATERSHED AND AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (AB2007-113A) Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Don Imhof, 2869 W. 63rd Lane, Ferndale, stated he lives in the county for the freedom it provides, and those freedoms are being threatened. He only received notice of this issue last Wednesday. His property is six miles from Birch Bay. He doesn't see the need to include properties that far away from developments in Birch Bay. Water from his property travels by ditch and creek to Lake Terrell. There is plenty of natural filtration before it reaches Birch Bay. His community is Ferndale, not Birch Bay. He doesn't want to pay to treat stormwater that far away, created by developments he had nothing to do with and from which he receives no benefit. James Kawa, 8395 Richmond Park Road, Birch Bay, stated he feels under attack when this kind of thing happens. This happens several times per year. He would like a governing body that just represents Birch Bay. It's almost like taxation without representation. He pays taxes, and someone should understand his problems. Linda Tucker, 4371 Bay Road, Blaine, stated she has a real problem with more fees and taxes. The County and State get enough of her money. A development at the corner of Bay Road and Jackson Road built artificial ponds for drainage that overflowed. They pumped the water into the fields. The Planning Commission told her that was their right, because the water would be filtered by the time it hits the bay. That property is closer to the bay than her property. People don't know the use of having stormwater management. Keith Reed, 3355 Aldergrove Road, Ferndale, stated he represents the Butler Ditch District. The Birch Bay district will completely surround the ditch district. He asked if it will supercede his ditch district, and how much he will be taxed. He wants something in writing that he can take back to his constituents that explains this. Brenner asked if he just receive notice, and if he'd heard of it before he received notice. Reed stated he just received the same notice everyone else received. He did not know about it before. Brenner asked where the notice came from. Reed stated it came from the County Stormwater Division. Crawford stated Kirk Christensen is the point of contact. Kathy Berg, 7585 Sterling Avenue, Birch Bay, stated she is in favor of the district. it is the culmination of about six years worth of work. This is about the health and safety of Birch Bay. The recent rain storm resulted in damage on Birch Bay Drive. The stormwater outfall became clogged and failed. The runoff caused erosion. This is necessary. The notice sent out last week made no mention of the plan adopted last November. There is a plan to address issues and set up a funding mechanism. However, people don't have the information. Get people educated so they understand what this is about. This has been a collaborative effort with the Planning and Development Services staff, Public Works staff, Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 6 221 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. County Council, County Executive, and the Birch Bay community. She thanked Roland Middleton and Bruce Roll for keeping this moving along. Stephen Banham, 3245 Mountain View Road, Ferndale, stated he is the City of Blaine Public Works Director. A portion of his community is affected by this district. He's pleased to see that the Birch Bay neighbors are working to address stormwater issues. The City of Blaine established a separate stormwater utility in 1999. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Banham continued to state that Blaine is working to make improvements to its stormwater system. He is concerned about the proposed area to be included in the district and the preliminary plans for assessing property owners. They did not take into consideration the Blaine boundaries. There should not be an assessment of a second stormwater fee to Blaine residents. County staff indicated that they don't intend to levy a second stormwater fee to Blaine residents. Specifically identify this exclusion in the final plan. A second issue is Blaine's urban growth area. Make a provision in the plan for its ultimate annexation into the City of Blaine. A better mechanism for working collaboratively on stormwater issues in the Birch Point area would be an interlocal agreement between the City and County. He appreciates the cooperation of the Public Works staff. They will continue to work collaboratively on stormwater issues. Dennis Corfee, 920 Jersey Street, Bellingham, stated he owns property on North Star Road, west of Ferndale. He pays flood control taxes twice, in both Bellingham and Ferndale. His property on North Star Road is not in a flood plain. It is 100 feet higher than the Nooksack River. He doesn't understand the need for more controls. His taxes have doubled. Some people are paying $6,000 in property taxes. It seems like there are controls for all of the sensitive areas already. The retired people are on fixed income, and can't stand another tax on their property. Some people have low to minimum wages in that area and can't stand another tax. He can't stand another tax out there. This is for Birch Bay only, and not anyone else. Everyone will have to pay for a small project that will only help a few people. He asked if the property will be foreclosed if people can't pay these taxes. He just received notice of this. Brenner stated the County has a property tax exemption and deferral program for people who are on fixed incomes. Corfee stated that $6,000 in property taxes alone could be 25 percent of a person's paycheck. Now they want to add other taxes. Alan Friedlob, 6934 Holeman Avenue, Birch Bay, stated he is the Co-chair of this proposed stormwater district. He apologized to all the citizens of Ferndale and Blaine who received the letter. The letter didn't reference the plan on which they've been working, so the citizens have no background information. The assessment is not a tax. It is a fee based on the amount of impervious surface on the property. What causes stormwater problems is the concrete and impervious surfaces. Tonight, they are beginning the process of fairness. The question is how to keep Birch Bay water quality, which is enjoyed by all citizens of Whatcom County, healthy and how to share the responsibility to do that fairly. Ferndale and Blaine are included in the Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 7 222 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. geographic areas of the watershed. Those residents will begin the necessary debate and discussion. He hopes that those people continue to work with them and support this effort. His group has told the department staff to communicate and work with them. His group didn't see the letter from the Public Works Department. They are going to work this out. The next meeting of the stormwater group is in the Birch Bay Bible Church at 7 p.m. on the third Wednesday of every month. He invited all. Jamee Levy, 4291 Masterson Road, Birch Bay, stated the Birch Bay community is growing quickly. They already have county flood control and Birch Bay water and sewer. There is already an administration. If the administration needs more resources, then address that issue. More administration is bigger government. That is concerning. She asked if they will still pay the flood control taxes if they pay the stormwater tax. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District gets more and more money because of the community expansion. Their facilities aren't adequate to address everything. She would like to know if their extra revenue is going toward the stormwater issue. If so, she is paying stormwater costs to three different entities. That's a waste. There are other issues to address in Birch Bay, including traffic control, roads, schools, a post office, and fire and emergency services. She hopes they will be able to address all the services, not just one. Weimer stated he believes that the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District does not address stormwater at all. Shane Corfee, 6289 North Star Road, Ferndale, stated he just got the notice on Wednesday of last week. It's a big bite to take. He is in Ferndale, not Birch Bay. There is plenty of filtration. The community should know what's going on. Jennifer Graves, 6289 North Star Road, Ferndale, stated this is to be a wetlands zone with a flood subzone, according to the County website. It also has to deal with manure management, which affects her livestock. It also has to do with sewer inspections and septic system inspections annually. If they are going to be considered a watershed and wetlands area, they will control what she puts in her garden. She's concerned about those issues. They will be assessed $7 based on the amount of impervious surface. She is concerned about how that will coincide with the water association. A lot of issues need to be addressed, but they just learned about this by a letter a week ago. Rosie Broussard, 6255 North Star Road, Ferndale, stated she works hard for her money. She makes sure the water gets off her property and is protected in a pond. Adding taxes is hard for those on a fixed income. She is not in Birch Bay district. Consider the district area. Kathy Watts, 5629 Whitehorn Way, Blaine, stated she supports Alan Friedlob's comments about the health of Birch Bay. She supports his committee. John Paul Ashley, 4440 Windlass Lane, Blaine, stated he lives in the Anchor Manor subdivision. The subdivision has its own stormwater system. The homeowner's association is responsible for maintaining the system. They pay homeowners' dues to do that. He asked what he gets out of this district and how much it will cost him. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 8 223 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. Gerald Larson, 5045 Alder Street, Birch Bay, stated he is interested in the protection of Birch Bay tide flats. He is concerned because the actual bay itself is not in the district. The water they are trying to protect should be included in the district. All the stormwater outlets go beyond the ordinary high water mark. The area beyond the high water mark is not within the district. People in Birch Bay along the shoreline dump yard waste beyond that mark. They also burn yard waste down there. The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District continually dump more water off of Whitehorn. That water washes back into the bay. If the State Department of Health ever closes down Birch Bay for clamming, it takes a long time to get that turned around. The money collected in the district has to be spent in the district. The bay is not in the district. An ongoing problem in Birch Bay is red tides. That's beyond anything they can change. Hopefully a new Water Keeper will be able to bring that issue forward. He submitted a handout with a proposed amendment (on file). Lynn Holmes, 4412 Carstan Loop, Birch Bay, stated he lives in the Anchor Manor subdivision. The County put many rules on the developer of his subdivision to make sure there was proper drainage and retention ponds. All of the houses must drain directly off the roof and into the storm drains. The yards even have drains. He pays a homeowners' fee to take care of retention ponds and storm sewers. Meg Grable, 8247 Harborview Road, Birch Bay, stated she lives one -quarter mile north of Birch Bay Waterslides, There are many acres of wetlands in Birch Bay. She has lived in Birch Bay for 25 years and has worked on the steering committee. She's glad they are going to inform the community about Birch Bay stormwater. She endorses Kathy Berg's and Alan Friedlob's statements. She supports forming the district. They need a watershed district for the area. In the past, they've had to reinforce a lighting district, the fire district, and additional Sheriff's Office services. Stormwater has to run somewhere. Over the past weekend, there were three defaults along the Birch Bay Drive. The stormwater floodgates did not work appropriately. It's time that those gates work properly. They must work together as a district to have the financial means for controlling that water. Some of these developers do not have the hydrology or engineering experience needed to have this kind of thing happen. Vote for the district. John Carter, 8168 Birch Bay Drive, Birch Bay, stated he is a property owner who is concerned about capital improvements projects and Birch Bay Drive roadway improvements. His family has owned his property since 1918. There have always been conflict between the County and property owners about the area from Bay Sandy Resorts to Birch Bay Village. The County thinks the right-of-way is 60 feet wide. The right-of-way is 35 feet wide, according to a Superior Court decision many years ago. He is concerned about any plans for roadway improvements exceeding that right-of-way. Make the correct right-of-way width assumption. Tom Vayovich, 8422 Shintaffer Road, stated he didn't receive a notice, but supports the district. He's tired of having the ditch flood his yard. Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated this is not a junior district. The boundary is determined by the watershed boundary. It does have inter -jurisdictional problems. It's also not a water or sewer thing. Legally and practically, surface water goes with the roads. He supports the Lake Whatcom as the highest priority overlay subarea and the way it is levied, calculating impervious surface. He suggested combining this district with the Birch Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 9 224 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. Bay Blaine District. Consider a Birch Bay Park District to save money. Don't dump it all on business or the property owners. This is good legislation. Deirdre Scanlan, 4619 Anderson Road, Birch Bay, stated she is opposed to the proposed district. Tax payers have had enough and are prepared for a tax revolt. Residents of Birch Bay have seen their property tax assessments double. They will be paying hundreds of dollars for unwanted and unnecessary sewer investigators to develop expensive improvements. Wages have not doubled for most of the residents of Birch Bay. The County legislators should lead the charge to unburden citizens as much as possible, not increase their subjugation. They are trying to protect the environment by squeezing them dry. Many people are being forced to leave their homes. Many subdivide and develop whatever they can as they flee. Rich developers will buy the land that they can no longer keep. Do not approve a stormwater assessment or a City of Birch Bay. She calls for a State Constitution amendment to cap property taxes to one percent of the last purchase price from a willing buyer to a willing seller. Weimer stated the Birch Bay community brought this forward to the County Council, and suggested that Ms. Scanlan attend their meeting and talk with them. Dennis Sandvig, 8212 Birch Bay Drive, Birch Bay, stated he has been on the stormwater committee since it was formed. They worked hard to come up with something that will solve the substantial problems that exist. The problems in Birch Bay take money to solve. Everyone who has land in the stormwater district has water that goes downhill and creates problems. A tax on the impervious surface is pretty minimal. This seems like the most fair way to solve the problem. Kay Schumacher, Whitehorn Way, Birch Bay, stated the Stormwater Management Plan has been misunderstood. Water in Birch Bay comes from a lot of people in the area. Now, they don't know how they will create the revenue. She thanked everyone for bringing this matter forward. Stormwater management is a very important issue. Continue to work on this, and come to a conclusion. Problems are connected with all the new housing developments. New developments should make sure there is adequate stormwater management, water, and traffic controls. The Council should take its time and do the right thing. Tom Kimberly, 8099 Quinault Road, Birch Bay, asked what they are approving and what's going on. He asked why they didn't have this before. Doralee Booth, 8188 Birch Bay Drive, Birch Bay, stated CH2MHill worked a year with the stormwater committee on the stormwater manual. They are all part of the problem and they all need to be part of the solution. The waters of Puget Sound are at risk, no matter where one lives. They all introduce pollutants into the environment and watersheds. Stormwater goes downhill and into Puget Sound. Those who live in the Birch Bay watershed are a part of that problem. Even those people who live in developments with detention ponds and stormwater management have water that runs downhill and goes into Birch Bay. Join together to protect Birch Bay. Mike Winter, 6255 North Star Road, stated he understands the need for a healthy bay in Birch Bay. It seems like there has been a problem with getting information out to Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 10 225 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 public to give people a chance to know what is going on. Water does go downhill. If the people of Birch Bay don't like it, then they could move out, but that's not a practical solution. Work on a better plan. Make developers put in more retention ponds. The retention pond must fill up to a certain point before it is dumped into another retention pond. It slows down the flow of water. Some of that water will eventually make it to the bay. Much of it will be absorbed into the soil. Work on a comprehensive plan that addresses that, and creates a way to slow down the water so its release into the bay is slower. Come up with a solution that doesn't harm everyone's wallet. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Hearing no one else, Weimer announced that the hearing will be held open until the next meeting. Brenner stated she assumed that people in the area would inform others in the area that this was going to happen. She also assumed it would be the Birch Bay urban growth area (UGA). It makes perfect sense that it would be the watershed. It also makes perfect sense that it would involve the people in all the areas. She doesn't mean they should force people to get involved if they don't want. This process has been done specifically and only by and for the Birch Bay community. The product is excellent. However, it hasn't involved anyone outside the Birch Bay community. People need to be more informed and involved. Nelson asked if this is a junior taxing district. Bruce Roll, Public Works Department, stated it is. First, the Council is creating the management area. Second, the Council will place an assessment within that management area that doesn't create situations where there isn't double taxation or duplication of fees or structures tied to similar activities. Separate where they are trying to manage from how they assess. Tonight's discussion isn't about how the assessment will be put in place. They are not going to assess someone in Blaine or Ferndale who is already paying stormwater taxes or fees. They are using a novel approach to address stormwater. Instead of butting up against jurisdictional boundaries, determine the location of the waters are drain into the Birch Bay area and that impact the aquatic resources and other attributes of the area. The purpose of these boundaries is to manage all those areas that influence the Birch Bay water quality. With that approach, people in the far upper reaches of the watershed will be included in the district. Whether and how they are assessed depends on how they set up the assessment, its purpose, and how they justify the assessment. Often, assessments are based on the amount of impervious surface per parcel. Nelson stated they must coordinate these water system plans and natural resource plans in the community that make sense to the community and that also accomplish the community's goals and objectives. One concern is whether taxation based upon level of impervious surface is a water quality, water quantity issue, or both. Roll stated it is both. Nelson stated that must be clearly defined in the plan. Roll stated they will also have to define the purpose of the Flood Control Zone District in relation to flood, flood activities, and stormwater activities. That clarity is not there now. Brenner stated the public voted on the Flood Control Zone District. People understood that they use roads, public institutions, and other things that may be affected Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 11 226 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. by floods, even if they don't live in flood plains. The people understood that they spent time developing the countywide district. She asked who decided to not reach out to these areas during the process. Roll stated that a lot of people listen as soon as the words assessment or taxes are uttered, in his experience. It's a big issue. Clearly, tying this to an assessment generates a great level of interest in this topic. People want to clearly know exactly why and how they are going to be taxed or assessed. If the policy direction of the Board of Supervisors, which is the County Council, is to manage by watershed, then that's what they'll do by creating this district. Brenner stated these people are in the Blaine and Ferndale areas, and don't know they are in the Birch Bay area. There seems to be a disconnect here. Work with people in those areas to give them the information. She asked how to start that process to let those people have that information. Weimer stated that the plan is on the County's website. McShane stated this is all part of the process. The Council is having a hearing. The notification may not have been as good as they like, so the hearing will continue. The Council will take in information that will assist the councilmembers with making a decision. A group has brought this to the Council, and the process has begun. The process is to determine whether this is an appropriate boundary. That's why the Council had a hearing on. Then, once the Council decides that, there will be additional process to determine a fair assessment. That will take quite an effort. The countywide flood fee was approved for more reasons than residents benefiting from flood protection. At that time, there were clear benefits to other areas of the community, not just those areas that flooded along the Nooksack River. There were stormwater features and funding. It was a broad fund that could be used for stormwater in other locations. That is a message that some of the cities heard clearly, because they get agitated at the lack of money given to them. That's not how the flood fund works. The County can't just give the money. It has to be allocated for project -specific projects. Dr. Roll has indicated, and Councilmembers Nelson and Weimer have understood, that they need to look carefully at how the broad flood and stormwater fee is being considered, and how the advisory committee is advising the Council. The Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee recognizes that there will be other sub -districts that will compete for the money. Crawford stated he hasn't heard a persuasive argument against forming the district. A contractor will do an assessment analysis. He asked if a proposal for a levy would then come to the Council. Roll stated it would. He explained the process. There will be a series of meetings in which they will work on the assessment. Crawford stated he understands the concerns of the folks who live practically in Ferndale. They do live in the watershed. One person said that an ideal stormwater system is redundancy in the treatment system. One idea is to lessen the assessment farther away from Birch Bay. He asked about extending the district boundary into the bay beyond the high water mark so that the funds can be spent in the bay. Roll stated that wouldn't seem to enable the County to do anything more than it can do already. The County would do things such as enforcement in the bay area, water quality sampling in the bay, and other activities that are justifiable by this assessment area. They are talking about the intent of Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 12 227 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. the actions in the upland areas and their role in preserving the marine environment. Leaving out that area from the assessment area won't prevent them from doing anything. Crawford stated that current stormwater outfalls extend below the ordinary high water mark. He asked if assessment funds could be spent on physical improvements to those outfalls. Roll stated they are looking into that. There may be projects that extend stormwater facilities out into the bay. That planning process will move forward shortly. 2. EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE 2007-013 LIMITING THE SIZE OF LARGE COMMERCIAL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITHIN WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2007-135) Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Linda Tucker, 4371 Bay Road, Blaine, stated she doesn't see any reason to put a cap on big box stores. The design is more of an issue than the size. Kris Ungern, 2095 North Shore Road, Bellingham, stated the process has been a domino effect that the City of Bellingham started, when it failed to approve a routine expansion of the existing Wal-Mart store. Bellingham already has many retail facilities that would not exist today if the ban had been in effect earlier. There are nine retail establishments larger than 100,000 square feet, and 13 larger than 75,000 square feet. No real emergency seems to exist. The County ordinance was advertised as a time out, given issues of sprawl, traffic congestion, and infrastructure impacts on the County, which may be appropriate if work continues on developing a balanced framework for accommodating and planning retail growth. Temporary moratoria tend to become open-ended and are routinely extended. There will be consequences from any decision the Council makes. If shoppers go elsewhere, the County will lose tax dollars. Many people who routinely shop at a Wal-Mart would be good candidates for the affordable housing initiatives currently underway. He asked how they reconcile providing affordable housing for people in need with simultaneously denying low-cost shopping options to the same people by imposing big box store bans. Donna Mason, 3686 South Bay Drive, stated she recommends a book called Big Box Swindle by Stacy Mitchell. It's based on documented fact and real situations in communities around America. They can learn from their mistakes. Wal-Mart does not help poor people. It does not always have the lowest prices. It practices predatory pricing. Studies have shown that the products are low quality or don't have the lowest prices in the community. It's proven that having a large Wal-Mart Super Center lowers income in an area, because better paid jobs are lost when Wal-Mart kills off local competition over time. It has low pay and benefits. Local businesses contribute to local causes at a much higher rate than anything Wal-Mart has historically contributed. Chain store loyalty is to stockholders, not to customers. Their main enterprise is meeting growth and profit targets, not serving consumer needs. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 13 228 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. Wal-Mart hurts the local economy. One hundred dollars spent at a local store nets $150 to the local economy. At a chain store, it nets $13 to the local economy. Decisions are made out of state at corporate headquarters, not in the community. Big box stores, especially Wal-Mart do not result in economic development. Government policies have fueled corporate retail expansion for unsustainable land use. The local government can create a positive effect, such as not providing subsidies or tax breaks, not building roads and infrastructure, and not zoning so much land for retail development. Paul Rosetter, Whatcom County, stated stores like Wal-Mart drive local stores out of business. Those local stores also pay taxes. When they think they are getting a tax increase, they are really destroying the tax base. Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing. Brenner stated the unincorporated County must provide rural services. Urban services belong in cities. This is not about Wal-Mart. There are big stores that are great. This is about location. If Wal-Mart moves anywhere, it should be in the city of Bellingham. Wherever it goes, it will heavily impact County roads. The County won't get the taxes for it because it won't be in the unincorporated part of the county. It's frustrating when cities within Whatcom County operate in a vacuum. They must all work together on things like this. She's asked most City Council Members to amend their limit to provide for expansion of existing businesses. The County Comprehensive Plan encourages and supports expansion of existing businesses. Whether it goes to the reservation is out of the County's hands. This was an important ordinance. It was an emergency. Some areas are big enough for such a store. She didn't want any to be vested. Crawford asked what happens after the six months interim is over. He asked what the County is working on during this six months. Brenner stated they are working on Comprehensive Plan amendments, which is in the ordinance. Councilmember Fleetwood brought forward a zoning text amendment that would deal with this. Other things are in the process. Crawford stated he doesn't recall anything related to square footage of retail establishments in the commercial zone in any of the work plans for the Planning Department. Fleetwood stated he filed a related zoning text application in June 2006. It was docketed. The Planning staff is swamped this year, but usually the staff will issue a staff report to the Council in April. The staff is behind, but it's still pending and staff is working on it. McShane stated he would like to see a report on whether something the size of 75,000 square feet can be developed anywhere. There are other limitations beyond the commercial zone. Overlays may apply. He's not sure that Councilmember Fleetwood's zoning text amendment is consistent with what Councilmember Brenner is trying to do. They should review it. If the Council Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 14 229 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. wants to go into a different direction, it may need to emergency docket a zoning text amendment, pending what they find out. Find out what really can happen in the county. If the Council wants to go forward with what Councilmember Fleetwood has suggested, then go with that. If the Council wants to do something else, then approve an emergency docket item. Handle this appropriately. The Council needs a staff report on the status. Crawford stated the point is that there should be some goal. Another possible goal is to wait until there is a conclusion to Ferndale's moratorium before deciding if this is necessary in the county. Nelson stated the Council must either say that it doesn't want box stores in the rural area, or say that box stores are allowed with certain criteria. Those are the two things that the Council should look at. Crawford stated the County has general commercial zoning that allows for unlimited square footage. Nelson stated they are not connected to urban areas. They are still rural areas. Before this expires, the Planning Committee should discuss it. Staff isn't going to know what to do with this issue. Crawford stated the gateway industrial zone has a limit of 10,000, which may be expanded up to 35,000 square feet. Capping the general commercial at 35,000 square feet may be something that the Planning staff could consider. Brenner stated the moratorium is to give the County time to work with other jurisdictions. If it moves to one of the small cities, the County is going to have major regional impacts. She read from the ordinance. McShane stated they must simply find out where these could go according to the current zoning. Then, they can figure out whether they need to do anything. Brenner stated she agreed. She asked the administration if the staff could put together such a report. CONSENT AGENDA Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through six, eight, and nine. The agenda title of item nine was amended, but the documents in the Council packet are correct. Nelson stated he voted against item ten in committee, but he will not withdraw it from the Consent Agenda. Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through six, eight, and nine carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #07-13 FOR DELIVERY AND SUPPLY OF ASPHALTIC EMULSIONS (ROAD OIL) FOR Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 15 230 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. USE ON VARIOUS COUNTY ROADS, BY THE TWO LOWEST BIDDERS, MCASPHALT INDUSTRIES AND PARAMOUNT PETROLEUM, IN AN ANTICIPATED AMOUNT FOR THE YEAR OF APPROXIMATELY $700,000 (AB2007-141) 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #07-14 FOR DELIVERY AND SUPPLY OF ASPHALTIC MIXES FOR USE ON VARIOUS COUNTY ROADS, BY ACCEPTING ALL BIDS AND PERMITTING SELECTION OF THE VENDOR THAT HAS THE BEST VALUE BASED ON PRICE AND COST TO TRANSPORT THE PRODUCT TO THE JOB SITE, IN AN ANTICIPATED AMOUNT FOR THE YEAR OF APPROXIMATELY $200,000 (AB2007-142) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF ELECTION ENVELOPES FROM THE SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER, K & H INTEGRATED PRINT SOLUTIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,916.68 (AB2007-143) 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF TWO-WAY RADIO SYSTEMS USED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 (AB2007-144) S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND COLUMBIA VALUATION GROUP, INC. FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR FIVE FARMS APPLYING FOR THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,000 (AB2007-145) 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM LAND TRUST FOR THEIR CONTINUING ASSISTANCE IN THE WHATCOM COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM, WITH A MINIMUM FEE OF $3,000 PER EASEMENT, OR A 6% FEE ON THE FIRST $150,000 OF EACH EASEMENT PRICE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) AND A 4% FEE ON THE PRICE OF EACH EASEMENT OVER $150,000 (AB2007-146) 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM TO SHARE EQUALLY THE COSTS FOR DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING STRATEGY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 (AB2007-147) Crawford moved to approve the request. Brenner stated she is against the proposal unless the Council has the final decision on the consultant. The Council was told that it shall authorize and approve the final consultant selection. This is the Council's business. She brought it up at budget time, and was told that consultant selection would come to the Council for an opportunity to weigh in. She won't approve this if the Council can't have a say in the consultant selection. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 16 231 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. Fleetwood stated some members of the Council had an expectation about this during the budget process. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Fleetwood continued to state that it's the Executive's prerogative to make the selection. However, in the name of a political compromise and to get the processing moving forward, it was agreed that the Council would authorize the selection made by Executive Kremen and Mayor Douglas. Personally, he just wants to get the consultant selected. He doesn't care if the Council makes the final selection. Get going on the selection of the consultant. Crawford stated the critical element, which is the scope of work, shall be approved by the City and County councils, according to the language. Therefore, any additional language doesn't need to be added. He is highly skeptical about any good this project could do. However, he will support funding and interlocal agreement because the Council already agreed to do the project. Brenner stated that at budget time, the County Executive agreed to bring it back to the Council. It's a big deal to her. Caskey-Schreiber asked why it's such a big deal to Councilmember Brenner. It's the City of Bellingham's problem. They should pick the consultant. Brenner stated she's worked on affordable housing issues for a long time. If she's going to take ownership if what they do and spend, she would like to feel comfortable with who is selected. She is fine with confirming an Executive appointment. She moved to amend the language at the end of section 2, "The County Council shall approve the final consultant selection." Nelson asked if the Executive has any problem coming before the Council, before final selection, to see if the selected consultant would have Council support. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated Mayor Douglas expressed concerns because they have aggressive timelines. The Mayor doesn't want to elongate the process. He agrees with the Mayor. He understands Councilmember Brenner's desire to scrutinize this issue. In the spirit of working with the City and trying to meet these timelines, it's in the best interest of all to not approve the motion to amend. Brenner stated at least half of the task force members seem to be miffed about their role. Much attention is paid to getting this done according to the timeline. Not as much attention is being paid to the involvement of the parties who are supposed to be involved. That isn't in anyone's best interest. The person who chaired the last task force meeting didn't let her even discuss the issues. She wasn't allowed to participate. People who came to the meeting weren't allowed to say anything, either. This has not been as open and inclusive as it was supposed to be. She's getting nervous about this, which is why she is more insistent about being involved. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 17 232 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. Caskey-Schreiber stated it's up to the Council to implement any policy recommendations that the task force brings forward. The Council will still be the entity to amend the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and adopt any policies to incorporate their recommendations. The Council has the final say. Let the Executive and Mayor pick the consultant, and get it done. Brenner stated that after the money has been spent is not a good time to have a final say. They need to say something throughout the process. Motion to amend failed 1-6 with Brenner in favor. McShane stated the critical issue is the scope of work, after the consultant is chosen. Make sure they have their thinking caps on and work hard when the scope comes before the Council. Motion to approve carried 5-2 with Brenner and Nelson opposed. 8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,000 (AB2007-148) 9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL JAIL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $202,720 (AB2007-149) 10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WILSON ENGINEERING, LLC FOR THE CABLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,639, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $445,404 (AB2007-150) Crawford moved to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. 11. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO DECLARE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2158 SOUTH NUGENT ROAD, LUMMI ISLAND, WA AS SURPLUS (AB2007-153) Crawford stated the administration withdrew this item from the agenda. OTHER ITEMS 1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THE DICKSON FARM PROPERTY (AB2007-140) McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve the resolution. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 18 233 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. Motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT BOARD'S FUNDING RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S REQUEST FOR A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,100,000 FOR THE NEW WHATCOM WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (AB2007-151) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the request. This is the first time they are designating a set -aside amount of money, subject to further requests from the City. He is not comfortable tying up the rural sales tax rebate in this manner. He would not rule out potential funding of projects related to the waterfront redevelopment project, but would like to look at those specific proposals one at a time, so he can consider them on their own merit. He will not support the motion. The City's request is to set aside Economic Development Investment (EDI) funds from which the City of Bellingham can draw over the next five years, as long as the project be consistent with the goals and objectives of the EDI program. The City seems to want to pay for planning. One option is for the City to present more project -specific requests. That's what he's looking for. He also likes funding requests that have some immediacy to them. The City of Ferndale's proposal project is supposed to be done this October. He likes knowing precisely what the money will pay for. He also likes the loan/grant combination. Brenner stated planning is good, but she could not grasp the specifics. It sounds like they are planning for a city. The City can come back and ask for money for a specific project, which she would support. If the County does this in this way, it will be open to other requests that will be nebulous and unspecific. Don't set that precedent. Caskey-Schreiber stated documents say that funding will match the Port of Bellingham's contribution for consulting services to prepare the New Whatcom Master Plan, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and Development Regulations. This is a huge undertaking. There will be an enormous cost to address just the EIS. She supports the request. They are going to invoice the County as these expenditures happen. This is a good initial investment. Weimer stated he is in favor of this request. His concern is about whether this is legal. The EDI legislation specifically says that this money has to go to specific projects that are already included in the Comprehensive Plan. They are being asked to promise $1 million to something that isn't well-defined. He asked if anyone considered the EDI's State rules. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated they have looked at that question. The original application was for $1.1 million each from the EDI fund and the Port for a master plan and EIS. That appeared that it fit within the context of that law. The Attorney General opinion is that the funds can be used for planning efforts. The County has funded smaller projects that have done similar things in the past. He explained the background of the application. The Council will approve the expenditures from this funding, in the form of future applications, for the activities associated with the waterfront development project. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 19 234 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 it would make more sense to put each project through the EDI process. Desler stated the applications come through the Economic Development Council (EDC), to the County administration. The administration will set up EDI board meetings to discuss the applications, which are then presented, with recommendations, to the County Council. Once the County Council approves a particular application, the administration will build the contract, and then bring that contract before the Council again. The EDI Board did not make a recommendation to specifically support the City of Bellingham application. The EDI Board supports the concept of setting aside $1.1 million. Brenner asked why they are setting up this process, rather than go through the regular EDI process each time. Desler stated they will go through the EDI process each time. Nelson stated the City is looking for a financial commitment. McShane stated the EDI Board never got to vote on this proposal. There was never a motion to support it. There may have been some concern by the City of Bellingham that they weren't going to vote in favor of funding these items. The Mayor made the motion at the EDI Board to get assurance that the County would support specific projects through the EDI fund. Those projects will still have to come before the Council for final approval. The Council will have an opportunity to deny specific projects. There will be plenty of projects that the Council should be happy to fund. This will help the City make cost projections. Motion carried 6-1 with Crawford opposed. 3. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT BOARD'S FUNDING RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY OF FERNDALE'S REQUEST FOR A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $504,900 AND A LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,026,000 FOR THE CENTENNIAL RIVERFRONT PROJECT (AB2007-152) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 3.08, PURCHASING SYSTEM, SETTING REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNCIL/EXECUTIVE APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS RESULTING FROM PROJECT BASED BUDGET APPROVAL AND SMALL WORKS (AB2007-133) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated the motion to recommend approval failed unanimously. He moved to adopt the ordinance. Brenner stated this has nothing to do with the administration, with whom she gets along well. It has to do with her need to get intricately involved in what the Council is supposed to. The Council had this authority. The delay would be only two weeks. It would make the process more transparent to the public and the Council. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 20 235 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. Motion failed 1-6 with Brenner in favor, S. APPOINTMENT TO THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ALTERNATE POSITION, STEVE SEYMOUR APPLICANT (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) (AB2007-136) McShane moved to appoint Steve Seymour. Motion carried unanimously. INTRODUCTION ITEMS Brenner moved to accept Introduction Item one and the revised ordinance regarding the aquatic resource management district. Motion carried unanimously. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2007 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, THIRD REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,223,888 (AB2007-154) 2. RESOLUTION TO SELL SURPLUS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2158 SOUTH NUGENT ROAD, LUMMI ISLAND, WA (AB2007-153A) This item was withdrawn from the agenda. 3. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BIRCH BAY WATERSHED AND AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (REVISED VERSION) (AB2007-113A) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) OTHER BUSINESS Caskey-Schreiber stated the administration should fire Security Specialists Plus (SSP). A three-year old boy was chased by a pit bull when it broke through the neighbor's fence. The mother called SSP, which did not respond for two weeks. When SSP responded, they did nothing. The mother is terrified of having this happen again, because the fence is still broken. SSP went back out to the location so the mother could fill out the formal complaint form. There are many horrific examples of substandard service. She asked why the County continues to do business with people who don't do the job that they were hired to do. There have been many contract violations over the years. There is no adoption program, volunteer program, and unlicensed people were doing euthanasia. There have been weird euthanasia practices. Get someone who will do the job well in a public, visual, respectful, and professional manner. The public deserves that. Brenner stated she was out there all day Friday and Saturday. SSP was out there on Thursday, also. All the neighbors told her that SSP said they wouldn't be able to do anything, even if they found neglect or abuse, because they can't handle an animal bigger Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 21 236 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. than a dog. The SSP contract says they are supposed to handle all animals. The administration is extremely concerned about this. She learned a lot about what happened to these llamas. It was really horrible. The County needs to do something quickly. There is a hazard out there if they don't. This is an emergency. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County government is involved in many services to the community. The County is to provide services to deal with problems created by bad animal owners. There are many other issues for which the County must provide services, including child abuse, people with disabilities, communicable disease, road safety, and many other important things. They have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this service. They would love to have good owners and not have to spend as many resources as they do on law enforcement and animal control. However, they will. They have been working with the Sheriff and the Executive on this matter every day this past week. They were shocked by the llama story, and it's a test of SSP's operation. If SSP's performance is not adequate, then the administration will make a recommendation to the Council. They need a little more time to investigate the abuse and neglect, as well SSP's poor performance. He will talk with the Council again in two weeks. Crawford stated they must be cautious, and wait until after the Sheriff and, if necessary, the Prosecutor investigate. It seems that it would be simple for the contractor to start a job ticket or file on every complaint registered. He asked why there is a problem with not having any record after folks call and call. That's fundamental to any business. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he taking this issue extremely seriously. He is disappointed. Last week, he asked the Sheriff to investigate the allegations and charges about the repeated and numerous non -responsive calls and requests on the part of the public. He is very disturbed and dissatisfied about that. He is also dissatisfied about the unresponsiveness, the lack of record keeping over a long period of time, and the unprofessional demeanor and approach of some of the employees. He has had good things to say about some of the employees, but they've had numerous complaints about the unprofessional demeanor and approach on the part of some of the employees. He asked the Sheriff to investigate the non -responsiveness over the long haul. He was told by Sheriff Elfo that the Sheriff would be willing to do that, but it would be after the criminal investigation of the llama case. He also conveyed to the Sheriff that he wants to have the llama owner to be vigorously and aggressively pursued criminally. They are looking at ways to vastly improve the service. Whether or not that will dictate a termination of the contract remains to be seen. They are certainly not ruling that out. Everything is on the table. He talked to the Sheriff about alternative ways to address animal control and animal shelter. Caskey-Schreiber stated this is the icing on the cake with her relationship with them. She keeps bringing up complaints that she hears from the public. Then she gets a letter telling her she needs to get a license for her dogs when SSP doesn't have time to call back someone who has called them 12 times on an issue. Crawford stated that's not related. Caskey-Schreiber stated it is related. She feels like she was harassed. Brenner stated she didn't get a letter. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 22 237 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. Caskey-Schreiber asked how many other councilmembers got letters telling them to license their dogs. Crawford stated some of them obey the law. He has two dogs, and he licenses them because the law says that he's supposed to. Brenner stated the law says they are supposed to do it every year. She didn't know that. Caskey-Schreiber stated this is SSP's mode of operation. If people bring up a complaint against them, then they go after the people, instead of just doing their job. It's really frustrating. Crawford stated he agrees that it's prudent to allow the Sheriff and Prosecutor to work on this. He appreciates the Executive's support on this. The evidence is building that the County's contractor is really failing the County. However, keep in mind that the animal control contractor is not responsible for dogs biting children. The animal control specialist is responsible for responding to those situations and taking appropriate, documented, corrective action. The County needs to hold them accountable. Crawford stated he thanked the Council Chair for having a moment of silence in memory of Joan Beardsley. He gained a respect for her in a short period of time. She was eloquent had clarity of thought. He didn't always agree with her, but that's politics. That didn't affect his level of respect for her. It is a loss to the community. His best wishes go out to her family and friends. McShane stated he went door belling with her when she ran for her position on the City Council. She hadn't done it before. After a block and a half, it was clear that she was much loved in the community. Serving the community was a positive experience for her and the community. The community appreciated her service. Fleetwood stated he came to know her through their shared work on affordable housing. He will miss her very much. Brenner stated she would talk about the following item, and then talk about Joan Beardsley. DISCUSSION REGARDING REVISIONS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.05, ON - SITE SEWAGE REGULATIONS, THAT WERE ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER, 2006, AS ORDINANCE 2006-056 (AB2007-138) Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated the committee received positive feedback. She will work with the councilmembers and the County Executive on some proposals for the Health Board, which might be able to take some of the burden off the homeowners and still comply with the State law. Regarding Joan Beardsley, she's known her for about 25 years. She knew her husband Dick. She was on the City Planning Commission before she was on the City Council. She had no special interests or agenda. She would go talk to anyone and went everywhere. She genuinely wanted to know how everyone felt. Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 23 238 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 Joan Beardsley was articulate and well -respected in the community. She demonstrated that one could still contribute and participate, no matter what situations are happening in one's life. While in Washington D.C., he advocated for healthcares access. A bill would be reintroduced in this legislative session that is almost designed for this community. He just got word that Representative Rick Larsen is co -sponsoring that bill. It is the Communities Building Access Act. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.) Nelson continued to state he hopes they will become a demonstration community that cares about its people. Caskey-Schreiber stated Joan Beardsley loved being an elected official. When her cancer returned, she debated whether not to continue treatment, because she didn't want to leave the City Council position. She had a lot of respect for Mrs. Beardsley because she believed her duty to the citizens was more important than taking care of her own health. The city of Bellingham has suffered a huge loss. The best way to honor her is to do what they can for Lake Whatcom. That was an issue about which she felt strongly. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he commends Councilmember Weimer's wisdom and intuition in asking for the moment of silence. He has known Joan Beardsley and, more closely, her husband Dick, for years. He worked with Dick Beardsley when they worked in the news media. The thing that made Joan Beardsley extra special was her passion and a smidgeon of genuine naivete mixed in with her intelligence. It made her a very special person. Neither he nor this community will forget the good she did during her short time on the Bellingham City Council. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk 2007. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 3/13/2007, Page 24 239 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 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 March 27, 2007 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. items. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Laurie Caskey-Schreiber L. Ward Nelson Nelson moved to go into executive session for 30 minutes to discuss the agenda Motion carried 6-0 with Crawford out of the room. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP06-0021) REQUESTED BY KINDER MORGAN CANADA, FILED BY EC HOFFMAN TRUST (AB2006-472) 2. DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR ROYCE BUCKINGHAM REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (AB2007-018) 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 2007. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Council Chair Committee of the Whole, 3/27/2007, Page 1 240 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 Regular County Council March 27, 2007 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Laurie Caskey-Schreiber L. Ward Nelson FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS Absent: None 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP06-0021) REQUESTED BY KINDER MORGAN CANADA, FILED BY EC HOFFMAN TRUST (AB2006-472) Weimer stated the Committee of the Whole discussed this item in executive session. Nelson moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. Motion carried 6-1 with McShane opposed. Weimer stated the Committee of the Whole held a discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor Royce Buckingham regarding pending litigation (AB2007-018) in executive session. MINUTES CONSENT Fleetwood moved to approve the Minutes Consent items. Motion carried unanimously. 1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 27, 2007 2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 27, 2007 OPEN SESSION Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 1 241 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 following people spoke: Kris Ungern, 2095 North Shore Road, Bellingham, stated a new interim ordinance imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of new applications for subdivisions within the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2007-158) is being introduced on the Council agenda this evening. This began in January, 2005. He asked when the moratorium will end. The public needs to know the status of promised efforts to evaluate the impact of future development on water quality, as measured by phosphorus loading and dissolved oxygen. Further development is being held hostage by the long -promised, but never- ending, total maximum daily load (TMDL) study. He asked the status of the Stormwater Management Plan, the transfer of development rights (TDR) program, zoning density and development standard review within the urban growth area (UGA), and land acquisition program. He asked why they would exempt larger parcels. Cluster development for large subdivisions seems to be a bigger issue than the small lots affected by the moratorium. The Council must do a better job of informing the public and hold public hearings before adopting the controversial ordinances. Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset Drive, Bellingham, submitted a map of the Yew Street Road area (on file). Annexation will be difficult in that area due to parcelization. In 1997, the Comprehensive Plan assumed that 75 percent of all the parcels in the urban growth area would be developed, occupied and annexed at a density of four to 18 units per acre. However, a small part of the urban growth area (UGA) developed at an average of two units per acre. People moved out to the county instead of the City and urban growth area. In 2002, they decided that 85 percent of the parcels would fully develop at a density of six to 24 units per acre. However, people are still moving out of Bellingham to areas in the county. Mauri Ingram, Trillium, submitted a letter (on file) and stated she will speak on the Comprehensive Plan docket applications 2007-L and 2007-M. She read her letter into the record. Don Shepherd, 4518 Wall Street, Bellingham, stated he thanks the Council and Executive for their help. They live in a democratic system. Wall Street belongs to all of them. He asked the Council to do what the Executive wants done on Wall Street. Andy Mesches, Cabrant Road, Everson, stated a great quantity of muddy water is rushing down a hillside onto his property. A business card from a forester with Sierra Pacific was left on his door. There is a deep, new gully that cuts into his land. Farther upstream, on Sierra Pacific land, a culvert has been positioned directly at his property. A stream has been redirected onto his property, forcefully depositing mud and water on his property and eroding the hillside. Because of the new stream placement, setback requirements make any additions to his one -bedroom house impossible. The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) denied jurisdiction, which is why he is here. He has not found any application on the part of Sierra Pacific to do this. The representative of Sierra Pacific has tried to negotiate with him about where and how to put the stream on his own land, which is ridiculous. The Council should exercise oversight, prevent further damage, and rectify what has been done. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated it was brought to his attention that there is some severe erosion in this area on Saturday morning. He has talked to the Sierra Pacific Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 2 242 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. representative. He is not impressed with Sierra Pacific's response so far. He's talked with Bill Wallace at the DNR today. There is definitely a problem. They are working on a solution. Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated there are stormwater problems all over the county. A bunch of agencies have fowled up, and everybody blames everyone else. Don't allow the previous speaker to get stuck in his situation. Jack Kintner, Point Roberts Press, stated the Council and Executive are on the right course regarding animal control. They must observe due process. Also, there is a need for oversight and also need for speed and dispatch. The family he wrote about is still spending the night in their driveway. It doesn't have a lot to do with Security Specialists Plus (SSP), but somebody needs to be able to help right away. There are many animals in Whatcom County. They need due process to select the right contractor, and they need oversight over whoever is doing the work. Support the letter that Councilmember Caskey-Schreiber will present. Sharon Crosier, Bellingham, stated many people are waiting for the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study, for many different reasons. The nature of an emergency moratorium is that it has an urgency. Don't apologize for doing the right thing. The mistake was in allowing a well -organized opposition to make them back down. Prevent the demise of the city's drinking water. Stop the idea that the watershed is a toy or a place to make money. Protect the Lake Whatcom watershed and drinking water. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BIRCH BAY WATERSHED AND AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (AB2007-113A) (Council acting as the Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors) Weimer stated the hearing was left open from the meeting on March 13. The following people spoke: Dennis Corfee, 920 Jersey Street, Bellingham, stated he owns property at North Star Road. The people of the Birch Bay community will enjoy the benefit of this district and should pay for it, not the people in the Ferndale area or others who are a long way away. Rick Thorinson, 3609 Grandview Road, stated he recently drove around Birch Bay. It is much different, with much more construction than before. Trillium is planning a large construction project. He lives four miles away. The density at his house is one house per five acres to one house on 100 acres. They don't much affect the stormwater. He was told that this is everyone's problem, and there will be projects that will affect him, but he doesn't believe that will happen. This is a group of Birch Bay folks trying to solve problems in Birch Bay, caused by rampant development in Birch Bay. People who won't receive a benefit are being asked to pay. Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 3 243 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. Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated the district has a wide area because it is the drainage area. Birch Bay does pay for things that the residents don't benefit from. Everyone must work together. There is farmland near Birch Bay that have caused torrents of water in the ditches that go into Terrell Creek. He's seen more water surging down Terrell Creek, even though they are put into holding ponds. He was disappointed with how the Hearing Examiner handled the whole thing. Stormwater is a real problem. People resist it. Keats Garmon, 8710 Ortell Drive, Blaine, stated he supports the formation of the district. It will be effective in preventing further deterioration of the bay and to reduce damage to residents' properties. There may be a need to amend the boundaries to not include people who are already taxed for stormwater in another district, but go forward with establishing the district now. Two recommendations in the Stormwater Management Plan should be implemented immediately because of large impacts of ongoing develop in the area. The recommendations are for a tree removal and retention ordinance and a low impact development ordinance. Council action on these two items will help to reduce future negative impacts of development. The next controversial issue will be about the assessments needed to pay for the district's improvement activities. Some residents in the district may already pay taxes for stormwater control in their area, through ditch district fees. It would be unfair to tax these residents twice. Eliminate the taxes that Birch Bay watershed residents pay for Nooksack flood control as the new district assessments are implemented. Do not tax them twice for the same kind of service. Create a tax appeal procedure for residents of the proposed district, based on income, significant and effective property owner improvements in stormwater control, and other reasons. One idea is to reduce or eliminate assessments of owners with large open space tracts, as an incentive to not convert these area for development. Ellie Friedlob, 6934 Holeman Avenue, stated she supports the plan. Include the entire Whatcom County in the process. The Birch Bay resource belongs to everyone, not just the people who live around Birch Bay. Mike Winters, 6255 North Star Road, stated there are more issues than just stormwater. The Birch Bay group has come up with better ideas about how they will impact people who are farther away. People who are farther away from the bay appreciate that. The problems with the bay may also be caused by failing septic systems and other problems. It's not just about stormwater. He suggested that the County look at what Pierce County has done to capture stormwater. They are viable options to slow down stormwater going into Birch Bay. For instance, buy property and put in regional retention ponds. Have the new construction pay a user fee so the County can get its money back. New development should pay for it. Also, the Washington State University Beach Watchers program could be involved in Birch Bay. Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing. Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 4 244 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. Weimer stated this ordinance is to just set the district boundary. The County is in the process of hiring a consultant to develop fees for the district. Brenner stated she would like to hold this item until they can work with the consultant and have the fee formula in place. She went to a meeting about this last week, and all they talked about was this happening in Birch Bay. The notice that went out said that they want the input of Birch Bay residents. This is a good opportunity to reach out to the rest of the watershed. Make sure there is a level of comfort about what's going on before defining the boundary. Nelson asked staff if there are any other senior districts in the area. Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Bruce Roll, Public Works Department, stated there are other districts in this area. The intent of this district is to implement this plan. The other districts have other goals and charges. There is no intent to double tax anyone. Staff intends to work with the other districts. However, there are shared responsibilities and goals in place to enhance and support a watershed approach to managing Birch Bay water. Nelson stated he agrees with Councilmember Brenner's concerns about involving the local community. It seems like they are putting the cart before the horse. He questions how much involvement there has been with the people who are not directly in the Birch Bay community. They need to have that process in place. Crawford stated he is in favor of the ordinance. When dealing with the fee structure, create a tiered fee structure, depending on distance from the bay. He asked if the State law allows such a tiered fee structure in that way. Roll stated those options are on the table for consideration. There must be a nexus about what is financially acquired from each person in the district, no matter where they are, and its relationship to the service provided. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Roll continued to state that they must legally demonstrate that they are providing a service for all the individuals who are assessed. The tiered approach is often used in areas. This is a novel approach to setting up a stormwater utility. Most stormwater utilities are set up by political boundary. However, this is the best approach because they are managing the watershed. They are dealing with how everyone in the watershed influences water quality throughout the watershed. Weimer asked if setting boundaries needs to be done before working with the consultant. Roll stated they can delay this, but it will be difficult to write the scope of work without the boundaries. Annually, they will readopt these assessment structures. The Council can change the assessment structure and boundaries every year. McShane stated he supports adopting the area. Include the comments they received about determining appropriate and equitable fees. He has concerns about the fee structure in terms of distance. The fee should be different for properties with impervious surface Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 5 245 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. versus rural, five acre parcels that can fully disperse their stormwater. The fee should be less for people who voluntarily do tree retention for the purpose of stormwater reduction. He asked that minutes from all Council meeting discussions be included in the consultant's information. Caskey-Schreiber stated that everyone needs to get involved. It needs to be a watershed approach. Don't adjust the boundary to meet political needs. A watershed is what it is. Get everyone involved in the solution. She doesn't think it will be as burdensome as they think. No matter what the Council does, there are always people who come late to the table and say they didn't know about it. She doesn't know how to get around that. Brenner stated she agrees that a watershed boundary is the best way to do the district. However, this was done for and by the Birch Bay community. She appreciates their work, but the plan doesn't talk about anything outside of the Birch Bay community, other than what flows into Birch Bay. There is no discussion of anything away from the Birch Bay community. There should be a level of trust by the people who have not been included. The notice never mentioned those who live in the Ferndale area or other areas. The people need to feel ownership of this district by the time the Council begins dealing with the assessment. Weimer stated he agrees that it needs to be a watershed approach. Nelson stated part of the area lies in an industrial zone. He asked if those owners will also be involved. They have much impervious surface. Roll stated all the parcels in the management area were sent notices. There is a lot of work to do pertaining to the industries, especially if the fee is based on amount of impervious surfaces. Some of them already have their own discharge permits, and other things. There will need to be a lot of discussion about what is fair to charge those who have existing stormwater facilities. Nelson stated it's important to have a process. Create a mechanism to allocate funds according to a priority. Brenner stated the language in the notice that went to the owners invites the "affected people in the Birch Bay community." It should invite people in the Birch Bay watershed, not the Birch Bay community. People in Ferndale don't live in the Birch Bay community. They wouldn't pay attention to a notice like this. She will not support this ordinance. She supports what is going on with the Birch Bay community. This is a perfect opportunity to let those outside the community, but in the watershed, have time to find out what's going on. She doesn't know if they would agree in the end, but the Council has lost the trust of those people. Nelson stated he trusts that there will be a good process in the community. He will support the ordinance. Motion to adopt carried 6-1 with Brenner opposed, CONSENT AGENDA Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 6 246 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. Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through ten. Weimer withdrew item ten. Brenner withdrew item eight. Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through seven and nine carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #06-119 TO THE LOWEST BIDDER, BLYTHE PLUMBING & HEATING, INC. FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE AIR COOLED CHILLER AT THE COURTHOUSE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $99,446.16 (AB2007-161) 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #07-18 TO THE LOWEST BIDDER, WHATCOM BUILDERS, INC. FOR ANNUAL HOT MIX ASPHALT PRELEVEL PROJECTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $507,975.30 (AB2007- 162) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LAKE WHATCOM CENTER TO SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF PROVIDING 40 SPONSOR BASED SHELTER PLUS CARE RENTAL UNITS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,960 (AB2007-163) 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNSELING & PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC TO PROVIDE ONGOING MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, INCLUDING JAIL CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, ADMINISTRATION OF A HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM, GLADSTONE HOUSE, AND PEER COUNSELOR OUTREACH PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $121,778 (AB2007-164) 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNSELING & PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC TO PROVIDE ONGOING MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, INCLUDING ELDER -GATEKEEPER SERVICES AND AN ACTIVITY CENTER AT THE RAINBOW CENTER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $118,809 (AB2007-165) 6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF WESTERN WASHINGTON NORTHWEST TO PROVIDE CASE MANAGEMENT AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES TO FAMILIES THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED THROUGH EXISTING SYSTEMS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,900 (AB2007-166) 7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SUN Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 7 247 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. COMMUNITY SERVICES TO PROVIDE SUPERVISED RESIDENTIAL BEDS FOR MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS, REFERRED BY THE JAIL DIVERSION PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000 (AB2007-167) 8. RESOLUTION AMENDING CRP NO. 999022 FOR PHASE II — CABLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO COLACURCIO BROTHERS, INC. AS LOW BIDDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,235,560.50 (AB2007-168) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the request. Nelson stated he's already stated his reason for not approving this resolution. Brenner stated the Council gave the administration direction to work with the neighbors on a solution. The people from the administration who were supposed to be the experts told the Council that they had worked out a solution with the neighbors that would provide the same benefit for the money spent. She doesn't like either of the solutions. They are both experimental and are multi -million dollar projects. Since the two options are almost equal, do what the neighbors want. The road is too narrow for the swale. Do not do the swale. It will create a hazard in that area. Crawford stated he does not support the swale option, but understands that the project needs to be done. They've had lengthy discussions over the past months, and the majority of the Council is resolute in it's decision about swale option on Wall Street, so he will support the entire contract award. Brenner stated she tried to implement low impact development options for people in the Lake Whatcom watershed for years. This is the perfect example of where she can't get something like that, that has a low or no cost to the County, through. Now, the engineers are developing big experimental projects that cost millions of dollars. Motion to approve carried 5-2 with Brenner and Nelson opposed. 9. RESOLUTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING ONE-WAY DETOURS RELATED TO THE CABLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (AB2007-169) 10. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING TO DECLARE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2158 SOUTH NUGENT ROAD, LUMMI ISLAND, AS SURPLUS (AB2007-153) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the resolution. Brenner stated there was a presentation in the Public Works Committee. Initially, the people with the Lummi Island Community Land Trust had an option to buy the Carlisle property at a discounted price. The County took over that discounted option with the understanding that the Land Trust would be able to use the house. The County purchased the properties with road funds. Now, the administration is saying that the house can't be used for the Land Trust's purposes because those purposes aren't allowed by the road fund. Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 8 am 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 Land Trust has always said what it wanted to use the house for, but the County never said in the beginning that the house couldn't be used for those purposes. The committee would like more information to see if there is a way that the Land Trust can use the property, at no cost to the County, for the public purposes that it intended. She moved to hold in Public Works Committee until they get those answers. Weimer stated he will support the motion. There was a lot of discussion in committee about whether the land swap was in good faith, and whether the proposal for public use of the house was in good faith. No one seemed to know about how the use of the road fund to buy the house would impact the Land Trust's ability to use the house until after the proposals came in. Motion to hold in committee carried 4-3 with Nelson, McShane, and Crawford opposed. OTHER ITEMS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2007 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, THIRD REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,223,888 (AB2007-154) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to adopt the substitute version of the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE KREMEN'S APPOINTMENT OF KATHLEEN MARSHALL TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY ETHICS COMMISSION (AB2007-170) Brenner moved to confirm the appointment. Motion carried unanimously. 3. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE KREMEN'S APPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL ANDERSON TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2007-171) Caskey-Schreiber moved to confirm the appointment. She asked if this committee will begin to meet again. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he contacted the Whatcom Humane Society Director Penny Cistero a few weeks ago about restarting the committee. They are trying to get the vacant positions filled, including the veterinarian positions. There are two slots for two veterinarians. One veterinarian position is still open. Caskey-Schreiber stated that a veterinarian from Ferndale who spoke at the last Council meeting volunteered. Kremen stated he would accept her application. Someone from the Humane Society may also be interested. Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 9 249 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 Nancy Williams may be interested. She is an excellent veterinarian. Kremen stated those people need to send in applications. Anyone can apply. Motion carried unanimously. 4. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE KREMEN'S APPOINTMENT OF SUSAN KIRSCH TO THE AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2007- 172) McShane moved to confirm the appointment. Crawford asked about the residency requirements for this position. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated the position is for a citizen at -large, and is all encompassing. Motion carried unanimously. S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTIVE KREMEN'S APPOINTMENT OF FRANCES ARMINTROUT TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES BOARD (AB2007-173) Crawford moved to confirm the appointment. She is an amazing person who is worthy of this position. Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Crawford. She came to meetings for a year when she wasn't a member of the board. Now she wants to be re -appointed. Motion carried unanimously. 6 RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR 2007 (AB2006-090) McShane reported for the Natural Resources Committee on the following items: Docket #2007-E: Update Comp. Plan for consistency with Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (Committee recommends initiation) McShane moved to docket. Motion carried unanimously. Docket #2007-G: Comprehensive Agricultural Program Update (Committee recommends initiation McShane moved to docket. Motion carried unanimously. Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 10 250 1 2 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. Docket #2007-H: Agriculture to Rural Forestry for 39.5 acres on the Saxon Road (Committee recommends initiation) McShane moved to docket. Crawford stated he will vote for docketing, with reservations. He will look closely at the rural forestry use. When they allowed for retreats and meeting centers with overnight accommodations in the rural forestry zone, it was for specific educational purposes for forestry practices, not general environmental issues. He is concerned that, they will need to take a good look at the code to understand why they should take agricultural land out of agriculture and move this into the rural forestry zone. McShane stated the committee considered this carefully. It is a wrinkle in the agriculture and forestry issue. The property has high quality soils, but it also has a lot of steep slopes. It's a split parcel. Another issue that came up was about creating an additional development density. There was some thought of having approval conditioned. The applicant has no desire to create a new building site, and is talking about having a conservation easement to prevent that development in the future. The zoning change may not have any impact on the actual land use, other than to the nonconforming use permit. Motion carried unanimously, Docket #2007-I: Agriculture to Everson UGA for approximately 5.5 acres (Committee does not recommend initiation) McShane moved to docket. He is opposed to the motion. Motion failed 1-6 with Crawford in favor. Docket #2007-1: Agriculture to Lynden UGA for approximately 12 acres (Committee recommends initiation) McShane moved to docket. Nelson stated make sure that the Planning Commission and staff make sure that the urban growth areas contain all the infrastructure of a development. Motion carried 6-1 with Caskey-Schreiber opposed, Docket #2007-K: Rural Forestry to R10A for 20.11 acres on Paradise Valley Road (Committee does not recommend initiation) McShane moved to docket. He is opposed to the motion. Motion failed unanimously, Docket #2007-Q: Various text amendments related to the Lake Whatcom Watershed (Committee recommends initiation) McShane moved to docket. Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 11 251 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. Motion carried unanimously. Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee on the following items: Docket #2007-D: Birch Bay Subarea Plan (Committee recommends initiation) Brenner moved to docket. Motion carried unanimously. Docket #2007-F: Comprehensive Concurrency Management Program (Committee recommends initiation) Brenner moved to docket. Motion carried unanimously. Docket #2007-0: Fire protection and EMS in the Birch Bay UGA (Committee recommends initiation) Brenner moved to docket. Motion carried unanimously. Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee on the following items: Docket #2007-A: Bellingham Subarea Plan (Committee recommendation to be announced) Fleetwood moved to docket. The Committee recommends initiation. Motion carried unanimously. Docket #2007-B: 10-year UGA Review (Committee recommendation to be announced) Fleetwood moved to docket. The Committee recommends initiation. Motion carried unanimously, Docket #2007-C: Foothills Subarea Plan (Committee recommends initiation) Fleetwood moved to docket. Motion carried unanimously, Docket #2007-L: Bellingham UGA Study Area - 2,200 acres on Galbraith Mountain (Committee does not recommend initiation) Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 12 252 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. Fleetwood moved to docket. He is opposed to the motion. Motion failed unanimously. Docket #2007-M: The following amendments are proposed for the Cherry Point area: Cherry Point Major/Port Industrial UGA to Birch Bay UGA - 1,034 acres; Heavy Impact Industrial to UR4 - 857 acres; and Heavy Impact Industrial to Light Impact Industrial - 177 acres (Committee does not recommend initiation) Fleetwood moved to docket. He is opposed to the motion. Motion failed unanimously. Docket #2007-N: Residential to General Commercial (E. Pole Road) (Committee does not recommend initiation) Fleetwood moved to docket. Motion failed 3-4 with Fleetwood, Crawford, and Nelson in favor. Docket #2007-P: Cherry Point Pier Policy (Committee recommendation to be announced) Fleetwood moved to docket. The Committee recommends initiation. Motion carried 6-1 with Nelson opposed. (Clerk's Note: Discussion of the docketed items continued under Other Business.) PLEASE ADD TO COUNCIL, CORRESPONDENCE APPROVAL 1. LETTER PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER FLEETWOOD REGARDING NORTHWEST STRAITS FOUNDATION FUNDING (AB2007-029) Fleetwood moved to approve the letter. Crawford stated he is against the letter. There is a problem down there. They have the most amount of money to spend, ever. Yesterday, the House passed a $4 billion overage for the next two years. He questions whether it's responsible to support another $1 million request on this. He would have to know more about it. In the meantime, the State House of Representatives' action yesterday was irresponsible. Brenner stated she is in favor of the letter. It's a good expenditure of money. McShane stated he supports the letter. Puget Sound, as a resource, generates revenue on an annual basis, in the amount of approximately $2 billion to $4 billion. They aren't investing enough money in this area, given the economic return it provides. It's time to seriously invest in that resource. Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 13 253 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. Pete Kremen, County Executive, asked if the Council would allow him to sign the letter. He has a close relationship with Representative Prentice. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Kremen continued to state that his relationship may help get a positive response. Fleetwood stated he would be happy to include Executive Kremen's signature. Motion carried 6-1 with Crawford opposed. 2. MEMO PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER CASKEY-SCHREIBER REGARDING ANIMAL CONTROL (SSP) CONTRACT Caskey-Schreiber stated she has been contacted by many people. She's expressed her concerns to the Executive, Council, and to the public about the current animal control contract with Security Specialists Plus (SSP). It's important for the Council to say how it feels on this issue, for the record. It's been well -documented that the current provider is not doing an adequate job. Continuing an association with this organization will create future liabilities. She would like to send her proposed memo to the County Executive about terminating the contract with SSP for animal care, as Sheriff Elfo has recommended. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated they have been working on terminating the contract with SSP for quite some time. The Sheriff's report was written at his request. However, Sheriff Elfo advised Councilmember Caskey-Schreiber to not try to over -expedite the termination of the contract, so there would be a seamless transition and so the County can provide animal control and animal shelter services to the community. Caskey-Schreiber stated Sheriff Elfo did not advise her against that. The Sheriff just said that the current date they're working on, September 30, is probably the soonest that they could take over services. Brenner stated the memo just says that the Council agrees with the Sheriff's recommendation. It doesn't include a date. Crawford stated the memo is not necessary. He thanked Sheriff Elfo for expressing his position with candor in the memo. However, they are aware there are many sides to these issues. They don't need to dissect the whole thing. The current contractor was reluctant to renew the contract this year, and informed the County it would not renew the contract. The County had to convince the contractor to enter into the contract. With the latest round of events, it reinforced to the contractor a sense of regret that they'd agreed to the contract. Nonetheless, the contractor is working with the Executive and Sheriff toward a resolution. He respects the County administration for putting forward the best foot they can, in a positive way, to meet the needs of animal control in Whatcom County. It's not necessary for the Council to have some ceremonial or symbolic gesture of doing something. If the Council wants to specifically address the regulatory processes by which it handles animal control, then gather suggestions and put them on the table. The administration may want to come forward with some suggestions at some point. The contractor has some ideas on how the County can make animal control enforcement better. In the past, he's said that the details of that are best left to the administration to bring forward as recommended Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 14 254 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. changes in legislation. Changes should come from the Executive's Office. They are seeing proactive, responsible action on this issue by the County Executive's Office. He's not interested in making a ceremonial vote of endorsement of the Sheriff's recommendation. Brenner stated it's not anything ceremonial. She moved to amend the first sentence to read "The Whatcom County Council endorses Sheriff Bill Elfo's recommendation and the support from the County Executive to terminate the contract with Security Specialist Plus (SSP) for animal control and care services for Whatcom County." The memo is saying that the Council supports the Executive and Sheriff on this issue. Caskey-Schreiber accepted the motion as a friendly amendment. Weimer stated he supports this memo. They all want to have a seamless transition. This memo doesn't try to push anything forward that may create a transition that isn't seamless. It may be ceremonial, but the Council opinion will be on the record. Fleetwood stated he has great respect for Councilmember Caskey-Schreiber, but this seems to be an administrative function. He will support the memo, since they are including reference to the Executive. They are endorsing a now factual comment. He questions the fundamental purpose of the memo. Caskey-Schreiber stated she gets calls from the public every day who want to know where the Council stands and its role. This memo expresses the Council's stance. The Council will support the termination of this contract. It is no longer a provider that the Council can rely on to provide this service. It's been proven year after year. She's tired of this, and wants to get it done. She's advocating for getting a different provider. In 2006, their statistic was 1,000 animals. The prior five years, it was 2,000 animals per year. She questions what is going on. This is a growing population in Whatcom County. Many people are having problems with this organization, including the woman who waited two weeks for animal control to show up and investigate the pit bull that chased her three-year old child. When that pit bull gets a hold of the child, the woman will sue Whatcom County. Nelson stated Whatcom County had similar problems years ago. The Council had to make a tough decision. No one said anything bad about anything. The County went out for a contract to see if someone would provide better services. SSP stepped forward and helped to resolve these problems. In that time, the County has grown, and SSP has continued to meet that need. He was approached several times about concerns of inadequate funding and capacity for them to keep meeting that need. He should have perhaps worked harder with the administration to increase their funding and meet the growing needs of the community, so they wouldn't have this travesty. He feels bad that the contractor had to go through this problem. He feels worse that they have to deal with this now, in this fashion, instead of dealing with it as they did in the past, in a professional manner. The Council should let the administration put out a contract and do its job, instead of trying to make it into an arena. He apologizes for that. Brenner stated the people from SSP came to her about funding, too. In all fairness, they spoke to her about not having the resources to do a number of things. She is aware of those issues. At the time, she said that something needs to come forward from the administration. This memo isn't anything more than a statement for the councilmembers to Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 15 255 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. give to the public when they call. She needs to be able to say something to the public when they call. Motion carried 5-2 with Crawford and Nelson opposed. INTRODUCTION ITEMS Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items. Motion carried unanimously. Weimer stated Introduction Item number one was withdrawn from the agenda. 1. RESOLUTION TO SELL SURPLUS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2158 SOUTH NUGENT ROAD, LUMMI ISLAND, WA (AB2007-153A) 2. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2007-158) 3. ORDINANCE LIMITING, ON AN INTERIM BASIS, THE SIZE OF LARGE COMMERCIAL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITHIN WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2007-135A) 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE CITY OF EVERSON'S SOUTHEAST URBAN GROWTH AREA, FOR IMPROVED ACCESS TO THE EXISTING URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2007-174) S. ORDINANCE DESIGNATING TEMPORARY ONE-WAY DETOURS RELATED TO THE CABLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (AB2007-169A) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS McShane stated a citizen has made ongoing comments about not taking any action or making any efforts on the subdivision moratorium in the Lake Whatcom watershed. The Planning and Development Committee has actually made a fair bit of progress regarding the issues around the Bellingham urban growth areas and perhaps establishing new urban growth boundaries within the watershed and an overlay zone that would address that issue. Also, Andrew Mesches spoke at open session regarding stormwater runoff onto his property. He was contacted as a consultant by Mr. Mesches, and didn't know this would lead to a situation where the County has jurisdiction. It was a State Department of Natural Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 16 256 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. Resources (DNR) jurisdictional issue. An interim stream with a significant flow of water was diverted from one drainage to a completely new location, which is on his property. He hopes that his circumstances are taken seriously. There are two members of the Forest Practices Board in Whatcom County. The Board looks at forest practices and how they are implemented. He's not sure whether it's okay to divert a stream to a new location. There are impacts to Mr. Mesches and other folks who live downstream, including someone with an existing water right, who had the creek moved away from their water right. The Forest Practices Board may need to take a field trip to this location. There are other issues as well. This is a fundamental issue. He was surprised at how slowly it's being dealt with. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated some of the landowners in that area have experienced erosion due to recent heavy rains. He talked to representatives from Sierra Pacific and DNR. They have shown concern and seem somewhat motivated to resolve the issue. The Planning and Development Services Department is also working to resolve this problem. Weimer stated he is hosting a forum from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on April 12 regarding the idea of unincorporated area councils. Everyone is invited. The idea came from residents on Lummi Island who are interested in better organizing themselves into one voice. People in King County, who are doing this, will talk with them at the forum about their experiences. Cathy Berg will also talk about Birch Bay's activities. The impetus will be on the different unincorporated areas to form their own structure, if it gets that far. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated he would provide an update on the animal control issue. The Executive's Office, Sheriff's Office, and SSP have been working on issues. They met today. They've agreed to transition to a new animal control service provider. The administration has initiated the process to seek a new provider through a request for qualifications (RFQ) process. The administration expects to recommend to the Council a contract to deliver solid and positive animal shelter and animal control services into the future. SSP has agreed to work in a supportive and cooperative manner with the new animal services provider. In the coming weeks, his office and Sheriff Elfo will work closely with Mr. Gardner from SSP to improve animal control services and ensure active coordination with the Sheriff's Office personnel. OTHER ITEMS 6. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR 2007 (AB2006-090) Weimer stated that fees are associated with Docket items 2007-H and 2007-0. The applicants of those docket items need to let the County know about whether or not they want a fee waiver. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Brenner stated she attended a attended green building presentation at the Building Industry Association today, regarding light, porous, insulated concrete. They can be made into walls, and would cut down on a lot of noise between buildings. It's another element to help people with auditory screening. Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 17 257 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on , 2007. ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 3/27/2007, Page 18 258 WHA TCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007 - 158 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 3/19/2007 3/27/2007 Introduction Division Head: 4/10/2007 Public Heari De pi. Head. - Prosecutor: Purchasin /Bud et: &ecurive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT.• Ord. Imposing interim moratorium on new apps within Lake Whalcom Watershed ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: 4/10/2007 SUMMARYSTATEMENT 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.) Ordinance imposing an interim moratorium on the acceptance of new applications for subdivisions within the Lake Whatcom watershed COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION. 3/27/2007: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution AB2006-172 (A & B) Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at: www.co. whatcotn. wa.us/council. 259 SPONSORED BY; Consent PROPOSED BY: McShane INTRODUCTION DATE: March 27, 2007 ORDINANCE # IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED WHEREAS, oxygen levels in Lake Whatcom are declining to lower levels and declining faster than in the past; and WHEREAS, lower oxygen levels and more rapid decline in oxygen in Lake Whatcom are related to increased rates of sediment and phosphorus loading into the lake; and WHEREAS, increased availability of phosphorus has limited the nitrogen availability in the lake, making the lake more susceptible to blue-green algae blooms; and WHEREAS, longer durations of very low oxygen levels increase the rate of methylization of mercury and other anaerobic compounds; and WHEREAS, increased productivity in the upper waters of the lake lead to increased disinfection byproducts such as total trihalomethanes (TTHMs); and WHEREAS, longer durations of very low oxygen levels release phosphorus bound in the lake sediments resulting in increased availability of phosphorus and further increasing biological production in the lake; WHEREAS, Washington State Department of Ecology has listed Lake Whatcom as an impaired water body and placed Lake Whatcom on the federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list because of low oxygen levels; and WHEREAS, the 303(d) listing requires the establishment of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that designates loading capacity of the lake such that there will be no measurable change in oxygen levels from natural lake conditions; and WHEREAS, a TMDL requires meeting Water Quality Standards and, for lakes, the dissolved oxygen criteria is no decline from natural conditions; WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Ecology has used a decline of oxygen levels of no more than 0.2 mg/L as equivalent to natural conditions in the Lake Whatcom model for the TMDL; and WHEREAS, other pollutants identified and monitored within the Lake Whatcom watershed have the highest concentrations in the most developed areas of the watershed; and 260 WHEREAS, meeting the TMDL goals and improving oxygen levels in Lake Whatcom will require variety of comprehensive planning, pollution prevention, pollution reduction and technical approaches; and WHEREAS, continued development while the TMDL goals are established and while approaches for meeting those goals are developed will increase the size of the reductions and will increase the costs that will be necessary to meet the TMDL goals; and WHEREAS, Lake Whatcom County Code 20.71 establishes the Lake Whatcom Watershed as a Water Resource Protection Overlay District; and WHEREAS, Lake Whatcom is the drinking water source for approximately half the residents of Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, the preservation and protection of drinking water is a high priority for Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, Lake Whatcom County Code 20.71 establishes the Lake Whatcom Watershed as a Water Resource Protection Overlay District; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, adopted on May 20, 1997, establishes the Lake Whatcom watershed as a Special Study Area; and WHEREAS, Lake Whatcom is a valuable recreation lake for swimming, boating and fishing, and enhances the property values in the area as long as the lake maintains high water quality; and WHEREAS, declining oxygen levels poses a risk to the water quality of Lake Whatcom that could harm drinking water quality, recreational opportunities and, lake property values; and WHEREAS, actions required under the 303(d) listing and TMDL goals as well as declining water quality will cause a hardship to tax payers, local property owners in the watershed and water consumers if proactive planning and programs are not established prior to the establishment of the TMDL goals; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County SEPA Official issued a Determination of Non - significance on January 24, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Council makes the following findings of fact to justify its actions as required by RCW 36.70.795: 1. This interim subdivision moratorium is necessary to avoid future degradation of the Lake Whatcom watershed and the associated threat to the drinking water supply of approximately half of the citizens of Whatcom County as well as recreational and lake property values. 2. Without a moratorium additional development lots may be created within the Lake Whatcom Watershed that will lead to negative hydrologic and storm water impacts that may cause irreversible harm to Lake Whatcom and therefore cause harm to the health and welfare of the public. 261 3. The Whatcom County Council desires the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of future development in relation to reducing phosphorus loads to Lake Whatcom and meeting the TMDL goal of reversing the declining oxygen trends in Lake Whatcom. This evaluation may include but are not limited to the following: Storm water management plans, implementation and maintenance. N Storm water funding in the watershed. N Review existing zoning densities and development standards within the Bellingham Urban Growth Areas in the Lake Whatcom watershed. N Storm water management in areas that cross City of Bellingham and Whatcom County jurisdiction. N Transfer of development standards. Land acquisition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that a moratorium is hereby imposed on the acceptance of new applications for subdivisions in the Lake Whatcom watershed. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all lots that remain 5 acres or greater shall be exempt from this subdivision moratorium. BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that, pursuant to RCW 36.70.795, may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if subsequent pubic hearings are held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. ADOPTED this day of , 2007. ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APP OVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Prosecutor WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Council Chair Pete Kremen, Executive ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date: 262 WHA TCOM CO UNTY CO UNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007 — 135 A CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator., 3/14/2007 3/27/2007 Introduction Division Head: 4/10/2007 Public Hearin Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasin /Bud er: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT.• Interim Ordinance limiting the size of large commerical retail establishments ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? { ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? { } Yes ( } NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? { ) 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 lire intent of the action.) Interim Ordinance limiting the size of large commerical retail establishments COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. 3127/2007: Introduced 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: wwfv. co. ►vlzatcoin. wa. us/council. 263 PROPOSED BY: Brenner, Nelson, Weimer SPONSORED BY: Brenner, Nelson, Weimer INTRODUCTION DATE: March 27, 2007 ORDINANCE NO. LIMITING, ON AN INTERIM BASIS, THE SIZE OF LARGE COMMERCIAL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITHIN WHATCOM COUNTY WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act was created, in part, to prevent conflicts among local jurisdictions regarding land use planning and management; and WHEREAS, county -wide comprehensive planning required in the Growth Management Act was established, in part, to avoid local land use conflicts between jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, according to the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County is to become a county consisting mainly of rural services; and WHEREAS, according to the Growth Management Act, urban services are best left to incorporated cities; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County, through its visioning process has determined that it will gradually become a rural service provider; and WHEREAS, for all jurisdictions within Whatcom County to work together it is important for all jurisdictions to respect each others' requests and needs; and WHEREAS, according Whatcom County's County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP), the Greater Whatcom County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is intended to put forth economic development alternatives for Whatcom County that will support job creation, with an emphasis on higher wage jobs and diversification; and WHEREAS, according to the CWPP, economic development should be encouraged that does not adversely impact the environment, is consistent with community values and vision, seeks innovate techniques to attract different industries for a more diversified economic base, and supports retention and expansion of existing businesses; and WHEREAS, according to CWPP, to adequately plan for growth and implement the policies of the Growth Management Act, the governmental jurisdictions in Whatcom County shall work cooperatively together to establish on -going mechanisms to improve communication, information sharing, and coordinated approaches to common problems; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County will continue to work on adopted plans that are integrated with the cities to avoid conflicts that will unduly damage the community at large; and 264 WHEREAS, Whatcom County will continue to work on solutions that will prevent negative impacts on areas throughout Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County respects the work that has already been done to create growth that is in -scale with the community, does not damage downtown cores, respects neighboring uses, and creates community -size pockets of retail development to prevent loss of a sense of place inherent in all Whatcom County communities; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County believes that only through collaborative efforts with other jurisdictions will we avoid negative county -wide impacts; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County believes that large commercial retail establishments are not a rural service, interfere with rural resource industries, and erode the existing vision of Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County believes that only commercial retail which is rural resource related or accessory to rural resource industries can exist in larger scale compatibly with rural resources; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County wishes to provide an example to other jurisdictions of our good faith in working cooperatively to ensure all of Whatcom County maintains a legacy that future generations will enjoy; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70.790 and RCW 36.70.795 allows for adoption of interim official controls as long as a public hearing is held within 60 days of adoption; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council will schedule a public hearing on this issue for March 27, 2007, or a later date; WHEREAS, RCW 36.70.795 requires the adoption of findings of fact which justify Council action, therefore, the Council makes the following findings: 1. Whatcom County is in the process of docketing comprehensive plan amendments, zoning text amendments, and urban growth area updates for the jurisdictions within Whatcom County. 2. Whatcom County is required under the County -Wide Planning Policies to ensure compatibility and consistency with all jurisdictions through these processes. 3. Whatcom County lacks the resources to adequately provide an urban level of services without coordination with other jurisdictions within Whatcom County. 4. Large commercial retail establishments require coordination of urban level of services with other jurisdictions within Whatcom County. 5. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Policy 2T-9, contained within the land use section, states, "Joint planning in Bellingham's UGA (urban growth area) should include joint review of development proposals. City design and development regulations should be required in Bellingham's UGA". 6. On February 12 the City of Bellingham passed Ordinance 2007-02-011 to limit the size of commercial retail establishments. 265 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 7. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Policy 2Q-2, contained within the land use section, states, "Establish procedures for development project review within urban growth areas which protect the interests of both the city and the county. Generally, city development standards and adopted levels of service should be applied within urban growth areas". 8. On February 20, 2007, the City of Ferndale passed emergency legislation to prevent the vesting of commercial retail establishments greater than 75,000 square feet until Ferndale can complete necessary public processes. 9. This ordinance is necessary to prevent the vesting of any incompatible establishment or use in unincorporated Whatcom County until the county completes Urban Growth Area updates, zoning text amendments, and Comprehensive Plan amendments relating to compatibility issues with other jurisdictions as stated in the findings. WHEREAS, Whatcom County encourages all cities within the county to ensure that commercial development is compatible with the character of our wonderful cities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that Whatcom County hereby limits the size, on an interim basis, to 75,000 square feet on all new applications for commercial retail establishments that are not accessory to rural resources. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that manufacturing facilities which include accessory commercial retail, and in which manufacturing is the main function, are exempt. BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that, pursuant to RCW 36.70.795, this amendment shall be effective for not longer than six months following the effective date of this ordinance, which may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if subsequent public hearings are held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. ADOPTED this day of , 2007. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROL AS TO FORS /I A /_ Z ivil Deputy Prosecutor Carl Weimer, Council Chair ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, County Executive Date: 266 WHA TCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007-169A CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Asskned to: Originator: Alz__ 3127107 Introduction/ K. Christensen ff=3-) E f� �— �, "-- - U__� U L Council Division Head. , ME- 3X 4110107 Public Hearing K. Christensen 2 0 "Jr Dept. Head: 16q F. Abart 0 7 Prosecutor: 63//3/07 D. Gibson AirchasinglBudget: B. Bennett Executive: P. Kremen TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Ordinance designating temporary one-way detours related to the Cable Street Reconstruction Project ATTACHMENTS. 1) Memorandum 2) Ordinance SEPA review required? ) Yes X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( X Yes NO SEPA review completed? ) Yes NO Requested Date.- April 10,2007 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 RCWor WCC as appropriate. Be clear ill explaining the intent of the action.) Attached is an ordinance designating temporary one-way detours related to the Cable Street Reconstruction project as authorized by RCW 46.61.135. A public hearing on this is requested for April 10, 2007. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 3/27/2007: Introduced 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 oil the County's website at.- wwwco.whatcom.wa.us1council. 267 lABirch Bay Stormwater\Establish BB WS Subzone\RevisedAgendaBill—BirchBay_Ordinance—Zone-PubHrg.doc WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM The Honorable Pete Kremen, County Executive and The Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council Frank M. Abart, Director Kirk N. Christensen, PE, Stormwater Manager KivC__ STORMWATER 2011 Young Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98225 Telephone: (360) 715-7450 FAX: (360) 715-7451 www. whatcomcounty.us RECEIVED MAR 15 2007 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE Ordinance Designating Temporary One -Way Detours Related to the Cable Street Reconstruction Project (CRP 999022) March 12, 2007 Action Requested: Recommend adoption of ordinance to establish temporary one-way detours in relation to the Cable Street Reconstruction project. Background and Purpose: Cable Street is located 3 miles southeast of downtown Bellingham in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. The existing half -mile section of road from Lakeview Street to Lake Whatcom Boulevard is deteriorating rapidly, and there is a need for stormwater treatment, drainage improvements, roadway improvements, and public safety improvements including additional sidewalks, lighted crosswalk, and bike lanes. On November 23, 2005, Wilson Engineering, LLC, was selected through a competitive selection process from the County's Professional Services Roster, to prepare plans, specifications, and estimates for Cable Street Reconstruction. Construction in the Lake Whatcom Watershed is allowed only between May 1 and September 1. Cable Street is a relatively narrow roadway, and the safety of the work crew, pedestriansr and travelers is a significant consideration. Designating official detour routes with flaggers and signs increases safety for residents and travelers. These factors make it necessary for the complete closure of Cable Street for the duration of the project. The closure will result in two one-way detour routes for through traffic. The westbound route will detour through the residential neighborhood north of Cable Street (the primary road will be Lakeway Drive); the eastbound route will travel through the residential neighborhood to the south, from Lakeview to Fremont to either Lake Louise Road or Coronado Avenue, depending on the final destination. All appropriate and reasonable safety measures will be used including flaggers in and around the construction project area. Information: If you have questions regarding this ordinance, please feel free to call me at 715-7450, extension 50209. Enclosure 268 [AStonnwater Projects\Cable Street & Geneva\Cable St Reconstruction\Resolution-Ordinance\RevisedAgendaBill_Cable Ordinance.doc SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: Public Works-Stormwater INTRODUCTION DATE: March 27, 2007 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 3 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING TENIl'ORARY ONE-WAY DETOURS RELATED TO 4 THE CABLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 5 6 WHEREAS, in 1999, the Cable Street Reconstruction project was added to the 6-year 7 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as County Road Project (CRP) 999022; and 8 9 WHEREAS, the Cable Street Reconstruction project is necessary with regard to the 10 importance of stormwater management in the Lake Whatcom Watershed and public safety 11 improvements; and 12 13 WHEREAS, on November 23, 2005, the Whatcom County Council approved Wilson 14 Engineering, LLC, to prepare plans, specifications, and estimates for Cable Street reconstruction; 15 and 16 17 WHEREAS, RCW 46.61.135 authorizes the designation of one-way roadways; and 18 19 WHEREAS, the Lake Whatcom Watershed window for construction is Nlay 1 through 20 September 1; and 21 22 WHEREAS, Wilson Engineering, LLC, recommends the establishment of temporary one- 23 way detours to remain in effect for the duration of the Cable Street Reconstruction project in order 24 to complete the work within the watershed window for construction and in the interest of public 25 safety; and 26 27 WHEREAS a map of the construction area and temporary one-way routes are included in 28 this ordinance as attachment Exhibit "A'; and 29 30 WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007, the Whatcom County Council passed a resolution for a 31 public hearing to be held on April 10, 2007, at the regular Whatcom County Council meeting, for the 32 establishment of temporary one-way detours in relation to the Cable Street Reconstruction project. 33 34 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Whatcom County Council, in relation 35 to the Cable Street Reconstruction project and as enabled by RCW 46.61.135, establishes two 36 temporary one-way detour routes for the duration of construction which shall occur within the Lake 37 Whatcom Watershed construction window of May 1, 2007, through September 1, 2007. The 38 westbound route will detour through the residential neighborhood north of Cable Street where it 39 shall begin at the intersection of Cable Street and Lakeway Drive as traffic flows in a northwesterly 40 direction, and continue until the intersection of Lakeway Drive and Terrace Avenue. The eastbound 41 route will travel through the residential neighborhood to the south where it shall begin at the 42 intersection of Cable Street and Lakeview Street by redirecting traffic in a southerly direction down 269 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Lakeview Street; at the intersection of Lakeview Street and Fremont Street, the detour shall continue in the easterly direction down Fremont Street until reaching the intersection of Coronado Avenue and Fremont Street, and at this intersection the detour shall turn north down Coronado Avenue to the intersection of Lake Whatcom Boulevard and Coronado Avenue where it shall terminate. A detailed map of the temporary traffic detour is contained within the attached Exhibit "A' and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Whatcom County Council authorizes the temporary removal of the following stop signs in relation to the Cable Street Reconstruction project: Road Name Direction -Stopping Cross Street Coronado Avenue Eastbound Fremont Street Fremont Street Eastbound Austin Street Both of the above stop signs are located in the NE quarter of Section 34, Township 38 North, and Range 3 East W.M. The stop signs will be temporarily removed and placed in storage no sooner than May 1, 2007, and replaced at their original locations no later than September 1, 2007. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J�-' . 4d"'�'J Assistant Chief Deputy Prosecutor 2007. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Council Chair Page 2 of 2 270 EXHIBIT "A" SIGN LEGEND 1' R4f ®® R}1 FW I . ROAD CLOSED RIu ROAD CLOSED THRU TRAFFIC Rtu CABLE ST. TO BE CLOSED AT LAKW STREET MAY 1 TO SEPTEMBERI C=iUFA&FXA Wff3 CABLE ST. TO BE CLOSED AT AUSTIN STREET MAY I TO SEPTEMBERI DDSIWFARRICRTIOIR _ CABLE ST. TO BE CLOSE LAKE WHATCOM BOULEVARD MAY 1 TO SEPTEMBER1 BEWNGHAM SUDOf v9m CMDUFA9fDC w+ MISC LEGEND -� WH A WACD ]DENR7 M OOD7 R1.1 Lr77FRM IHRlf1 !1QlT/:IRIH = TYPE a k-ARrADE PER 1ESDOE 741 STAM.RD PLAN H-7. RISFALL ADRDSS ruLL IRDTH OF ROAD DRERSECROH WHERE 1 FIACOM UfELY TO * 1 6E MWREO DURING ` A OrroUR LAKE r- DETOUR REWIRES Q. 0 THROUGH IVESr E OF COON ZONE. VIDE SuREs ECQ Ot OTHER rOUFIFA TO RAm C FLOW. RamcLosm TO THRUTRAFAC OR .." of e ti: orrouR .II DETOUR PET7ESRSW 12 aF&WAY &IOm L/AIE wm AR] DES UAI6 1RESubm U m AY Ilm AT MNOIl= 1F0El0UR REIIXVFAL YIOTH YARG,9 f.AS 4m FRF w STREET TETFOtAO'UIESRMAd RESTRM NEW ML YB w PA7T am Af/ E77ESIIHOiWAY61RlVt1NEFJIE PRYNEUGLYMKWMO%VW AC.EE9IE M - R M CR — GVEV !R EC MIT SM ` —`_'--._—PTO —_1f ^-- INFAEVERPRESQiF_`-- +���—IXGAOIND IX1110= E)IPlO 1t 1IJ0:� WHA TCOM _ DEL S1AEE1 Ytv rca 'tll .................. TII ..A, _A Y' F�' GENEVA ELEMENTARY wlevx 1 SCHOOL /r Ex BUS ruy ru / r_ .`.,rr I FIRE Rg--�--- J IRm TATION — AID.t¢wsrREEr a [s PROJECT" B04 DARY rW EE wy R6ADCLRSEO TO 71EYUTAAFFIC • ulaR //i41laY SRIIIE ISD ES'tlEI V� R1Fd V� R� IH ............................... WHATCOM BILLS WALDORF SCHOO DEtDUR w TRUtl( TTOUTE a' .4, .iR TYPICAL ROAD CONRGURATION FOR ONE-WAY DETOURS NO= E rU n r u o�mm a c a` NOTES x m 1. THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND U MNTAINING ALL TRAFFIC c } CONTROL MEASURES NECESSARY 70 ASSURE THECONTINm :3 WEST -BOUND DETOUR TRAFFIC TEHROUGH ANFE ODE ROUND THE�PRo MOVEMENT AREA INCLUDING THE RELATED DETOURS. 19 2. MODIFICATIONS TD THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN ARE C z PERMITTED IF THE CHANGES IMPROVE TRAFFC SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY. CONTRACTOR IS O m rm � BEf01W W RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING AN UP-70-DATE = ♦ w TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN THAT REFLECTS ALL uj WEST -BOUND DETOUflEM R MES CHANGES. G •� f ' ROURNG TRAFFI[ 1rM000M FAST F&{ - WOE OF CONSTRUCfWN TORE. 3. TRAFFC CONTROL MEASURES SHALL COMPLY WITH OETOUR PRMDE FU=ERS Alm OTHER THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL 2 - n L" WUSURES AS REOUIRW TO ` ,J� WSTUAN WE TRAFFIC FLOW. DEVICES (MUTCO) 2003 EDITION, THE 2006 WSDOT `1p + STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, THE WSDOT SIGN fi MANUAL, AND THE LATEST EDITION OF THE WSOOT Ur ♦ "� EE70lFi -'^ STANDARD PLANS. 2 • � 4. CONSTRUCTION IS EXPECTED TO REQUIRE DETOURING Lij TRAFFIC AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION AREA BETWEEN _�, ►,. NDRrH a, 500' LAKEVIEW ST. AND LAKE WHATCOII BOULEVARD. THE nwar J `,�y TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAT! FOLLOWS THE GENERAL } '• � uxE MIDDU EVO .w REQUIREMENTS OF WSOOT STANDARD PLAN Ip 5. THE DETOUR DEPICTED SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE 2{ , '• uuLLI > �`--`__— _ --5— 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN LOCAL ACCESS TO ALL 1 PROPERTY DURING CONSTRUCTION. OBTAIN PROPERTY OWNER APPROVAL PRIOR 70 STARTING ANY WORK 714AT WILL DELAY OWNER ACCESS MORE ALA RIIQ Rela -� THAN 15-MINUTES. 7. WWITHOUT�Ex EXCEPTIONTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL RDADIII1gD amdrrrenumiu 2gpNTA1wu H ACCESS 70 THE RRE STATION AT ALL Tp w TRIES. REFERENCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC TFiiWTRAFFIC r TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES RELATED 70 ARE 1I' V STATION. S ROAD B. WHEN SCHOOL IS IN SESSION, NOTIFY THE SCHOOLDISTRICT OF CONSTRUCTION w'r I STEPS REQUIRED 10 M NITAIN OPERATIONS. STUDENT ��SJ 250' DROP-DFF TRAFFIC. IF ALTERNATIVE BUS ROUTING N �T j nmarlaaAnoAn ` REQUIRED, PROVIDE SIGAND OTHER N Li TEMPORARY MEASURES 70 TO ASSURE SSURE STUDENT SAFETY. �Vl 100.RRTMM 9. N07IFY WHA7CDM TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (WTA) siwm manlma¢n OF CONSTRUCTION. CABLE STREET 15 ON A 1YTA El BUS ROUTE THAT WALL REQUIRE REROUTING OR u n W SPECIAL TRAFFIC CONTROL. a o u a 10. MAINTAIN PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ACROSS CABLE p k STREET THROUGHOUT PROJECT AT ALL CROSS .. . • •' STREET G ENGINEER IF CROSS STREEET CLOSURE VA AND IREOUIRED. lip f • • TO BETENOFIUA r' TORIkABAP11 m ;;• • n� O pp 11. IF ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE IS REQUIRED BEYOND THAT z �� �, SHOWN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AT NO O 3 O Y +� ADDITIONAL COST. � U rAsui[ M 12. TRAFFIC CONTROL INCLUDES " AININCERTIFIED FE TRA S Z ROUTE NECESSARY TO ASSURE MAINTAINING SAFE T AREA FLOW THROUGH AND ROUND THE PROTECT AREA U AND THE RELATED DETOURS. J 13. WHEN DETOUR LS IN PLACE, INSTALL TYPE 3 m BARRICADE PER WSDDT STD PLAN H-2 AT EAST J AND WEST END OF PROJECT AND AT THE �`�• �K �+r •--`i INTERSECTING CROSS STREETS. INSTALL FOUR Ci Z O SCOVER TP316 FLASHING WARNING LIGHTS (TYPE A, MUTCD). O L7L� ?&a. 14. MODIFY EXISTING REGULATORY TRAFFIC CONTROL U r DEVICES FOR THE DURATION OF THE DETOUR. T'I O 15. REFERENCE SIGN LEGEND FOR ALL SIGNS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEPICTED ON THE PLAN. :D U 16. ALL SIGHS SHALL BE POST MOUNTED. COLOR SHALL O U BE BLACK ON ORANGE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. t ROM 17_ CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY SPEED C LL IY06E0 �ua.�r� BUMPS AT LOCATIONS ALONG THE DETOUR ROUTE L IODGFT somm AR DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER. DEWINTWIO 4 IS. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY ELECTRONIC U J SPEED DETE07ADN AND DISPLAY EQUIPMENT AT LL m LOCATIONS HANG T14E DETOUR ROUTE DETERMINED r BY THE ENGINEER. Q U 19. PROBABLE REQUIRED FLAGGING SITES SHOWN REFLECT LIKELY AREAS WHERE FLAGGING WILL BE REQUIRED. ADDITIONAL FLAGGING EXPECTED. N y� N Z}j O R C1 O O N 10 6 TWO BUSINESS DAYS (Y'y of n SCALE BEFORE U� DI '^ U {LL.I� �� L wro a+cmen�o unmo. mm WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2007178 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Council 3/27/2007 4/10/2006 Council Division Head: Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasin /Bud el: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Appointments to SWAC - Applicants: Iris Newman 8 Steven Thomas ATTACHMENTS: Application SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) 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.) Appointment of Iris Newman to Solid Waste Advisory Committee representing Solid Waste Disposal Facility. Applicant will fill a partial term until 1213112008. Appointment of Steven Thomas to Solid Waste Advisory Committee representing Business/Industry. Applicant will fill a partial term until 12/3112009. 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.us/council. 273 03/26/2007 16:03 RDS\BBR 3603840873 1/1- PETE KREMEN County Executive -;� 2 6 HHU M Ali COUNCILMEMBERS: Barbara E. Brenner Laurie Caskey-Schreiber Sam Crawford Seth M. Fleetwood Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson Carl Weimer 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)? l `p1al.nQjem`!� Which Council district do you reside in? { ) One ( ) Two (v� Three Are you a US citizen? (✓) yes ( ) no Are you a registered voter? (%� yes ( ) no Name: i iS lV2G�f17C�til Date: 3%�1�D"� Street Address: 1?'41 Mallou Ate City: der oje WA Zip Code: 9A2y$ f Mailing Address (if different from street address): �191� %�Idu Ord �� &jy2a �.1e Day Telephone: 330.. 3$y. 8011 Evening Telephone: S99O Fax Number: A0. 38Y. OV3 E-mail address: Iris e- rds d;soosc . cowl Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): Profession Activities: 1+ilfh_Cw4491,'?u"1�".'1'J•�L _...� 01'!%'� r ►- . lll� Education: Qualifications related to position: 10�1, ears rn +k' 50h Describe why you are interested In serving on this board or commission: — (?M u _ iaieresi Do you or your spUuse h4 agency that does busines If yes, please explain: s with Whatcom County? (%A yes ( } new iness or References (please Include name and daytime telephone number): EJ it 111A - M MC). Signature of applicant: As a candidate to a public board or commission, the above information will be available to 74 the County Council, County Executive, and the public. 03/25/2007 16:02 RDS \EIB R 3603840873 1 /1 ' Recycling & Disposal Services Inc. March 26, 2007 Whatcom County Council 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 105 Bellingham, WA 98225 Re: Vacancy on Solid Waste Advisory Committee Council Members, LZ As of January 15, 2007 Mr. Jim Sands has not been employed by Recycling & Disposal Services, Inc. At that time he ceased to represent the Solid Waste Management Disposal position on SWAC. Thank you, Iris Newman Office Manager 4916 LaBounty PfaCe m Ferndale, WA 98248 P (360) 384-801 1 - FAX (360J 384-0873 275 Apr 02 2027 2:16PM HP LASERJET FAX P•3 , PETP- KREMEN County Executive Co 1W C'o A r,R CDUNCIL,MEMBERS: .Barbara E, Brenner Laurie Caskey-Schreiber Sam Crawford Seth M. Fleetwood Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Name of board or committee -please see reverse: Solid Waste Advisory Boa d Which position on this board are you applying for (if applicable)? [ Which Council district do you reside In? ( ) One (x) Two ( ) Three Are you a US citizen? ( )0 yes ( ) no Name: Steven R. Thomas Street Address: 4600 Ryzex Way Are you a registered voter? (X) yes ( ) no Date: 3 / 23 / 07 City: Bellingham, WA Zip Code: 98226 Mailing Address (if different from street address): Day Telephone: (360) 714-1 000• x 1187 Evening Telephone: (360) 71 5-8656 Fax Number: 71 5-3c; 14 E-mail address: stave_ thomasgryzex_ com _ Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): Logistics Mgr, Environmental Stic Professional/Community Activities: Ryzex in Bellingham continues to be 1 00% waste free. I am responsible for all the vraste generated , the processing and distribution of materials. Education: Bpi . ni ueri ty of California Hayward Qualifications related to position: I am the logistics manager for Ryzex' s Environmental Services Department. Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: T nppcl i-o a a.V on top of issues related to a -waste and to retain a seat on the b board for Ryzex. 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): Eric Lazo, Director of Business Development - Ryzex 360-318-3414. Mike Butschli, Dir,. operations, Ryzex - 360-714-1000 ex 1117. Rud Browne, Chairman of - Ryzex - 360-714-1000. Signature of appllc As a candidate to a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public. 276 npr 02 2027 2:16PM HP LASERJET FRX p.2 R E '% April 2, 2007 Nadine Hanson Whatcom County Council 311 Grand Ave. Bellingham, Wa. 98225 Dear Ms. Hanson, Ron Biery joined the Solid Waste Advisory Board in October of 2006. Due to� personal issues at home, Ron Biery is no longer with Ryzex and should be remowd-from his advisory position. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate calling. Sincerely, Steve Thomas Logistics Manager, Environmental Services Ryzex, Inc. (360)714-1000 ext 1187 steve.Thoinas@ryzex.com 277 Rpr 02 2027 2: 16PM HP LFISERJET FFIX p.1 RYZE>**.,o 4600 RYZEX WAY BELLINGHAM, WA 96226 PH: 360-714-1000 P H : 800-999-2995 www. ryz ex. c o m TO: Nadine Hanson FROM: Steve Thomas FAX: 738-2550 FAX: 360-752-4427 PAGES: 3 DATE. April Z, 2007 suB]ECT: Advisory council seat termination of Ron Biery and application for Steve Thomas COMMENTS: Please let me know should this need to be redirected. Thank you, Steve Thomas, 360-714-1000 ext 1.187, or steve.thomas@ryzex.com IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachment, contains information that may be confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited. 278 WHA TCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL No. 2006-406 CLEARANCES lnjfiqL,,, Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: .1019106 10124106 Introduction Originator.- Matt Aamot F— T 1 7 "T"r1j", 11/08/06 Division Head. F&D/Council Dept. Head Hal Hart to 11121/06 P&D/Council Prosecutor: Royce Buckingham 12/05/06 Introduction Pur,hasinglBudget' 1/16/07 jPublic Hearil Executive: Pete Kremen TITLE OFDOCUMENT. Ordinance amending the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and Urban Residential & Urban Residential Medium Density zoning district requirements relating to lot clustering, reserve tracts, and water & sewage disposal facilities ATTACHMENTS: (1) Proposed ordinance. (2) Whatcom County Planning Commission Findings of Fact & Reasons for Action, Conclusions and Recommendation Notes: Background materials are available for review at the County Council office. SEPA review required? x ) Yes NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? Yes x, ) No SEPA review completed? X )Yes NO Requested Date: . I A bearing must be held ifthe Council changes the Planning Commission recommendation (WCC 20.10. 110). SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: Amend the Comprehensive Plan cluster subdivision, reserve tract, and water and sewage disposal provisions for land divisions in Urban Growth Areas. Amend the Urban Residential (UR) and Urban Residential Medium Density (URM) zoning districts to require that, if the site is in a long term planning area or does not have public water & sewer, minimum lot size for clustered lots will be reduced, a maximum size for clustered lots will be imposed, lots will be located in a single cluster, the reserve tract will be unbuildable for residential uses (until rezoned and public water & sewer are- available) and, when the reserve tract is developed, wells, sewage disposal systems and associated easements located on the reserve tract will be abandoned and the clustered lots will hook-up to public water and sewer. This proposal would not change the one dwelling/five acre maximum gross density currently allowed in these areas. COMMITTEEACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION. 11/08/2006: Held in Committee for two weeks 10/24/06: introduced 11/08/06: Held.in Committee for two weeks 11/21/2006: Forwarded to Council for approval 12/5/2006: Introduced of the substitute version (purple cover) 1/16/2007: Forwarded to Concurrency 7-0 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/councA 279 1-16-07 ORDINANCE # SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: _ INTRODUCTION DATE: ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE UR & URM ZONING DISTRICTS RELATING TO LOT CLUSTERING, RESERVE TRACTS AND WATER & SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES and WHEREAS, The proposal will facilitate efficient utilization of land in urban growth areas; WHEREAS, Legal notice was published in the Bellingham Herald; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposal; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed amendments and modified the staff recommendation; and WHEREAS, The County Council has considered the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact & Reasons for Action, Conclusions and Recommendations. The Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT The County Council approved resolution No. 2006-029 initiating the original version of the amendment for further review on March 14, 2006. 2. Notice that the County Council initiated the original version of the amendment for further review was e-mailed to city planners on March 21, 2006. 3. Notice that the County initiated the original version of the amendment for further review was published in the Bellingham Herald on March 22, 2006. 4. Notice of the amendment was sent to state agencies, including the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), on April 4, 2006. 5. Notice of the Planning Commission hearings for this legislative action was published in the Bellingham Herald on July 16, 2006 and September 3, 2006. 6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearings for this legislative action was posted on the County's website on July 11, 2006 and August 31, 2006. P. I 7. A determination of non -significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the original version of the amendment on May 9, 2006 and for the revised version of the amendment on October 6, 2006. The Planning Commission held public hearings relating to the subject amendment on July 27, 2006 and September 14, 2006. 9. Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.10.080 contains approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments. 10. WCC 20.10.080(1) states that the amendment must conform to the requirements of GMA, be internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, be consistent with the County - Wide Planning Policies and be consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. 11. The Growth Management Act (GMA), at RCW 36.70A.020, includes the following planning goals: • Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. • Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low -density development. 12. Whatcom County's important interest in facilitating appropriate urban densities is expressed in 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." 13. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goal 2R is to "Ensure adequate land supply is provided to accommodate twenty years of growth within urban areas." 14. County -wide 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." 15. The proposed amendment is intended to reduce suburban sprawl and facilitate land uses in urban growth areas that will that allow urban levels of density to be achieved in the future. 16. Whatcom County's important interest in protecting rural, agricultural and forestry lands (including such lands surrounding urban growth areas) is expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, Comprehensive Plan Goal 2DD is to "Retain the rural character and lifestyle of Whatcom County." Policy 2A-9 is to "Retain existing rural and heavy industrial areas in the northwestern region of the county." The Comprehensive Plan states "... Maintaining the rural character and lifestyle is very important to Whatcom County residents... " (p. 2-62). Additionally, Comprehensive Plan Goal 8A is to "Conserve and enhance Whatcom County's agricultural land base for the continued production of food and fiber." Finally, Comprehensive Plan GOAL 8F is to "Maintain and enhance Whatcom County's forest land base." P. 2 281 17. A substantial amount of the land surrounding urban growth areas in Whatcom County is designated rural, agriculture or forestry by the Comprehensive Plan. Inefficient large -lot residential land uses in the urban growth areas will place more pressure to convert rural, agricultural, and/or forestry lands to urban growth areas in the future. 18. One strategy for maintaining rural character, agricultural lands, and forest lands is to achieve appropriate urban densities in existing urban growth areas so that urban growth areas do not have to be expanded into rural, agricultural and forestry lands within the planning period. 19. WCC 20.10.080(2) states that further studies made or accepted by the department of planning and development services and planning commission must indicate a need for the amendment or that changed conditions must indicate a need for the amendment. 20. Approximately 57.5% of the acreage in existing long term planning areas can be divided under the current regulations. Additional large -lot land divisions that could occur under the existing regulations in these long term planning areas, as well as in short term planning areas that do not have public water and sewer, would hinder the ability to achieve future urban density developments in these urban growth areas. 21. WCC 20.10.080(3) states that the public interest must be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. • The anticipated effect upon the ability of the County and/or other service providers, such as cities, schools, water and/or sewer purveyors, fire districts, and others as applicable, to provide adequate services and public facilities including transportation facilities. • The suitability of the site to provide on -site wells and/or on -site sewage disposal, if applicable. • Anticipated impact upon critical areas. • Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands. 22. The proposed text amendments would reduce the conversion of developable land within urban growth areas to suburban development patterns. This is intended to provide more effective utilization of urban growth areas so that, over the planning period, they can be developed at appropriate urban densities as envisioned in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. The public policy of Whatcom County, as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, calls for the retention of rural, agricultural and forestry lands. More efficient use of existing urban growth areas should translate into less need to expand these urban growth areas into rural, agricultural and/or forestry lands. Therefore, the subject amendment will serve the public interest. 23. No adverse impacts to service providers, critical areas or designated resource lands have been identified. P. 3 24. WCC 20.10.080(4) states that the amendment must not include nor facilitate illegal spot zoning. 25. The proposed text amendments are applicable to rather large areas, and these amendments are not intended to facilitate private gain. Rather, they are intended to serve the public interest by ensuring efficient use of existing urban growth areas. Therefore, the proposal does not constitute "spot zoning." CONCLUSIONS The subject amendment is consistent with the approval criteria of WCC 20.10.080 and serves the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A. Section 2. The Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20) is hereby amended as 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 , 2007 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Chairperson APPROVED as to form: 'vil ty Prosecutor P. 4 () Approved () Denied Pete Kremen, Executive Date: 283 Exhibit A Policy 2S-2: Land within a UGA but outside a Short Term Planning Area shall retain its current zoning until a new joint plan is identified and the Short Term Planning Area is moved, but with the following additional limitations on development which shall be included in the County development regulations: No sewer shall be extended outside a Short Term Planning Area. Water lines shall not be extended to serve urban levels of development outside a Short Term Planning Area. Exceptions may be made in caseswhere human health is threatened as determined by the County Health and Human Services Department (the use of interties for emergency purposes will be allowed to the extent that other needed approvals are given); (2) where vested rights currently exist - the city/district will provide the County detailed maps specifying the location and nature of the vested rights; (3) to help meet regional supply needs, as discussed under the CWSP, so long as the purveyor has sufficient quantities of water to meet needs in its entire UGA as determined by the purveyor and agreed to by the County. • All development in urban growth areas shall be done in a manner which will not preclude development at urban levels of density when the area is annexed into the city. • No residential development shall occur at a gross density greater than one dwelling unit per five acres. All residential land divisions will be developed as cluster subdivisions. All bu#dable clustered lots will be grouped together in one cluster. Clustered lots will be as small as possible in order to maintain a large reserve tract available for future urban development. Wells, sewage disposal systems, and easements associated with these facilities may be placed on the reserve tract only if it is not feasible to place them within the boundaries of the clustered lots. • When the site is rezoned to short term planning area and public water and sewer serve the site, the reserve tract of a cluster subdivision may be developed with urban densities allowed in the zoning district. If the clustered lots are served by wells, sewage disposal facilities and/or associated easements that are located on the reserve tract, then the clustered lots will be required to hook up to public water and sewer when the reserve tract is developed with urban densities. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the reserve tract can be developed to its fullest potential, and such development will not be restricted by the existence of wells, sewage disposal facilities and easements associated with these facilities. P. 1 ME Exhibit B Amend the Urban Residential (UR) District of the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance as follows: 20.20.251 Minimum lot size within an urban -growth area. For the purpose of creating new building lots within the Urban Residential District, several land use densities are herein provided. The minimum lot size requirements for new construction vary according to the method of subdivision, as well as whether or not public sewer, water, and, where required by regulation, stormwater collection and detention facilities serve the project site. Where the lot cluster land division method is used the minimum lot size is based on consideration of the zoning district's setback requirements and the Whatcom County health code regulations for sewage systems and drinking water, but shall not be less than that shown below. Where a maximum lot size is imposed, clustered lots shall be as small as allowed by the Health Department. 20.20.252 Maximum density, minimum lot size and maximum lot size within an urban growth area. Min. Reserve Area (Cluster District Maximum Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Maximum Lot Size Subdivisions) Conventional Cluster Cluster Lots UR: all densities without public sewer and water 1 dwelling unit/5 acres NIA* 12,500 sq. 22,000 sq. NIA ** UR: all densities outside short-term planning areas ** 1 dwelling unit/5 acres NIA* 12,500 sq. ft. — 22,000 sq. ft. — NIA UR: all densities with 1 dwelling NIA* 12,500 sq. 22,000 sq. NIA public sewer or water ** unit/5 acres UR-3: in short-term lannina areas with ublic sewer and water, 3 dwelling units/1 acre 12,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. NIA o 25/a nd stormwater ollection and detention acilities UR-4: in short-term planning areas with public sewer and water, 4 dwelling units/1 acre 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. NIA 20% and stormwater collection and detention facilities P. 2 285 * For the purpose of administering the lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional minimum lot size shall be 5 acres. ** Does not apply to the Bellingham urban growth area. 20.20.253 244 Minimum lot size outside an urban growth area. For the purpose of creating new building lots within the Urban Residential District, several land use densities are herein provided. The minimum lot size requirements for new construction vary according to the method of subdivision, as well as whether or not public sewer, water, and, where required by regulation, identified by the annr`lnriate G ernprr_.henciye Plan nnlinies stormwater collection and detention facilities serve the project site. Where the lot cluster land division method is used the minimum lot size is based on consideration of the zoning district's setback requirements and the Whatcom County health code regulations for sewage systems and drinking water, but shall not be less than that shown below. (Ord. 2005-041 § 1 Exh. A, 2005; Ord. 98-083 Exh. A § 11, 1998; Ord. 87-12, 1987; Ord. 87-11, 1987; Ord. 82-58, 1982). 20.20.254 242 Maximum density and minimum lot size outside an urban growth area. Minimum Lot Size Min. Reserve District Gross Density Area (Cluster Conventional Cluster Subdivisions) UR: all densities without public sewer 1 dwelling 5 acres 1 acre 80% and water unit/5 acres 1 acre without public water and UR: all densities outside short t 1 dwelling sewer 80% planning areas' small towns and resort unit/5 acres 5 acres recreational subdivisions 12,500 sq. ft. with public water or sewer LIR: all densities with public sewer or 1 dwelling 5 acres 12,500 sq. ft. 80% water unit/5 acres UR-3: in sheFt term nlnnninn areas mall towns or resort recreational 3 dwelling 12,000 sq. ubdivisions with public sewer and units/1 acre ft. 8,000 sq. ft. o 25 /o ater, and stormwater collection and etention facilities UR-4: in chart term Planning areas small towns or resort recreational 4 dwelling subdivisions with public sewer and units/1 acre 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. o 20 /o water, and stormwater collection and detention facilities Note: Renumber existing section 20.20.253 to .255 P. 3 20.20.305 Lot clustering. (1) The purpose of lot clustering is to provide an alternative method of creating economical building lots with spatially efficient sizes. Clustering is intended to reduce development cost, increase energy efficiency and reserve areas of land which are suitable for agriculture, forestry, open space or possible future development. (2) The clustering option is also intended to help preserve open space and the character of areas and reduce total impervious surface area thereby reducing runoff while assuring continued viable undeveloped natural vegetated corridors for wildlife habitat, protection of watersheds, preservation of wetlands, preservation of aesthetic values including view corridors, and preservation of potential trail and recreation areas. (3) Lot clustering is required for residential land divisions devel„nments en paFGels 10 aGFe 9F gFeater when: (a) The property is located within a short-term planning area and public water and sewer are not available; or (b) The property is located within a long-term planning area. (4) (Ord. 2005-041 § 1 Exh. A, 2005; Ord. 90-45, 1990). 20.20.310 Design standards. The creation of new building lots, pursuant to this section, shall be governed by the following FeGO.nmen.iar7 design standards: (1) Clustered building lots may be created only through the subdivision or short subdivision process. (2) Building lots should be designed and located to the fullest extent possible to be compatible with valuable or unique natural features, as well as physical constraints of the site. (3) Within short-term planning areas where public water and sewer are not available and within Iona term planning areas, all feeklenclustered building lots shall be grouped together in a single cluster. In all other cases, Wwhere practical, the majority of building sites should be arranged in a cluster or concentrated pattern to be compatible with physical site features, allow for the efficient conversion of the "reserve tract" to other uses in the future, and have no more than two common encroachments on existing county roads. The arrangement of clustered building lots is intended to discourage development forms commonly known as linear, straight-line or highway strip patterns. (4) Common access to clustered building lots should be provided by short length roads or loop roads. In addition, interior streets shall be designed to allow access to the "reserve tract" for the purpose of future approved development. (Ord. 90-45, 1990; Ord. 87-12, 1987; Ord. 87-11, 1987). P. 4 287 20.20.320 Reserve tract. For the purposes of this section, "reserve tract" is defined as that portion of a proposed subdivision or short subdivision which is intended for agricultural, forestry, open space or future development purposes. All "reserve tracts" created through the subdivision process shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) After a site is initially subdivided pursuant to this chapter, the "reserve tract" may be retained by the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the subdivision or conveyed to a third party. (2) The reserve tract may be considered as a building lot, provided that it is included in the overall density calculation of the original parcel of record. Within short-term planning areas where public water and sewer are not available and long term planning areas, the reserve tract may be considered a building lot only under one of the following additional conditions: (a) Residential construction and accessory structures are restricted to a building envelope that is delineated on the final plat or short plat. The building envelope shall: i. Be contiguous with the outside boundary of the clustered lots; and ii. Be entirely located 200' or less from the outside boundary of the clustered lots; and iii. Not exceed the maximum lot size for clustered lots in the zone. (b) Residential construction and accessory structures are restricted to a building envelope that is delineated on the final plat or short plat. The building envelope shall: i. Be contiguous with an exterior property line of the original parcel of record; and ii. Be entirely located 200' or less from an exterior property line of the original parcel of record; and W. Not exceed the maximum lot size for clustered lots in the zone. (c) An existing residential use and accessory structures may be located anywhere on the reserve tract. Clustered lots shall be located adjacent to such existing residential use, unless the zoning administrator determines that: i. Because of physical circumstances applicable to the site, clustering adjacent to the existing residential use would hinder access to the reserve tract for future urban development; or I Protection of environmental features would be negatively impacted; or iii. Existing agricultural structures would be negatively impacted. P. 5 WQ n .....:. 1 1 1 'LJj\r��..-i-=.��i.�a:•_pia=i-ri��•.: a"M� ry its-i�va-ate-. air-r=r.r c-ie.iic�" _ ■ i 1 (3) The "reserve tract" may be further subdivided only through the long subdivision process and only under one of the following circumstances: (a) The county finds that in developing adjacent tracts it would help to further the objectives listed in WCC 2Q.24.345. 4 by dividing the reserve tract and increasing the area of reserve proportionately on the adjacent land being subdivided so that there is no net reduction in reserve area; and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract; or (b) When the Comprehensive Plan and zoning have been updated as part of the normal process (other than a revision initiated by the private sector or done for a specific area) and the public process has been gone through, subject to findings that there is no adverse impact to critical areas and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract-, or (c) The site is within a short-term planning area and public water and sewer serve the proposed development on the reserve tract. (4) For sites located within urban growth areas, wells, sewage disposal systems, and associated easements that servethe Glustered4Gts may be located on the reserve tract only if: (a) The applicant demonstrates to the Whatcom County Health Department that there is not adequate space on the clustered lots for such facilities and/or easements, and (b) A note is placed on the face of the plat stating that, prior to filing a final plat with the County Auditor that divides the reserve tract for urban density development: Owners of clustered lots and the reserve tract shall hook-uo to aublic water and sewer: and ii. Easements and restrictive covenants for wells and/or sewage disposal systems on the reserve tract shall be extinguished, with Health Department approval, and iii. Wells on the reserve tract shall be decommissioned in accordance with Washington Department of Ecology regulations and sewage disposal systems on the reserve tract shall be abandoned. P. 6 M The intent of this provision is to ensure that the reserve tract can be developed to its fullest potential, and such development will not be restricted by the existence of wells, sewage disposal facilities and easements associated with these facilities. (5 4) The purpose of the reserve tract as stated in subsections (1), (2), and (3) and 4 of this section shall be communicated in writing on the face of the plat or short plat. The number of developable building sites remaining (if any) with the original parcel of record, based on the assigned density, shall also be prominently displayed on the plat or short plat. Whatcom County shall make every effort to assist all agents in communicating clearly such information to all purchasers and prospective purchasers of building lots or "reserve tracts." (6 a) That the above stated requirements in subsections (2) to (5)44} of this section shall be recorded as a deed restriction at the time of filing of the final plat or short plat, and shall constitute an agreement between Whatcom County and the owner of record. Said deed restriction may be amended by mutual agreement between said parties after review for consistency and compliance with the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance, the Whatcom County Subdivision Ordinance and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 2005-041 § 1 Exh. A, 2005; Ord. 98-083 Exh. A § 14, 1998; Ord. 90-45, 1990; Ord. 82-58, 1982). P. 7 290 Amend the Urban Residential — Medium Density (URM) District of the Oifcial Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance as follows: 20.22.252 Maximum/minimum density and minimum lot size — General. Maximum Lot Size Minimum Lot Minimum (� } Gross Density Size — Minimum Lot Reserve Area District Conventional Size — Cluster (Cluster Divisions) Clustered Lots Maximum URM: all densities without public density: NIA" 5 awes 12,500 sq. ft. NIA sewer and water" 1 dwelling unit) 9fleasre 22,000 sq. 5" ft. 5 acres 12,500 sg. ft. Maximum Sae acre 22,000 sa. URM: all densities outside short- densi : NIA" 5 asFes water and f. NIA term planning areas** 1 dwelling unit) seweF90-0/0 5 acres 12,500 with l ater nr sewer Maximum URM: all densities with public densi : NIA" SasFes 12500 sft. NIA sewer or water** 1 dwelling unit) ,q. 22,000 sa. 6-&Ok ft. 5 acres URM-6: with public sewer and Maximum water, and stormwater collection density: 6 dwelling 7,200 sq. ft. NIA NIA NIA and detention facilities units/4 acre URM-12: with public sewer and Maximum water, and stormwater collection densibL 12 dwelling 7,200 sq. ft. NIA NIA NIA and detention facilities units/acre URM-18: with public sewer and Maximum water, and stormwater collection densibL 18 dwelling 7,200 sq. ft. NIA NIA NIA and detention facilities units/acre Minimum net URM-24: with public sewer and density: 10 water, stormwater collection and dwelling detention facilities and unitslacre. transferable development rights Maximum NIA NIA NIA pursuant to the provisions of density: 24 NIA Chapter 20.89 WCC and dwelling subsection (4) of this section. units/gross acre. * For the purpose of administering the lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional minimum lot size shall be 5 acres. ** Does not apply to the Bellingham urban growth area. P. a 291 (2) Where the lot clustering land division method is used, the minimum lot size is based on consideration of the zoning district's setback requirements and the Whatcom County health code regulations for sewage systems and drinking water, but shall not be less than that shown above. Where a maximum lot size is imposed, clustered lots shall be as small as allowed by the Health Department. (3) Where the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan policies call for restricting densities and allow for the transfer of densities and where the provisions of Chapter 20.89 WCC are met, then the maximum allowable density shall be equal to that established by the Comprehensive Plan; provided, that public sewer and water are available. (4) In the URM-24 zones in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area, minimum density shall be calculated as net density, after deducting the areas restricted from development by critical area regulations and infrastructure requirements. (5) In the URM-24 zones in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area, transferable development rights (TDRs) from the Lake Whatcom watershed sending area, must be used, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.89 WCC, Density Transfer Procedure, in order to develop at the prescribed densities. Each development right transferred from the Lake Whatcom watershed may be used to develop three dwelling units in the UGA. For the purpose of using TDRs, the base density is considered to be four dwelling units per acre. TDRs must be used to attain any density greater than four per acre as illustrated in the following table: TDR Base Density Transfer of Development Rights (1 TDR = 3 dwelling units per acre) Allowed Density (range from 10 to 24 dwelling units per acre) 4 dwelling units/acre 2 TDRs 10 dwelling unitslacre 4 dwelling units/acre 3 TDRs 13 dwelling units/acre 4 dwelling units/acre 4 TDRs 16 dwelling units/acre 4 dwelling units/acre 5 TDRs 19 dwelling units/acre 4 dwelling units/acre 6 TDRs 22 dwelling units/acre (Ord. 2005-041 § 1 Exh. A, 2005; Ord. 2004-021 § 1, 2004; Ord. 98-083 Exh. A § 20, 1998; Ord. 89-92, 1989; Ord. 84-38, 1984). 20.22.305 Lot clustering. 1 ) The purpose of lot clusterina is to provide an alternative method of creatin economical building lots with spatially efficient sizes. Clustering is intended to reduce development cost, increase energy efficiency and reserve areas of land which are suitable for forestry, open space or future development. (24-) Lot clustering is required for residential land divisions developments on paMelr+ 40 areas „r gFeator when: (a) The property is located within a short-term planning area and public water and sewer are not available; or (b) The property is located within a long-term planning area. P. 9 292 (2) Let Glustering all be subjeoor to the r sir ts "�vC 20.2vvviT, 20.20.310, and 20.20. (Ord. 2005-041 § 1 Exh. A, 2005). 20.22.310 Desiqn standards. The creation of new building lots, pursuant to this section, shall be governed by the following reG ^rlo,l design standards, except that in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area, the city of Bellingham's design and development standards and guidelines shall be applied: (1) Building lots should be designed and located to the fullest extent possible to be compatible with valuable or unique natural features, as well as physical constraints of the site. (2) Within short-term planning areas where public water and sewer are not available and within ]on q term planning areas, all r "�ernifaiai clustered building lots shall be grouped together in a single cluster. In all other cases, kNwhere practical, the majority of building sites should be arranged in a concentrated pattern to be compatible with physical site features, and have no more than two common encroachments on existing county roads. The arrangement of concentrated building lots is intended to discourage development forms commonly known as linear straight-line or highway strip patterns. (Ord. 2004-021 § 1, 2004). 20.22.320 Reserve tract. For the purposes of this section, "reserve tract" is defined as that portion of a proposed subdivision or short subdivision which is intended for forestry, open space or future development purposes. All "reserve tracts" created through the subdivision process shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) After a site is initially subdivided pursuant to this chapter, the "reserve tract" may be retained by the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the subdivision or conveyed to a third party. (2) The reserve tract may be considered as a building lot, provided that it is included in the overall density calculation of the original parcel of record. Within short-term planning areas where public water and sewer are not available and Iona term planning areas, the reserve tract may be considered a building lot only under one of the following additional conditions: a) Residential construction and accessory structures are restricted to a building envelope that is delineated on the final plat or short plat. The building envelope shall: L Be contiguous with the outside boundary of the clustered lots; and ii. Be entirely located 200' or less from the outside boundary of the clustered lots; and ill. Not exceed the maximum lot size for clustered lots in the zone. P. ID 293 b) Residential construction and accessory structures are restricted to a building envelope that is delineated on the final plat or short plat. The building envelope shall: i. Be contiauous with an exterior property line of the original parcel of record; and ii. Be entirely located 200' or less from an exterior property line of the original parcel of record; and iii. Not exceed the maximum lot size for clustered lots in the zone. (c) An existing residential use and accessory structures may be located anywhere on the reserve tract. Clustered lots shall be located adiacent to such existing residential use, unless the zoning administrator determines that: i. Because of physical circumstances applicable to the site, clustering adiacent to the existing residential use would hinder access to the reserve tract for future urban development; or ii. Protection of environmental features would be negatively impacted; or iii. Existina agricultural structures would be negatively impacted. -EL.,.=LLJ.LM - :,.:t • .,-a,"LL•S. a--a•S!�.a�a-C�1-� .�t•l-a-a�i-�l�las•l, �!l•1,-. a�i- [�111. 1-�� - M MITI (3) The "reserve tract" may be further subdivided only through the long subdivision process and only under one of the following circumstances: (a) The county finds that in developing adiacent tracts it would help to further the objectives listed in WCC 20.22.305 by dividing the reserve tract and increasing the area of reserve proportionately on the adiacent land being subdivided so that there is no net reduction in reserve area; and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract; or (b) When the Comprehensive Plan and zoning have been updated as part of the normal process (other than a revision initiated by the private sector or done for a specific area) and the public process has been gone through, subiect to findings that there is no adverse impact to critical areas and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract; or (c) The site is within a short-term planning area and public water and sewer serve the proposed development on the reserve tract. P. 1 i 294 (4) For sites located within urban growth areas, wells, sewage disposal systems, and associated easements that serve the Glustemd4G*^ may be located on the reserve tract only if: (a) The applicant demonstrates to the Whatcom County Health Department that there is not adequate space on the clustered lots for such facilities and/or easements; and (b) A note is placed on the face of the plat stating that, prior to filing a final plat with the County Auditor that divides the reserve tract for urban density development: i. Owners of clustered lots and the reserve tract shall hook-up to public water and sewer; and ii. Easements and restrictive covenants for wells and/or sewage disposal systems on the reserve tract shall be extinguished, with Health Department approval; and iii. Wells on the reserve tract shall be decommissioned in accordance with Washington Department of Ecology regulations and sewage disposal systems on the reserve tract shall be abandoned. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the reserve tract can be developed to its fullest potential, and such development will not be restricted by the existence of wells, sewage disposal facilities and easements associated with these facilities. (5) The purpose of the reserve tract as stated in subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this section shall be communicated in writing on the face of the plat or short plat. The number of developable building sites remaining (if any) with the original parcel of record, based on the assigned density, shall also be prominently displayed on the plat or short plat. Whatcom County shall make every effort to assist all agents in communicating clearly such information to all purchasers and prospective purchasers of building lots or "reserve tracts." (6) That the above stated requirements in subsections (2) to (5) of this section shall be recorded as a deed restriction at the time of filing of the final plat or short plat, and shall constitute an agreement between Whatcom County and the owner of record. Said deed restriction may be amended by mutual agreement between said parties after review for consistency and compliance with the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance, the Whatcom County Subdivision Ordinance and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Repealed by Ord, 2094 9 1. (Ord. 98-083 Exh. A § 21, 1998; Ord. 90-45, 1990; Ord. 84- 38, 1984). Note: WCC 20.22.253 and .254 are not being altered by this proposal. P. 12 295 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT & REASONS FOR ACTION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and to the Urban Residential and Urban Residential Medium Density Zones relating to Lot Clustering, Reserve Tracts, and Water & Sewage Disposal Facilities WHEREAS, The proposal will facilitate appropriate urban densities in urban growth areas and preservation of rural and resource lands surrounding urban growth areas; and WHEREAS, Legal notice was published in the Bellingham Herald; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposal; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed amendments; 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 The County Council approved resolution No. 2006-029 initiating the original version of the amendment for further review on March 14, 2006. 2. Notice that the County Council initiated the original version of the amendment for further review was e-mailed to city planners on March 21, 2006. 3. Notice that the County initiated the original version of the amendment for further review was published in the Bellingham Herald on March 22, 2006. 4. Notice of the amendment was sent to state agencies, including the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), on April 4, 2006. 5. Notice of the Planning Commission hearings for this legislative action was published in the Bellingham Herald on July 16, 2006 and September 3, 2006. 6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearings for this legislative action was posted on the County's website on July 11, 2006 and August 31, 2006. 7. A determination of non -significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on May 9, 2006. Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 2006/CMP2006-00006/Planning Commission Findings.doc P. 1 296 The Planning Commission held public hearings relating to the subject amendment on July 27, 2006 and September 14, 2006. 9. Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.10.080 contains approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments. 10. WCC 20.10.080(1) states that the amendment must conform to the requirements of GMA, be internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, be consistent with the County - Wide Planning Policies and be consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. 11. The Growth Management Act (GMA), at RC W 36.70A.020, includes the following planning goals: • Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. + Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low -density development. 12. Whatcom County's important interest in facilitating appropriate urban densities is expressed in 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." 13. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goal 2R is to "Ensure adequate land supply is provided to accommodate twenty years of growth within urban areas." 14. County -wide 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." 15. The proposed amendment is intended to reduce suburban sprawl and .facilitate land uses in urban growth areas that will that allow urban levels of density to be achieved in the future. 16. Whatcom County's important interest in protecting rural, agricultural and forestry lands (including such lands surrounding urban growth areas) is expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, Comprehensive Plan Goal 2DD is to "Retain the rural character and lifestyle of Whatcom County." Policy 2A-9 is to "Retain existing rural and heavy industrial areas in the northwestern region of the county." The Comprehensive Plan states "... Maintaining the rural character and lifestyle is very important to Whatcom County residents... " (p. 2-62). Additionally, Comprehensive Plan Goal 8A is to "Conserve and enhance Whatcom County's agricultural land base for the continued production of food and fiber." Finally, Comprehensive Plan GOAL 8F is to "Maintain and enhance Whatcom County's forest land base." Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 20061CMP2006.000061PIanning Commission Findings.doe P. 2 297 17. A substantial amount of the land surrounding urban growth areas in Whatcom County is designated rural, agriculture or forestry by the Comprehensive Plan. Inefficient large -lot residential land uses in the urban growth areas will place more pressure to convert rural, agricultural, and/or forestry lands to urban growth areas in the future. 18. One strategy for maintaining rural character, agricultural lands, and forest lands is to achieve appropriate urban densities in existing urban growth areas so that urban growth areas do not have to be expanded into rural, agricultural and forestry lands within the planning period. 19. WCC 20.10.080(2) states that further studies made or accepted by the department of planning and development services and planning commission must indicate a need for the amendment or that changed conditions must indicate a need for the amendment. 20. Approximately 57.5% of the acreage in existing long term planning areas can be divided under the current regulations. Additional large -lot land divisions that could occur under the existing regulations in these long term planning areas, as well as in short term planning areas that do not have public water and sewer, would hinder the ability to achieve future urban density developments in these urban growth areas. 21. WCC 20.10.080(3) states that the public interest must be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: • The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. • The anticipated effect upon the ability of the County and/or other service providers, such as cities, schools, water and/or sewer purveyors, fire districts, and others as applicable, to provide adequate services and public facilities including transportation facilities. • The suitability of the site to provide on -site wells and/or on -site sewage disposal, if applicable. • , Anticipated impact upon critical areas. • Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands. 22. The proposed text amendments would reduce the conversion of developable land within urban growth areas to suburban development patterns. This is intended to provide more effective utilization of urban growth areas so that, over the planning period, they can be developed at appropriate urban densities as envisioned in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. The public policy of Whatcom County, as expressed in the Comprehensive flan, calls for the retention of rural, agricultural and forestry lands. More efficient use of existing urban growth areas should translate into less need to expand these urban growth areas into rural, agricultural and/or forestry lands. Therefore, the subject amendment will serve the public interest. Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 20061CMP2006-000061Planning Commission Findings.doc P. 3 iqm 23. No adverse impacts to service providers, critical areas or designated resource lands have been identified. 24. WCC 20.10.080(4) states that the amendment must not include nor facilitate illegal spot zoning. 25. The proposed text amendments are applicable to rather large areas, and these amendments are not intended to facilitate private gain. Rather, they are intended to serve the public interest by ensuring efficient use of existing urban growth areas. Therefore, the proposal does not constitute "spot zoning." CONCLUSIONS The subject amendment is consistent with the approval criteria of WCC 20.10.080 and serves the public interest. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan shown in Exhibit A and amendments to the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance shown in Exhibit B. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4ffer., DDavidChairperson Date V( r Hal . Hart, Secretary Lo Dad Commissioners present at the September 14, 2006 meeting when the vote was taken on the subject amendment: Rabel Burdge, David Hunter, John Lesow, Kenneth Mann, Dave Pros and Ron Roosma. Vote: Ayes: 5, Nays: 1, Abstain: 0, Absent: 3. Motion carried to adopt the above amendments. Planning/Comp Plan AmendmenWComp Plan 20061CMP2006-000061Planning Commission Findings.doc P. 4 299 Exhibit A Policy 2S-2: Land within a UGA but outside a Short Term Planning Area shall retain its current zoning until a new joint plan is identified and the Short Term Planning Area is moved, but with the following additional limitations on development which shall be included in the County development regulations: No sewer shall be extended outside a Short Term Planning Area. Water lines shall not be extended to serve urban levels of development outside a Short Term Planning Area. Exceptions may be made in cases where human health is threatened as determined by the County Health and Human Services Department (the use of interties for emergency purposes will be allowed to the extent that other needed approvals are given); (2) where vested rights currently exist - the city/district will provide the County detailed maps specifying the location and nature of the vested rights; (3) to help meet regional supply needs, as discussed under the CWSP, so long as the purveyor has sufficient quantities of water to meet needs in its entire UGA as determined by the purveyor and agreed to by the County. • All development in urban growth areas shall be done in a manner which will not preclude development at urban levels of density when the area is annexed into the city. • No residential development shall occur at a gross density greater than one dwelling unit per five acres. All residential land divisions will be developed as cluster subdivisions. All buildable lots will be in one cluster. Clustered lots will be as small as possible in order to maintain a large reserve tract available for future urban development. Wells, sewage disposal systems, and easements associated with these facilities may be placed on the reserve tract only if it is not feasible to place them within the boundaries of the clustered lots. • When the site is rezoned to short term planning area and public water and sewer serve the site, the reserve tract of a cluster subdivision may be developed with urban densities allowed in the zoning district. If the clustered lots are served by wells, sewage disposal facilities and/or associated easements that are located on the reserve tract, then the clustered lots will be required to hook up to public water and sewer when the reserve tract is developed with urban densities. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the reserve tract can be developed to its fullest potential, and such development will not be restricted by the existence of wells, sewage disposal facilities and easements associated with these facilities. Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 2006/CMP2006-00006/Planning Commission Find ings.doc P. 5 300 Exhibit B Amend the Urban Residential (UR) District of the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance as follows: 20.20.251 Minimum lot size within an urban growth area. For the purpose of creating new buildinq lots within the Urban Residential District, several land use densities are herein provided. The minimum lot size requirements for new construction vary according to the method of subdivision, as well as whether or not public sewer, water, and, where required by regulation, stormwater collection and detention facilities serve the protect site. Where the lot cluster land division method is used the minimum lot size is based on consideration of the zoning district's setback requirements and the Whatcom County health code regulations for sewage systems and drinking water, but shall not be less than that shown below. Where a maximum lot size is imposed, clustered lots shall be as small as allowed by the Health Department. 20.20.252 Maximum density, minimum lot size and maximum lot size within an urban growth area. District Maximum Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Maximum Lot Min. Reserve Area (Cluster Size Subdivisions( Conventional Cluster Cluster Lots UR: all densities without public sewer and water 1 dwelling unit/5 acres N/A* 12,500 sq. 22,000 sq, N/A ft. ft. UR: all densities outside short-term planning areas ** 1 dwelling unit/5 acres NIA 12.500 sq. 22,000 sq, NIA UR: all densities with public sewer or water ** 1 dwelling unit/5 acres N/A* 12,500 sq. 22,000 sq. N/A [LIR-3: in short-term Aannina areas with ublic sewer and water, 3 dweliing units/1 acre 12,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. N/A 25% and stormwater ollection and detention acilities UR-4- in short-term planning areas with public sewer and water, 4 dwelling units/1 acre 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. N/A 20% and stormwater collection and detention facilities Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 20061CMP2006-00006/Planning Commission Findings.doc 301 * For the purpose of administering the lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional minimum lot size shall be 5 acres. ** Does not apply to the Bellingham urban growth area. 20.20.253 254 Minimum lot size outside an urban growth area. For the purpose of creating new building lots within the Urban Residential District, several land use densities are herein provided. The minimum lot size requirements for new construction vary according to the method of subdivision, as well as whether or not public sewer, water, and, where required by regulation, identified by the nppi:ep at G GFF,rtrehensiye Plan n„liGies, stormwater collection and detention facilities serve the project site. Where the lot cluster land division method is used the minimum lot size is based on consideration of the zoning district's setback requirements and the Whatcom County health code regulations for sewage systems and drinking water, but shall not be less than that shown below. (Ord. 2005-041 § 1 Exh. A, 2005; Ord. 98-083 Exh. A § 11, 1998; Ord. 87-12, 1987; Ord. 87-11, 1987; Ord. 82-58, 1982). 20.20.254 2-52 Maximum density and minimum lot size outside an urban growth area. Minimum Lot Size Min. Reserve District Gross Density Area (Cluster Conventional Cluster Subdivisions) UR: all densities without public sewer 1 dwelling 5 acres 1 acre 80% and water unit/5 acres 1 acre without public water and UR: all densities outside sh�„erm 1 dwelling sewer 80% planning areas,_ small towns and resort unit/5 acres 5 acres recreational subdivisions 12,500 sq. ft. with public water or sewer UR: all densities with public sewer or 1 dwelling 5 acres 12,500 sq. ft. 80% water unit/5 acres UR-3: in short teFM planning areas, mall towns or resort recreational 3 dwelling 12,000 sq. subdivisions with public sewer and units/1 ft. 8,000 sq. ft. o 25 /o water, and stormwater collection and acre detention facilities UR-4: in sheFt form planning aFea- small towns or resort recreational 4 dwelling subdivisions with public sewer and units/1 acre 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. o 20 /o water, and stormwater collection and detention facilities Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 2006/CMP2006-00006/Planning Commission Findings.doc P. 7 302 Note: Renumber existing section 20.20.253 to .255 20.20.305 Lot clustering. (1) The purpose of lot clustering is to provide an alternative method of creating economical building lots with spatially efficient sizes. Clustering is intended to reduce development cost, increase energy efficiency and reserve areas of land which are suitable for agriculture, forestry, open space or possible future development. (2) The clustering option is also intended to help preserve open space and the character of areas and reduce total impervious surface area thereby reducing runoff while assuring continued viable undeveloped natural vegetated corridors for wildlife habitat, protection of watersheds, preservation of wetlands, preservation of aesthetic values including view corridors, and preservation of potential trail and recreation areas. (3)1Lot clustering is required for residential land divisions deyel^prr,ents eR paFGels 10 aGFes OF greateF when: (a) The property is located within a short-term planning area and public water and sewer are not available; or (b) The property is located within a long-term planning area. (4) (Ord. 2005-041 § 1 Exh. A, 2005, Ord. 90-45, 1990). 20.20.310 Design standards. The creation of new building lots, pursuant to this section, shall be governed by the following FeGerr wenrinrl design standards: (1) Clustered building lots may be created only through the subdivision or short subdivision process. (2) Building lots should be designed and located to the fullest extent possible to be compatible with valuable or unique natural features, as well as physical constraints of the site. (3) Within short-term planning areas where public water and sewer are not available and within long term planning areas, all residential building lots shall be grouped together in a single cluster. In all other cases, Wwhere practical, the majority of building sites should be arranged in a cluster or concentrated pattern to be compatible with physical site features, allow for the efficient conversion of the "reserve tract" to other uses in the future, and have no more than two common encroachments on existing county roads. The arrangement of clustered building lots is intended to discourage development forms commonly known as linear, straight-line or highway strip patterns. (4) Common access to clustered building lots should be provided by short length roads or loop roads. In addition, interior streets shall be designed to allow access to the "reserve tract" for the purpose of future approved development. (Ord. 90-45, 1990; Ord. 87-12, 1987; Ord. 87-11, 1987). Planning/Comp Plan AmendmenblComp Plan 20061CMP2006-00006/Plenning Commission Findings.doc P. 8 303 20.20.320 Reserve tract. For the purposes of this section, "reserve tract" is defined as that portion of a proposed subdivision or short subdivision which is intended for agricultural, forestry, open space or future development purposes. All "reserve tracts" created through the subdivision process shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) After a site is initially subdivided pursuant to this chapter, the "reserve tract" may be retained by the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the subdivision or conveyed to a third party. (2) Within short-term planning areas where public water and sewer are not available and long term planning areas, the "reserve tract" shall remain unbuildable for residential uses until the reserve tract is further subdivided pursuant to WCC 20.20.320(3)(c), except that a house and accessory structures existing prior to December 31, 2006 shall be allowed on the reserve tract. In all other cases, Tthe "reserve tract" may be considered as a building lot; provided, that such lot is included in the overall density calculation of the original parcel of record. (3) The "reserve tract" may be further subdivided only through the long subdivision process and only under one of the following circumstances: (a) The county finds that in developing adjacent tracts it would help to further the objectives listed in WCC 20.20.305(24 by dividing the reserve tract and increasing the area of reserve proportionately on the adjacent land being subdivided so that there is no net reduction in reserve area; and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract; or (b) When the Comprehensive Plan and zoning have been updated as part of the normal process (other than a revision initiated by the private sector or done for a specific area) and the public process has been gone through, subject to findings that there is no adverse impact to critical areas and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract; or (c) The site is within a short-term planning area and public water and sewer serve the proposed development on the reserve tract. Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 2006/CMP2006-00006Manning Commission Findings.doe P. 9 304 For sites located within urban growth areas, wells, sewage disposal systems, and associated easements that serve the clustered lots may be located on the reserve tract only if: (a) The applicant demonstrates to the Whatcom County Health Department that there is not adequate space on the clustered lots for such facilities and/or easements; and (b) A note is placed on the face of the plat stating that, prior to filing a final plat with the County Auditor that divides the reserve tract for urban density development: i. Owners of clustered lots shall hook-up to public water and sewer; and ii. Easements and restrictive covenants for wells and/or sewage disposal systems on the reserve tract shall be extinguished, with Health Department approval, and iii. Wells on the reserve tract shall be decommissioned in accordance with Washington Department of Ecology regulations and sewage disposal systems on the reserve tract shall be abandoned. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the reserve tract can be developed to its fullest potential, and such development will not be restricted by the existence of wells, sewage disposal facilities and easements associated with these facilities. (5 4) The purpose of the reserve tract as stated in subsections (1), (2),. and (3) and 4 of this section shall be communicated in writing on the face of the plat or short plat. The number of developable building sites remaining (if any) with the original parcel of record, based on the assigned density, shall also be prominently displayed on the plat or short plat. Whatcom County shall make every effort to assist all agents in communicating clearly such information to all purchasers and prospective purchasers of building lots or "reserve tracts." (6 5) That the above stated requirements in subsections (2) to (5) (4� of this section shall be recorded as a deed restriction at the time of filing of the final plat or short plat, and shall constitute an agreement between Whatcom County and the owner of record. Said deed restriction may be amended by mutual agreement between said parties after review for consistency and compliance with the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance, the Whatcom County Subdivision Ordinance and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 2005-041 § 1 Exh. A, 2005; Ord. 98-083 Exh. A § 14, 1998; Ord. 90-45, 1990; Ord. 82-58, 1982). Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 2006/CMP2006-00006/Planning Commission Findings.doc P. 10 305 Amend the Urban Residential — Medium Density (URM) District of the Official natcom County Zoning Ordinance as follows: 20.22.252 Maximum/minimum density and minimum lot size — General. Maximum Lot Size Minimum Lot Minimum (1) Gross Density Size — Minimum Lot Reserve Area District Conventional Size — Cluster (Cluster Divisions) Clustered Lots Maximum URM: all densities without public density: NIA* 5 awes 12,500 sq. ft. NIA One ace sewer and water" 1 dwelling unit/ 22,000 sq. ft. 5 acres 12,500 sq. ft. Maximum withoututpubliG 22,000 sq. URM: all densities outside short- density: NIA* 5 awes water and ft. NIA term planning areas** 1 dwelling unit/ sewer 89°� 5 acres 1 h 5 n--�-�-69. ft. With water or 6e Maximum URM: all densities with public density-, NIA* 5 awes 12500 sq. ft. NIA sewer or water"`"' 1 dwelling unit/ , 22,000 sq. 89°6 ft. 5 acres URM-6: with public sewer and Maximum water, and stormwater collection density: 6 dwelling 7,200 sq. ft. NIA NIA NIA and detention facilities units/4 acre URM-12: with public sewer and Maximum water, and stormwater collection densi : 12 dwelling 7,200 sq- ft. NIA NIA NIA and detention facilities units/acre URM-18: with public sewer and Maximum water, and stormwater collection density: 18 dwelling 7,200 sq. ft. NIA NIA NIA and detention facilities units/acre Minimum net URM-24: with public sewer and density: 10 water, stormwater collection and dwelling detention facilities and units/acre. transferable development rights Maximum NIA NIA NIA pursuant to the provisions of density: 24 NIA Chapter 20.89 WCC and dwelling subsection (4) of this section. units/gross acre. Planning/Comp Plan Amendmems/Comp Plan 2006/CMP2006-00006/Planning Commission Findinps.doc P. 11 306 * For the purpose of administering the lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional minimum lot size shall be 5 acres. ** Does not apply to the Bellingham urban growth area. (2) Where the lot clustering land division method is used, the minimum lot size is based on consideration of the zoning district's setback requirements and the Whatcom County health code regulations for sewage systems and drinking water, but shall not be less than that shown above. Where a maximum lot size is imposed, clustered lots shall be as small as allowed by the Health Department. (3) Where the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan policies call for restricting densities and allow for the transfer of densities and where the provisions of Chapter 20.89 WCC are met, then the maximum allowable density shall be equal to that established by the Comprehensive Plan; provided, that public sewer and water are available. (4) In the URM-24 zones in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area, minimum density shall be calculated as net density, after deducting the areas restricted from development by critical area regulations and infrastructure requirements. (5) In the URM-24 zones in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area, transferable development rights (TDRs) from the Lake Whatcom watershed sending area, must be used, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.89 WCC, Density Transfer Procedure, in order to develop at the prescribed densities. Each development right transferred from the Lake Whatcom watershed may be used to develop three dwelling units in the UGA. For the purpose of using TDRs, the base density is considered to be four dwelling units per acre. TDRs must be used to attain any density greater than four per acre as illustrated in the following table: TDR Base Density Transfer of Development Rights (1 TDR = 3 dwelling units per acre) Allowed Density (range from 10 to 24 dwelling units per acre) 4 dwelling unitslacre 2 TDRs 10 dwelling unitslacre 4 dwelling unitslacre 3 TDRs 13 dwelling unitslacre 4 dwelling unitslacre 4 TDRs 16 dwelling unitslacre 4 dwelling unitslacre 5 TDRs 19 dwelling unitslacre 4 dwelling unitslacre 6 TDRs 22 dwelling unitslacre (Ord. 2005-041 § 1 Exh_ A, 2005; Ord. 2004-021 § 1, 2004: Ord. 98-083 Exh. A § 20, 1998; Ord. 89-92, 1989: Ord. 84-38, 1984). Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 2006ICMP2006-00006lPlanning Commission Findings.doc P. 12 307 20.22.305 Lot clustering. (1) The purpose of lot clustering is to provide an alternative method of creating economical buildinq lots with spatially efficient sizes. Clustering is intended to reduce development cost, increase energy efficiency and reserve areas of land which are suitable for forestry, open space or future development. (24-) Lot clustering is required for residential land divisions developments on naFGels 10 areas OF gFeater when: (a) The property is located within a short-term planning area and public water and sewer are not available; or (b) The property is located within a long-term planning area. 7) 1 Gt Glust all he c n r of 1 VGG 'fin '2nC. (zT���eriag �„--o��t�b��e t�+c�eq�er�e�s—�-����A 20.20.319, and 20.20. (Ord. 2005-041 § 1 Exh. A, 2005). 20.22.310 Design standards. The creation of new building lots, pursuant to this section, shall be governed by the following Fenr•mmenrlerl design standards, except that in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area, the city of Bellingham's design and development standards and guidelines shall be applied: (1) Building lots should be designed and located to the fullest extent possible to be compatible with valuable or unique natural features, as well as physical constraints of the site. (2) Within short-term planning areas where public water and sewer are not available and within long term planning areas, all residential building lots shall be grouped together in a single cluster. In all other cases, Wwhere practical, the majority of building sites should be arranged in a concentrated pattern to be compatible with physical site features, and have no more than two common encroachments on existing county roads. The arrangement of concentrated building lots is intended to discourage development forms commonly known as linear straight-line or highway strip patterns. (Ord. 2004-021 § 1, 2004). 20.22.320 Reserve tract. For the purposes of this section, "reserve tract" is defined as that portion of a proposed subdivision or short subdivision which is intended for forestry, open space or future development purposes. All "reserve tracts" created through the subdivision process shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) After a site is initially subdivided pursuant to this chapter, the "reserve tract" may be retained by the subdivider, conveyed to residents of the subdivision or conveyed to a third party- Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 2006ICNIP2006-00006/Planning Commission Findings.doc P. 13 (2) Within short-term planning areas where public water and sewer are not available and long term planning areas, the "reserve tract" shall remain unbuildable for residential uses until the reserve tract is further subdivided pursuant to WCC 20.22.320(3)(c), except that a house and accessory structures existing prior to December 31, 2006 shall be allowed on the reserve tract. In all other cases, the "reserve tract" may be considered as a building lot; provided, that such lot is included in the overall density calculation of the original parcel of record. (3) The "reserve tract" may be further subdivided only through the long subdivision process and only under one of the following circumstances: (a) The county finds that in developing adjacent tracts it would help to further the objectives listed in WCC 20.22.305 by dividing the reserve tract and increasing the area of reserve proportionately on the adjacent land being subdivided so that there is no net reduction in reserve area; and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract; or (b) When the Comprehensive Plan and zoning have been updated as part of the normal process (other than a revision initiated by the private sector or done for a specific area) and the public process has been none through, subject to findings that there is no adverse impact to critical areas and when the reserve tract is owned by the original developer or a third party, no property owner within the original subdivision will be significantly adversely affected or suffer a substantial decrease of property value as a result of dividing the reserve tract: or (c) The site is within a short-term planning area and public water and sewer serve the proposed development on the reserve tract. (4) For sites located within urban growth areas, wells, sewage disposal systems, and associated easements that serve the clustered lots may be located on the reserve tract only if: (a) The applicant demonstrates to the Whatcom County Health Department that there is not adequate space on the clustered lots for such facilities and/or easements: and (b) A note is placed on the face of the plat stating that, prior to filing a final plat with the County Auditor that divides the reserve tract for urban density development: i. Owners of clustered lots shall hook-up to public water and sewer, and ii. Easements and restrictive covenants for wells and/or sewage disposal systems on the reserve tract shall be extinguished, with Health Department approval-, and iii. Wells on the reserve tract shall be decommissioned in accordance with Washington Department of Ecology regulations and sewage disposal systems on the reserve tract shall be abandoned. Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 20061CMP2006.00006/Planning Commission Findings.doc P. 14 309 The intent of this provision is to ensure that the reserve tract can be developed to its fullest potential, and such development will not be restricted by the existence of wells sewage disposal facilities and easements associated with these facilities. (5) The purpose of the reserve tract as stated in subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this section shall be communicated in writing on the face of the plat or short plat. The number of developable building sites remaining if an with the original parcel of record based on the assigned density, shall also be prominently displayed on the plat or short plat. Whatcom County shall make every effort to assist all agents in communicating clearly such information to all purchasers and prospective purchasers of building lots or "reserve tracts." (6) That the above stated requirements in subsections (2) to (5) of this section shall be recorded as a deed restriction at the time of filing of the final plat or short plat, and shall constitute an agreement between Whatcom County and the owner of record. Said deed restriction may be amended by mutual agreement between said parties after review for consistency and compliance with the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance, the Whatcom County Subdivision Ordinance and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Repealed by QFc 2004-024. (Ord. 98-083 Exh. A § 21, 1998; Ord. 90-45, 1990; Ord. 84- 38, 1984). Note: WCC 20.22.253 and. 254 are not being altered by this proposal. Planning/Comp Plan Amendments/Comp Plan 2006/CMP2006.00006Manning Commission Findings.doc P. 15 310