Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket Nov 24 2009WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2009-452 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date 11/24/2009 Assigned to: Natural Reso Originator: Erin Osborn � t � � (p'O� (� p p C� -,7 E ll V IE D NOW 17 2009 - "'nc Dept. Head.• /r / David Stalheim ( (I 10 / WHATCOM COUNTY Prosecutor: 1 Royce Buckingham f COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget: Executive: Peter Kremen TITLE OF DOCU ENT: A Resolution Approving Recommendations on Applications for Open Space Current Use Assessment: Master File Number OS2009-1 ATTACHMENTS. Draft Resolution, Planning Commission Facts & Findings, Staff Memo to Planning Commissioners and Revised Staff Recommendations, Excerpts from Planning Commission October 22, 2009 Public Hearing Draft Minutes, Staff Report, Rating Sheets, Maps, Photos, and Supporting Documents SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) No Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes (X) No SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( N/A) No Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: Recommendations on a total of thirteen (13) applications for Open Space Current Use Assessment referenced under Master File Number OS2009-1 are forwarded to the Whatcom County Council for action pursuant to Chapter 84.34 RCW & WCC 3.28.020. A resolution is proposed to initiate Council action to approve recommendations on the applications referenced under Master File Number OS2009-1, and to grant assessment at current use for those applications receiving a recommendation of approval: Seven (7) applications for Open Space Land; One (1) application for Farm & Agricultural Conservation Land; and Five (5) applications for Timber Land. * Distribution Request: Assessors Dept — Jean Eastman COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: OS2009-1 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. rces Resolution File Ref: OS2009-1 Page 1 of 7 SPONSORED BY: CONSENT PROPOSED BY: PDS INTRODUCTION DATE: 11/24/2009 RESOLUTION NO: APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, The Open Space Taxation Act codified as Chapter 84.34 RCW, gives counties legislative authority to grant applications for current use classification and re-classification as Farm and Agricultural Land, Open Space Land and its sub- classification Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land, and Timber Land; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Whatcom County Code, Section 3.28.020, applications for Open Space Land, Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land, and Timber Land are received and evaluated by Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Department staff, and the results of this evaluation are then presented to the Whatcom County Planning Commission at a public hearing for review and consideration in making recommendations to the County Council; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to RCW 84.34.055 and WAC 458-30-330 Whatcom County has adopted a Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) by Ordinance # 95-040, which is used by staff to rate applications for Open Space Land and Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land; and WHEREAS, Applications for Open Space Land and Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land are evaluated with the Public Benefit Rating System and assigned a Public Benefit Rating (PBR) that corresponds with a recommendation of approval or denial, and must receive a score of 45 or above for a recommendation of approval; and WHEREAS, In accordance with the Whatcom County Public Benefit Rating System, public access is a condition of approval for Open Space Land and Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land applications, except that this requirement may be waived by the granting authority when the purpose of the classification is for the conservation of wetlands; or when there is a documented occurrence of: State or Federal Threatened Endangered Species, Federal Proposed Endangered or Threatened Species, State Sensitive or Monitor Species; or when there is a known or potentially significant archaeological site; and 2 Resolution File Ref: OS2009-1 Page 2 of 7 WHEREAS, Applications for Timber Land are evaluated according to the criteria provided in the Open Space Timber Management Plan Format and Content as revised by Whatcom County Ord. 95-040 in conformance with RCW 84.34.041; and WHEREAS, Applications for Timber Land are assigned a score that corresponds with a recommendation of approval or denial and must receive a score of 7 or above for a recommendation of approval; and WHEREAS, On October 22, 2009, the Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered all testimony on applications referenced in Master File Number OS2009-1; and WHEREAS, On November 24, 2009, the Whatcom County Council reviewed Planning Commission recommendations, and considered all testimony submitted in reference to applications in Master File Number OS2009-1; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)(c), matters relating to Open Space Current Use Assessment are determined not to be major actions and thus exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); and WHEREAS, Pursuant to RCW 36.70.390, the statutory requirements regarding legal notice have been met; and WHEREAS, The County Council has adopted the following Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action: FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services received a total of thirteen (13) applications for open space current use assessment: seven (7) applications for Open Space Land, five (5) applications for Timber Land, and one (1) application for Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land (a sub -classification of Open Space Land); these applications were given individual file numbers and were grouped together and are referenced under Master File Number OS2009-1. 2. Planning and Development Services staff evaluated individual applications referenced under Master File Number OS2009-1 using appropriate evaluation criteria and prepared a staff report with recommendations consistent with the results of each evaluation, and submitted this staff report to all members of the Planning Commission. Copies of this report were also sent to individual applicants, notifying them of staff recommendations. 3 Resolution File Ref: OS2009-1 Page 3 of 7 3. Notice of the public hearing for Master File Number OS2009-1 Open Space Current Use Assessment applications was published in the Bellingham Herald on October 11, 2009. 4. Information about the public hearing, and a digital copy of the staff report and recommendations for Master File Number OS2009-1 was posted on the County's website on October 16, 2009. 5. On Thursday, October 22, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on applications referenced in Master File Number OS2009-1 and considered staff recommendations and revised recommendations from staff, and considered all testimony. 6. At the October 22, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing, staff submitted a memo addressed to Whatcom County Planning Commissioners which briefly discussed proposed revisions to recommendations previously submitted on two (2) applications being considered that evening: 1) Staff requested that planning commissioners consider a revised Public Benefit Rating (PBR) on the Maier application (OSP2009- 00006) due to new information submitted by the applicant which warranted an increase in the PBR; it was recommended by staff that the original PBR of 49.98 be increased to. 73.48; and 2) Staff requested that planning commissioners consider a proposed revision to the staff recommendation previously submitted on the Prestlien application (OSP2009-00005); staff recommended that the original recommendation of approval be revised to a recommendation of denial on the basis of new information received that suggested that a 150% Safety Buffer of one and a half tree lengths surrounding residential structures is not compatible with commercial forestry. Staff researched 84.34.020 (3) RCW and found that it defines Timber Land as a parcel of land or multiple parcels that are contiguous and total a minimum of 5 acres which is primarily devoted to the growth and harvest of timber for commercial purposes, and also spoke with Washington State Department of Natural Resources - Forest Practices staff, and Washington State Department of Revenue - Forester, who indicated that the 150% Safety Buffer may not be compatible with commercial forestry. On the basis of this new information staff recommended that the safety buffer acreage be subtracted from the total acres considered in the application. In cooperation with Whatcom County Natural Resource Planning staff, it was calculated that an estimated 2.94 acres would comprise the safety buffer, and when subtracted from the total parcel acreage of 6.15 acres it fell below the minimum of 2 Resolution Page 4 of 7 File Ref: OS2009-1 five acres required for approval as outlined in the Whatcom County Timber Management Plan Format and Content developed in accordance with RCW 84.34.041. 7. At the October 22, 2009 public hearing held by the Planning Commission, the following applicants were present and answered questions and spoke about the merits of their individual applications: Karen Sloss for Congregation Beth Israel (OSP2009-00001), Liz Jenkins (OSP2009-00012), Steve McMinn (OSP2009-00003), Doug Marsh (OSP2009-00011), Terry Prestlien (OSP2009-00005), Sherry Olson (OSP2009-00010), and Mark Lann (OSP2009-000013). 8. Mr. Prestlien urged the Planning Conrimission to approve his application for Timber Land, and follow staff's original recommendation of approval and not staff's revised recommendation of denial, on the basis of a Timber Management Plan that identifies 5.06 acres of land on his 6.15 acre parcel devoted to growing and harvesting a merchantable stand of timber for commercial forestry purposes. Mr. Prestlien's comments indicated that he disagreed with staff's revised recommendation, and also indicated that he had spoken with the State Department of Natural Resources who indicated that the safety buffer did not have anything to do with whether or not the land should be classified as Open Space Timber Land. 9. At the October 22, 2009 public hearing, planning commissioners made individual motions on recommendations for each application for Open Space Current Use Assessment referenced in Master File OS2009-1. Planning Commissioners voted to approve all recommendations and revised recommendations presented by staff including a recommendation of denial on the Prestlien application, and an increase in the Public Benefit Rating (PBR) on the Maier application, and also voted to approve a friendly amendment to reduce the acreage around residential structures considered for approval in the Hansen Timber Land application (OSP2009-00008) to 16 acres to be consistent with the safety buffer applied to the Prestlien application (OSP2009-00005). 10. On November 24, 2009, staff forwarded Whatcom County Planning Commission recommendations in a report on open space applications referenced under Master File OS2009-1, to the Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee for their consideration in whether to approve in whole or in part, or deny applications referenced under Master File OS2009-1. 11. On November 24, 2009, at the Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee meeting, staff forwarded recommendations from the Planning Commission, and staff explained that the previous staff recommendation of denial on the Prestlien application was based on information not yet adopted into Whatcom County Open Space 5 Resolution File Ref: OS2009-1 Page 5 of 7 Policies, and could be considered a premature action, and unfair to the applicant, and therefore retracted a recommendation of denial on the application, and requested that the Council consider a recommendation of approval as originally submitted to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee members voted to recommend approval on the Prestlien Timber Land application (OSP2009-00005) and Hansen Timber Land applications (OSP2009-00008) as originally recommended for approval by staff, and also voted to recommend approval on an increase in the Public Benefit Rating (PBR) on the Maier application (OSP2009-000006) as recommended by the Planning Commission, and to recommend approval on all open space applications referenced under Master File OS2009-1 to the full Council for final action on the same day. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL: Recommendations on applications for Open Space Current Use Assessment referenced in Master File Number OS2009-1 and listed below are hereby approved subject to conditions and applicable scores as noted herein: OSP2009-00001 - Congregation Beth Israel; Transfer from Designated Forest Land to Open Space Land: 3.75 +/- Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803323840390000; 3803323610060000 PBR= 99 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00002 - Burnett; Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island Amended Application - Open Space Land: 52.54 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3701054404680000; 3701040344880000 PBR= 71.20 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00003 - McMinn; West Shore Road, Lummi Island New Application - Open Space Land: 6.07 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3801322964290000 PBR= 83.60 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00004 - Massey; East of Yew Street Road New Application - Timber Land: 10.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803334020370000 TMP Score: 13 Recommendation: Approval 0 Resolution File Ref.• OS2009-1 OSP2009-00005 - Prestlien; Edgewood Lane New Application - Timber Land: 5.06 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803251154480000 TNIP Score: 12 Recommendation: Approval OSP2009-00006 - Maier; Old Samish Road New Application - Open Space Land: 5.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3703170522270000 PBR= 73.48 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00007 - Chamberlin; Lake Whatcom Boulevard New Application - Open Space Land; 4.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3804310661140000; 3804310320830000; 3804310610920000 PBR= 70.84 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00008 - Hansen; Heady Road Transfer from Designated Forest Land to Timber Land: 18.70 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4005102000300000 TMP Score: 14 Recommendation: Approval OSP2009-00009 - Heusinkveld; Hampton Road New Application - Timber Land: 10.50 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4003234574-170000; 4003234584370000 TMP Score: 14 Recommendation: Approval Page 6 of 7 OSP2009-00010 - Olson; Aldergrove Road Transfer from Farm and Agricultural Land to Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land: 4.85 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3901112170380000 PBR= 53.9 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00011 - Marsh; Aldrich Road Transfer from Farm and Agricultural Land to Open Space Land: 3.46 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3902143700550000 PBR= 85.75 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00012 - Jenkins; Sunrise Road Transfer from Farm and Agricultural Land to Open Space Land: 3.78 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4002064540830000 PBR= 73.08 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign 7 Resolution Page 7 of 7 File Ref: OS2009-1 OSP2009-00013 - Lann; Isaacson Road New Application - Timber Land: 19.43 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803130662300000 TMP Score: 14 Recommendation: Approval 2. The Whatcom County Council directs the Assessor to place the parcels into the appropriate Open Space Current Use classification. 3. Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections, clauses, or provisions of this resolution shall not affect or impair the validity of the resolution as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. APPROVED this day of , 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: Royce Buckingham Civil Deputy Prosecutor WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer Council Chair WHATCOM COUNTY Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax MEMORANDUM David Stalheim Director J.E. "Sam" Ryan Assistant Director TO: Whatcom County Council Members FROM: 6" Erin Osborn, Planner, Planning and Development Services THROUGH: 0t Wain Harrison, Long Range Planning Supervisor DATE: November 24, 2009 RE: Recommendations on Applications for Open Space Current Use Assessment - Master File Number OS2009-1 The purpose of this memo is to provide background information for your consideration as you review the request before you - to approve the above referenced applications as recommended by staff and discussed below. A draft resolution has been prepared and is included with this memo should the Council concur with staff recommendations. The results of staff evaluation and original recommendations to approve all of the above Open Space applications referenced under Master File Number OS2009-1 were initially presented to the Planning Commission on October 22, 2009. Soon after the report was submitted, staff re-evaluated the Maier and Prestlien applications because new information had been received that gave cause for further review and evaluation. Staff received new information about greater opportunities for public access on the Maier application, which warranted an increase to the previously assigned score. Staff revised this score and submitted it to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Staff also became aware of new information indicating that a recommendation of approval on the Prestlien Timber Land application may not have been appropriate as previously assigned. Staff spoke with State Department of Natural Resources, and the State Department of Revenue, and learned that a one and a half tree length i.e. 150% safety buffer around residential structures may not be compatible with commercial forestry. When the acreage in the 150% safety buffer was subtracted from the acreage considered in the application, staff concluded that it did not meet the nninimum 5 acres to qualify. Supervisory staff reviewed preliminary staff conclusions and a determination was made to reverse the previous recommendation of approval on the Prestlien application. Office (360) 676-6907 FAX (360) 738-2493 9 Staff presented revised recommendations on both the Prestlien and Maier applications at the Planning Commission public hearing, and commissioners voted to approve staff's revised recommendations, and also voted to reduce the acreage of the Hansen Timber Land application to 16 acres in order to be consistent with the safety buffer applied to the Prestlien application. Staff has considered Mr. Prestlien's testimony given at the public hearing, and is now proposing that since at the time of application Whatcom County had not adopted a policy requiring a 150% buffer to be applied to the perimeter of residential structures, a recommendation of denial on that basis would be premature and unfair to the applicant. Staff is now requesting that Council approve all of the applications referenced under Master File Number OS2009-1 as originally submitted to the Planning Commission at the October 22, 2009 public hearing, except that the that the score on the Maier application be increased as shown in the revised recommendation. Office (360) 676-6907 FAX (360) 738-2493 10 PC Facts & Findings File Ref: OS2009-1 October 22, 2009 Page 1 of 5 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT & REASONS FOR ACTION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Applications for Open Space Current Use Assessment Master File Number OS2009-1 THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ENTERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT & REASONS FOR ACTION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services received a total of thirteen (13) applications for open space current use assessment: seven (7) applications for Open Space Land, five (5) applications for Timber Land, and one (1) application for Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land (a sub -classification of Open Space Land); these applications were given individual file numbers and were grouped together and are referenced under Master File Number OS2009-1. 2. Planning and Development Services staff evaluated individual applications referenced under Master File Number OS2009-1 using appropriate evaluation criteria and prepared a staff report with recommendations consistent with the results of each evaluation, and submitted this staff report to all members of the Planning Commission. Copies of this report were also sent to individual applicants, notifying them of staff recommendations. 3. Notice of the public hearing for Master File Number OS2009-1 Open Space Current Use Assessment applications was published in the Bellingham Herald on October 11, 2009. 4. Information about the public hearing, and a digital copy of the staff report and recommendations for Master File Number OS2009-1 was posted on the County's website on October 16, 2009. 5. On Thursday, October 22, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on applications referenced in Master File Number OS2009-1 and considered staff recommendations and revised recommendations from staff, and considered all testimony. 6. At the October 22, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing, staff 11 PC Facts & Findings File Ref: OS2009-1 October 22, 2009 Page 2 of 5 submitted a memo addressed to Whatcom County Planning Commissioners which briefly discussed proposed revisions to recommendations previously submitted on two (2) applications being considered that evening: 1) Staff requested that planning commissioners consider a revised Public Benefit Rating (PBR) on the Maier application (OSP2009- 00006) due to new information submitted by the applicant which warranted an increase in the PBR; it was recommended by staff that the original PBR of 49.98 be increased to 73.48;. and 2) Staff requested that planning commissioners consider a proposed revision to the staff recommendation previously submitted on the Prestlien application (OSP2009-00005); staff recommended that the original recommendation of approval be revised to a recommendation of denial on the basis of new information received that suggested that a 150% Safety Buffer of one and a half tree lengths surrounding residential structures is not compatible with commercial forestry. Staff researched 84.34.020 (3) RCW and found that it defines Timber Land as a parcel of land or multiple parcels that are contiguous and total a minimum of 5 acres which is primarily devoted to the growth and harvest of timber for commercial purposes, and also spoke with Washington State Department of Natural Resources - Forest Practices staff, and Washington State Department of Revenue - Forester, who indicated that the 150% Safety Buffer may not be compatible with commercial forestry. On the basis of this new information staff recommended that the safety buffer acreage be subtracted from the total acres considered in the application. In cooperation with Whatcom County Natural Resource Planning staff, it was calculated that an estimated 2.94 acres would comprise the safety buffer, and when subtracted from the total parcel acreage of 6.15 acres it fell below the minimum of five acres required for approval as outlined in the Whatcom County Timber Management Plan Format and Content developed in accordance with RCW 84.34.041. 7. At the October 22, 2009 public hearing held by the Planning Commission, the following applicants were present and answered questions and spoke about the merits of their individual applications: Karen Sloss for Congregation Beth Israel (OSP2009-00001), Liz Jenkins (OSP2009-00012), Steve McMinn (OSP2009-00003), Doug Marsh (OSP2009-00011), Terry Prestlien (OSP2009-00005), Sherry Olson (OSP2009-00010), and Mark Lann (OSP2009-000013). 8. Mr. Prestlien urged the Planning Commission to approve his application for Timber Land, and follow staff's original 12 PC Facts & Findings File Ref: OS2009-1 October 22, 2009 Page 3 of 5 recommendation of approval and not staff's revised recommendation of denial, on the basis of a Timber Management Plan that identifies 5.06 acres of land on his 6.15 acre parcel devoted to growing and harvesting a merchantable stand of timber for commercial forestry purposes. Mr. Prestlien's comments indicated that he disagreed with staff's revised recommendation, and also indicated that he had spoken with the State Department of Natural Resources who indicated that the safety buffer did not have anything to do with whether or not the land should be classified as Open Space Timber Land. 9. At the October 22, 2009 public hearing, planning commissioners made individual motions on recommendations for each application for Open Space Current Use Assessment referenced in Master File OS2009-1. Planning Commissioners voted to approve all recommendations and revised recommendations presented by staff including a recommendation of denial on the Prestlien application, and an increase in the Public Benefit Rating (PBR) on the Maier application, and also voted to approve a friendly amendment to reduce the acreage around residential structures considered for approval in the Hansen Timber Land application (OSP2009-00008) to 16 acres to be consistent with the safety buffer applied to the Prestlien application (OSP2009-00005). RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission forwards recommendations to the Whatcom County Council for the following applications referenced in Master File OS 2009-1: OSP2009-00001 - Congregation Beth Israel; Transfer from Designated Forest Land to Open Space Land: 3.75 +/- Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803323840390000; 3803323610060000 PBR= 99 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00002 - Burnett; Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island Amended Application - Open Space Land: 52.54 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3701054404680000; 3701040344880000 PBR= 71.20 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00003 - McMinn; West Shore Road, Lummi Island New Application - Open Space Land: 6.07 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3801322964290000 PBR= 83.60 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign 13 PC Facts & Findings File Ref: OS2009-1 October 22, 2009 Page 4 of 5 OSP2009-00004 - Massey; East of Yew Street Road New Application - Timber Land: 10.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803334020370000 TNIP Score: 13 Recommendation: Approval OSP2009-00005 - Prestlien; Edgewood Lane New Application - Timber Land: 5.06 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803251154480000 TMP Score: N/A Recommendation: Denial OSP2009-00006 - Maier; Old Samish Road New Application - Open Space Land: 5.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3703170522270000 PBR= 73.48 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00007 - Chamberlin; Lake Whatcom Boulevard New Application - Open Space Land; 4.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3804310661140000;3804310320830000; 3804310610920000 PBR= 70.84 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00008 - Hansen; Heady Road Transfer from Designated Forest Land to Timber Land: 16.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4005102000300000 TMP Score: 14 Recommendation: Approval OSP2009-00009 - Heusinkveld; Hampton Road New Application - Timber Land: 10.50 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4003234574170000; 4003234584370000 TNIP Score: 14 Recommendation: Approval OSP2009-00010 - Olson; Aldergrove Road Transfer from Farm and Agricultural Land to Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land: 4.85 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3901112170380000 PBR= 53.9 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00011 - Marsh; Aldrich Road Transfer from Farm and Agricultural Land to Open Space Land: 3.46 Acres Parcel Nunmbers: 3902143700550000 PBR= 85.75 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign 14 PC Facts & Findings File Ref: OS2009-1 October 22, 2009 Page 5 of 5 OSP2009-00012 - Jenkins; Sunrise Road Transfer from Farm and Agricultural Land to Open Space Land: 3.78 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4002064540830000 PBR= 73.08 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign OSP2009-00013 - Lann; Isaacson Road New Application - Timber Land: 19.43 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803130662300000 TMP Score: 14 Recommendation: Approval The Whatcom County Planning Commission forwards recommendations to the County Council for the following open space current use classification applications referenced under Master File Number OS 2009-1: WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 o Date David Stalheim, Secretary Date Commissioners present at the October 22, 2009 public hearing when votes were taken to forward recommendations to the Whatcom County Council on applications for Open Space Current Use Assessment referenced under Master File Number OS2009-1: John Belisle, Sean Wilson, David Hunter, John Lesow, Kenneth Mann, Jean Melious, John Steensma. Commissioners absent: Rabel Burdge, Geoff Menzies. Motions carried to approve all recommendations as listed herein on applications for Open Space Current Use Assessment referenced in Master File Number OS2009-1. Attachments: Staff Report, Evaluation Forms, Maps, Photos, Supporting Documents, Staff Memo to Planning Commissioners and Revised Evaluation Forms 15 WHATCOM COUNTY Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax �GGNI CO` �4ShIN�.tCr MEMORANDUM David Stalheim Director J.E. "Sam" Ryan Assistant Director TO: Whatcom County Planning Commissioners FROM: Erin Osborn, Planner, Planning and Development Services DATE: October 22, 2009 RE: Open Space Applications - Revised Recommendations The purpose of this memorandum is to provide Planning Commissioners with two (2) revised recommendations on applications referenced in the October 22, 2009 staff report prepared for tonight's public hearing on Open Space Applications. Recommendations on the following applications have been revised as follows: Open Space Land Application OSP2009-00006 - Maier; Old Samish Road New Application; 5 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3703170522270000 Original PBR= 49.98 Revised PBR 73.48 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign The increase in the Public Benefit Rating (PBR) is based on information provided by the property owner about the type of public access, and specific opportunities for recreational activity on the site, confirmed by staff during a site inspection on October 20, 2009. Please see the attached evaluation form for specific changes made that describe the basis of staff's decision to increase the Public Benefit Rating (PBR) on this application. Timber Land Application OSP2009-00005 - Prestlien; Edgewood Lane New Application: 5.06 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803251154480000 TNIP Score: N/A Original Staff Recommendation: Approval Revised Staff Recommendation: Denial Originally, staff recommended approval of this application; however, on the basis of new information recently received, staff is now recommending denial. New Office (360) 676-6907 FAX (360) 738-2493 16 information was received on October 13, 2009 during a staff interview and correspondence with State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Lesslie Kahns, Forest Practices staff, and on October 20, 2009 in an interview with State Department of Revenue (DOR), Forester, Chris Westwood. Staff learned that a safety buffer of approximately one and a half tree lengths (150 % safety buffer) is applied to the area surrounding residential structures on the site, and that this safety buffer area is considered by DNR and DOR staff to be incompatible with commercial forestry. In the Prestlien application, the safety buffer amounts to approximately 2.94 acres (see attached map), and since the subject parcel consists of 6.15 acres, when the safety buffer is subtracted from the total parcel acreage, it fails to meet the five acre minimum to qualify for the classification. On the basis of this new information, it is staff's recommendation that the application be denied. State law regulating the approval or denial of Open Space Timber Land applications, states: "The _ ranting authority shall act upon the application with due regard to all relevant evidence, and without any one or more items of evidence necessarily being determinative..." RCW 84.31.041 (3) (emphasis added). Staff has considered all relevant evidence, including a recommendation by the State Department of Revenue, Forester, that a safety buffer intended to protect residential structures, is incompatible with long term commercial forestry, and should not be considered as part of the minimum acreage for growing merchantable timber as identified in the Timber Management Plan submitted by the applicant. Please see the attached evaluation form for specific changes that describe the basis of staff's revised recommendation of denial. Office (360) 676-6907 FAX (360) 738-2493 17 WHATCOM COUNTY �GCM �o David Stalheim Planning & Development Services 3rP `y� Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TY 800-833-6384 's•►,N��° Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Land Public Benefit Rating System -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-00006 Property Owner (s) Jack Maier Classification: Open Space Land Street Address: 595 Old Samish Road Status: New Application City: Bellingham Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 3703170522270000 State: WA Zip: 98229 Site Address: 585 Old Samish Road Subarea: Chuckanut/Lake Samish Comp Plan Designation: Rural Parcel Acre(s): 6.00 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Pasture, Residential 5.00 Zoning Designation: R(5) Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #157 - Squalicum gravelly loam, 15-30% slopes, 50% coverage #156 - Squalicum gravelly loam, 5-15% slopes, 15% coverage # 3 - Andic Xerochrepts, 60-90% slopes, 35% coverage Comments: Squalicum gravelly loams are mainly used for woodland, also pasture or a site for homes; Andic Xerochrepts are primarily suitable for woodland, with hazards of erosion. SD, Basic Value_(BV) .., Score _..MAX ;.. - Public_Benefit:Value,.(PBV)_ ._ Score MAX Enhance Scenic Resources Public Access Undeveloped road frontage contributes Posted Sign and Rules of Conduct to rural scenic vistas along local county required: Off street parking. Access road at the base of Chuckanut through unlocked gate on property Mountain. 5 10 during daylight hours. 30% 40 % Protect Streams/Shorelines Water Resource. ProtectionT: More than 75 /o of the roe is' p p rty ' Naturally Wooded.areas. preserve- undeveioped and is identified as being hydrologic processes. within a Fish Wildlife Habitat = 'and Conservation - Chuckanut: 8 ' 10 ,10%0;910 Mountain. Protect Soils/Wildlife Wildlife Habitat Forested area abutting the base of Wildlife habitat preservation within Chuckanut Mountain provides habitat, close proximity to urban area. Fish and helps control runoff and erosion. and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area 10 10 - Chuckanut Mountain. 20% 20% :'Promote ConservationT Parcel Size, �.j >20 acres ;Principles `: j 6 acres-:1D%:�+) Posted Open Space Sign increases UAX {NI awareness of conservation 10 0%5cr�s oPPortunities Enhance Abutting Open Space Abutting Open Space Grassy areas and pond offer foraging Abuts Designated Forest Land to the opportunity for migrating wiidlife.Fish 10 10 southwest. 2% 5 % and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area 10 OSP2009-00003 Public Benefit Rating (PBR) = 73.48 19 WHATCOM COUNTY „„ �o David Stalheim Planning & Development Services 3r� `y� Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 r J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TlY 800-833-6384 0 Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Timber Land Current Use Classification -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-5 Property Owner (s) Terry & Elaine Prestlien Classification: Open Space Timber Status: New Application Street Address: Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 3183 Edgewood Lane 3803251154480000 City: Bellingham State: WA Zip:-982267487 Site Address: 3183 Edgewood Lane Subarea: Lake Whatcom Comp Plan Designation: Rural Parcel Acre(s): 6.15 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Forest land selectively harvested circa 5.06 1950-60, homesite. Zoning Designation: R(5) Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #110 - Nati loam, 30-60% slopes, 50 year site indx - Douglas fir = 98 ft #156-Squalicum gravelly loam, 5-15% slopes, 50 year site indx-Douglas fir = 132 ft Comments: Limitations: muddiness, excessive rutting, and compaction from wheeled and tracked equipment when harvested in wet season. Use low-pressure ground equipment to reduce compaction and puddling. 20 Timber Management Plan Completeness 0= Incomplete; 1 = Satisfactor 2= Thorou h Information Included Points Max Current Stand Description Due to an estimated 2.94 acres subtracted from the 6.15 acre parcel, the land considered for the classification does not meet the five acre minimum requirement. 2 Soils Description Good woodland soil units, productivity on steep slopes is decreased. 2 Forest Health Trees in the stand are generally healthy with the exception of the Bigleaf maple. Bigleaf maple are suggested to be selectively cut and used for firewood prior to clear cut harvests. 2 Harvest Plan Harvest of existing stand should begin circa 2030 in 1-2 acre clear cuts in 5-8 year intervals. Harvests within 100 feet of public road, within 500 feet of homes or businesses requires abatement or elimination per RCW 76.04.650 and WAC 332- 2 24-650. Thinning Program Thinning is not planned in the near term; harvests of the restocked area will begin in 50+/- years. 2 Planting/Restocking Program Replant the first season after harvest with 300 Douglas fir per acre, 12 X 12 foot spacing. Monitor seedlings for the first 5-8 years, and control competing vegetation with mechanical or DNR approved chemical means. 2 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement The stand has well developed ground cover including Salmonberry and Blackberry that offer feed for wildlife. Deer and rabbits are frequently observed, and tree canopy provides good cover for many species. 2 Timber Management Plan must receive 7 or more points for approval. 14 Tota 1: Staff Recommendation: ❑ Approval ® Denial OSP2009-5 Timber Mgmt Plan Score 0.00 21 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT OPEN SPACE CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS Master File Number: OS2009-1 This report summarizes Whatcom County's Planning staff recommendations for a total of thirteen (13) open space current use assessment applications: seven (7) applications for Open Space Land, five (5) applications for Timber Land, and one (1) application for Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land (a sub -classification of Open Space Land). I. Summary of Applications Open Space Land 1. OSP2009-00001 - Congregation Beth Israel; Transfer Application: 3.75 +/- Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803323840390000; 3803323610060000 2. OSP2009-00002 - Burnett; Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island Amended Application: 52.54 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3701054404680000; 3701040344880000 3. OSP2009-00003 - McMinn; West Shore Road, Lummi Island New Application: 6.07 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3801322964290000 4. OSP2009-00006 - Maier; Old Samish Road New Application; 5.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3703170522270000 5. OSP2009-00007 - Chamberlin; Lake Whatcom Boulevard New Application; 4.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3804310661140000; 3804310610920000; 3804310320830000 6. OSP2009-00011 - Marsh; Aldrich Road Transfer Application; 3.46 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3902143700550000 7. OSP2009-00012 - Jenkins; Sunrise Road Transfer Application; 3.78 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4002064540830000 23 Staff Report File OS 2009 - 1 October 22, 2009 Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land 1. OSP2009-00010 - Olson; Aldergrove Road Transfer Application: 4.85 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3901112170380000 Timber Land 1. OSP2009-00004 - Massey; East of Yew Street Road New Application: 10.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803334020370000 2. OSP2009-00005 - Prestlien; Edgewood Lane New Application: 5.06 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803251154480000 3. OSP2009-00008 - Hansen; Heady Road Transfer Application: 18.70 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4005102000300000 4. OSP2009-00009 - Heusinkveld; Hampton Road New Application: 10.50 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4003234574170000; 4003234584370000 5. OSP2009-00005 - Lann; Isaacson Road New Application: 19.43 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803130662300000 II. Background Information The Open Space Taxation Act was passed by the Washington state legislature in 1970 to provide financial incentives to encourage landowners to voluntarily conserve and protect land resources, open space, and timber. The Act allows property owners to request that their open space, farm and agricultural, and timber property be assessed at their current use rather than their highest and best use. Lands classified as Open Space are taxed at significantly lower property values than fair market value, thereby providing owners with an incentive to keep their open space lands free from development. In accordance with Washington state law, the County is the legislative authority that grants approval or denial of applications for taxation at current use assessment pursuant to RCW 84.34 as it applies to the different classifications as defined in RCW 84.34.020(1)(3)(8). 2 24 Staff Report III. Rating Systems File OS 2009 - 1 October 22, 2009 Open Space Land and its sub -classification Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land are evaluated with the Whatcom County Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) originally approved by Council in 1987 by resolution and then later adopted by ordinance in 1995 (WC Ord. 95- 040). Open Space Timber Land applications are evaluated with the Open Space Timber Management Plan Policy, as adopted by resolution (Res. 87- 3) and modified in 1995 by (WC Ord. 95-040) in conformance with RCW 84.34.041. A. Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) Evaluation Criteria Authority: RCW 84.34.037; Whatcom County - Ord. 95-040 Open Space Land and Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land applications are evaluated and rated in accordance with the Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS). The Public Benefit Rating (PBR) represents the degree of conformance with the county's adopted Basic Value and Public Benefit Value criteria and is calculated using the formula that is listed on the individual application rating sheets included with this report. A Public Benefit Rating of at least 45 points must be attained to receive a recommendation of approval. Please see attached individual rating sheets for a detailed explanation of the scores given to individual applications. The Public Benefit Rating System is used to evaluate applications for current use assessment in terms of the quality of open space resources which include stream buffers, ground water protection areas, threatened or endangered wildlife, farmland, public recreation, scenic views and vistas, historic property, and others. An important criteria used to rate applications for open space current use assessment is public access. It is part of the Public Benefit Rating System Public Access Policy to require public access unless there is known habitat for an endangered species of wildlife, or where there is a known archeological site, or when the purpose of the open space is for wetland conservation. In these cases, the Whatcom County Council has the authority to waive the requirement of public access. The Public Access Policy also contains a requirement that property owners who are approved for open space current use assessment post an Open Space sign on the subject property that displays the rules of conduct for public access. Listed below is a brief summary of criteria used to evaluate applications for Open Space Land and Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land in accordance with the Whatcom County Public Benefit Rating System and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 84.34.055: 3 25 Staff Report File OS 2009 - 1 October 22, 2009 • Conserve or enhance natural, cultural or scenic resources; or • Protect streams, stream corridors, wetlands, natural shorelines and aquifers; or • Protect soil resources and unique or critical wildlife and native plant habitat; or • Promote conservation principles by example or by offering educational opportunities; or • Enhance the value of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open spaces; or • Enhance recreational opportunities; or • Preserve historic and archeology sites; or • Affect any other factors relevant in weighing benefits to the general welfare of the public by preserving the current use of the property. Whatcom County Open Space Policies direct the Whatcom County Planning Comnnission to consider in its recommendation to the County Council the resulting revenue loss or tax shift that would occur when balanced against the public benefit of preserving the current use of the land meeting any of the above listed valuation criteria. B. Timber Management Plan Evaluation Criteria Authority: RCW 84.34.041 & Whatcom County Ord. 95-040 Applications received for the classification of Timber Land must be five or more acres (not including home site), primarily used for the commercial growth and harvesting of forest crops. In order for consideration, the applicant must submit a timber management plan that meets requirements as outlined in RCW 84.34.041 and those criteria adopted under Whatcom County Ordinance 95-040. The Timber Management Plans are rated by staff on how well they meet the criteria in the seven categories listed below and may receive up to 2 points for each category. Approval is recommended for those properties receiving a score of (7) or more. Please see attached individual rating sheets for a detailed explanation of the scores given to individual applications. Listed below is a general outline of the criteria used to evaluate timber management plans. • Description of the current stand • Description of soil resources, and how well they support the growth of timber Cl 26 Staff Report File OS 2009 - 1 October 22, 2009 • Forest health • Harvest plan • Thinning program • Planting and restocking program • Wildlife habitat enhancement III. Application Recommendations Staff recommendations for applications contained herein are listed in summary below. Open Space Land, and Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land applications must receive a Public Benefit Rating (PBR) of at least 45 points for a staff recommendation of approval. Timber Land applications must receive a score of 7 points or above for a staff recommendation of approval. Open Space Land 1. OSP2009-00001 - Congregation Beth Israel; Transfer Application: 3.75 +/- Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803323840390000; 3803323610060000 PBR= 99 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign 2. OSP2009-00002 - Burnett; Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island Amended Application: 52.54 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3701054404680000; 3701040344880000 PBR= 71.20 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign 3. OSP2009-00003 - McMinn; West Shore Road, Lummi Island New Application: 6.07 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3801322964290000 PBR= 83.60 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign 4. OSP2009-00006 - Maier; Old Samish Road New Application; 5.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3703170522270000 PBR= 49.98 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign 5. OSP2009-00007 - Chamberlin; Lake Whatcom Boulevard New Application; 4.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3804310661140000 PBR= 70.84 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign 5 27 Staff Report File OS 2009 - 1 October 22, 2009 6. OSP2009-00011 - Marsh; Aldrich Road Transfer Application; 3.46 Acres Parcel Numbers: 390214 3700550000 PBR= 85.75 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign 7. OSP2009-00012 - Jenkins; Sunrise Road Transfer Application; 3.78 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4002064540830000 PBR= 73.08 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land 1. OSP2009-00010 - Olson; Aldergrove Road Transfer Application: 4.85 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3901112170380000 PBR= 53.9 Recommendation - Approval subject to Public Access and Posted Sign Timber Land 1. OSP2009-00004 - Massey; East of Yew Street Road New Application: 10.00 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803334020370000 TNIP Score: 13 Staff Recommendation: Approval 2. OSP2009-00005 - Prestlien; Edgewood Lane New Application: 5.06 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803251154480000 TMP Score: 12 Staff Recommendation: Approval 3. OSP2009-00008 - Hansen; Heady Road Transfer Application: 18.70 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4005102000300000 TMP Score: 14 Staff Recommendation: Approval 4. OSP2009-00009 - Heusinkveld; Hampton Road New Application: 10.50 Acres Parcel Numbers: 4003234574170000; 4003234584370000 TMP Score: 14 Staff Recommendation: Approval A W. Staff Report File OS 2009 - 1 October 22, 2009 5. OSP2009-00005 - Lann; Isaacson Road New Application: 19.43 Acres Parcel Numbers: 3803130662300000 TMP Score: 14 Staff Recommendation: Approval Staff requests that the Planning Commission forward recommendations for review and final action by the County Council for all applications referenced under Master File Number OS2009-1. ATTACHMENTS Overall Location Map Evaluation forms for all applications with maps, photos, and aerials, and supporting documents *Note: Evaluation forms are organized by file number: OSP2009-00001-OSP2009-00013 7 29 11 c i r ��r 1�. irk vrs Rr plod - - <�� . 604 �rwV17A Cc � Rkv � E �`•gE�� =osa�i= � o a �� IIg��sea tEativ=� m E� _s ms p �gi89eE C rs C N SEEBaad B��s� n LLW H `e�'US o o CD N cn 4) ca 0 ._ CL : + LL ._ V)L y as CLrxm 0442 SgM moo, S3Jl^y�S ?; `? O xLU d y bbd O � PLANN`N 30 WHATCOM COUNTY t`,M David Stalheim Planning & Development Services ;�� `4 Director 5280 Northwest Drive, 5 Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 �NIN6�° Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Land Public Benefit Rating System -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-00001 Property Owner (s) Congregation Beth Israel Classification: Open Space Land Street Address: 2200 Broadway Status: Transfer From Designated Forest Land City: Bellingham Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 3803323840390000 3803323610060000 State: WA Zip: 98225 Site Address: South of San Juan Boulevard Subarea: Chuckanut/Lake Samish Comp Plan Designation: Urban Growth Area Parcel Acre(s): 12.62 & 2.62 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Forest land 3.75 +/- Zoning Designation: URMX (6-10) Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #157 - Squalicum gravelly loam, 15-30% slopes #156 - Squalicum gravelly loam, 5-15% slopes Comments: Good productive woodland soil units, care must be taken to avoid compaction in the wet season. 31 Basic Value (BV) Score_ MAX __ Public Benefit Value LPBV)_- I _ Score i -_--- MAX" Enhance Scenic Resources Public Access Riparian area serves as a buffer Posted Open Space Sign required: A between areas of human habitation. primary purpose of the conservation is to provide public access to the 10 10 naturally vegetated site, and will be 35% 40 % managed by the City of Bellingham. Protect Streams/Shortelines � yllater Resource Protection Site is bisected by a tributory to i Naturally wooded areas preserve Whatcom Creek. hydrologic processes and help control runoff. 10 10 10% i 20 Protect Soils/Wildlife Wildlife Habitat Conservation easement is to preserve Preserves fish bearing stream with the natural forest vegetation of the site, known distribution, and preserves operate public trails, and structures retention of natural tree canopy. incidental to public trails. 10 10 10010 20% - - - - ---- -- - - - - - ------:---- .Parcel Size ; -- - - --------------- >20 acres = ---- - - --- -- -- - --------- — ---- Promote Conservation Principles: i N/A 110%(+) Site is protected by conservation ! ! (MAX) easement. granted' to the City'of 10 10. 0°yO <5 acres = Bellingham __ - i - 10%' (-) I.. (MAX) Enhance Abuttina Open Space Abutting Open Space Biodiversity enhances ecosystem health Adjacent to land classified as Open adjacent forest. 10 10 Space Timber Land. 5% 5 Recreation Opportunities Natural Areas ? Public recreationaLopportunities, bird ; Naturally regenerated mixed conifer watching, tail access; wildlife viewing, and hardwood species forest. scenic views. 1 10 10 j i j 5% 5% I Historic / Archeological Significance Financial Advantage 0 10 0% 40 % (+/-) ------ - -- - --------- -_ -: - - - - ---- --• --- --- - Discretionary Value . - --- -- - - ----- •0% - 1 40 % + j 60 70 Total 100 % Total 65.00% The Public Benefit Rating is calculated using the following formula: Public Benefit Rating Formula- BV+(BV x PBV) = PBR OSP2009-00001 Public Benefit Rating (PBR) = 99 Must receive at least 45 points for approval 32 4 WHATCOM COUNTY t�°M David Stalheim Planning & Development Services •tP `=' `y Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 r J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, T Y 800-833-6384 9Sh1Nt° Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Land Public Benefit Rating System -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-00002 Property Owner (s) Nancy A. Burnett Classification: Open Space Land Street Address: 2315 Tuttle Lane Status: New Application City: Lummi Island Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 3701040344880000 3701054404680000 State: WA Zip: 98262 Site Address: Adjacent to 2315 Tuttle Lane Subarea: Lummi Island Comp Plan Designation: Rural Parcel Acre(s): 52.54 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Land has been classified as Open Space 52.54 Land since 1976. Proposed amendment to existing application's Public Benefit Rating (PBR) due to changes in public access. Existing PBR on parcels = 92.92. Zoning Designation: RRI Amended PBR = 71.20 Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: N/A Comments: IV/A 34 Basic Value (BV) _ Score ,Enhance Scenic Resources Preserves island views from local roads and from Rosario Strait. Protect Streams/Shorelines Undeveloped shoreline and adjacent hillside protects scenic views from local county road and from,the:water. - Protect Soils/Wildlife Property will be preserved for minimal impact recreational use only.Open vegetated open areas will minimize storm water runoff. 10 -MAX.-. Public Bene-fit Value (PBV) 'Score MAX Public Access Revised public access no longer includes access to Lummi Island shoreline and beach - Posted Sign and 10 Rules of Conduct, integrated trail 30% 40 4/o system across the Island east to west via Blizard Road ROW - West Shore to Nugent. Water Resource Protection Naturally wooded areas preserve hydrologic processes. Open vegetated open areas will minimize storm water 5 10 runoff and protect High Aquifer '29% 2.0% Dorharnz Aron ki 10 Wildlife Habitat Forested area provides habitat, and helps control runoff and erosion. 10% 20% Paftel Sike . ...... cres� Princiales6On the:parcells 43.02 •acrds -y- 6, of Posted Open Space sigh inc reases -"`(MAX) 'Public awareness of'conservation 5 10 _8% <5 'acres;= .opportunities. .109/01(- ::.(MAX) Enhance Abuttina Open Space Abuttina Open Space Biodiversity enhances ecosystem health Land classified as Open Space Land of abutting Open Space Land. 5 10 located to the south and west of the 5% 50/0 subject parcels. 0 10 0% 40%(+/-) Discretionary Value-, Total 40 70 Total 78% 100% The Public Benefit Rating is calculated using the following formula., Public Benefit Rating Formula-__ BV+(BV x PBV) = PBR 1 OSP2009-00002 Public Benefit Rating (PBR) = 71.20 Must receive at least 45 Points for aPDroval 35 a. J� F c • � � �a t ry _ Q � �,s � �. . ;� i w uCt ee GUUu u: uuvm wmm i uum uu tia5t5auK ebu toffs e-t!e P-Z) Year HS ACRES NON -OS ACRES OS ACRES TOTAL ACRES PBR% FM VALUE PER ACRE CU VALUE PER ACRE *FM VALUE= FM VALUE= FM VALUE= Total FM VALUE CU VALUE= FM VALUE SAVINGS NEW VALUE PROOF REVAL AREA 2009/2010 C PARCEL# 370104 034488 0000 0.00 Nancy A Bumett 0.00 9.62 9.52 71.20% 14,000 20,0000 adj by 70% = 14000 1,200 FRONT FT X PER ACRE = 0 9.52 ACRES X 14,000 PER ACRE 133,280 ACRES x PER ACRE = 0 133,280 9.52 ACRES x 1,200 PER ACRE = 11,424 DIFF 121,856 PRB% 71.20% SAVINGS 86,761 133,280 86,761 46,519 / 9.52 Per acre = 4,886 46,519 37 Uct ee euuu J:: Uvm WHH 1 UUM UU H'St55UK Jbu "1ju e47i! P. 4 , REVAL AREA Year 200912010 C HS ACRES 0.00 NON -OS ACRES 0.00 OS ACRES 43.02 TOTAL ACRES 43.02 PBR% 71.20% FM VALUE PER ACRE 30,000 CU VALUE PER ACRE 1,200 *FM VALUE= FRONT FT FM VALUE= 43.02 ACRES FM VALUE= ACRES Total FM VALUE CU VALUE= 43.02 ACRES PARCEL# 370105 440468 0000 Nancy A Burnett X PER ACRE = 0 X 30,000 PER ACRE = 1,290,600 X PER ACRE 0 1,290,600 X 1,200 PER ACRE = 51,624 DIFF 1,238,976 PRB% 71.20% SAVINGS 882,151 FM VALUE 1,290,600 SAVINGS 882,161 NEW VALUE 408,449 ! 43.02 Per acre - 9,494 PROOF 408,449 WHATCOM COUNTY t`oM David Stalheim Planning & Development Services rP Y s,, Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 "S��N�`° Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Land Public Benefit Rating System -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-00003 Property Owner (s) Stephen McMinn Classification: Open Space Land Street Address: 600 15th Street Status: New Application City: Bellingham Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 3801322964290000 State: WA Zip: 98225 Site Address: 2825 West Shore Drive Subarea: Lummi Island Comp Plan Designation: Rural Parcel Acre(s): 6.07 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Farming, residential, site of Historic 6.07 Loganita Lodge, bed and breakfast, resort, recreation center and social hub of the north Lummi Island community Zoning Designation: RRI Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #80 - Kickerville silt loam, 3-8% slopes, Prime Agricultural Soil, 82% coverage #81 - Kickerville silt loam, 8-15% slopes, 12% coverage Comments: These soil units are very deep and well drained, and typically used for hay, pasture, woodlands, and a site for homes. Main limitation for cropland is low available water capacity in dry months, if irrigated these units are suitable for all crops. 39 -Basic -value- (BV) 50re Enhance Scenic Resources Rehabilitation of the high bank native shoreline and preservation of the undeveloped open sloping hillside enhances views from the marine 8 environment. ",ifiGasive:Olah.ts:.and.replace,with native .plants. MAX Public ive. (PBV): $cgre. Public Access Posted Sign and Rules of Conduct: A sitting bench, sign and literature detailing Loganita history, a memory 10 book for visitors to record impressions 25% and memories, and a link to the Loganita Website will be provided. MAX, 40% Protect Soils/Wildlife Wildlife Habitat 4-acre upper field will be preserved as a A small vernal pond will be created in natural grass meadow, with native the upper field amongst a copse of trees and shrubs providing diverse alders, and planted with native wildlife habitat and improved ecosystem 8 10 species, along with bat boxes and a 15% 20% health. raptor pole. Pimote ievailon Parcel ig tion - -urid r considei-a 6;07 acres _.0n�ser..vjaq.qn,ease'ment will be brainted,�.-..,_ _ A.X),, Uniaan Arust;fbr.*� ea ,Stud hill I MAX . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... Enhance Abuttina Open Space Abutting Open Space Eradication of invasive non-native Land protected under the Open Space blackberry plants, and restoration with 8 10 classifications located south of the 2% 5% 250 native trees, site. PI-`-T6e',sit6'Wll['be open Ao-the'pu bjic, iRehbbllit6tldhthe #eepy du �g .festivals, -66d:trust special - _getat6d shoreline with kh�nid�e-piantspecies-� &6" s-i'o"ni;-;and.t'o"n"m'un"i'Y' !nfl uenpqs -p ear­s66ffaq06tl'lC-hab * mhere,,theymay ean about e istory I Uand' t6-f tw. �Aogan6n '.''n he mu ki: runoff. of the site. Total 55 70 Total 52.00% 100% The Public Benerit Rating is calculated using the following formula: Public Benefit Rating Formula- BV+(BV x PBV) PBR OSP2009-00003 Public Benefit Rating (PBR) = 83.6 Must receive at least 45 points for approval EN E Y cr eM j O ON va', cd cm o p"4i� .0 c cam,% N 04 a p. o cz �{�/�✓ %;a_K`•. ti -� ,ram.' -ti � Kr��•^� ,'.fir � : v� t �� y' O fai e� cn Pl DWI to FjFLL;( i �.:'3'3� � ♦ X, .E. �K a.3� - 1 .uY" S - � ,C `.'t C �{�. + K. •4'1�M� _ `�e`C... �L u t4 3 icy O Vl .mqy T� Fs ..Y:�7 t"'L.� ��` •� �/I� yO.� 00 W ^y LT4 -!� O cu Sn G,r to "o 0 41 .r bvP �� = tY.:'"L.. Y. _ � . •E � Y xy.a •' �c 4 iy. i 7�T' V. PL ra;Y yi R ,dE fir• 1.: t., m ti. .� SEE-�E f ��7 .':i'•� .w' ;.,z � F�•1'• `: _ . - (Z`C :"V..r w..' •C riE• �-- ��gie of ww y_ s _ w. i •>'a� •!!`',n.. 1r„ ' ffi� a°ICY ' ��:�.f�1y •- 1. mow.:. ..- ••S?BAR. _ _ ":S'�5'�;an �;'Y,�'s �iIts- -4y �'X+' �3� t ! j'. :f:' - >•'i" F , 'f i i y Ft!°` .F � .,,� gPi �h _ y A ' G -2 7^�yr ;:' }>- .:s��-__�• ,r .,�� - .gyp:. W.; _ ;,;.s;�>:`;s;."...• - .�' -- - f — .� �1;�'�'.',� y`�r r � ' ' � t k �•� s,'�r-isa, flll. . � ` i....�a., v •t• }t.-_ :a'rvti np.r.�.�, J�j00��^_ .'4�+�•A i_••,. {.rl: r3` sS f%'�i ., +,t ��■ ;�!+i X r� ~�::.i.'� x.+,�� ; 1 k�''L4 r " . __. ,+, �,te-, O CD cr Vi f, .;i':`-S :1' iYi�lt -',€".1� '�• h•ti�'• ,f` fY� ". c tr >:E -i "�;F�jR % `-i' r '' � .J1: � V,=�:-�- ' GEC;;'-' y} � q' ' � �•s,y � _ •' , i _ �r��•"� '�nr t-' '��.��-'sSs34s' 04 CIO W:r' ;4 <.�L. ^, M )4 --.j; :. ' •. ...s::.y,li -. - t. >� t�.r w ,5. . �..;. m_aay>. ; /= �134 M - r Sti. _'ram "-:"F .,, ►M Vl +tee ~.- �•3�pWu•.!li ve �'>' ,::. _ _ �clpit �VVVrI _ .� , r'•o . ' jf . • >_ 4.� .[•.., �/] is �y 1� � � rye -y arrm o 42 OS P2009-00003-M cM 1 N N circa igoo � IbFpr• _ circa 193 o's circa 1920 after renovations made in the 7o's Loganita, perhaps in the 19201s, as seen from the back field, v circa 2oog windmill, water tower, bam, sleeping cabins and other out -bull. 43 OSP2009-00003 McMinn Loganita History Loganita has been an important cultural site for 111 years as a farm, resort, bed and breakfast rental, recreation center, and social hub for the north island community. Highly visible from the road and from -the sea, the big white house has long been a social and visual beacon on the Lummi landscape. The green fields surrounding Loganita are seen as gems in the "emerald necklace" that adorns the shoulders of the island. Significant dates in the saga of Loganita are listed below. 1898 Melzior and Lucy Granger built the original farmhouse. Over the next ten years, numerous farm structures were added, including a large barn; an elevated wooden -stave water tower with a windmill to pump it full, and several sheds and outbuildings. The surrounding fields were managed to provide livestock feed and forage. "Loganita" is thought to have referred to the extensive loganberry plantings on the site and elsewhere on the island. 1919 Chan and Eva Granger expanded the farmstead and converted it to "Loganita", a rustic lodge complete with tent camping, to accommodate the popular car campers of the burgeoning auto era. Meanwhile, numerous simple sleeping cabins were constructed at various locations about -the site. Good home cooking was prepared from the farm's produce. From its earliest days, Loganita was a welcoming place for friends, relatives, and the public. 1920-1938 At this time the Canadian Gulf Islands were not open to tourism, and Loganita became popular with local and Canadian vacationers. Over the next 15 years numerous features were added to the site, including a recreation hall for Sunday night dances, a bunkhouse for employees, tennis court, bowling alley, mail room, tea room, and a one -pump gas station. Many recreational activities were offered: horseback riding, boating, picnicking and swimming at the beach; and badminton, croquet, or roaming the extensive floral gardens. 1939 Third major remodel: large front room added on, and two large stone chimneys constructed of columnar basalt hauled from the flanks of Mt. Baker. 1939-1950 Loganita was a highly popular and successful resort, employing many islanders and Granger offspring, until Canada entered the War in 1939. When wartime currency restrictions prevented Canadians from bringing adequate lodging funds into the U.S., and gas rationing limited Seattle travelers, the Grangers were no OSP2009-00003 McMinn longer able to operate Loganita as a viable business. After 1940, most of the guest cabins were demolished or traded to Islanders for work done at the lodge. 1961-1974 Irene Thomas purchased Loganita and dreamed of bringing it back to its former glory as a modern inn, but this remained only a vision, and the property suffered badly from neglect. It was at this time when irreversible structural damage occurred to the building, as it stood vacant, unheated, and unused for 24 long years. 1975-1996 The Gossages purchased Loganita and spent years remodeling, repairing, and planting hundreds of shrubs and bulbs. Although the site was operated as a business retreat and a bed & breakfast for a number of years, it was not their primary residence. The Gossages energetically continued the theme of Loganita as a welcoming place; some structural deficiencies related to many additions and remodels remained. 1977 First reference to Loganita Lodge was made on the official USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map for Lummi Island. 1997 After being on the market for some time, Ann Gossage sold Loganita to the Beans, who maintained Loganita as a private residence, not regularly occupied. 2005 First identification of Loganita aquifer -a small perched Ice Age construct recharged by Loganita lands and upslope properties, several of which are contiguous and protected areas. 2006 After over a year on the market, the McMinns purchased Loganita and struggled with massive repair issues. Decades of ad hoc reconstruction; confusing, faulty plumbing; and poorly constructed additions alternating with intermittent long periods of severe neglect had led to extensive insect, water, and structural damage. After arduous and expensive attempts at repairing the structure, the building was finally demolished, excepting the massive north chimney. 2007-Present Loganita is rebuilt in a way that captures its history, purpose, appearance and spirit. Of the original building complex on the site, only the stable remains intact. Island architect Dave Nesbit's design preserves the essence of the character of the old gabled white clapboard house, complete with the original massive stone fireplace, a great hall, and many windows facing the sea. The private home's 45 OSP2009-00003 McMinn function as a place where the community, friends and family can gather is restored with the completion of the new building in 2009. Site rehabilitation actions already taken: • Removed 2.5 acres of non-native, invasive blackberry brush, and replanted with pasture mix and native trees. • Planted 250 trees of mixed native species (red cedar, Garry oak, hemlock, alder, etc). • Planted 200 ornamental shrubs. • Applied 200 cubic yards of topsoil, wood chips, sawdust and compost as soil enhancements and for improving water retention. • Installed sustainable geothermal heating system, including 4,800 linear feet of buried waterline for heat exchange. • Excavated and seeded a 70 square foot, shallow vernal pool as a first step toward constructing a pond nestled amongst a copse of alders. Proposed Loganita site actions: Loganita has been in -the hearts and minds of islanders for a long time, and this proposal will assure that it continues to be. This application for Open Space/Open Space taxation status is being submitted because it meets the PBRS approval criteria and strives to preserve, protect and restore a local historic site* on north Lummi Island. The actions outlined below ensure the protection of the open space, that will remain perpetually undeveloped, and requiring no expensive public infrastructure to support it. The sweeping vista of the house and field, seen from land and from sea; the wildlife values associated with field, field edge, mixed conifers, hardwoods and native shrubs; the absence of new hardened surfaces; the absence of new buildings, all add up to public benefits as described in the OS Act. The following actions will take place on the Loganita site. Target date is in parentheses. A timetable summary of actions can be found following this list. • In keeping with the historical use of the site, the 4-acre field will be maintained as an open, grassy space, intermittently planted with mixed conifers and hardwoods, with an emphasis on native species: planting has commenced and will be an ongoing project. (2006-11) • A small sleeping cabin similar in design to the originals will be constructed at a discrete location (see map) and will be a model for groundwater protection, utilizing a rain catchment and reintroduction systerri including a bioswale to accommodate stormwater runoff for aquifer recharge and xeriscaping with native plants. The cabin may be constructed on skids for moving about the site. (2011) • A sitting bench and a sign detailing the history of Loganita and the Open Space rules of conduct will be located along the road for the use of OSP2009-00003 McMinn walkers, bikers, and other slow -moving visitors. At this site there will also be a dispenser of brochures providing information on this historical site, as well as a memory book for visitors to record impressions and memories of visits in times gone by, and a link to a Loganita website with more historical information. (2009) • A raptor perch pole will be erected in the upper field for the convenience of predatory birds. (2009) • A small vernal pool/wetland will be constructed in the upper field near the forest edge, in a perennially damp location. This will be planted with native wetland species and will provide habitat and foraging for numerous species known to reside on the property, including the rough -skinned newt and little brown bats. (2009-10) • A bat box will be mounted on an alder tree near the above pool/wetland. (2009-10) Public access will be primarily associated with events open to members of the public, such as Art Festivals, Land Trust special occasions, and school activities, including a School Day, where students visit the site and learn about the values of preserving wildlife habitat and native plants, and historic preservation. (Annual) • A Conservation Easement with a local Land Trust will encumber at least three acres of the field, taking this developable lot out of circulation: it will never be developed beyond the conditions identified on the attached map. The Conservation Easement is in progress. For further access to the history of Loganita and the Open Space project, a link to a Loganita website will be provided at the sitting bench and sign. (under way 2010) • While the beach will not be accessible to the public, the shoreline bank will be revegetated with native plants. To the extent that it is practicable and safe, revegetation work may involve interested volunteers and students. This is a long-term commitment, and it may take 10 years to remove the invasive exotic plants -primarily by handwork -and replace with native plants by seeding, transplanting, driving willow stakes, and mulching. All shoreline restoration will be in accord with the Whatcom County Shoreline Management Plan requirements. Whatcom County geologist Doug Goldthorpe has been contacted about the project. (2010-20) (See Shared Heritage A History of Lummi Island, 2004. Lummi Island Heritage Trust. 2004, p.26) 47 tai • ����� _ 5 � f b f���i-��.�.� Sa i Cfy. ✓'+ l ,� `3 Y k y �� '� 7, {5'"' t � -/ � l(� r � �., ., „4"�+'vl`'w"'f.. Qct 2:!2:! 2:!UUS J::JJNM WHH I UUM UU HbbLbbUK UbU Idd e't I e Year HS ACRES NON -OS ACRES OS ACRES TOTAL ACRES PBR% FM VALUE PER ACRE CU VALUE PER ACRE *FM VALUE= FM VALUE= site FM VALUE= Total FM VALUE CU VALUE= FM VALUE SAVINGS NEW VALUE PROOF REVAL AREA 2009/2010 D 0.00 0.00 6.07 6.07 83.60% 650,000 site value at 650,000 1,220 FRONT FT 1.00 ACRES ACRES 6.07 ACRES 650,000 537,209 112,791 112,791 PARCEL# 380102 395080 0000 Stephen L McMinn X PER ACRE = 0 X 650,000 PER ACRE = 650,000 x PER ACRE = 0 650,000 X 1,220 PER ACRE = 7,405 JIFF 642,595 PRB% 83.60% SAVINGS 537,209 / 6.07 Per acre = 18,582 I WHATCOM COUNTY o14 �o David Stalheim Planning & Development Services 3:P `z� Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TY 800-833-6384 °8��N6t° Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Timber Land Current Use Classification -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-4 Property Owner (s) Randal M. Massey & David E. Massey Classification: Open Space Timber Status: New Application Street Address: Assessor's Parcel IVo. (s): 1720 401h Place 3803334020370000 City: Bellingham State: WA Zip:98229 Site Address: East of Yew Street Road Subarea: Chuckanut/Lake Samish Comp Plan Designation: Urban Growth Area Parcel Acre(s): 10.00 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Timber, last harvested circa 1940 10.00 Zoning Designation: Urban Residential 6 DUA Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #108 Nati loam, 5-15% slopes, 50 year site indx-Douglas fir=121 ft. #109 Nati loam, 15-30% slopes, 50 year site indx-Douglas fir=121 ft. #157 Squalicum gravelly loam, 15-30% slopes, 50 year site indx-Douglas fir=132 ft. Comments: Limitations: muddines, excessive rutting and compaction from wheeled and tracked equipment when harvested in wet season. Use of low-pressure ground equipment to reduce compaction and puddling is advised. 50 Timber Management Plan I Completenegs 0= Incomplete; 1 = Satisfacto • 2= T oroucih Information Included Points Max Current Stand Description Massey forest consists of a naturally regenerated mixed stand approximately 60 years in age composed of Big leaf maple, Western red cedar and Red Alder. Stand is generally well stocked, and complies with WAC 222-34-010 restocking 2 2 requirements. Soils Description Good productive woodland soil units. 2 2 Forest Health No serious or specific pathogens or diseased trees onsite. Landowners main strategy for insect control is to maintain biodiversity of tree species, and increase wildlife habitat. 2 2 Harvest Plan Even aged clear cut harvest recommended as market conditions are favorable. Efforts to obtain easement from Trillium and Trans -Mountain pipeline for ingress and egress are underway. 1 2 Thinning Program Pre -commercial thinning of replanted Douglas fir stands is recommended at ages 10-20 years, and commercial thinning at 25-45 years as pulp market conditions are favorable. 2 2 Planting/Restocking Program Restock harvested areas with Douglas fir according to WAC 222-34-010.. Seedlings will be monitored and competing vegetation controlled by mechanical or chemical means. 2 2 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Bird nesting structures or bat boxes will be constructed to augment existing habitat functions. Extensive unauthorized bicycle trails exist throughout the site. Recreational use of property may pose liability issues. 2 2 Timber Management Plan must receive 7 or more points for approval. 13 14 Total: Staff Recommendation: ® Approval ❑ Denial ­11111111 . . . . . . . . . . . . OSP2009-4 Timber Mgmt Plan Score 13.00 51 WHATCOM COUNTY Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 r 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 9Sa1IN 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Timber Land Current Use Classification -Evaluation David Stalheim Director 7. E. "Sam" Ryan Assistant Director Form File # OSP 2009-5 Property Owner (s) Terry & Elaine Prestlien Classification: Open Space Timber Status: New Application Street Address: Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 3183 Edgewood Lane 3803251154480000 City: Bellingham State: WA Zip:-982267487 Site Address: 3183 Edgewood Lane Subarea: Lake Whatcom Comp Plan Designation: Rural Parcel Acre(s): 6.15 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Forest land selectively harvested circa 5.06 1950-60, homesite. Zoning Designation: R(5) Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #110 - Nati loam, 30-60% slopes, 50 year site indx - Douglas fir = 98 ft #156-Squalicum gravelly loam, 5-15% slopes, 50 year site indx-Douglas fir = 132 ft Comments: Limitations: muddiness, excessive rutting, and compaction from wheeled and tracked equipment when harvested in wet season. Use low-pressure ground equipment to reduce compaction and puddling. 53 Timber Management Plan I Completeness 0= Incomplete; 1 = Satisfacto ; 2= Thorou h Information Included points Max Current Stand Description Stand is an unevenly aged fully stocked mixed stand of Douglas fir, Western red cedar, Black cottonwood, Bigleaf maple, and Red alder, with the exception of two small areas identified in the Plan that need to be replanted before April 15, 2010. 2 2 Soils Description Good woodland soil units, productivity on steep slopes is decreased. 2 2 Forest Health Trees in the stand are generally healthy with the exception of the Bigleaf maple. Bigleaf maple are suggested to be selectively cut and used for firewood prior to clear cut harvests. 2 2 Harvest Plan Harvest of existing stand should begin circa 2030 in 1-2 acre clear cuts in 5-8 year intervals. Harvests within 100 feet of public road, within 500 feet of homes or businesses requires abatement or elimination per RCW 76.04.650 and WAC 332- 2 2 24-650. Thinning Program Thinning is not planned in the near term; harvests of the restocked area will begin in 50+/- years. 1 2 Planting/Restocking Program Replant the first season after harvest with 300 Douglas fir per acre, 12 X 12 foot spacing. Monitor seedlings for the first 5-8 years, and control competing vegetation with mechanical or DNR approved chemical means. 2 2 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement The stand has well developed ground cover including Salmonberry and Blackberry that offer feed for wildlife. Deer and rabbits are frequently observed, and tree canopy provides good cover for many species. 1 2 Timber Management Plan must receive 7 or more points for approval. 12 14 Tota 1: Staff Recommendation: ® Approval ❑ Denial E'OSP2:009-5 Timber Mgmt Plan Score 12.00 54 M's IP— ..... ..... tt, s mof. T I WHATCOM COUNTY �GOM `po David Stalheim Planning & Development Services Grp? Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 ? J.E. ""Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 �ahING� Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Land Public Benefit Rating System -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-00006 Property Owner (s) Jack Maier Classification: Open Space Land Street Address: 595 Old Samish Road Status: New Application Assessor's Parcel No. (s): City: Bellingham 3703170522270000 State: WA Zip: 98229 Site Address: 585 Old Samish Road Subarea: Chuckanut/Lake Samish Comp Plan Designation: Rural Parcel Acre(s): 6.00 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Pasture, Residential 5.00 Zoning Designation: R(5) Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #157 - Squalicum gravelly loam, 15-30% slopes, 50% coverage #156 - Squalicum gravelly loam, 5-15% slopes, 15% coverage # 3 - Andic Xerochrepts, 60-90% slopes, 35% coverage Comments: Squalicum gravelly loams are mainly used for woodland, also pasture or a site for homes; Andic Xerochrepts are primarily suitable for woodland, with hazards of erosion. 56 MAXfiVaf6e (PBV) Enhance Scenic Resources -Value (BVY:i Score A Basic ftet ....... ........ .. Public Access Undeveloped road frontage contributes Posted Sign and Rules of Conduct to rural scenic vistas along local county required: Applicant has not proposed road at the base of Chuckanut specific type of access. Mountain. 5 10 10% 406/6 Protect rotect Mains/Shor .'..'More -than 75W&Ahe property.is unde'vet6p�. and is identified. as.b6ing ,..within a Fish and Wildlife -1146bitat CoiiServation:Area thUd4litit. ...... . ..... Protect Soils/Wildlife Forested area abutting the base of Chuckanut Mountain provides habitat, and helps control runoff and erosion. Wildlife Habitat Wildlife habitat preservation within close proximity to urban area. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area 10 10 - Chuckanut Mountain. 20% .Mmy rM. 20% 5% $ecreatiOn<ODDOrtunitli -h J7 �iaturafl wood j . ........ . 46 Historic / Archeological ... ....... Financial Advantage Slanificance 0 10 0% - 40%(+/-) ......... . ------------ ------------ --------- Total 34 70 Total 47.00% 100% The Public Benefit Rating is calculated using the following formula: Public Benefit Rating Formula- BV+(BV x PBV) = PBR IOSP2009-00003 Public Benefit Rating (PBR) = 49.98 Must receive at least 45 points for approval I 57 i - *It1 .,41 � • :ram ` � �",� �. ��C"� Oct 22 2009 3:33PM WHHTCOM CU HSSE55UK ;ibU -tau e4-rif REVAL AREA Year 2009t2010 C PARCEL# 370317 052227 0000 HS ACRES 1.00 .lack W Maier NON -OS ACRES 0.00 OS ACRES 5.00 TOTAL ACRES 6.00 PBR% 73.48% FM VALUE PER ACRE 93,500 site value CU VALUE PER ACRE 1,200 *FM VALUE= FROM' FT X PER ACRE = 0 FM VALUE= site 1.00 ACRES X 93,500 PER ACRE = 93,500 FM VALUE= ACRES X PER ACRE = 0 Total FM VALUE 93,500 CU VALUE= 5,00 ACRES X 1,200 PER ACRE = 6,000 DIFF 87,500 PRB% 73.48% SAVINGS 64,295 FM VALUE 93,500 SAVINGS 64,295 NEW VALUE 29,205 1 5.00 Per acre = 5,841 PROOF 29,205 59 WHATCOM COUNTY �,M David Stalheim Planning & Development Services `yA Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 r J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 9ShIN6� Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Land Public Benefit Rating System -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-00007 Property Owner (s) Norman & Karen Chamberlin Classification: Open Space Land Street Address: 2532 Lake Whatcom Boulevard Status: New Application City: Bellingham Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 3804310610920000 3804310320830000 State: WA Zip: 98229 3804310661140000 Site Address: Adjacent 2532 Lake Whatcom Blvd. Subarea: Birch Bay/Blaine Parcel Acre(s): 4.00 Comp Plan Designation: Suburban Enclave; Rural Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Vacant land 4.00 Zoning Designation: RR (2); R(2) Shorelines: Portion of application subject to SMP: Shoreline Residential Soil/Type Capabilities: #108 - Nati loam, 5-15% slopes, 50% coverage #110 - Nati loam, 30-60% slopes, 50% coverage Comments: These soils are mainly used for woodland, the lesser sloped soils for home sites. Low seasonable water table, and hazard of compaction. Basic Value (BV)_ - -.S.core Enhance Scenic Resources Undeveloped shoreline and adjacent hillside protects scenic views from local county road ad and from the water. 10 Protect Streams/Shorelines Protects shoreline natural vegetative cover and rural shoreforms. Protect Soils/Wildlife Property will be preserved for minimal impact recreational use only. 10 MAX Public Benefit Value (PBV) Public Access Posted Sign and Rules of Conduct: Road side access with limited parking, with short trail, access to shoreline by 10 unmotored watercraft. Score MAX 300/a 40% Water Resource Protection Forested area provides wildlife habitat and helps to control run off. 10 .10% -20% Wildlife Habitat Natural tree canopy and understory provide food and cover for wildlife. 10 10 10% 20% Pr6ni6t4--Cons6liVaition Parcel SW6. Mrinc 4 acres un df co d nsideratibn :.I.T: _410 % r.-Posted Op"ein- Sp -a C"e. Si g-4 Ii- increases X), -awareness of.conservation., re� MAXIA Enhance Abutting Open Space Abutting Open Space In close vicinity to DNR land and Not in proximity to land classified as Whatcom Land Trust property to the 5 10 Open Space. 0% 5% south. 0 10 0% 40%(+/-) Discretill:0800 Total 46 70 Total 54.00% 100% The Public Benefit Rating is calculated using the following formula: Public Benefit Rating Formula- BV+(BV x PBV) = PBR 1 OSP2009-00007 Public Benefit Rating (PBR) = 70.84 Must receive at least 45 Points for approval 61 C�i�$ fib; } - _ ice, _�_ Y ^ �� •��� G, �, _ :� •� a ,�� r .. '- r•� � tir u _� - ..,�;; r.; �� ,mat ,y! `'' 'S -T� � _ .• Uct L2 eUU5 3:4UPM WHHTCUM CO RSSESSOR 360 738 2472 P. 10 REVAL AREA Year 2009/2010 C PARCEL# 380431 061092 0000 HS ACRES 0.00 Norman H & Karen E Chamerlin NON -OS ACRES 0.00 OS ACRES 0.82 TOTAL ACRES 0.82 PBR% 70.84% FM VALUE PER ACRE 60,000 site value CU VALUE PER ACRE 1,200 "'FM VALUE= FRONT FT X PER ACRE = 0 FM VALUE= site 1.00 ACRES X 60,000 PER ACRE = 60,000 FM VALUE= ACRES X PER ACRE = 0 Total FM VALUE 60,000 CU VALUE= 0.82 ACRES X 1,200 PER ACRE = 984 DIFF 59,016 PRB% 70.84% SAVINGS 41,807 FM VALUE 60,000 SAVINGS 41,807 NEW VALUE 18,193 1 0.82 Per acre = 22,187 PROOF 18,193 63 Oct 22 2009 3: 40PM WHH I UUM UU HbbEbbUK Jbu -1:it1 e4-ie P•zj . REVAL AREA Year 2009/2010 C PARCEL# 380431 032083 0000 HS ACRES 0.00 Norman H & Karen E Chamerlin NON -OS ACRES 0.00 OS ACRES 2.96 TOTAL ACRES 2.96 PBR% 70.84% FM VALUE PER ACRE 130,000 site value CU VALUE PER ACRE 1,200 *FM VALUE= FRONT FT X PER ACRE = 0 FM VALUE= site 1.00 ACRES X 130,000 PER ACRE = 130,000 FM VALUE= ACRES X PER ACRE = 0 Total FM VALUE 130,000 CU VALUE-- 2.96 ACRES X 1,200 PER ACRE = 3,552 DIFF 126,448 PRB% 70.84% SAVINGS 89,576 FM VALUE 130,000 SAVINGS 89,576 NEW VALUE 40,424 / 2,96 Per acre = 13,657 PROOF 40,424 UCL ee GUUu J: izit-M W"" I UUM l.0 r155t55uK .you 100 G't rC P•ts REVAL AREA Year 2009/2010 C PARCEL# 380431 066114 0000 HS ACRES 0.00 Norman H & Karen E Chamerlin NON -OS ACRES 0.00 OS ACRES 0.22 TOTAL ACRES 0.22 PBR% 70.84% FM VALUE PER ACRE 313,360 site value CU VALUE PER ACRE 1,200 *FM VALUE= FRONT FT X PER ACRE - 0 FM VALUE= site 1.00 ACRES X 313,350 PER ACRE = 313,360 FM VALUE= ACRES X PER ACRE = 0 Total FM VALUE 313,350 CU VALUE= 0.22 ACRES X 1,200 PER ACRE = 254 RIFF 313,086 PRB% 70.84% SAVINGS 221,790 FM VALUE 313,350 SAVINGS 221,790 NEW VALUE 91,560 1 0.22 Per acre = 416,181 PROOF 91,560 65 WHATCOM COUNTY tGpM Qp David Stalheim Planning & Development Services Grp `y� Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 r J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 4SMING�0 Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Timber Land Current Use Classification -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-8 Property Owner (s) William L. & Teresa J. Hansen Classification: Open Space Timber Status: Transfer From Designated Forest Land Street Address: Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 8941 Heady Road 1 4005102000300000 City: Sumas State: WA Zip:-982957903 Site Address: 8941 Heady Road Subarea: Foothills Parcel Acre(s): 19.70 Comp Plan Designation: Rural Forestry Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Forestry, last harvested in 1987 & 1988, 18.70 one (1) acre homesite. Zoning Designation: Rural Forestry Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: # 7 - Barneston gravelly loam, 0-8% slopes, 50 year site index - Douglas fir = 118 ft #186 - Winston silt loam, 0-3% slopes, 50 year site index - Douglas fir = 125 ft Comments: Limitations: Seedling mortality due to low moisture content in the soil, competing vegetation, muddiness, excessive rutting, and compaction from wheeled and tracked equipment when harvests occur in wet season. Timber Management Plan I Comg1leteness 0= Incomplete; 1 = Satisfacto • 2= Thorou h Information Included Points Max Current Stand Description Composed of an imature mix of native species: Douglas fir, Western hemlock, Lodgepole pine, Red alder, Black cottonwood, and Birch - includesl.8 acre left to naturally regenerate, & a halfacre area scheduled for re -planting with Douglas fir 2 2 seedlings Soils Description Good productive woodland soil units. 2 2 Forest Health No insect infestations or diseases present. 2 2 Harvest Plan Stand planted with Douglas fir seedlings in 1989. The stand is fully stocked and meets WAC 222-34-010 (2) requirements. Beginning circa 2060, divide stand into 3 units, clear cut harvest each unit at ten year intervals using ground based 2 2 system. Thinning Program At the owners choice, precommercial thin the current stand during the next 10 years. Cull all poorly shaped trees, to leave crop trees in 12 X 12 foot spacing. Leave Red alder to fix nitrogen into the soil. 2 2 Planting/Restocking Program Re -plant during the first season after each successive harvest with 300 seedlings per acre with 12 X 12 foot spacing: Douglas fir, Western hemlock, and Red alder. Monitor seedlings, and control competing vegetation with mechanical or chemical 2 2 means Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Stand of trees will provide for wildlife habitat, watershed management, and recreational activities. Common understory includes Oregon grape, Vine maple, Red huckiberry, and Sword fern: will become good winter cover for wildlife within 2 2 10- 15 years. Timber Management Plan must receive 7 or more points for approval. 14 14 Total : Staff Recommendation: ® Approval ❑ Denial OSP2009-8 Timber Mgmt Plan Score 14.00 67 � , � � Z:I. - 1�11 TnIZI. 1 .4-' Nk?�' 71" '�- WHATCOM COUNTY t�„„ Co Planning & Development Services 3rp `yA 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Timber Land Current Use Classification -Evaluation David Stalheim Director J.E. "Sam" Ryan Assistant Director Form File # OSP 2009-9 Property Owner (s) Barry & Doris Heusinkveld Classification: Open Space Timber Status: New Application Street Address: Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 2096 Hampton Road 4003234574170000 City: Everson 4003234584370000 State: WA Zip:98247 Site Address: 2096 Hampton Road Subarea: Lynden/Nooksack Valley Comp Plan Designation: Agriculture Parcel Acre(s): 14.77 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Timber, pasture, homesite 10.50 Zoning Designation: Agriculture Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: # 10 - Barnhardt gravelly loam, 0-5% slopes, 50 year site index - Douglas fir=106 ft #148 - Skipopa, 0-8% slopes, 50 year site index - Douglas fir = 116 ft Comments: Limitations: muddiness caused by seasonal wetness; excessive rutting, and compaction from wheeled and tracked equipment when harvests occur in wet season. Timber Management Plan I Completeness 0= Incomplete; 1 = Satisfacto • 2= Thorou h Information Included Points Max Current Stand Description Composed of a diverse and uneven aged naturally regenerated mixed stand of trees. Consisting of 9 units with: Red alder, Birch, Douglas fir, Black cottonwood, Wild cherry, Western red cedar, Bigleaf maple, Western Hemlock, and Aspen. 2 2 Soils Description Good productive woodland soil units 2 2 Forest Health Main concern is competing vegetation. Birch trees are affected by a leaf disease. An ice storm in the 1990's. affected some of the Douglas fir, but have since recovered. Generall the stand is in good health. 2 2 Harvest Plan To continue present selective harvest of damaged birch trees in all units. Circa 2010 begin harvesting mature Red alder to be completed in 2015. Selective harvest of mature trees as market conditions are favorable, maintains stand 2 2 diversity. Thinning Program Malformed trees, snags, and uprooted windfalls are selectively cut and used for firewood. Competing vegetation is controlled by mechanical means, and grazing sheep. 2 2 Planting/Restocking Program Areas cleared of Trailing blackberry, are replanted with Douglas fir seedlings at the rate of 436 trees per acre, and fertilized with composted horse manure. 2 2 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Located within the Kamm Creek Watershed Management Plan area, the managed stand and onsite pond provide year round habitat to a diverse list of species: Deer, Owl, Rabbit, Red tail hawk, Racoon, Mink, River otter, Wood duck, to name a few. 2 2 Timber Management Plan must receive 7 or more points for approval. 14 14 Tota l : Staff Recommendation: ® Approval ❑ Denial O PP2009-9 Timber Mgmt Plan Score 14.00 70 I WHATCOM COUNTY �GpM Co David Stalheim Planning & Development Services Grp `zA Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 t J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 9SNINGAssistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Farm & Agricultural Conservation Land Public Benefit Rating System -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-00010 Property Owner (s) Classification: Sherry K. Olson Farm & Agricultural Conservation Land Street Address: 6172 Hamilton Avenue Status: Transfer From Farm Agriculture Land City: Ferndale Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 3901112170380000 State: WA Zip: 98248 Site Address: West of Olson on Alder rove Subarea: Cherry Point/Ferndale Comp Plan Designation: Rural Parcel Acre(s): 4.85 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Pasture, Hay 4.85 Zoning Designation: R(5) Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #179 - Whatcom silt loam, 3-8% slopes, Prime Agricultural Soil, 88% coverage #180 - Whatcom silt loam, 30-60% slopes, Prime Agricultural Soil, 12% coverage Comments: Soil units are used mainly for hay and pasture, or woodland and for homesites. Main limitations are seasonable high water table, and potential of soil compaction from overgrazing in the wet season. 72 Basic Value (BV) Traditional or Potential Farmland Land is currently farmed by the adjacent dairy farmer. Property owner does not charge for the use of the land for hay, and wishes to preserve the land for agricultural use. Soil Value Prime agricultural soils. Limitations for pasture; excellent soil for hay, or silage. Comprehensive Plan Designation Rural designation and implementing requlations. provide for aqriculture uses.. `Promote Conservation Princiolew . Promotes Conservation by example, promotes conservation of agricultural land. with prime agricultural soils.. Score MAX i Public Benefit Value (PBV) _ Score MAX Public Access Posted Open Space Sign and Rules of Conduct: Parking area, picnicking, bird watching, dog walking, during daylight 10 15 hours. Other uses by permission of 30% 40 `io owner. Water Resource Protection Moderate Aquifer Recharge Area. 15 15 Natural tree canopy retained at rear of 50/0 20 % parcel. Wildlife Habitat 5 5 Wooded edge type habitat provides 50/0 20% food, and good cover for wildlife. 2. 5 Enhance Abutting Open Space Parcel surrounded by land classified as Farm and Agricultural Land (Dairy) to 5 5 the south, east, and west. -Recreation Opportunities: . Public.'accesS provided during daylight ,.':hours: one parking :space :provided, bird watchingpicnicking,:dog walking, 5 S 'Located approximately one mile from urban residential _areas. . Historic /Archaeological Sianificance 0 5 Parcel Size Parcel is -less than 5. acres. Abuttina Open Space Surrounded either by land classified as Farm and Agricultural Land or Designated Forest Land. 5% 5% 0% 40 % (+/-) Fh � �.._....: -. ' _.. N•.. f..., :-"^iti �. .;r:x:;.i:'''L � � _ __ _ _ _ _ s3•.'s3.?tr=::3�_d�.'»;::,::a: :"r'.._...,. _.._."... �..r; - "." .;.a.. .... .... ..... ::�.. :" :: mil' •;,G;..,.,. �. nhance- cemcResources,.. ,.._,..,...�,.....,...,,_..............,....,:..;��:;.D�scret�ona .:Yalue:.,.>" -.,a,: ;.�,.: :;::,,. �:�.•� `��h'Cr76iitesto#he-r+a[al pasto'c�l '' _ 1�� _ - t; eneryalong:iocal county roadway 4 N - , r " Protect Streams/Shorelines 0 5 The Public Benefit Rating is calculated using the following formula: Public Benefit Rating Formula- BV+(BV x PBV) = PBR OSP2009-00010 Public Benefit Rating (PBR) = 53.9 Must receive at least 45 Points for aoaroval 73 a .�- d�<d" - >oJ..rh •� a e> ti t; ,yk... ,� l,�sa' .•Pi ti y �. ".-' rtw .. -_ a y ` '` Et ((. 4p 4+� a,.s. n a j pk.-r T '` A J�g� r .✓ °.,�-y T�� kk � -Y ? 4F -`,� �" rri a '✓�—ti a+ r,li�C4?$r" r ' r All IN —IM MAR IT i if OR Oct 22 2009 3:4OPM WHRICOM CU HSSESSUR 360 738 2472 P. REVAL AREA Year 2009/2010 A HS ACRES 0.00 NON -OS ACRES 0.00 OS ACRES 4.85 TOTAL ACRES 4.85 PBR% 53.90% FM VALUE PER ACRE 20,000 CU VALUE PER ACRE 1,190 *FM VALUE= FRONT FT FM VALUE= 4.85 ACRES FM VALUE= ACRES Total FM VALUE CU VALUE= 4.85 ACRES PARCEL# 390111 217038 0000 Sherry K Olson X PER ACRE = 0 X 20,000 PER ACRE = 97,000 X PER ACRE = 0 97,000 X 1,190 PER ACRE = 5,772 DIFF 91,229 PRB% 53.90% SAVINGS 49,172 FM VALUE 97,000 SAVINGS 49,172 NEW VALUE 47,828 / 4.85 Per acre = 9,861 PROOF 47,828 75 WHATCOM COUNTY �GpM �o David Stalheim Planning & Development Services 3rP `y� Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 a J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 'sy�„��0 Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Land Public Benefit Rating System -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-00011 Property Owner (s) Douglas J. & Jill N. Marsh Classification: Open Space Land Street Address: 6152 Aldrich Road Status: Transfer From Farm Agriculture Land City: Ferndale Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 3902143700550000 State: WA Zip: 98248 Site Address: 6152 Aldrich Road Subarea: Birch Bay/Blaine Comp Plan Designation: Rural Parcel Acre(s): 4.46 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Pasture, Hay, Residential 3.46 Zoning Designation: R(5) Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #96 - Laxton loam, 0-3% slopes, Prime Agricultural Soil, 100% coverage Comments: These soil units are very deep and moderately drained, and typically used for hay, pasture, woodlands, and a site for homes. Main limitation for pasture and cropland is seasonal high water table; care must be taken to avoid compaction. 76 Basic Value (BV),,,Score r MAX. Public Be.nefit.Value,(PBV). $Core ..MAX Enhance Scenic Resources Public Access Riparian area serves as a buffer Posted Sign & Rules of Conduct: off between areas of human habitation. street parking, walking trail, bird & Open areas to remain undeveloped. wild life viewing, picnicking, 5 10 informational signage, map of trails & 300/a 40 -/o trail linkages. S 'aihnis/ShoOell' tre Streams/Shorelines Water t6rlResource .Trotect� Natural pond fed by underground Higheiquifer re h ...c arge area, CARV- stream-, feeding into fish bearing Ten Surficial Aquifer (2007.);' naturally.'':..: Mile Creek tathe soutfiwe�st;._ and a wooded, grassy vegetated area; and . tributaryto Ten:Mile, Creek to,the-east. .10 10 - '0 pond preserve hydrologic processes: 20%-2 -6/0 Invasive species will I be removed, and 11 b area: ereplapted, t�qat� V Protect Soils/Wildlife Wildlife Habitat Conservation of grassy vegetated open Pond identified on County maps as a area offers forage for wildlife. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area. Palustrine edge type habitat is Species observed include: eagles, protected. Removal of non-native 8 10 hawks, owls, wood ducks, kingfishers, 20% 20% invasive species, and native plant great blue heron, hooded mergansers, restoration is underway. mallards, buffleheads. Parcel J94 g", P0rirticiales Parcel is 4.82:acres �.' 'v""`toAT RU Istra en' a. N schoolscience _ _ 5 -T soloyca_d- to � PAM, H na Mil ..Hatt. - Enhance Abutting Open Space Abutting Open Space Biodiversity enhances ecosystem health Adjacent to land classified as Farm of abutting open space. g 10 and Agricultural Land to the north, 3% 5% west, and east of the parcel. Historic / Archeoloalcal Significance 0 10 'LJ Total - 49 ' 70 Financial Advantage 0% 40%(+/-) Total 75.00% 100% The Public Benerit Rating is calculated using the following formula: Public Benefit Rating formula- BV+(BV x PBV) = PBR --------- -­ OSP2009-00011 Public Benefit Rating (PBR) = 85.75 Must receive at least 45 points for approval I 77 J t ,�""'` `m ;¢'_ .x.-r. �`i1. +x�' ��} �:��+'- - �`_..� .�"`W '�`. j•�r' 'tt � ,a ti;�r�. 6�e vy c3�' $ m PL Ell •��a -+'x' - .+tea ,a _ _ a--.. a e�� ""e �•':'., s 'QM%-'"- ram` t _ _ _ ■` _ _ ;yst..✓e. 'Sa.r.`s:-: _ IY ■ E :�;��` .wi} - - - - ri.� - '.`-3 .y..��'ya.:;,:.-,�- �ilU.�. 'arc '1• c� g jilt 10 - y- ..,.a .`r?4.".-s i' - i1� r 4���a.'•. <<'. y�J ` }�F; -•r �� E `L` yyy�t..: � '& hN:.�a�{�.., �'� y �`Ny •rtT� �r,aT � � fir �4 Kam" Yn , a ��4 _ dries i; Yti•�& S� CL •�� � . " � u' •� �r�" �a� � � � A,.'4 � t�r"'� ` � •.'." is - •tea'". � b �'c.�4 e'` �� � y,ue 3 4 ,mot Sys -T if-i a•�' s . yYySv'�Kv�C�' `�F.t t'.a n'���, , ��. 43'� �y5'"�v .�-+T�_-1.y _ '_r�z.•.•cs+ic _ [40 O N G� 0co If 'hy[� ?..� K 'C', tf' `y`J�:�' -.�F• .�•T+" la�v 'T- � li•M y r`�` .'Y�? w 5 a ' � t � ,,,ems ..,,�`./ ..�_ .f r�+�� ►. _> va r� 00 79 Oct 22 2009 3:40PM LIHRTCOM CO RSSESSOR 360 738 2472 Year HS ACRES NON -OS ACRES OS ACRES TOTAL ACRES PBR% FM VALUE PER ACRE CU VALUE PER ACRE, 'FM VALUE= FM VALUE= FM VALUE= Total FM VALUE CU VALUE= FM VALUE SAVINGS NEW VALUE PROOF REVAL AREA 2009/2010 A 1.00 0.00 3.46 4.46 85.75% 30,000 1,190 FRONT FT X 3.46 ACRES X ACRES X 3,46 ACRES X 103,800 85,478 18,322 18,322 PARCEL# 390214 370055 0000 Doug & Jill Marsh PER ACRE — 0 30,000 PER ACRE = 103,800 PER ACRE = 0 103,800 1,190 PER ACRE = 4,117 RIFF 99,683 PRB% 85.75% SAVINGS 85,478 3.46 Per acre r= 5,295 WHATCOM COUNTY ,M David Stalheim Planning & Development Services 3rp `yA Director 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 r J.E. "Sam" Ryan 360-676-6907, TIY 800-833-6384 9S��N�`° Assistant Director 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Land Public Benefit Rating System -Evaluation Form File # OSP 2009-00012 Property Owner (s) Steven H. & Ulla L. Jenkins Classification: Open Space Land Street Address: 9355 Sunrise Road Status: Transfer From Farm Agriculture Land City: Blaine Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 400206454083 State: WA Zip: 98230 Site Address: Subarea: Lynden/Nooksack Valley Comp Plan Designation: Rural Parcel Acre(s): 4.78 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Pasture, Open Space Farm and 3.78 Agricultural Land since 1976. Zoning Designation: R(5) Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #179 - Whatcom silt loam, 3-8% slopes, Prime Agricultural Soil, 100% coverage Comments: Soil units are used mainly for hay and pasture, or woodland and for homesites. Main limitations are seasonable high water table, and potential of soil compaction from overgrazing or equipment use in the wet season. Basic Value (BV) Score MAX Public Benefit Value (PBV) Score.: MAX Enhance Scenic Resources Public Access Sixteen (16) Mature Douglas fir trees Posted Sign and Rules of Conduct: off tower and give depth to the onsite street parking area, short trail along Dakota Creek tributary, & wetland Dakota Creek tributary, scenic views, restoration, salmon habitat and 5 10 bird watching, picnicking, drinking 25% 40 .0 enhancement site featuring 23 species water. & 815 trees and shrubs. Protect Soils/Wildlife Wildlife Habitat Conservation of mature firs provide Tree canopy and recently planted raptor habitat. Salmon habitat is understory will provide diverse wildlife protected and enhanced, and soils are habitat functions, and salmon habitat protected by the revegetation of the 8 10 enhancement. 20% 20% site with native species. tecreation:+0ohortWalllllatura! Areas �:" v ird watching, wildlife Viewing; �� � l } -, ..;::_' More than 75?/0 ofthe site isan a j- r ; natural ve etated state wetlands, picr�ickmg, wetland nature observation, g , ; and road side rest stop for bicycle `• riders r ::�•__—_,,.__. .._:'.,. �__._.____,. ____,.____..__._ ,. __..- �:_..� ,tea._ '_.,._ ....._ - _._� -_._ ..__.J_...._.e:,l'�-J..._.___-.n..-. ,__1L. Historic / Archeological Financial Advantaae Sian ificance 0 10 0% 40 % (+/-) �s�re �onary a ue . aG54`...5•. Xny r. l' l 1. �. e Total 42 70 Total 74.00% 100 % The Public Benefit Rating is calculated using the following formula: Public Benefit Rating Formula- BV+(BV X PBV) = PBR OSP2009-00012 Public Benefit Rating (PBR) = 73.08 Must receive at least 45 ooints for avoroval E:M .' � r �: , �>r� K 3, �FH'`7y�{t.• � t�� �1�'�1;. y� � 4*i,.p? �' �."v�'..r c - *. r„�`' `�J'�� � � 3�. • Ji 4 i S� I 7 �4 'iffA _ 1 i 17, ID .`} C fyr.C• !.'irk- S �. • _ s � 4�.," �ti. ' .n` l ��l? � e$ *� i] `.t"n �6 ; ,. a �Sh-� t • $'?:"c E 4 ';.ly �fi y�...zm.�r�.r ° -'� �'k�,.''�i ,sir- • � ' Uct 22 2UUy J: 4Ut'M WHH I UUM UU HbbLbbUK .'ibu IdU c•t !c P.lc REVAL AREA Year 2009/2010 A PARCEL# 400206 454083 0000 HS ACRES 1.00 Steven H & Ulla L Jenkins NON -OS ACRES 0.00 OS ACRES 3.78 TOTAL ACRES 4.78 PBR% 73.08% FM VALUE PER ACRE 25,000 CU VALUE PER ACRE 1,190 *FM VALUE= FRONT FT X PER ACRE = 0 FM VALUE= 3.78 ACRES X 25,000 PER ACRE = 94,500 FM VALUE= ACRES X PER ACRE = 0 Total FM VALUE 94,500 CU VALUE= 3.78 ACRES X 1,190 PER ACRE = 4,498 DIFF 90,002 PRB% 73.08% SAVINGS 65,773 FM VALUE 94,500 SAVINGS 65,773 NEW VALUE 28,727 1 3.78 Per acre = 7,600 PROOF 28,727 WHATCOM COUNTY o74 �o Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TIY 800-833-6384 4SyN�,40 360-738-2525 Fax Open Space Timber Land Current Use Classification -Evaluation David Stalheim Director J.E. ""Sam" Ryan Assistant Director Form File # OSP 2009-13 Property Owner (s) Mark & Heidi Lann Classification: Open Space Timber Status: Transfer From Designated Forest Land Street Address: Assessor's Parcel No. (s): 3905 Isaacson Road 3803130662300000 City: Bellingham State: WA Zip: 98226 Site Address: 3905 Isaacson Road Subarea: Lake Whatcom Comp Plan Designation: Rural Forestry Parcel Acre(s): 19.73 Historical Land Use: Application Acre(s) Designated Forest Land classification 19.73 since 1975. Zoning Designation: Rural Forestry Shorelines: N/A Soil/Type Capabilities: #108 Nati loam, 5-15% slopes, 50 year site indx-Douglas fir=121 ft. Comments: Limitations: muddines, excessive rutting and compaction from wheeled and tracked equipment when harvested in wet season. Use of low-pressure ground equipment to reduce compaction and puddling is advised. Timber Mana ement Plan I Com leteness 0= Incomplete; 1 = Satisfacto • 2= Thorou h Information Included Points Max Current Stand Description Stand has been restocked since clear cut harvest circa 1993. Trees are approximately 16 years in age and consist of predominantly Douglas fir (70%) and Red alder (30%) with presence of Grand fir, Western red cedar, Maple, Birch, and 2 2 Cherry noted. Soils Description Good productive woodland soil units. 2 2 Forest Health No indications of disease, insects, pests, or animals. Fire protection is provided by Department of Natural Resources and is funded by assessments according to RCW 76.04.610. 2 2 Harvest Plan Commercially harvest Douglas fir circa 2043. Red alder and other hardwood harvests may begin as early as circa 2023. Harvests should be planned seasonally to avoid saturated soils, and to use low ground pressure equipment to avoid 2 2 excessive rutting. Thinning Program Current stand could be managed with a passive approach for merchantable wood products such as pulp, although pre -commercial thinning at 11-12 feet spacing is recommended for greater productivity of saw timber. 2 2 Planting/Restocking Program Replant with Douglas fir according to WAC 222-34-010 following successive harvests February through April. Monitor during first 5 years and control competing vegetation with mechanical or chemical herbicides. 2 2 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Site provides nesting and foraging habitat for wildlife common to the area, and cover for terrestrial animals traveling between adjacent lands. Mixed management strategy may provide more habitat, while providing a small amount of additional 2 2 revenue. Timber Management Plan must receive 7 or more points for approval. 14 14 Tota 1: Staff Recommendation: ® Approval ❑ Denial 0 SP2009-00013 Timber Mgmt Plan Score 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 12 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2009 Regular Meeting Call To Order: The meeting was called to order, by Whatcom County Planning Commission Chair, Jean Melious, in the Northwest Annex Conference Room at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call Present: Jean Melious, Ken Mann, Sean Wilson, John Lesow, John Belisle, John Steensma Hunter in attendance at 6:45 p.m. Absent: Geoff Menzies, .Rabe) Burdge 1 Staff Present: David Stalheim, Wain Harrison, Matt Aamot, E,rpi Osborn, Rebecca Craven - Council Office, Becky Boxxf.> Director's Dialog Director Stalheim updated the Commission with the County Council sedule regarding the Rural Element and the update to the UGAs ,He also outlined the itei�rithat will be before the Planning Commission in 2010.E Open Session for Public Comment Dominique Zervas, Whatcom County`, Felt there was not `enough time for the Commission and the public to review the UGA findiriq they had received earlier in the day. Commissioner Comments Lesow stated he had attended the hearingm rega-pdi`ng the Fairhaven Highlands EIS as a private citizen, not a Planning Commission The contents of his comments were submitted into the record. Steensma spoke of an article in the Lyn.den Trek � in which the Lynden City Council spoke unfavorably a b o UtAh. e County'UGA process. Mel ioijs i0rib it6d.an` article on Transferable Development Rinht-, �ha al-,n thankPrl 7. Director Stalheim hisywork on the UGA process. Approval'of Minutes September`8 2009: Lesow made a change to page 1, line 25 to read: —regarding water ""-districts. Wilson moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mann seconded. The motion .carried. September 17, 2009'.1,Wilson moved to approve the minutes as presented. Lesow seconded. The motion carried. September 24, 2009: Lesow moved to approve the minutes as presented. Wilson seconded. The motion carried. 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2009 Regular Meeting October 1, 2009: Lesow moved to approve the minutes as presented. Wilson seconded. The motion carried. Public Hearings Open Space Applications Prestlien-Open Space Timber Staff has given this application a revised because of informatio•rare'cently obtained that AT;t indicates it may not meet the qualifications for the open spaogpArogram. Because of the safety buffer, of 150 feet, around the house, staff has determined,.,it does not meet the minimum acreage requirements. k The hearing was opened to the public. Terry Prestlien, the property owner, stated th apply for open space. The issue of the buffer the timber buffer is unnecessary and the appl Belisle moved to deny the application;: Mann secondE Congregation Beth Israel -Open Space Staff recommended approval,a,,,' The hearing was opened:.to the pu;plic. F t Karen Sloss, a representative of Congregatio Bellingham was grant .d�a conservation ease Lesow move d.to approve,th.e., application. i=fu McMinn=Open Space Land Staff recommended approval. ed the require ment§`in.order to r b r ou1Obt up until recently. Feels io ,,r approved. motion carried. i Israel, stated that the City of on the land. seconded. The motion carried. The hearing :was opened to the public. Steve McMinn, the property owner, spoke on the merits of the application. Mann moved to approve the application. Wilson seconded. The motion carried. Marsh -Open Space Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. 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 31 119 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4.1 42 43 44 45 46 47 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2009 ular Meeting Doug Marsh, the property owner, spoke on the merits of the application. Lesow moved to approve the application. Wilson seconded. The motion carried. Jenkins- Open Space Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. Liz Jenkins, the property owner, spoke on the merits ofgth pp1fkb#,ion. Lesow moved to approve the application. Wilson seconded. The motecarried. Olson -Open Space Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the pub,icy:-,, ;. Sherry Olson, the property owner, ari�eVered Commission gia,estions about the use of the land. _ ti ,� • mew. �5 r Mann moved to approve the application Lesow econd�T;h°e motion carried. }M�-�r:. Lann-Open Space, rriber Land -6 Staff recommended `a roval.. �,":.., The hears,ng;w0o;pened `to he public. MarksLann, the prope'i=ty4,owner spoke of the merits of the property. Lesow'M-o ed to approve tth e aDDlication. Belisle seconded. The motion carried. There was no public comment. Lesow moved to approve the application. Mann seconded. The motion carried. Maier -Open Space Land a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 RECORD OF PROCEED:[NGS OF THE 4 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2009 Regular Meeting Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. There was no public comment. The Commission discussed the reason for giving this application an increased public benefit rating due to additional information about greater opportg tties for public access and recreation provided by the property owner. Lesow moved to approve the application. Steensma secorac@t ;emotion carried. Chamberlin -Open Space Land Mg, Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. J`0 There was no public comment. Mann moved to approve the appl Massey -Open Space Land Staff recommended ap There was no public�,corriment. Wilson moved to approve the revised application of 16.70 acres. Lesow seconded. The motion carried. Heusinkveld- Open Space Timber Land Staff recommended approval. 91 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 n� 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 RECORD OF PROCEEDIIVGS OF THE 5 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2009 ular Meetin The hearing was opened to the public. There was no public comment. Lesow moved to approve the application. Belisle seconded. The motion carried. Public Hearing File #PLN2009-00016: Proposed amendments to the Six-Yer'Capital Improvement Program (C:[P). The proposed amendment would identify fjn`dsfor repair/replacement of Pt. Roberts Sheriff facilities for two mobile homes used uy fhe §Nlfoffs, located at 430 South Beach Rd. "{ Matt Aamot presented the staff report. The County would like to complete a project, Ih,.Pt. Robe home and repairing another for the Sheriff's Office: Wasj can not use Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds on,:�.&pr, County's Capital Facility Element of the, Comprehensive'I language to the Comprehensive Plan's'Ahkwork can be The hearing was opened to the public. t' olving replacing ,a mobile goon State law says the County ?ct unless it is listed in the n. This amendment would add ,:mpleted. There was no public comrnnt;; r v. Mann moved to app'roye the stafF`recommendation of approval. Wilson seconded. Roll Call Vote: Ayes - Belisle, Hunter, Lesow Mann, Melious, Steensma, Wilson; Nays - 0; Abstain - 0; Absent - Burdge, MenziesFThe motion carried. Work Session UGA Final Recommendations Melious suggested rewording the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4, Action item #12 to read: ... byreference into the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan when consistent with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. The Commission agreed to add the language. Melious suggested deleting Short Term Planning Areas from the Glossary, Appendix A. The Commission agreed to the deletion. Melious suggested rewording Finding #40 to read: In the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Bellingham ,=eeeived was allocated the greatest share of population. Rural areas were slated to take the least share of growth, but have seen substantially more growth than was intended, for a variety of reasons, including the presence of then ands of more than 18,000 vacant lots in rural and resource lands, and substantial growth in Sudden Valley, a 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 6 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2009 ular Me provisional urban growth area which has subsequently been re -designated to non -urban status. The Commission agreed to the changes. Melious suggested rewording Finding #188 to read: The city's proposed UGA expansion did not take into account the need for a sufficient quantity of agricultural land to support a healthy agricultural industry in Whatcorm County, nor required mitigation when land is converted to another use, or required buffers on all new non-agricultural uses located adjacent to agricultural activities (Policy 8A-2). The Commission . geed to add the language. Wilson moved to adopt the proposed Comprehensive Pla mprehensive Plan Maps, Zoning Text, Zoning Maps and Findings of Fact a. {=end .Lesow seconded. Roll M Call Vote: Ayes - Hunter, Lesow, Melious, Steens ma,,4jWi on; Nays Belisle; Abstain - Mann; Absent - Menzies, Burdge. The motion carved''` The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Minutes prepared by B. Boxx. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING CO TTEST: d Stalheim, Secretary 93 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 3 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2009 Regular Meeting Lesow moved to approve the application. Wilson seconded. The motion carried. Jenkins- Open Space Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. Liz Jenkins, the property owner, spoke on the merits of the application. Lesow moved to.approve the application. Wilson seconded. The motion carried. Olson -Open Space Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. Sherry Olson, the property owner, answered Commission questions about the use of the land. Mann moved to approve the application. Lesow seconded. The motion carried. Lann-Open Space Timber Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. Mark Lann, the property owner, spoke of the merits of the property. Lesow moved to approve the application. Belisle seconded. The motion carried. Burnett- Open Space Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. There was no public comment. Lesow moved to approve the application. Mann seconded. The motion carried. Maier -Open Space Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. E 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 4 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2009 Regular Meetin There was no public comment. The Commission discussed the reason for giving this application an increased public benefit rating due to additional information about greater opportunities for public access and recreation provided by the property owner. Lesow moved to approve the application. Steensma seconded. The motion carried. Chamberlin -Open Space Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. There was no public comment. Mann moved to approve the application. Belisle seconded. The motion carried. Massey -Open Space Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. There was no public comment. Wilson moved to approve the application. Belisle seconded. The motion carried. Hansen -Open Space Timber Land Staff recommended approval on a revised acreage of 16.70 acres rather than 18.70 acres because of the required safety buffer around the home site. The hearing was opened to the public. There was no public comment. Wilson moved to approve the revised application of 16.70 acres. Lesow seconded. The motion carried. Heusinkveld-Open Space Timber Land Staff recommended approval. The hearing was opened to the public. There was no public comment. 95 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2009 Regular Meeting 1 Lesow moved to approve the application. Belisle seconded. The motion carried. 2 3 Public Hearing 4 5 File #PLN2009-00016: Proposed amendments to the Six -Year Capital Improvement 6 Program (CIP). The proposed amendment would identify funds for repair/replacement of 7 Pt. Roberts Sheriff facilities for two mobile homes used by the Sheriffs, located at 430 8 South Beach Rd. 9 10 Matt Aamot presented the staff report. 11 12 The County would like to complete a project, in Pt. Roberts, involving replacing a mobile 13 home and repairing another for the Sheriff's Office. Washington State law says the County 14 can not use Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds on a project unless it is listed in the 15 County's Capital Facility Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment would add 16 language to the Comprehensive Plan so the work can be completed. 17 18 The hearing was opened to the public. 19 20 There was no public comment. 21 22 Mann moved to approve the staff recommendation of approval. Wilson seconded. Roll Call 23 Vote: Ayes - Belisle, Hunter, Lesow, Mann, Melious, Steensma, Wilson; Nays - 0; Abstain 24 - 0; Absent - Burdge, Menzies. The motion carried. 25 26 Work Session 27 28 UGA Final Recommendations 29 30 Melious suggested rewording the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4, Action item #12 to 31 read: ... by reference into the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan when consistent with 32 the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. The Commission agreed to add the language. 33 34 Melious suggested deleting Short Term Planning Areas from the Glossary, Appendix A. The 35 Commission agreed to the deletion. 36 37 Melious suggested rewording Finding #40 to read: In the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, 38 Bellingham reeeived was allocated the greatest share of population. Rural areas were 39 slated to take the least share of growth, but have seen substantially more growth than 40 was intended, for a variety of reasons, including the presence of the sands of more than 41 18,000 vacant lots in rural and resource lands, and substantial growth in Sudden Valley, a 42 provisional urban growth area which has subsequently been re -designated to non -urban 43 status. The Commission agreed to the changes. 44 45 Melious suggested rewording Finding #188 to read: The city's proposed UGA expansion 46 did not take into account the need for a sufficient quantity of agricultural land to support a 47 healthy agricultural industry in Whatcom County, nor required mitigation when land is 48 converted to another use, or required buffers on all new non-agricultural uses located 0 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. ae�-9 - 4 --2 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Of fke Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: AD 10116109 FcD)Adopt C I� `� � �% ��% E ID 11110109 Council -Intro 13 1 FinancelCouncil- Division Head. a" NOV 0 2 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 11124109 Dept. Head: ! Prosecutor: —"(d Purchasing/Budget: Executive: —O/ TITLE OF DOCUMENT.• Ordinance amending Whatcom County Code to incorporate additional supplantation language. ATTACHMENTS: Memo, Ordinance, WCCproposed change. SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: S UMMA R Y S TA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Amending Whatcom County Code, Chapter 3.37, section 3.37.050 "use of funds" to incorporate language from State statute, as approved in 2SSB 5433 passed in 2009, that allows for supplantation of existing funding and referenced in RCW 82.14.460. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. 11/10/2009: 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 County's website at. www co. whatcom. wa. us/councib 97 WHATCOM COUNTY Health Department Memorandum TO: Pete Kreemmen, County Executive FROM: Regina Delahunt, Director DATE: October 20, 2009 RE: Amending Ordinance No. 2008-027 Regina A. Delahunt Director Greg Stern, M.D. Health Officer RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTNE Enclosed is an agenda bill, a. proposed ordinance for the amendment to Whatcom County Code, and an edited version of the County Code. Background and purpose: Whatcom County Council passed ordinance no. 2008-027 on July 22, 2008, to authorize the county to fix and impose a 1 /10th of 1 % increase to the Sales and Use Tax for the purpose of providing new and expanded chemical dependency and mental health programs and services. The ordinance followed the laws of the State of Washington and allowed for supplantation of existing funds only when designated federal funds had lapsed, The Washington State legislature amended their statute this year, referenced in RCW 82.14.460, to allow for supplantation of existing funds according to a specified schedule, allowing for diminishing levels of supplantation with a sunset in calendar year 2014. The statute also added language to clarify use of the funds. The attached ordinance proposes an amendment.to Whatcom County Code, Chapter 3.37, section 3.37.050 "Use of Funds", in order to reflect the changes in State statute and allow the county to supplant existing funds. Supplantation can begin on January 1, 2010. If you have additional questions, I can be reached at x50801. ADMINISTRATION 509 Girard Street COMMUNITY HEALTH 1500 North State Street DISEASE RESPONSE Bellingham, WA 98225-4005 PUBLIC HEALTH Bellingham, WA 98225-4551 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (360) 676-6724 AEWAYS WORKING POR A SAFER AND (360) 676-4593 HUMAN SERVICES FAX (360) 676-6771 HEALTHIER WASHINGTON (360) 676-6762 98 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 Date prepared: October 6, 2009 SPONSORED BY:CONSENT PROPOSED BY: HEALTH INTRODUCTION DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 3.37, SECTION 3.37.050 -USE OF FUNDS", TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL SUPPLANTATION LANGUAGE WHEREAS, Washington State Law was enacted in 2005 to authorize counties to impose an additional one -tenth of one percent sales tax to provide new or expanded chemical dependency, mental health, and therapeutic court services; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County passed ordinance no. 2008-027 in July 2008 with specified use of additional sales tax monies solely for the purpose of providing new or expanded chemical dependency or mental health treatment services and for the operation of new or expanded therapeutic court programs; and WHEREAS, recognizing the current economic challenges experienced by counties, Washington State Law was amended in 2009 to allow for supplantation of existing funding with the additional sales tax monies following a diminishing scale of up to fifty percent for the 2010 calendar year, up to forty percent for the 2011 calendar year, up to thirty percent for the 2012 calendar year, up to twenty percent for the 2013 calendar year and up to 10 percent for the 2014 calendar year; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County is currently experiencing economic challenges due to decreased revenues; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County is experiencing reduced state funding for mental health and chemical dependency services; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County citizens are negatively impacted by the reduced mental health and chemical dependency services as a result of this reduced state funding; and WHEREAS, supplantation of existing funding would mitigate the negative impact of reduced services to Whatcom County citizens; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County ordinance no. 2008-027 does not allow for supplantation of existing funding. Page 1 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that County Code, Chapter 3.37, section 3.37.050 be amended to allow for supplantation of existing funding as authorized by the State of Washington and referenced in RCW 82.14.460. ADOPTED this day of , 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Prolk tor Page 2 Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Pete Kremen, County Executive ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date Signed: 100 Exhibit A 3.37.050 Use of funds. Monies deposited into the chemical dependency/mental health program fund shall be used solely for the purpose of providing new or expanded chemical dependency or mental health treatment services and for the operation of new or expanded therapeutic court programs, and as otherwise authorized by the laws of the state of Washington as referenced in RCW 82.14.460. Monies collected under this chapter shall ietmay be used to supplant existing funding for these programs as authorized by the laws of the State of Washington as referenced in RCW 82.14.460. (Ord. 2008-027 Exh. A). 101 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-434 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: 11110109 Intro on 'nator: W [E � E V [E D Division Head: 11124109 Finance Committee; i\iOY 2 2009 Council Dept. Head: WHATCOM COUNTYCOUNCIL Prosecutor: iL 4 Purchasin /Bud et: %o ✓7d 6 Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. • 2009 Supplemental Budget Request #12 ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, Memoranda & Budget Modification Requests SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Supplemental #12 requests funding from the General Fund: (1) To appropriate $9,565 in the Sheriffs Office to fund sex offender registration program. From the Trial Improvement Fund: (2) To appropriate $58,394 in Non Departmental to fund transfer to support Superior Court. From the Ferry Fund. (3) To appropriate $30,000 in Public Works to fund insurance premium increase. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION: 11/10/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: 102 SPONSORED BY: Finance PROPOSED BY: Executive INTRODUCTION DATE: 11/10/09 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDMENT NO. 12 OF THE 2009 BUDGET WHEREAS, the 2009-2010 budget was adopted November 25, 2008; and, WHEREAS, changing circumstances require modifications to the approved 2009-2010 budget; and, WHEREAS, the modifications to the budget have been assembled here for deliberation by the Whatcom County Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the 2009- 2010 Whatcom County Budget Ordinance #2008-053 is hereby amended by adding the following additional amounts to the budgets included therein: Expenditures Revenues Net Effect General Fund Sheriff 9,565 38,433 28,868 Total General Fund 9,565 38,433 28,868 Total Trial Court Improvement Fund 58,394 - 58,394 Total Ferry Fund 30,000 - 30,000 Total Add'I Supplemental 97,959 (38,433) 59,526 ADOPTED this day of , 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy P rltut& Seth Fleetwood, Chair of the Council ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, County Executive Date: I:\BUDGET\SUPPLS\2009—Suppl\Supplementa1 #12-2009.doc 103 WHATCOM COUNTY Summary of the 2009 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 12 Department/Fund Description Increased Expenditure Decrease (Increased) Revenue Net Effect to Fund Balance (Increase) Decrease General Fund Sheriff To fund sex offender registration program 9,565 (38,433) (28,868) Total General Fund 9,565 (38,433) (28,868) Trial Court Improvement Fund Non -Departmental To fund Trial Court Improvement trf to support Superior Ct 58,394 58,394 Total Trial Court Improvement Fund 58,394 58,394 Ferry Fund Public Works To fund insurance premium increase 30,000 - 30,000 Total Ferry Fund 30,000 - 30,000 Total Add'I Supplemental 97,959 (38.4331 59.526 104 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Frank M. Abart Director MEMO DLTM ADMINISTRATION CIVIC CENTER 322 N. Commercial Street, Suite 210 Bellingham, WA 98225-4042 Telephone: (360) 676-6692 FAX: (360) 738-4561 county. us RECEI �/ L�At;Jrt@coh whatcom.wa.us OCT 16 7.009 PETE KAEMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE To: The Honorable Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive, and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council From: Frank M. Abart, Public Works Director 10 1r ofDC( Subject: 2009 Ferry Fund Budget Supplemental Requests Date: October 13, 2009 Please find enclosed supplemental budget request, Supplemental ID #895. This represents an increase in the 2009 Whatcom Chief insurance premium as approved by council. Please contact Peggy Leviton at extension 50573 if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this supplemental budget request. Encl. 105 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Public Works Administration Supp'I !o # 895 j Fund 444 Cost Center 444200 Originator: Peggy Leviton Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 1 2009 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Insurance premium increase X ���% y/as/0. Dep rtment Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: r Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.10,00 Fund Balance ($30,000) 6910 Insurance Premiums $30,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Increase in ferry insurance premium. 1b. Primary customers: Whatcom County and Whatcom Chief passengers. 2. Problem to be solved: Additional budget authority is requested for increase in premium for Whatcom Chief insurance. 3a. Options /Advantages: This is the most cost-effective option. 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: Insurance lapses at September 30, 2009. 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: This will also increase the Road Fund transfer to Ferry Fund (45% of ferry operating costs). 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Fund balance. Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular W�T1 WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE BILL ELFO SHERIFF PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225-4078 (360) 676-6650 October 27, 2009 To: Pete Kremen, County Executive From: Bill Elfo, Sheriffs- - Re: Sex offender registration program Supplemental budget for 2009 & 2010 CAREY DAMES UNDERSHERIFF JEFF PARKS CHIEF DEPUTY ART EDGE CHIEF DEPUTY STEVE COOLEY CHIEF INSPECTOR WENDY JONES CHIEF OF CORRECTIONS RECEIVED OCT 2 9 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE The Whatcom County Sheriff's Office has been a-vyarded a grant from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for the period of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. The purpose of this grant is to tract and verifies addresses of all registered sex offenders and kidnapping offenders under RCW 9A.44.130. This award is a continuation of the program that was started July 1, 2008. Our Vision: The Office of Sheriff: Dedicated to making Whatcom County the Safest in the State through Excellence in Public Safety 07 Supplemental Budget Request Sheriff Administration Supp'l ID # 986 Fund 1 Cost Center 2978 Originator: Marvette Gwinner Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 1 2009 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Sex offender registration program X Department d Si nature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs. Object Object Description Amount Requested 4334.0113 Address Verifctn-Sex Offndrs ($38,433) 6120 Extra Help $8,690 6230 Social Security $665 6259 Worker's Comp-Interfund $200 6269 Unemployment-Interfund $10 Request Total ($28,868) la. Description of request: Washington State has provided funding to law enforcement to verify the address and residency of all registered sex offenders and kidnapping offenders under RCW 9A.44.130. This is a continuation of the program started July 1, 2008. The current funding that we have received igoes through June 30, 2010. 1 b. Primary customers: The citizens of Whatcom County. 2. Problem to be solved: The citizens of Whatcom County need to be aware of these offenders. Without this program the County would not know where they (offenders) lived and who they were. 3a. Options / Advantages: None 3b. Cost savings: Saving money from the general fund with the money the State of Washington provides. 4a. Outcomes: Notification to the community as to where these people live and who they are. 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: n/a 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. Tuesday, October 27, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental . Supp'I ID # 989 Fund 135 Cost Center 135100 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 1 2009 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 .:.. . Name of Request. Trial Court Improvement Trf to Support Superior Ct X De1.partment Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($58,394) 8351 Operating Transfer Out $58,394 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Transfer $73,000 out of the Trial Court Improvement Fund (TCIF) to Superior Court to fund additional services over and above General Fund 2009 budgeted amounts. $14,606 of the budget authority is expected to come from other budget lapses within the TCIF, $53,394 of additional budget authority is needed to accomplish the transfer. 1b. Primary customers: Superior Court 2. Problem to be solved. Superior Court is expected to have a 2009 budget shortfall somewhere between $130,000 - $150,000 due to contracted services and jury costs being more than originally budgeted. Due to a shrinking fund balance in the General Fund, revenue sources other than the General Fund balance will be needed to cover it. 3a. Options / Advantages: This option will not cover the whole shortfall, revenues from additional sources will also be needed. The other option is to cut expenditures which would mean laying off personnel. This option will result in no layoffs for 2009. 3b. Cost savings: None 4a. Outcomes: Funds will be transferred out of the TCIF to cover the shortfall at year end. This presumes that a second payment from the State to the TCIF is received for 2009. 4b. Measures: Interfund transfers of $73,000 from the TCIF to Superior Court will be recorded. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: The Executive's Office processes the interfund transfer. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Trial Court Improvement Fund balance Friday, October 30, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 109 O p F Z owm O co C1 c c c X O O C .N� (Q .N� O O CD CD CQ mmaCD —'' � m00.Mm oo rn c x°o mn nCD cO Ci; `mCC Q fc m CDCD cc (n m°__�c-8- c CD ; CDC0° Q(n v m cn, �- o co CD CD CD -VC CD a� CD .L W N W N co —� 1 1 co 1 1 0)— -P., CO co 4COON O -P�h O co I I A;-. W coo W O D N I C) 1 1 CJt � Cn W ONCho Ro 0CW=4 O co 1 O Cb C CCDD fl" CND CND CND O 3 O C N � 1 N v I co f co f N O O O 41, w • O f -Ph IO IV IO � Cn D N I 1) VO 0 v D Do CA � W NOT N -I A) Cn O co w N O IO Q. O 00 w O M CD Cn G W w IO D D O Cb � X D r O X M X O E m z c z v Ch 110 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Public Works Ferry & Docks _ . ..Mr .. .... Supp'1 ID # sss Fund 444 Cost Center 444200 Originator. Peggy Leviton Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 1 2009 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 I Name of Request. Insurance premium increase X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($130,000) 6630 Professional Services $100,000 6910 Insurance Premiums $30,000 Request Total $0 1 a. Description of request: Increase in Whatcom Chief insurance premium and deductibles. Professional services for identification and evaluation of alternative service delivery options. 1b. Primary customers: Whatcom County and Whatcom Chief passengers. 2. Problem to be solved. Additional budget authority is requested for premium increase for Whatcom Chief insurance. 3a. Options /Advantages: This is the most cost-effective option. 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: Insurance lapses at September 30, 2009. 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: This will also increase the Road Fund transfer to Ferry Fund (45% of ferry operating costs). 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. Frank Abart 6. Funding Source: Ferry fund balance. Friday, October 30, 2009 Rpl: Rpt Suppl Regular 111 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-435 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: I� D LSE 11110109 Intro Division Head: 11124109 Finance Committee; NOV 0.2 1009 Council De L Head - WHATCCM COUNTY COUNCIL Prosecutor: Q Purchasing/Budget: d /3 Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. 2010 Supplemental Budget Request #3 ATTACHMENTS. Ordinance, Memoranda & Budget Modification Requests SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Requested Date: 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.) Supplemental #3 requests funding from the General Fund. (1) To appropriate $65,500 in Planning and Development Services to fund WRL4 Grant amendment #6. (2) To appropriate $38,088 in the Sheriffs Office to fund Sex offender registration program From the Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund: (3) To record revenue and expenditure adjustments in the 2010 budget in Adult Drug Court, Revenue reductions total $20,608 and expenditure reductions total $39,622. (4) To appropriate $214,409 in Superior Court to fund Family Treatment Court. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: 11/10/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: 112 SPONSORED BY: Finance PROPOSED BY: Executive INTRODUCTION DATE: 11/10/09 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDMENT NO. 3 OF THE 2010 BUDGET WHEREAS, the 2009-2010 budget was adopted November 25, 2008; and, WHEREAS, changing circumstances require modifications to the approved 2009-2010 budget; and, WHEREAS, the modifications to the budget have been assembled here for deliberation by the Whatcom County Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the 2009- 2010 Whatcom County Budget Ordinance #2008-053 is hereby amended by adding the following additional amounts to the budgets included therein: Expenditures Revenues Net Effect General Fund Planning & Development Services 65,500 74,999 9,499 Sheriff 38,088 71,801 33,713 Total General Fund 103,588 (146,800) (43,212) Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund 174,787 (79,392) 95,395 Total Add'I Supplemental 278.375 (226.1921 52 183 ADOPTED this day of 12009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ivil De-put'y-TrosWtor Seth Fleetwood, Chair of the Council ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, County Executive Date: I:\BUDGET\SUPPLS\2010_Suppl\Supplementa1 #3-2010.doc 113 WHATCOM COUNTY Summary of the 2010 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 3 Net Effect to Fund Increased Balance Expenditure (Increased) (Increase) Department/Fund Description Decrease Revenue Decrease General Fund Planning & Development Services To fund WRIA Grant Amendment #6 65,500 74,999 9,499 Sheriff To fund Sex offender registration program 38,088 (71,801) (33,713) Total General Fund 103,588 (146,800) (43,212) Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund Superior Court To record Adult Drug Court Adjustments 39,622 20,608 19,014 Superior Court To fund Family Treatment Court 214,409 (100,000) 114,409 Total Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund 174,787 (79,392) 95,395 Total Add'l Supplemental 1 278.375 (226.192) 52.183 114 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Planning & Development Services Natural Resources . .. .. . Supp#'l to 936Fund 1 Cost Center 2581 Originator. Peter Gill Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 _. . Name of Request: WRIA Grant Amendment #6 X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance $9,499 4334.0326 CZM Grant -Shoreline Inv ($74,999) 6630 Professional Services $65,500 Request Total $o � la. Description of request. In 2006 Whatcom County received a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology to complete a detailed implementation plan, including prioritized listing of actions and recommended funding mechanisms for the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan. This additional funding allows this work to continue through June 30, 2011. 1b. Primary customers: Property owners throughout Whatcom County, more specifically, those property owners who are located with the boundaries of WRIA 1. 2. Problem to be solved. There are several tasks that need to be completed which include: broadening the long term monitoring program by coordinating with WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery and complementary data gathering programs, providing educational materials and outreach about in stream flows, making use of new modeling tools, and evaluating water supply strategies and performance measures in the context of adaptive management. 3a. Options /Advantages: The other option would be to not continue this work. Providing funds for this work to continue is the best option because of the amount of work that has been done to date and future work that has been committed to be done. 3b. Cost savings: This supplemental is supported by grant funds. 4a. Outcomes: If approved the work on the WRIA program would continue through June 30, 2011 with more tasks being completed. 4b. Measures: The tasks will be completed. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: None. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. None. 6. Funding Source: Friday, October 30, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 115 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending . . Planning & Development Services Natural Resources 1... Supp'I ID # sss Fund 1 Cost Center 2581 Originator. Peter Gill Washington State Department of Ecology Grant #G0600298. Friday, October 30, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 116 WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE BILL ELFO SHERIFF PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225-4078 (360) 676-6650 October 27, 2009 To: Pete Kremen, County Executive From: Bill Elfo, Sheriffs - - Re: Sex offender registration program Supplemental budget for 2009 & 2010 CAREY JAMES UNDERSHERIFF JEFF PARKS CHIEF DEPUTY ART EDGE CHIEF DEPUTY STEVE COOLEY CHIEF INSPECTOR WENDY JONES CHIEF OF CORRECTIONS RECEIVED OCT 2 9 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE The Whatcom County Sheriff's Office has been awarded a grant from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for the period of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. The purpose of this grant is to tract and verifies addresses of all registered sex offenders and kidnapping offenders under RCW 9A.44.130. This award is a continuation of the program that was started July 1, 2008. Our Vision: The Office of Sheriff: Dedicated to making Whatcom County the Safest in the State through Excellence in Public SafetA. 1 7 Supplemental Budget Request Sheriff Administration Supp'l ID # 987 Fund 1 Cost Center 2978 Originator: Marvette Gwinner Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Sex offender registration program Department ZeajItu'rei(Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 4334.0113 Address Verifctn-Sex Offndrs; ($71,801) 6110 6120 Regular Salaries & Wages Extra Help $16,260 $8,000 6210 Retirement $861 ------------------- 6230 Social Security $1,856 6245 Medical Insurance $5,298 6255 Other H&W Benefits $649 6259 Worker's Comp-Interfund $379 $75 6269 Unemployment-Interfund 6275 Uniforms $210 6320 Office & Op Supplies $3,000 6780 Travel-Educrrraining $1,500 Request Total ($33, 713) la. Description of request: Washington State has provided funding to law enfordement to verify the address and residency of all registered sex offenders and kidnapping offenders under RCW 9A.44.130. This is a continuation of the program that was started in 2008. This supplemental request is to continue the program through June 2010 which funding has been appropriated. 1 b. Primary customers: The citizens of Whatcom County. 2. Problem to be solved: With this program, the citizens of Whatcom County can be alerted as to the where abouts of these offenders. Citizens can go the the Whatcom County Sheriffs Office web site and go the the link provided to see where these people are located. 3a. Options / Advantages: None 3b. Cost savings: Saving Whatcom County money from the general fund with the funds provided by the State of Washington. 4a. Outcomes: Notification to the commkunity as to the where abouts of these offenders reside. 4b. Measures: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Rpt. Rpt Suppl Regular 118 Supplemental Budget Request Sheriff Administration Suppl ID # 987 Fund I Cost Center 2978 Originator. Marvette Gwinner 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: n/a 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for., 6. Funding Source: Washington Association of sheriffs and Police Chiefs. Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Rpl.- Rut Suppl Regular 119 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Superior Court .. Supp'l lD # 917 Fund Cost Center 124200 Originator. N.F. Jackson Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'i FTE ❑ Add'i Space ❑ Priority 1 I Name of Request. Adult Drug Court Adjustments I X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 4333.1601 Federal Grants - Indirect ($7,402) 4334.0466 DASA - CJTA $35,000 4342.3602 Drug Court Fees ($6,990) 6110 Regular Salaries & Wages ($16,407) 6210 Retirement ($1,629) 6230 Social Security ($1,255) 6245 Medical Insurance ($2,649) 6255 Other H&W Benefits ($451) 6259 Worker's Comp-Interfund ($182) 6269 Unemployment-Interfund ($49) 6630 Professional Services $16,000 6630.906 Professional Services ($35,000) 6780 Travel-Educ/Training $2,000 Request Total ($19,014) 1a. Description of request: The request is for additional professional services in the amount of $16,000 for urinanylis accountability prescribed by the decade -long successful treatment plan in use. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. The present level of urinanylis is inadequate to provide for increased client base. The request is for additional professional services in the amount of $16,000 for urinanylis accountability prescribed by the decade -long successful treatment plan in use. 3a. Options /Advantages: Reduced UA's. The key element of any successful drug court is ACCOUNTABILITY. This means FREQUENT UA's, random, including weekends, and multi -level testing to detect not only controlled substances but alcohol and even slight usage of marijuana. 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: The required level of accountability that is the cornerstone of successful case management will continue. 4b. Measures: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 120 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Superior Court Supp I ID # 915 Fund 1 Cost Center 124300 Originator: N.F. Jackson Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'i Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. Family Treatment Court I X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 4334.0041 State Grants ($100,000) 6110 Regular Salaries & Wages $80,143 6120 Extra Help $3,000 6210 Retirement $5,014 6230 Social Security $6,360 6245 Medical Insurance $23,817 6255 Other H&W Benefits $3,474 6259 Worker's Comp-Interfund $1,282 6269 Unemployment-Interfund $249 6320 Office & Op Supplies $1,150 6510 Tools & Equip $3,500 6520 Software $400 6630 Professional Services $72,520 6780 Travel-Educ/Training $3,000 7140 Meeting Refreshments $500 8351 Operating Transfer Out $10,000 Request Total $114,409 la. Description of request. Establishment of Family Treatment Court (20 parents), to consist of a 0.25 Drug Court Coordinator, a 0.75 Case Manager, a 1.0 FTE Clerk and extra help (UA monitoring), supplies, training, a computer and printer and graduation refreshments.. Professional Services include contracts for Contract Treatment over entitlements, ($5,000) Contract UA's, ($17,520, for expanded screen) Contract for provider to attend drug court, ($11,000) Contract mental health intake assessment & counseling ($12,000) Contract coached theraputic supervised visitation, ($27,000) 1b. Primary customers: Indigent parents in dependencies. 2. Problem to be solved. Family Treatment Court presently has NO dedicated case management staff and inadequate services Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 121 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009 — 421 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 11/2/2009 11/10/2009 Introduction Division Head: 11/24/2009 , inance/Council Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasin Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Ord. amend WCC Title 3 to establish WCC 3.46, Affordable Housing Incentive Fund 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 the intent of the action.) Ordinance amending Whatcom County Code (WCC) Title 3 to establish WCC 3.46, Affordable Housing Incentive Fund. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. 11/10/2009: 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. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 122 I IAORD\2009\Housing Fund 10.30, reformatted.doc SPONSORED BY: Consent 2 PROPOSED BY: Fleetwood 3 INTRODUCTION DATE: November 10, 2009 4 5 ORDINANCE NO. 6 7 8 AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (WCC) TITLE 3 TO 9 ESTABLISH WCC 3.46, AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE FUND 10 11 WHEREAS the Growth Management Act requires County Comprehensive Plans to include 12 provisions allowing for affordable housing funds (RCW 36.70A.070); and 13 14 WHEREAS, the Whatcom Comprehensive Plan includes a housing chapter which declares 15 that housing is not only a basic human need but also a fundamental building block in the 16 development of a strong County (Chapter Three, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan); and 17 18 WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan further declares, as a policy and 19 goal, that "every community and neighborhood needs a healthy mix of housing sizes, types and 20 prices, affordable at the wages of the jobs nearby" Id.; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the Countywide Housing Affordability Taskforce, hereinafter (CHAT), was 23 formed in 2007 to assist Whatcom County, and our cities, with implementing the housing needs 24 as expressed in the above mentioned plans; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the specific mission of CHAT was to develop and recommend specific action 27 strategies and programs to address the anticipated need for 11,000 additional housing units 28 affordable to households earning 80% or less of the county median income by the year 2022; and 29 30 WHEREAS, CHAT was comprised by a diverse collection of stakeholders knowledgeable in 31 different aspects of housing needs who met over 40 times to establish a report with 32 recommendations on how to create affordable housing in our community; and 33 34 WHEREAS, creation of a housing trust fund was one of the five major recommendations 35 that came forth from CHAT; and 36 37 WHEREAS, establishing a Housing Incentive Trust Fund would be for the purpose of 38 receiving special revenues supporting the development and preservation of affordable housing 39 and to provide segregated accounting and control for expenditure of moneys collected. 40 Page 1 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that Whatcom County Code 3.46, Affordable Housing Incentive Fund, is hereby established as outlined in Exhibit A to this ordinance. ADOPTED this day of November, 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of he Council APPRO ED ASTO FOR� ivil Deputy Prosecutor Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Pete Kremen, County Executive ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date Signed: Page 2 124 2 3 Chapter 3.46 EXHIBIT A (Affordable Housing Incentive Fund) 4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE FUND 5 Sections: Mc.. 6 11.44..010 Established. 7 5314..015 Subfund. 8 INF6iQ Accounting. 9 s4� .030 Definitions. 10 M��NK040 Functions and disbursements. 11 Emil Advisory board. 12 ���.060 Reporting. 13+1.010 Established. 14 A special revenue fund to be designated as the "Affordable Housing Incentive Fund" is 15 established to receive special revenues supporting the development and preservation of 16 affordable housing and to provide segregated accounting and control for expenditure of 17 moneys. 184.015 Subfund. 19 A special revenue subfund is established under the affordable housing incentive fund 20 entitled the "low-income affordable housing incentive fund". The low-income affordable 21 housing incentive fund may receive and distribute funds to assist households at or below 22 eighty percent of the area median income, adjusted for household size, as published by 23 U.S. Housing Urban Development Sources of funding for this subfund shall include 24 donations from public and private sources, and any other revenues specifically dedicated 25 to the affordable housing incentive fund by the county council, by cities within the 26 county, from affordable housing loan repayments or from other appropriate sources. 27 '3i.020 Accounting. 28 Accounting within the affordable housing trust fund shall segregate revenues and 29 expenditures so that support for persons with incomes higher than eighty percent of the 30 area median income shall be funded solely from private donations. Public funds may only 31 be used to assist households at or below eighty percent of the area median income. 32 K` 0.030 Definitions. Page 3 125 i "Housing" means promotion, facilitation, preservation and development of decent and 2 safe dwellings affordable to all economic segments of the community through loans, 3 financial assistance, technical assistance and capacity building to public and private 4 nonprofit agencies providing affordable housing services to the city. 5 (definition as codified in Whatcom County Code 20.97.221) 6 "Low-income'"''''''` " means :.:F""for which the month) expenditure b a qualified �?::.,.: I.�.w,.1 Y P Y 7 low-income household purchaser or tenant, including mortgage or rent payment, 8 insurance, taxes, and utilities (water and sewer), does not exceed 38 percent of gross 9 monthly household income at the time of purchase or lease, and where the amount of 10 mortgage or rent does not exceed 30 percent of gross monthly household income, with 11 documented assurance that the Mg provided is restricted under a government or 12 nonprofit h? program or agency, and that this will continue over time. A "low - 13 income household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together 14 whose income, at their initial occupancy of the premises, is less than 80 percent of the 15 median family income, adjusted for household size, for Whatcom County, as defined by and Urban Development at the time of 16 the U.S. Department of p application. A 17 monthly expenditure higher than the standard above may be allowed for homes or 18 projects that have received state, federal, and/or other'4ff program 19 funding. (Ord. 2009-006 Exh. 1, 2009). 20 4.040 Functions and disbursements. 21 1. The affordable housing incentive fund is intended to accept funds from sources that 22 include, but are not limited to, private donations, public allocations and the proceeds 23 from the sale of development rights. 24 2. The affordable housing incentive fund is intended to: 25 A. Support the repair and rehabilitation of housing serving senior, low-income and 26 disabled residents; 27 B. Provide direct financial and technical assistance to qualified housing projects; 28 C. Provide financial assistance to public and private nonprofit organizations supporting 29 housing activities consistent with city or county policy; 30 D. Provide financial assistance to pay for utility connections, impact fees and other public 31 fees for qualified housing activities; and 32 E. Fund approved, eligible operating expenditures related to the provision of assistance 33 covered by this chapter. 34 M.050 Advisory board. Page 4 126 1 The Whatcom County Housing Advisory Committee will act as an advisory committee 2 recommending to the County Executive and County Council on the use of the affordable 3 housing incentive fund. 4 .060 Reporting. 5 A written annual report on the status of activities, programs, and projects funded 6 through the use of the affordable housing incentive fund shall be prepared. Page 5 127 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-439 CLEARANCES Initial Date rice Date Received in Council Qf Agenda Date Ass' ned to: Originator: mg 11105109 E D L� 11/24/09 Finance/Council Division Head: Dept. Head: Nov..17 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Prosecutor: Purchasing/Budget: V '� '� Executive: p �7 TITLE OF DOCUM NT. Washington State Military Department — 2010 Olympics First Responder ATTACHMENTS: Washington State Military Department Contract F10-005 SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( ) 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.) This contract is for the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office to conduct or obtain first responder training to ensure laW enforcement is prepared for incidents that may arised during the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics. 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. 128 WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE BILL ELFO SHERIFF PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225-4078 (360) 676-6650 MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Kremen, County Exec FROM: Bill Elfo, Sheriff RE: 2010 Olympics First Responder Grant Contract Number F10-005 DATE: November 5, 2009 CAREY DAMES UNDERSHERIFF JEFF PARKS CHIEF DEPUTY ART EDGE CHIEF DEPUTY STEVE COOLEY CHIEF INSPECTOR WENDY JONES CHIEF OF CORRECTIONS RECEIVED NOV 10 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXEcu-nvE Enclosed are two (2) originals between Whatcom County Sheriff's Office and Washington State Military Department for your review and signature. Background and Purpose This contract is for the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office to conduct or obtain first responder training to ensure law enforcement is prepared for incidents that may arise during the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics. Training may consist of but not limited to the following: 1. Maritime Interdiction Training for Operators and Boat Operators. 2. Explosive Breaching Training 3. Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training 4. Advanced Hostage Negotiations 5. Advanced Police Sniper Training ■ Funding Amount and Source The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency is providing funding for training activities for Washington State and local Whatcom county First responders in preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics. CFDA# 97.001 $57,500.00 Grant period is July 1, 2009 — June 30, 2010 ■ Differences from Previous Contract N/a Please contact Undersheriff Jeff Parks @ 50418, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. Our Vision: The Office of Sheriff: Dedicated to making Whatcom County the Safest in the State through Excellence in Public Safety 29 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMA TION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. c2OO 9 / / 00& Originating Department: Whatcom County Sheri 's O ice Contract Administrator: Marvette Gwinner Contractor's I Agency Name: Washington State Military Department Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes X No Yes _ No Ifyes, previous number(s): Is this a grant agreement? Yes X No Ifyes, grantor agency contract number(s) F10-005 CFDA number 97.001 Is this contract grant funded? Yes _ No X Ifyes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No X If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is amt and any prior amendments) more than $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council $ 57, 00.00 approval and a supporting memo. Any amendment that provides This Amendment Amount: either a 10% increase in amount or more 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: $ 57, 500.00 Executive with supporting memo for approval. Scope of Services [Insert language from contract (Exhibit A) or summarize; expand space as necessary] To cover the costs for the Whatcom County Sheri's Office to conduct or obtain first responder training to ensure law enforcement is prepared for incidents that may arise during the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics. Term of Contract: July 1,2009 Expiration Date: June 30,2010 Contract Routing SteDs & Sienofp fshen or initiall (indicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: mg Date 11,05,09 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: 3. AS Finance reviewed: Date [electronic] Date 100 electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date _ [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date (electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff g b _ i Date 7. Contractor signed. Date 8. Submitted to Exec Office ✓ Date l I -1 0 -0 q /summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date 11. Executive signed: Date 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept; Date 14. County Original to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page 130 COUNTY ORIGINAL WHAT UUM UUU1\1 I r .� CONTRACT, NO, 00g11D©$ Washington State Military Department CONTRACT FACE SHEET 1. Contractor Name and Address: 2. Contract Amount: 3. Contract Number Whatcom Cbunty Sheriffs Office 311 Grand Avenue $57,500 F10-005 Bellingham, WA 98225 4. Contractor's Contact Person, phone number: 5. Contract Start Date: 6. Contract End Date: Jeff Parks 360-676-6650 July 1, 2009 June 30, 2010 JParks@co.whatcom.wa.us 7. MD Program Manager/phone number: 8. , Data Universal Numbering System 9. UBI # (state revenue): Robert Dermann, 253-512-8405 (DUNS #}: 803417989 - Robert.dermann@mil.wa.gov 600-358-208 10. Funding Authority: Washington State Military Department (Department) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 11. Funding Source Agreement #: 12. Program Index # & OBJ/SUB-OJ 13. CFDA # & Title: 14. TIN or SSN: 2009-VO-S9-00014 20327 NZ 97.001 91-6001383 15. Service Districts: 16, Service Area by County(ies): 17. Women/Minority-Owned, State (BY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT): 42,39 Whatcom County Certified?: X N/A ❑ NO (BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT): 2 ❑ YES, OMWBE # 18. Contract Classification: 19. Contract Type (check all that apply): ❑ Personal Services ❑ Client Services X Public/Local Gov't X Contract ❑ Grant ❑ Agreement ❑ Collaborative Research ❑ A/E ❑ Other ❑ Intergovernmental (RCW 39.34) ❑ .Interagency 20. Contractor Selection Process: 21. Contractor Type (check all that apply) X "To all who apply & qualify' ❑ Competitive Bidding ❑ Private Organization/Individual El For -Profit ❑ Sole Source ❑ A/E RCW IDN/A X Public Organization/Jurisdiction X Non -Profit ❑ Filed w/OFM? ❑ Advertised? ❑ YES ❑NO ❑ VENDOR X SUBRECIPIENT ❑ OTHER 22. BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is providing funding for training activities for Washington State and local Whatcom County first responders in preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Department and Contractor acknowledge and accept the terms of this contract and attachments hereto and have executed this contract as of the date and year written below. This Contract Face Sheet, Special Terms and Conditions, General Terms and Conditions, Statement of Work, and Budget govern the rights and obligations of both parties to this contract. In the event of an inconsistency in this contract, 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) Statement of Work (c) Special Terms and Conditions (d) General Terms and Conditions, and if attached, (e) Any other provisions of the contract incorporated by reference. This contract contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this contract shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. WHEREAS, the parties hereto have executed this contract on the day and year last specified below. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: FOR THE CONTRACTOR: Signature Date Signature Date Laura VanderMeer, Finance Director Finance Division See signature page — page 2 Washington State Military Department APPROVED AS TO FORM: for Sara J. Finlay (signature on fife) 9/12/2007 Assistant Attorney General Whatcom County Sheriff's Office Form 10/27/00 kdb First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 1 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F10-005 131 WHATCOM COUNTY: Sheriffvdvn��7 Recommended for Approval: Approved as to form: � � \,�, zr Prosecuting Attorney Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF WHATCOM } ss } t�40-®9 Date Date Date 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 acknowledge to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires: First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 2 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F 10-005 132 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARTICLE I --,COMPENSATION SCHEDULE: This is a fixed price, reimbursement contract. Within the total contract amount, travel, subcontracts, salaries and wages, benefits, printing, equipment, and other goods and services or other budget categories will be reimbursed on an actual cost basis unless otherwise provided in this, contract. Any travel or subsistence reimbursement allowed under the contract shall be paid in accordance with rates set pursuant to RCW 43.03.050 and RCW 43.03.060 as now existing or amended and. in agreement with federal rates. Receipts and/or backup documentation for any approved budget line items including travel related expenses that are authorized under this contract must be maintained by the Contractor and be made available upon request by the Military Department. Some flexibility to shift funds between/among budget categories is allowed as follows: Changes to any single budget category, except for an equipment line item, in excess of 10% or $100, whichever is greater, will not be reimbursed without the prior written authorization of the Department. Increases to the equipment line item require prior written approval of the Department. Budget categories are as specified or defined in the budget sheet of the contract. ARTICLE II -- REPORTS: In addition to the reports as may be required elsewhere in this contract, the Contractor shall prepare and submit the following reports to the Department's Key Personnel: Financial #/Copies Regular/Progressive Invoices Final Invoice 1 (shall not exceed overall contract amount) Technical Attendee lists and course syllabus 1 ea Completion Date Within 15 days of the end of the period In which the work was performed. June 30, 2010 No later than June 30, 2010 All contract work must end on June 30, 2010, however the Contractor has up to 45 days after the contract end date to submit all final billing. ARTICLE III -- KEY PERSONNEL: The individuals listed below shall be considered key personnel. Any substitution must be made by written notification to the Military Department. CONTRACTOR: MILITARY DEPARTMENT: Name Jeff Parks Name Bob Dermann Title Whatcom County Sheriff Title 2010 Olympics Security Committee Coordinator E-Mail JParks@co.whatcom.wa.us E-Mail Robert.dermann@mil.wa.gov Phone 360-676-6650 Phone 253-612-8406 ARTICLE IV -- ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS: The Contractor shall comply with all financial and procurement guidance, including competitive processes and other procurement requirements, to include but not limited to: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars, A-87 (Cost Principles for State, local and Indian Tribal Governments), A-102 (Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments), A-122 (Cost Principles for Non -Profit Organizations), A-133 (Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations), The Federal Emergency Management Agency's codified regulations, 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Financial Management Guide. Local and state procurement and contracting regulations take precedence over these requirements when local and state regulations are more stringent. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 3 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F10-005 133 ARTICLE V -- ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND MODIFICATION TO GENERAL CONDITIONS: Funds are provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) solely for the purpose of enhancing the capability of state and local government to prepare for, prevent, deter, incidents related to the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics. The Contractor shall use the funds to perform tasks as described in the Statement of Work and Budget portions of this contract. 2. CONTINGENCY LANGUAGE Contractor acknowledges that since this contract involves federal funding, the period of performance described herein will likely begin prior to the availability of appropriated federal funds. Contractor agrees that it will not hold the Department, the State of Washington, or the United States liable for any damages, claim for reimbursement, or any type of payment whatsoever for services performed under this contract prior to distribution of appropriated federal funds. Contractor agrees that it will not hold the Department, the State of Washington, or the United States liable for any damages, claim for reimbursement or any type of payment if federal funds are not appropriated or are not appropriated in a particular amount. 3. The Contractor agrees that all allocations and use of fund under this grant will be accordance with the 2010 Olympics First Responder Training Guidance and Application Kit. 4. Grant funds may not be used to replace or supplant existing funding. 5. No costs will be reimbursed until the items have been received by the Contractor and invoiced by the vendor. 6. Related financial documents and invoices must be kept on file by the Contractor and be made available. upon request to the Department, and local, state, or federal auditors. ARTICLE VIII—SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING The Department will monitor the activities and equipment acquisition of the Contractor from award to closeout and for the life of equipment purchased under this contract. The goal of the Department's monitoring activities will be to ensure that agencies receiving federal pass -through funds are in compliance with federal and state audit requirements, federal grant guidance, and applicable federal and state financial regulations. Monitoring activities may include: • review of performance reports and documentation of contract deliverables completion; • documentation of phone calls, meetings, a -mails and correspondence; • review of reimbursement requests to ensure allowability and consistency with contract budget and contract deliverables; • observation and documentation of contract related activities, such as planning, exercises, training, funded events and equipment demonstrations; • on -site visits to review records and inventories, to verify source documentation for reimbursement requests and performance reports, and to verify completion of deliverables. As a subgrantee of federal funds, the Contractor is required to meet or exceed the monitoring activities, as outlined above, for all subcontractors, consultants, and subgrantees who receive pass -through funding from this contract. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 4 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F10-005 134 Exhibit A 2007 Subrecipient Washington Military Department GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS DEFINITIONS As used throughout this contract, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below: a. "Department" shall mean the Washington Military Department, as a state agency, any division, section, office, unit or other entity of the Department, or any of the officers or other officials lawfully representing that Department. b. "Contractor" shall mean that firm, organization, group, individual, or other entity performing services under this contract, and shall include all employees of the Contractor. It shall include any subcontractor retained by the prime Contractor as permitted under the terms of this contract. "Contractor" shall be further defined as one or the other of the following and so indicated on face sheet of the contract. 1) "Subrecipienf' shall mean a contractor that operates a federal or state assistance program for which it receives federal funds and which has the authority to determine both the services rendered and disposition of program funds. 2) "Vendor" shall mean a contractor that agrees to provide the amount and kind of service or activity requested by the Department and that agrees to provide goods or services to be utilized by the Department. C. "Subcontractor" shall mean one, not in the employment of the Contractor, who is performing all or part of those services under this contract under a separate contract with the Contractor. The terms "subcontractor" and "subcontractors" mean subcontractor(s) in any tier. d. "Recipient"— a nonfederal entity that expends federal awards received directly from a federal awarding agency to carry out a federal program. e. "Pass -Through Entity" means the Washington State Military Department as it is applied to this contract, As found in SAAM 50.30.30 — "A nonfederal entity that provides a federal award to a subrecipient to carry out a federal program." f. "Nonfederal Entity" is defined as a state local government or nonprofit organization (as defined in federal Circular A-133). g. "Cognizant State Agency" shall mean a state agency that has assumed the responsibility of implementing single audit requirements and coordinating audit follow-up for a particular grantee by virtue of providing the majority of federal assistance. If funds are received from more than one state agency, the cognizant state agency shall be the agency who contributes the largest portion of federal financial assistance to the subrecipient unless the designation has been reassigned to a different state agency by mutual agreement. h. "Federal Financial Assistance" — Assistance that nonfederal entities receive or administer in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, property (including donated surplus property), cooperative agreements, interest subsidies, insurance, food commodities, direct appropriations or other assistance. It does not include amounts received for provision of vendor services to federal agencies or reimbursement for services rendered directly to individuals. i. "Grant" - For the purposes herein, the term "grant" may be used to mean "contracts" or "grants" or "agreements". j. "CFDA Number" — The five -digit number assigned to a federal assistance program in the federal Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) or, in the absence of a catalog defined number, the number defined by instructions from the federal audit clearinghouse. k. "CFR" — Code of Federal Regulations I. "OMB" — Office of Management and Budget M. "RCW" - Revised Code of Washington n "WAC" - Washington Administrative Code. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 5 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F10-005 135 2. SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING a. The Department, as a Recipient and/or Pass -Through Entity, receives federal financial assistance under federal programs and is charged with maintaining compliance with federal and state laws and regulations regarding the monitoring, documentation, and auditing of subrecipient grant activities using federal financial assistance. Management and implementation guidelines for the federal programs ensure compliance with statutes, grant guidelines, the sub -award agreement, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars (including OMB Circular A-133), subrecipient audits, and other guidance found in the Federal Register. The Department shall adhere to its Subrecipient Monitoring Policy and the Subrecipient Monitoring Procedures (WMD Policy number 00-025-05.) b. The Contractor shall perform under the terms of the contract and the Department has responsibility for reasonable and necessary monitoring of the Contractor's performance. The Department shall conduct contract monitoring activities on a regular basis. Monitoring is defined as any planned, ongoing, or periodic activity that measures and ensures contractor compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements of a contract. Monitoring involves prudent collection of information about Contractor operations and is not limited to site visits or the completion of formal reviews. Monitoring may include periodic contractor reporting to the Department, Department review of audit reports, invoice reviews, onsite reviews and observations, and surveys. Adequate documentation is essential for effective contract monitoring and will include copies of letters, meeting notes, and records of phone conversations as evidence that conscientious monitoring has occurred during the period of the contract. Subrecipient monitoring will occur throughout the year rather than relying solely on a once -a -year audit. The Contractor agrees to cooperate with all monitoring activities and to comply with reporting requirements. The Department as the Recipient and/or Pass -Through Entity will conduct on -site visits as appropriate and required by contract for "for -profit" subrecipients, since the A-133 .Single Audit does not apply to "for -profit" organizations. 3. RECORDS, MONITORING AND AUDIT ACCESS a. The Contractor shall cooperate with and fully participate in all monitoring or evaluation activities that are pertinent to this contract. b. Access to public records -The Contractor acknowledges that the Department is subject to the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW, and that records prepared, owned, used or retained by the Department relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function are available for public inspection and copying, except as exempt under RCW 42.56 or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. C. The Contractor shall maintain all books, records, documents, data and other evidence relating to this contract and the provision of any materials, supplies, services and/or equipment under this contract herein, including, but not limited to, records of accounting procedures and practices that sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this contract. At no additional cost, these records, including materials generated under the contract, shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review and audit by personnel duly authorized by the Department, the Washington State Auditor's Office, and federal officials so authorized by law, rule, regulation, or contract. The Contractor will retain all books, records, documents, and other materials relevant to this contract and make them available for inspection, review or audit for six (6) years from the end date of this contract, date of final payment or conclusion of services performed under this contractor, whichever is later. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the records shall be retained until final resolution of all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 6 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F 10-005 136 d. Contractor shall provide right of access to its facilities and records to the Department and any other authorized agent or official of the state of Washington or the federal government, at all reasonable times, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and/or quality assurance under this contract. 4. SINGLE AUDIT ACT REQUIREMENTS (INCLUDING -ALL AMENDMENTS) Non-federal entities as subrecipients that expend $500,000 or more in one fiscal year of 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 (ONIB) Circular A-133-Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations (revised June 27, 2003, effective for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003). 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 Circular No. A-133. Circular A-133 is available on the OMB Home Page at http://www.omb.gov and then select "Grants Management" followed by "Circulars". Contractors required to have an audit must ensure the audit is performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GARS) as found in the Government Auditing Standards (the Revised Yellow Book) developed by the Comptroller General and the OMB Compliance Supplement. The Contractor has the responsibility of notifying the Washington State Auditor's Office and requesting an audit. Costs of the audit may be an allowable grant expenditure. The Contractor shall maintain auditable records and accounts so as to facilitate the audit requirement and shall ensure that any subcontractors also maintain auditable records. The Contractor 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 Contractor must respond to Department requests for information or corrective action concerning audit issues or findings within 30 days of the date of request. The Department reserves the right to recover from the Contractor all disallowed costs resulting from the audit. Once the single audit has been completed, the Contractor must send a full copy of the audit to the Department and a letter stating there were no findings, or if there were findings, the letter should provide a list of the findings. The Contractor must send the audit and the letter no later than nine (9) months after the end of the Contractor's fiscal year(s) to: Accounting Manager Washington Military Department Finance Division, Building #1 TA-20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5032 In addition to sending a copy of the audit, the Contractor must include a corrective action plan for any audit findings and a copy of the management letter if one was received. The Contractor shall include the above audit requirements in any subcontracts. 5. RECAPTURE PROVISIONS In the event that the Contractor fails to expend funds under this contract in accordance with applicable state and federal laws and/or the provisions of this contract, the Department reserves the right to recapture funds in an amount equivalent to the extent of the noncompliance in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. Such right of recapture shall exist for a period not to exceed six (6) years following contract termination or audit resolution, whichever is later. Repayment by the Contractor of funds under this recapture provision shall occur within 30 days of demand. The Department is required to institute legal proceedings to enforce the recapture provision. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW The Contractor and all subcontractors shall comply with all applicable federal, state, tribal government, and local laws, regulations, and policies. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 7 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F10-005 137 This obligation includes, but is not limited to, compliance with Ethics in Public Service (RCW 42.52); Covenant Against Contingent Fees (48 C.F.R. § 52.203-5); Public Records Act (RCW 42.56); Drug - Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. and 15 C.F.R. Part 29); Lobbying Restrictions (31 U.S.C. § 1352 and 15 C.F.R.• Part 28); and safety and health regulations. The Department is not responsible for advising the Contractor about, or determining the Contractor's compliance with, applicable laws, regulations and policies. In the event of the Contractor's or a subcontractor's noncompliance or refusal to comply with any applicable law, regulation or policy, the Department may rescind, cancel, or terminate the contract in whole or in part. The Contractor is responsible for any and all costs or liability arising from the Contractor's failure to comply with applicable law, regulation or policy. 7. NONDISCRIMINATION During the performance of this contract, the Contractor shall comply with all federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations. These requirements include, but are not limited to: a. Nondiscrimination in Employment: The Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, creed, marital status, age, Vietnam era or disabled veterans status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, recruitment or recruitment selection for training, including apprenticeships and volunteers. This requirement does not apply, however, to a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution or society of its activities. b. Nondiscrimination laws and policies (such as RCW 49.60, Washington's Law Against Discrimination, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act). 8. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101-336, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq, and 28 C.F.R Part 35 and other implementing regulations. The Contractor must comply with the ADA, which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunication. 9. UTILIZATION OF MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (MWBE) The Contractor is encouraged to utilize firms that are certified by the Washington State Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises as minority -owned and/or women -owned in carrying out the purposes of this contract. 10. PUBLICITY The Contractor agrees to submit to the Department all advertising and publicity relating to this contract wherein the Department's name is mentioned or language used from which the connection of the Department's name may, in the Department's judgment, be inferred or implied. The Contractor agrees not to publish or use such advertising and publicity without the prior written consent of the Department. 11. DISCLOSURE The use or disclosure by any party of any information concerning the Department for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of the Department's or the Contractor's responsibilities with respect to services provided under this contract is prohibited except by prior written consent of the Department. 12. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT SUSPENSION OR INELIGIBILITY If federal funds are the basis for this contract, the Contractor certifies that neither the Contractor nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in this contract by any federal department or agency. If requested by the Department, the Contractor shall complete and sign a Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion form. Any such form completed by the Contractor for this Contract shall be incorporated into this Contract by reference. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 8 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F 10-005 138 Further, the Contractor agrees not to enter into any arrangements or contracts related to this grant with any party that is on the "General Service Administration List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Non -procurement Programs" which can be found at www.epis.gov. 13. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY -- "Authorized Signature" The signatories to this contract represent that they have the authority to bind their respective organizations to this contract. Only the assigned Authorized Signature for each party, or the assigned delegate by writing prior to action, shall have the express, implied, or apparent authority to alter, amend, modify, or waive any clause or condition of this contract. Furthermore, any alteration, amendment, modification, or waiver of any clause or condition of this contract is not effective or binding unless made in writing and signed by the Authorized Signature(s). 14. CONTRACTOR NOT EMPLOYEE — INDEPENDENT STATUS OF CONTRACTOR The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this contract. The Contractor and/or employees or agents performing under this contract are not employees or agents of the Department in any manner whatsoever, and will not be presented as nor claim to be officers or employees of the Department or of the State of Washington by reason hereof, nor will the Contractor and/or employees or agents performing under this contract make any claim, demand, or application to or for any right, privilege or benefit applicable to an officer or employee of the Department or of the State of Washington, including, but not limited to, Worker's Compensation coverage, unemployment insurance benefits, social security benefits, retirement membership or credit, or privilege or benefit which would accrue to a civil service employee under Chapter 41.06 RCW. It is understood that if the Contractor is another state department, state agency, state university, state college, state community college, state board, or state commission, that the officers and employees are employed by the state of Washington in their own right. If the Contractor is an individual currently employed by a Washington State agency, the Department shall obtain proper approval from the employing agency or institution. A statement of "no conflict of interest" shall be submitted to the Department. 15. NONASSIGNABILITY This contract, the work to be provided under this contract, and any claim arising thereunder, are 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. 16. SUBCONTRACTING Neither the Contractor nor any subcontractor shall enter into subcontracts for any of the work contemplated under this contract without obtaining prior written approval of the Department. Contractor shall use a competitive process in award of any contracts with subcontractors that are entered into after original contract award. All subcontracts entered into pursuant to this contract shall incorporate this contract in full by reference. In no event shall the existence of the subcontract operate to release or reduce the liability of the Contractor to the Department for any breach in the performance of the Contractor's duties. The Military Department may request a copy of any and/or all subcontracts for work being completed under this contract. 17. CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS The Department and the Contractor may, from time to time, request changes to the contract or grant. Any such changes that are mutually agreed upon by the Department and the Contractor shall be incorporated herein by written amendment to this contract. It is mutually agreed and understood that no alteration or variation of the terms of this contract shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and that any oral understanding or agreements not incorporated herein, unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, shall not be binding. 18. SEVERABILITY In the event any term or condition of this contract, any provision of any document incorporated by reference, or application of this contract to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions, or applications of this contract 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. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 9 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F10-005 139 19. ADVANCE PAYMENTS PROHIBITED The Department shall make no payments in advance or in anticipation of goods or services to be provided under this contract. Contractor shall not invoice the Department in advance of delivery of such goods or services. 20. TAXES, FEES AND LICENSES Unless otherwise provided in this contract, the Contractor shall pay for and maintain in current status all taxes, unemployment contributions, fees, licenses, assessments, permit charges and expenses of any other kind for the Contractor or its staff required by statute or regulation that are necessary for contract performance. 21. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE REIMBURSEMENT Unless .the contract specifically provides for different rates, any travel or subsistence reimbursement allowed under the contract shall be paid in accordance with rates set pursuant to RCW 43.03.050 and RCW 43.03.060 as now existing or amended. The Contractor may be required to provide to the Department copies of receipts for any travel related expenses other than meals and mileage (example: parking lots that do not provide receipts) that are authorized under.this contract. 22. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This contract shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the validity and performance hereof shall be governed by, the laws of the state of Washington. Venue of any suit between the parties arising out of this contract shall be the Superior Court of Thurston County, Washington. 23, HOLD HARMLESS, AND INDEMNIFICATION Each party to this contract shall be responsible for injury to persons or damage to property resulting from negligence on the part of itself, its employees, agents, officers, or subcontractors. Neither party assumes any responsibility to the other party for the consequences of any act or omission of any third party. 24. WAIVER OF DEFAULT Waiver of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent default or breach. Any waiver shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this contract unless stated to be such in writing signed by The Adjutant General or the Authorized Signature for the Department and attached to the original contract. 25. DISPUTES The parties shall make every effort to resolve disputes arising out of or relating to this contract through discussion and negotiation. Should discussion and negotiation fail to resolve a dispute arising under this contract, the parties shall select a dispute resolution team to resolve the dispute. The team shall consist of a representative appointed by each party and a third representative mutually agreed upon by both parties. The team shall attempt, by majority vote, to resolve the dispute. Both parties agree that this disputes process shall precede any action in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. Nothing in this section shall preclude the parties from mutually agreeing to a different dispute resolution method in lieu of the procedure outlined above. 26. ATTORNEY'S FEES In the event of litigation or other action brought to enforce contract terms, or alternative dispute resolution process, each party agrees to bear its own attorney's fees and costs. 27. LOSS OR REDUCTION OF FUNDING In the event funding from state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date of this contract and prior to normal completion, the Department may reduce its scope of work and budget or unilaterally terminate all or part of the contract as a "Termination for Cause", without providing the Contractor an opportunity to cure. Alternatively, the parties may renegotiate the terms of this contract under "Contract Modifications" to comply with new funding limitations and conditions, although the Department has no obligation to do so. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 10 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F10-005 140 28. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION FOR CAUSE In the event the Department, in its sole discretion, determines the Contractor has failed to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract, is in an unsound financial condition so as to endanger performance hereunder, is in violation of any laws or regulations that render the Contractor unable to perform any aspect of the contract, or has violated any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this contract, the Department has the right to immediately suspend or terminate this contract in whole or in part. The Department may notify the Contractor in writing of the need to take corrective action and provide a period of time in which to cure. The Department is not required to allow the Contractor an opportunity to cure if it is not feasible as determined solely within the Department's discretion. Any time allowed for cure shall not diminish or eliminate the Contractor's liability for damages or otherwise affect any other remedies available to the Department. If the Department allows the Contractor an opportunity to cure, the Department shall notify the Contractor in writing of the need to take corrective action. If the corrective action is not taken within ten (10) calendar days or as otherwise specified by the Department, or if such corrective action is deemed by the Department to be insufficient, the contract may be terminated in whole or in part. The Department reserves the right to suspend all or part of the contract, withhold further payments, or prohibit the Contractor from incurring additional obligations of funds during investigation of the alleged compliance breach, pending corrective action by the Contractor, if allowed, or pending a decision by the Department to terminate the contract in whole or in part. In the event of termination, the Contractor shall be liable for all damages as authorized by law, including but not limited to, any cost difference between the original contract and the replacement or cover contract. and all administrative costs directly related to the replacement contract, e.g., cost of administering the competitive solicitation process, mailing, advertising and other associated staff time. The rights and remedies of the Department provided for in this section shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. If it is determined that the Contractor: (1) was not in default or material breach, or (2) failure to perform was outside of the Contractor's control, fault or negligence, the termination shall be deemed to be a "Termination for Convenience". 29. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE Notwithstanding any provisions of this contract, the Contractor may terminate this contract by providing written notice of such termination to the Department's Key Personnel identified in the contract, specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days prior to such date. Except as otherwise provided in this contract, the Department, in its sole discretion and in the best interests of the State of Washington, may terminate this contract in whole or in part by providing ten (10) calendar days written notice, beginning on the second day after mailing to the Contractor. Upon notice of termination for convenience, the Department reserves the right to suspend all or part of the contract, withhold further payments, or prohibit the Contractor from incurring additional obligations of funds. In the event of termination, the Contractor shall be liable for all damages as authorized by law. The rights and remedies of the Department provided for in this section shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. 30. TERMINATION PROCEDURES In addition to the procedures set forth below, if the Department terminates this contract, the Contractor shall follow any procedures specified in the termination notice. Upon termination of this contract and in addition to any other rights provided in this contract, the Department may require the Contractor to deliver to the Department any property specifically produced or acquired for the performance of such part of this contract as has been terminated. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 11 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriffs Office F10-005 141 If the termination is for convenience, the Department shall pay to the Contractor the agreed upon price, if separately stated, for properly authorized and completed work and services rendered or goods delivered to and accepted by the Department prior to the effective date of contract termination, and the amount agreed upon by the Contractor and the Department for (i) completed work and services and/or equipment or supplies provided for which no separate price is stated, (ii) partially completed work and services and/or equipment or supplies provided which are accepted by the Department, (iii) other work, services and/or equipment or supplies which are accepted by the Department, and (iv) the protection and preservation of property. Failure to agree with such amounts shall be a dispute within the meaning of the "Disputes" clause of this contract. If the termination is for cause, the Department shall determine the extent of the liability of the Department. The Department shall have no other obligation to the Contractor for termination. The Department may withhold from any amounts due the Contractor such sum as the Department determines to be necessary to protect the Department against potential loss or liability. The rights and remedies of the Department provided in this contract shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. After receipt of a notice of termination, and except as otherwise directed by the Department in writing, the Contractor shall: a. Stop work under the contract on the date, and to the extent specified, in the notice; b. Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, services, supplies, equipment and/or facilities in relation to this contract except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the work under the contract as is not terminated; C. Assign to the Department, in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Department, all of the rights, title, and interest of the Contractor under the orders and subcontracts so terminated, in which case the Department has the right, at its discretion, to settle or pay any or all claims arising out of the termination of such orders and subcontracts; d. Settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of such termination of orders and subcontracts, with the approval or ratification of the Department to the extent the Department may require, which approval or ratification shall be final for all the purposes of this clause; e. Transfer title to the Department and deliver in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Department any property which, if the contract had been completed, would have been required to be furnished to the Department; f. Complete performance of such part of the work as shall not have been terminated by the Department in compliance with all contractual requirements; and g. Take such action as may be necessary, or as the Department may require, for the protection and preservation of the property related to this contract which is in the possession of the Contractor and in which the Department has or may acquire an interest. AAG Approved 9/1212007 First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 12 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F10-005 142 Exhibit B STATEMENT OF WORK 2010 Olympics First Responder Training and Coordination INTRODUCTION: The Washington Military Department (WMD) has received funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to train Washington State First Responders to be prepared to respond to incidents related to the 2010 Olympic Games held in Vancouver British Columbia, just outside Washington State's northern border. This funding will allow participants to receive specialized training to prepare them to ensure smooth and safe flow of legitimate trade and travel through Washington State and to secure both land and marine borders. The Contractor Agrees To: A. Conduct or obtain first responder training to ensure law enforcement is prepared for incidents that may arise during the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics. Training may consist of but not limited to the following: 1. Maritime Interdiction Training for Operators and Boat Operators. 2. Explosive Breaching Training (including tuition and expenses) for Explosive Breaches: 3. Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT). 4. Advanced Hostage Negotiations (including tuition and expenses): 5. Advanced Police Sniper Training (tuition and expenses): B. Submit attendee lists and course syllabus to the Military Department. C. Hire a Subcontractor to assist in accomplishing training as necessary. D. Submit regularly signed, approved invoice voucher(s) (state form A-19) within 15 days of the end of the month in which the work was performed and not to exceed the overall contract amount. Each billing must identify the task(s) completed, documentation of allowable expenses including travel and any other funding identification pertinent to the task(s). The Washington Military Department Agrees To: A. Reimburse the Contractor within 20 days of receipt and approval of signed, dated invoice voucher(s) (state form A-19) in an amount not to exceed the overall contract amount or actual costs whichever is lower, documentation of costs, satisfactory completion of tasks -to -date and receipt and approval of deliverables. Actual travel expenses incurred by the Contractor are reimbursable as described in the Exhibit C Budget Sheet within the contract total amount shown. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 13 of 14 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F 10-005 143 BUDGET SHEET Contract expenditures shall be documented according to the following categories when appropriate: 2010 Olympics Training and Coordination Costs 0 y�x��a,\`�•�. �' i'r ") �y°%ga, L ��7' Goods and Services $5,500 fr (includingtuition costs Emma! y`q Subcontractor 14,000'` Travel & Per Diem $38,000,; M •>, � - a S Total $ 57,500_ 97�'In; �,�y+�c'�Y�?�'�iii �` alT` 'Ei'•", 7i„x"a.`4i4'.s.. .- ti� y ' 13 i ° > a ; G V-`�A' ss .1 V 3 � rr :t�5s. ` :ef :r�1.?iia`2`.,. *;:E+ :z bi3co., f:Sk!x?ht^'.�,t "�� s»`OA-.a.,x. aa°,.a i} 4;:i. 70 A u .Ei Funding Source: funding source name - PI#20327 — 2010 Olympics Training and Exercise Funding NOTE: Please stay within the listed budget categories. First Responder Training for 2010 Olympics Page 14 of 14 Exhibit C Whatcom County Sheriff's Office F10-005 144 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-440 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: mg 11/03/09 FED� D U ll v NOVA ,17 2009 11/24/2009 Finance/Council Division Head: Dept. Head: Prosecutor: --,� „u WHAT o m COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: Cj ( 6 6 COUNCIL Executive: 7101 TITLE OF DOCUM NT. (The multi jurisdictional interdiction of drugs) Washington State Department of Commerce Community Services Division, Safe and Drug -Free Communities Unit, MULTI-JURISDICTIONNATCOTICS TASK FORCE PROGRAM ATTACHMENTS: Three copies of the Grant Number M09-34021-017 between Whatcom County and the Washington State Department of Commerce Community Services Division SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( ) 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.) This contract will pay for the following: Wages and benefits for three detectives, Whatcom County, Bellingham Police and Ferndale Police; wages and benefits for one Whatcom County Records Specialist for six months; and one half — time prosecutor. We will begin to use this grant money in December 2009. The contract period is October 1, 2009 — June 30, 2010. 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. 145 WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE BILL ELFO SHERIFF PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225-4078 (360) 676-6650 MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Bill Elfo, Sheriff rA RE: Drug Task Force Contract DATE: November 3, 2009 CAREY JAMS UNDERSHERIFF JEFF PARKS CHIEF DEPUTY ART EDGE CHIEFDEPUTY STEVE COOLEY CHIEFINSPECTOR WENDYJONES CHIEF OF CORRECTIONS RECEIVED NOV 10 2009 PETS KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE Enclosed are two (3) originals between Whatcom County Sheriffs Office and Washington State Commerce, Community Services Division for your review and signature. Background and Purpose To continue partially funding a Whatcom County Sheriff's Office Detective, Bellingham Police Department Detective, Ferndale Police Department Detective and a Prosecutor half time. The Records Specialist position, beginning January 1, 2010, will also be funded, allowing this position to become a 1 FTE instead of a .5 FTE, which is budgeted for 2010. Funding Amount and Source FFY'09 Justice Assistance Grant — CFDA# 16.738 $120,853 State General Fund $ 71,390 ■ Differences from Previous Contract We are adding the half time prosecutor and paying 6 months of the Records Specialist position. Please contact Sheriff Bill Elfo, 50422, or Undersheriff Jeff Parks at 50426, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement, Encl. Our Vision: The Office of Sheriff: Dedicated to making Whatcom County the Safest in the State through Excellence in Public Safety, 146 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. a0 0C11100C1 Originating Department: Whatcom County Sheriffs Office Contract Administrator: Marvette Gwinner Contractor's /A enc Name: Washington State Department of Commerce, Community Services Division Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes X No Yes _ No If yes, previous number(s): Is this a grant agreement? Yes X No If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) M09-34021-017_ CFDA number 16.738 Is this contract grant funded? Yes X No If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No X If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is amt and any prior amendments) more than $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council $ 192, 243.00 approval and a supporting memo. Any amendment that provides This Amendment Amount: either a 10% increase in amount or more 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: $ 192, 243.00 Executive with supporting memo for approval. Scope of Services [Insert language from contract (Exhibit A) or summarize; expand space as necessary] This contract covers wages and benefits for three officers (Whatcom County, Bellingham and Ferndale), half time prosecutor, and 6 months funding for a Records Specialist at the drug Task Force who is currently funded as a. 5 FTE January 1, 2010. These individuals are actively participating with the with the Northwest Regional Drug Task Force in apprehending drug dealers and other illegal activities as they related to drug activity. Term of Contract: 10101109 Expiration Date: 6130110 Contract Routine Steps & Sienoff` [sign or initiall [indicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: mg Date_]1103109 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: 3. AS Finance reviewed. a- Date I [electronic] Date 6 electronic/ 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date _ [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date [electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff Date — 0 " 7. Contractor signed: Date 8. Submitted to Exec Office Date [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date 11. Executive signed. Date 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept; Date 147 M Grant to For COUNTY ORIGINAL WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT NO. ac)o9ttooq Whatcom County through the Community Services Division Safe and Drug Free Communities Unit -rhe multi -jurisdictional interdiction of drugs Start date: October 1, 2009 im TABLE OF CONTENTS SpecialTerms and Conditions.........................................................................................................................1 FaceSheet...........................................................................................................................................1 1. Acknowledgement of Federal Funding................................................................................2 2. Grant Management.............................................................................................................2 3. Compensation.....................................................................................................................2 4. Billing Procedures and Payment.........................................................................................2 5. Insurance............................................................................................................................3 6. Order of Precedence...........................................................................................................4 General Terms and Conditions........................................................................................................................5 1. Definitions...........................................................................................................................5 2. All Writings Contained Herein.............................................................................................5 3. Amendments......................................................................................................:................5 4. Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA).................................................................................5 5. Approval..............................................................................................................................5 6. Assignment.........................................................................................................................6 7. - Attorney's Fees................................................................................................................... 6 8. Audit....................................................................................................................................6 9. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension or Ineligibility or Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion.................................................................................... 7 10. Confidentiality/Safeguarding of Information........................................................................8 11. Conformance.......................................................................................................................8 12. Copyright Provisions...........................................................................................................9 13. Disallowed Costs.................................................................................................................9 14. Disputes ........ ...................................................................................... .............. *...... ........... 9 15. Duplicate Payment............................................................................................................10 16. Ethics / Conflicts of Interest...............................................................................................10 17. Governing Law and Venue................................................................................................10 18. Indemnification..................................................................................................................10 19. Independent Capacity of the Grantee...............................................................................10 20. Industrial Insurance Coverage..........................................................................................10 21. Laws.................................................................................................................................11 22. Licensing, Accreditation and Registration.........................................................................12 23. Limitation of Authority........................................................................................................13 24. Local Public Transportation Coordination.........................................................................13 25. Noncompliance With Nondiscrimination Laws...................................................................13 26. Political Activities...............................................................................................................13 27. Procurement Standards for Federally Funded Programs..................................................13 28. Prohibition Against Payment of Bonus or Commission.....................................................14 29. Publicity.............................................................................................................................14 30. Recapture.........................................................................................................................14 31. Records Maintenance.......................................................................................................15 32. Registration With Department of Revenue........................................................................15 33. Right of Inspection............................................................................................................15 34. Savings.............................................................................................................................15 35. Severability.......................................................................................................................15 36. Subgranting.......................................................................................................................15 37. Survival.............................................................................................................................16 38. Taxes................................................................................................................................16 39. Termination for Cause/Suspension...................................................................................16 40. Termination for Convenience............................................................................................16 41. Termination Procedures....................................................................................................16 42. Waiver...............................................................................................................................17 AttachmentA, Scope of Work........................................................................................................................18 AttachmentB, Budget....................................................................................................................................19 149 FACE SHEET Grant Number: M09-34021-017 Washington State Department of Commerce Community Services Division Safe and Drug -Free Communities Unit MULTI -JURISDICTION NARCOTICS TASK FORCE PROGRAM 1. Contractor's Name and Address: 2. Contractor Doing Business As (Optional) Whatcom, County of 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225-4186 3. Contractor Representative 4. CTED Representative Jeffery Parks Harvey Queen Undersheriff Program Manager P.O. Box 42525 (360) 676-6650 (360) 725-3034 128 10th Aveune SE (360) 738-2494 (360) 586-0489 Olympia, WA 98504-4000 - -Jparks@co.whatcom.wa.us 5. Contract Amou 6. Funding Source . Date 8. End Date $ 192,243.00 Federal:[X] State:[X] Other:[] N/A:77—Start October 1, 2009 June 30,.2010 9. Federal Funds (as applicable) Federal Agency CFDA Number Department of Justice 16.738 10. C,gntract Purpose To provide local and tribal governments with U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance funds to interdict drugs through the multi jurisdictional efforts of law enforcement and prosecution. COMMERCE, defined as the Department of Commerce, and the Grantee, as defined above, acknowledge and accept the terms of this Grant and attachments and have executed this Grant on the date below to start as of the date and year referenced above. The rights and obligations of both parties to this Grant are governed by this Grant and the following other documents incorporated by reference: Grantee Terms and .Conditions including Attachment "A" Statement of Work, Attachment "B" — Budget, Grantee's Application for funding under this program, and the Grantee's Certifications and Assurances required by CTED as pre -requisites for execution of this Agreement. FOR THE COUNTY FOR THE DEPARTMENT See attached Dan McConnon, Assistant Director - Community Services Division APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY Sandra Adix Sandra Adix Assistant Attorney General May 8, 2009 150 WHATCOM COUNTY: (/W�;�� Sheriff Recommended for Approval: Approved as to form: Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County Date Date Pete Krremen, Whatcom County Executive Date 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 acknowledge to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires: 151 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDING The Grantee agrees that any publications (written, visual, or sound) but excluding press releases, newsletters, and issue analyses, issued by the Grantee describing programs or projects funded in Whole or in part with federal funds under this Grant, shall contain the following statements: "This project was supported by a Justice Assistance Grant awarded by US Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice. Grant funds are administered by the Community Services Division, Safe and Drug Free Communities Unit Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development." 2. GRANT MANAGEMENT The Representative for each of the parties shall be responsible for and shall be the contact person for all communications and billings regarding the performance of this Grant. The Representative for COMMERCE and their contact information are identified on the Face Sheet of this Grant. The Representative for the Grantee and their contact information are identified on the Face Sheet of this Grant. 3. COMPENSATION COMMERCE shall pay an amount not to exceed that specified in block five of this Agreement's Face Sheet for the performance of all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of work as set forth in the Scope of Work: 4. BILLING PROCEDURES AND PAYMENT COMMERCE will pay Contractor upon acceptance of services provided and receipt of properly completed invoices, which shall be submitted to the Representative for COMMERCE, not more often than monthly. The invoices shall describe and document, to COMMERCE's satisfaction, a description of the work performed, the progress of the project, and fees. The invoice shall include the Agreement reference number specified on the upper -right corner of each page of this Grant. Payment shall be considered timely if made by COMMERCE within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of properly completed invoices. Payment shall be sent to the address designated by the Grantee. COMMERCE may, in its sole discretion, terminate the Grant or withhold payments claimed by the Grantee for services rendered if the Grantee fails to satisfactorily comply with any term or condition of this Grant. No payments in advance or in anticipation of services or supplies to be provided under this Agreement shall be made by COMMERCE. Duplication of Billed Costs The Grantee shall not bill COMMERCE for services performed under this Agreement, and COMMERCE shall not pay the Grantee, if the Grantee is entitled to payment or has been or will be paid by any other source, including grants, for that service. 2 152 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 Disallowed Costs The Grantee is responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed costs incurred by its own organization or that of its subgrantees. 5. INSURANCE The Grantee shall provide insurance coverage as set out in this section. The intent of the required insurance is to protect the state of Washington should there be any claims, suits, actions, costs, damages or expenses arising from any loss, or negligent or intentional act or omission of the Grantee or Subgrantee, or agents of either, while performing under the terms of this Grant. The insurance required shall be issued by an insurance company authorized to do business within the state of Washington. Except for Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance, the insurance shall name the state of Washington, its agents, officers, and employees as additional insureds under the insurance policy. All policies shall be primary to any other valid and collectable insurance. The Grantee shall instruct the insurers to give COMMERCE thirty (30) calendar days advance notice of any insurance cancellation, non -renewal br modification. The Grantee shall submit to COMMERCE within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Grant start date, a certificate of insurance which outlines the coverage and limits defined in this insurance section. During the term of the Grant, the Grantee shall submit renewal certificates not less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to expiration of each policy required under this section. The Grantee shall provide insurance coverage that shall be maintained in full force and effect during the term of this Grant, as follows: Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy. Provide a Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, including contractual liability, written on an occurrence basis, in adequate quantity to protect against legal liability arising out of Grant activity but no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Additionally, the Grantee is responsible for ensuring that any Subgrantees provide adequate insurance coverage for the activities arising out of subgrants. Automobile Liability. In the event that performance pursuant to this Grant involves the use of vehicles, owned or operated by the Grantee or its Subgrantee, automobile liability insurance shall be required. The minimum limit for automobile liability is $1,000,000 per occurrence, using a Combined Single Limit for bodily injury and property damage. Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions Insurance. The Grantee shall maintain Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance. The Grantee shall maintain minimum limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence to cover all activities by the Grantee and licensed staff employed or under Grant to the Grantee. The state of Washington, its agents, officers, and employees need not be named as additional insureds under this policy. Fidelity Insurance. Every officer, director, employee, or agent who is authorized to act on behalf of the Grantee for the purpose of receiving or depositing funds into program accounts or issuing financial documents, checks, or other instruments of payment for program costs shall be insured to provide protection against loss: A. The amount of fidelity coverage secured pursuant to this Grant shall be $100,000 or the highest of planned reimbursement for the Grant period, whichever is lowest. Fidelity insurance secured pursuant to this paragraph shall name the Grantor as beneficiary. B. Subgrantees that receive $10,000 or more per year in funding through this Grant shall secure fidelity insurance as noted above. Fidelity insurance secured by Subgrantees pursuant to this paragraph shall name the Grantee as beneficiary. 153 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 C. The Grantee shall provide, at C.OMMERCE's request, copies of insurance instruments or certifications from the insurance issuing agency. The copies or certifications shall show the insurance coverage, the designated beneficiary, who is covered, the amounts, the period of coverage, and that COMMERCE will be provided thirty (30) days advance written notice of cancellation. Local Government Contractors that Participate in a Self -Insurance Program Self-Insured/Liability Pool or Self -Insured Risk Management Program — The Contractor may provide the coverage above under a self-insured/liability pool or self -insured risk management program provided the self -insured risk management programs or self-insured/liability pool financial management and reports comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and adhere to accounting standards promulgated by: 1) Govern mental'Accounting Standards Board (GASB), 2) Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), and 3) the Washington State Auditor's annual instructions for financial reporting. Contractor's participating in joint risk pools shall maintain sufficient documentation to support the aggregate claim liability information reported on the balance sheet. The state of Washington, its agents, and employees need not be named as additional insured under a self -insured property/liability pool, if the pool is prohibited from naming third parties as additional insured. Contractor shall provide annually to COMMERCE a summary of coverages and a letter of self insurance, evidencing continued coverage under Contractor's self-insured/liability pool or self - insured risk management program. Such annual summary of coverage and letter of self insurance will be provided on the anniversary of the start date of this Agreement. 6. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE In the event of an inconsistency in this Grant, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving In the event of an inconsistency in this Grant, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: • Applicable federal and state of Washington statutes and regulations • Special Terms and Conditions • General Terms and Conditions • Attachment A — Scope of Work • Attachment B — Budget - • Criminal Justice Grants Policy and Procedure Guide published by Commerce, as amended 4 154 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 1. DEFINITIONS As used throughout this Grant, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below: A. "Authorized Representative" shall mean the Director and/or the designee authorized in writing to act on the Director's behalf. B. "Cognizant State Agency" shall mean the state agency from which the sub -recipient receives federal financial assistance. If funds are received from more than one state agency, the cognizant state agency shall be the agency that contributes the largest portion of federal financial assistance to the sub -recipient. C. "COMMERCE" shall mean the Department of Commerce. D. "Grantee" shall mean the entity identified on the face sheet performing service(s) under this Grant, and shall include all employees and agents of the Grantee. E. "Personal Information" shall mean information identifiable to any person, including, but not limited to, information that relates to a person's name, health, finances, education, business, use or receipt of governmental services or other activities, addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, driver license numbers, other identifying numbers, and any financial identifiers. F. "State" shall mean the state of Washington. G. "Subgrantee" shall mean one not an employee of the Grantee, who is performing all or part of those services under this Grant under a separate Grant with the Grantee. The terms "subgrantee" and "subgrantees" means subgrantee(s) in any tier. H. "Subrecipient" shall mean a non-federal entity that expends federal awards received from a pass - through entity to carry out a federal program, but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such a program. It also excludes vendors that receive federal funds in exchange for goods and/or services in the course of normal trade or commerce. I. "Vendor" is an entity that agrees to provide the amount and kind of services requested by COMMERCE; provides services under the grant only to those beneficiaries individually determined to be eligible by COMMERCE and, provides services on a fee -for -service or per -unit basis with contractual penalties if the entity fails to meet program performance standards. 2. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Grant contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Grant shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. 3. AMENDMENTS This Grant 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. 4. ANIERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101-336, also referred to as the "ADA" 28 CFR Part 35 The Grantee must comply with the ADA, which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. 5. APPROVAL This Grant shall be subject to the written approval of COMMERCE's Authorized Representative and shall not be binding until so approved. The Grant may be altered, amended, or waived only by a written amendment executed by both parties. 155 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 6. ASSIGNMENT Neither this Grant, nor any claim arising under this Grant, shall be transferred or assigned by the Grantee without prior written consent of COMMERCE. 7. ATTORNEYS' FEES Unless expressly permitted under another provision of the Grant, in the event of litigation or other action brought to enforce Grant terms, each party agrees to bear its own attorneys fees and costs. 8. AUDIT A. General Requirements Grantee's are to procure audit services based on the following guidelines. The Grantee shall maintain its records and accounts so as to facilitate the audit requirement and shall ensure that Subgrantees also maintain auditable records. The Grantee is responsible for any audit exceptions incurred by its own organization or that of its Subgrantees. COMMERCE reserves the right to recover from the Grantee all disallowed costs resulting from the audit. As applicable, Grantee's required to have an audit must ensure the audits are performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS); Government Auditing Standards (the Revised Yellow Book) developed by the Comptroller General. Responses to any unresolved management findings and disallowed or questioned costs shall be included with the audit report. The Grantee must respond to COMMERCE requests for information or corrective action concerning audit issues within thirty (30) days of the date of request. B. Federal Funds Requirements - OMB Circular A-133 Audits of States, Local Governments and Non -Profit Organizations Grantees expending $500,000 or more in a fiscal year in federal funds from all sources, direct and indirect, are required to have an audit conducted in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Revised Circular A-133 "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations." Revised OMB A-133 requires the Grantees to provide the auditor with a schedule of Federal Expenditure for the fiscal year(s) being audited. The Schedule of State Financial Assistance must be included. Both schedules include: Grantor agency name Federal agency Federal program name Other identifying contract numbers Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number Grantor contract number Total award amount including amendments (total grant award) Beginning balance Current year revenues Current year expenditures Ending balance Program total 6 156 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 If the Grantee is a state or local government entity, the Office of the State Auditor shall conduct the audit. Audits of non-profit organizations are to be conducted by a certified public accountant selected by the Grantee in accordance with OMB Circular A-110 "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non -Profit Organizations." The Grantee shall include the above audit requirements in any subgrants. In any case, the Grantee's financial records must be available for review by COMMERCE. C. Documentation Requirements The Grantee must send a copy of any required audit Reporting Package as described in OMB Circular A-133, Part C, Section 320(c) no later than nine (9) months after the end of the Grantee's fiscal year(s) to: Department of Community Trade and Economic Development ATTN: Audit Review and Resolution Office 906 Columbia Street SW, Fifth Floor PO Box 48300 Olympia WA 98504-8300 In addition to sending a copy of the audit, when applicable, the Grantee must include: • Corrective action plan for audit findings within three (3) months of the audit being received by COMMERCE. • Copy of the Management Letter. 9. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION OR INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION —PRIMARY AND LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS A. Grantee, defined as the primary participant and it principals, certifies by signing these General Terms and Conditions that to the best of its knowledge and belief that they: 1. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency. 2. Have not within a three-year period preceding this Grant, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction, violation of Federal or state antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, receiving stolen property, making false claims, or obstruction of justice; 3. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this section; and 4. Have not within a three-year period preceding the signing of this Grant had one or more public transactions (Federal, state, or local) terminated for cause of default. B. Where the Grantee is unable to certify to any of the statements in this Grant, the Grantee shall attach an explanation to this Grant. C. The Grantee agrees by signing this Grant that it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by COMMERCE. 7 157 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 D. The Grantee further agrees by signing this Grant that it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -Lower Tier Covered Transaction," as follows, without modification, in all -lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions: LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS a) The lower tier Grantee certifies, by signing this Grant 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. b) Where the lower tier Grantee is unable to certify to any of the -statements in this Grant, such Grantee shall attach an explanation to this Grant. E. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, person, primary covered transaction, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this section, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the COMMERCE for assistance in obtaining a copy of these regulations. 10. CONFIDENTIALITY/SAFEGUARDING OF INFORMATION A. "Confidential Information" as used in this section includes: 1. All material provided to the Grantee by COMMERCE that is designated as "confidential" by COMMERCE; 2. All material produced by the Grantee that is designated as "confidential" by COMMERCE; and 3. All personal information in the possession of the Grantee that may not be disclosed under state or federal law. "Personal information" includes but is not limited to information related to a person's name, health, finances, education, business, use of government services, addresses, telephone numbers, social security number, driver's license number and other identifying numbers, and "Protected Health Information" under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). B. The Grantee shall comply with all state and federal laws related to the use, sharing, transfer, sale, or disclosure of Confidential Information. The Grantee shall use Confidential Information solely for the purposes of this Grant and shall not use, share, transfer, sell or disclose any Confidential Information to any third party except with the prior written consent of COMMERCE or as may be required by law. The Grantee shall take all necessary steps to assure that Confidential Information is safeguarded to prevent unauthorized use, sharing, transfer, sale or disclosure of Confidential Information or violation of any state or federal laws related thereto. Upon request, the Grantee shall provide COMMERCE with its policies and procedures on confidentiality. COMMERCE may require changes to such policies and procedures as they apply to this Grant whenever COMMERCE reasonably determines that changes are necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosures. The Grantee shall make the changes within the time period specified by COMMERCE. Upon request, the Grantee shall immediately return to COMMERCE any Confidential Information that COMMERCE reasonably determines has not been adequately protected by the Grantee against unauthorized disclosure. C. Unauthorized Use or Disclosure. The Grantee shall notify COMMERCE within five (5) working days of any unauthorized use or disclosure of any confidential information, and shall take necessary steps to mitigate the harmful effects of such use or disclosure. 11. CONFORMANCE If any provision of this Grant violates any statute or rule of law of the state of Washington, it is considered modified to conform to that statute or rule of law. 158 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 12. COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS Unless otherwise provided, all Materials produced under this Grant shall be considered "works for hire" as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act and shall be owned by COMMERCE. COMMERCE shall be considered the author of such Materials. In the event the Materials are not considered "works for hire" under the U.S. Copyright laws, the Grantee hereby irrevocably assigns all right, title, and interest in all Materials, including all intellectual property rights, moral rights, and rights of publicity to COMMERCE effective from the moment of creation of such Materials. "Materials" means all items in any format and includes, but is not limited to, data, 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. For Materials that are delivered under the Grant, but that incorporate pre-existing materials not produced under the Grant, the Grantee hereby grants to COMMERCE a nonexclusive, royalty -free, irrevocable license (with rights to sublicense to others) in such Materials to translate, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, publicly perform, and publicly display. The Grantee warrants and represents that the Grantee has all rights and permissions, including intellectual property rights, moral rights and rights of publicity, necessary to grant such a license to COMMERCE. The Grantee shall exert all reasonable effort to advise COMMERCE, at the time of delivery of Materials furnished under this Grant, of all known or potential invasions of privacy contained therein and of any portion of such document which was not produced in the performance of this Grant. The Grantee shall provide COMMERCE with prompt written notice of each notice or claim of infringement received by the Grantee with respect to any Materials delivered under this Grant. COMMERCE shall have the right to modify or remove any restrictive markings placed upon the Materials by the Grantee. 13. DISALLOWED COSTS The Grantee is responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed costs incurred by its own organization or that of its Subgrantees. 14. DISPUTES Except as otherwise provided in this Grant, when a dispute arises between the parties and it cannot be resolved by direct negotiation, either party may request a dispute hearing with COMMERCE's Director, who may designate a neutral person to decide the dispute. The request for a dispute hearing must: • be in writing; • state the disputed issues; • state the relative positions of the parties; • state the Grantee's name, address, and Grant number; and • be mailed to the Director and the other party's (respondent's) Grant Representative within three (3) working days after the parties agree that they cannot resolve the dispute. The respondent shall send a written answer to the requestor's statement to both the Director or the Director's designee and the requestor within five (5) working days. The Director or designee shall review the written statements and reply in writing to both parties within ten (10) working days. The Director or designee may extend this period if necessary by notifying the parties. The decision shall not be admissible in any succeeding judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding 9 159 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 The parties agree that this dispute process shall precede any action in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. Nothing in this Grant shall be construed to limit the parties' choice of a mutually acceptable alternate dispute resolution (ADR) method in addition to the dispute hearing procedure outlined above. 15. DUPLICATE PAYMENT The Grantee certifies that work to be performed under this Grant does not duplicate any work to be charged against any other Grant, subgrant, or other source. 16. ETHICSICONFLICTS OF INTEREST In performing under this Grant, the Grantee shall assure compliance with the Ethics in Public Service Act (Chapter 42.52 RCW) and any other applicable state or federal law related to ethics or conflicts of interest. 17. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Grant shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington, and the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Thurston County. 18. INDEMNIFICATION To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the state of Washington, COMMERCE, all other agencies of the state and all officers, agents and employees of the state, from and against all claims or damages for injuries to persons or property or death arising out of or incident to the Grantee's performance or failure to perform the Grant. The Grantee's obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless includes any claim by the Grantee's agents, employees, representatives, or any Subgrantee or its agents, employees, or representatives The Grantee's obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless shall not be eliminated by any actual or alleged concurrent negligence of the state or its agents, agencies, employees and officers. Subgrants shall include a comprehensive indemnification clause holding harmless the Grantee, COMMERCE, the state of Washington, its officers, employees and authorized agents. The Grantee waives its immunity under Title 51 RCW to the extent it is required to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the state and its agencies, officers, agents or employees. 19. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY OF THE GRANTEE The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Grant. The Grantee and its employees or agents performing under this Grant are not employees or agents of the state of Washington or COMMERCE. The Grantee will not hold itself out as or claim to be an officer or employee of COMMERCE or of the state of Washington by reason hereof, nor will the Grantee make any claim of right, privilege or benefit which would accrue to such officer or employee under law. Conduct and control of the work will be solely with the Grantee. 20. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE The Grantee shall comply with all applicable provisions of Title 51 RCW, Industrial Insurance. If the Grantee fails to provide industrial insurance coverage or fails to pay premiums or penalties on behalf of its employees as may be required by law, COMMERCE may collect from the Grantee the full amount payable to the Industrial Insurance Accident Fund. COMMERCE may deduct the amount owed by the Grantee to the accident fund from the amount payable to the Grantee by COMMERCE under this Grant, and transmit the deducted amount to the Department of Labor and Industries, (L&I) Division of Insurance Services. This provision does not waive any of L&I's rights to collect from the Grantee. 10 160 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 21. LAWS The Grantee shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, regulations, and policies of local, state, and federal governments, as now or hereafter amended, including, but not limited to: United States Laws, Regulations and Circulars (Federal) A. Audits Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Revised Circular A-133 "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations." B. Labor and Safety Standards Convict Labor, 18 U.S.C. 751, 752, 4081, 4082. Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, 41 USC 701 et seq. Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Work Hours and Safety Act of 1,962, 40 U.S.C. 327-330 and Department of Labor Regulations, 29 CFR Part 5. C. Laws against Discrimination Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Public Law 94-135, 42 U.S.C. 6101-07, 45 CFR Part 90 Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336. Equal Employment Opportunity, Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375 and supplemented in U.S. Department of Labor Regulations, 41 CFR Chapter 60. Executive Order 11246, as amended by EO 11375, 11478, 12086 and 12102. Handicapped Employees of Government Contractors, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503, 29 U.S.C.793. Handicapped Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, 29 U.S.C.794, Minority Business Enterprises, Executive Order 11625, 15 U.S.C. 631. Minority Business Enterprise Development, Executive Order 12432, 48 FR 32551. Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity, 24 CFR 5.105(a). Nondiscrimination in benefits, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 U.S.C. 2002d et seq, 24 CFR Part 1. Nondiscrimination in employment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352. Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Construction Contracts, Executive Order 11246, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, as amended by Executive Order 11375, 41 CFR Chapter 60. Section 3, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, 12 USC 1701 u (See 24 CFR 570.607(b)). D. Office of Management and Budget Circulars Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments, OMB CircularA-87, 2 CFR, Part 225. Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations, OMB Circular A-122, (if the Grantee is a nonprofit organization). GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments, OMB Circular A-102, (if the Grantee is a local government or federally recognized Indian tribal government). Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Nonprofit Organizations, OMB Circular A-110. E. Other Anti -Kickback Act, 18 U.S.C. 874; 40 U.S.C. 276b, 276c; 41 U.S.C. 51-54. Governmental Guidance for New Restrictions on Lobbying; Interim Final Guidance, Federal Register 1, Vol. 54, No. 2431Wednesday, December 20, 1989. Hatch Political Activity Act, 5 U.S.C. 1501-8. Internal Revenue Service Rules, August 31, 1990. Lobbying and Disclosure, 42 USC 3537a and 3545 and 31 USC 1352 (Byrd Anti -Lobbying Amendment). 31 U.S.C. 1352 provides that Grantees who apply or bid for an award of $100,000 or more must file the required certification. Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant or other award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Each tier must disclose any lobbying with non -Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the recipient. Non -Supplanting Federal Funds. Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program. F. Privacy Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. Washington State Laws and Regulations A. Affirmative action, RCW 41.06.020 (11). B. Boards of directors or officers of non-profit corporations — Liability - Limitations, RCW 4.24.264. C. Disclosure -campaign finances -lobbying, Chapter 42.17 RCW. D. Discrimination -human rights commission, Chapter 49.60 RCW. E. Ethics in public service, Chapter 42.52 RCW. F. Office of minority and women's business enterprises, Chapter 39.19 RCW and Chapter 326-02 WAC. G. Open public meetings act, Chapter 42.30 RCW. H. Public records act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. I. State budgeting, accounting, and reporting system,.Chapter 43.88 RCW. 22. LICENSING, ACCREDITATION AND REGISTRATION The Grantee shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal licensing, accreditation and registration requirements or standards necessary for the performance of this Grant. 12 162 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 23. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY Only the Authorized Representative or Authorized Representative's designee by writing (designation to be made prior to action) shall have the express, implied, or apparent authority to alter, amend, modify, or waive any clause or condition of this Grant. 24. LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION Where applicable, Grantee shall participate in local public transportation forums and implement strategies designed to ensure access to services. 26. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS During the performance of this Grant, the Grantee shall comply with all federal, state, and local nondiscrimination laws, regulations and policies. In the event of the Grantee's non-compliance or refusal to comply with any nondiscrimination law, regulation or policy, this Grant may be rescinded, canceled or terminated in whole or in part, and the Grantee may be declared ineligible for further Grants with the state. The Grantee shall, however, be given a reasonable time in which to cure this noncompliance. Any dispute may be resolved in accordance with the "Disputes" procedure set forth herein. 26. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES Political activity of Grantee employees and officers are limited by the State Campaign Finances and Lobbying provisions of Chapter 42.17 RCW and the Federal Hatch Act, 5 USC 1501 - 1508. No funds may be used under this Grant for working for or against ballot measures or for or against the candidacy of any person for public office. 27. PROCUREMENT STANDARDS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS A Grantee which is a local government or Indian Tribal government must establish procurement policies and procedures in accordance with ONIB Circulars A-102, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants in Aid for State and Local Governments, for all purchases funded by this Grant. A Grantee which is a nonprofit organization shall establish procurement policies in accordance with OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Nonprofit Agencies, for all purchases funded by this Grant. The Grantee's procurement system should include at least the following: 1. A code or standard of conduct that shall govern the performance of its officers, employees, or agents engaged in the awarding of Grants using federal funds. 2. Procedures that ensure all procurement transactions shall be conducted in a manner to provide, to the maximum extent practical, open and free competition. 3. Minimum procedural requirements, as follows: a. Follow a procedure to assure the avoidance of purchasing unnecessary or duplicative items. b. Solicitations shall be based upon a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements of the procured items. c. Positive efforts shall be made to use small and minority -owned businesses. 13 163 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 d. The type of procuring instrument (fixed price, cost reimbursement) shall be determined by the Grantee, but must be appropriate for the particular procurement and for promoting the best interest of the program involved. e. Subgrants shall be made only with reasonable Subgrantees who possess the potential ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of the proposed procurement. f. Some form of price or cost analysis should be performed in connection with every procurement action. g. Procurement records and files for purchases shall include all of the following: 1) Grantees selection or rejection. 2) The basis for the cost or price. 3) Justification for lack of competitive bids if offers are not obtained. h. A system for Grant administration to ensure Grantee conformance with terms, conditions and specifications of this Grant, and to ensure adequate and timely follow-up of all purchases. 4. Grantee and Subgrantees must receive prior approval from COMMERCE for using funds from this Grant to enter into a sole source Grant or a Grant where only one bid or proposal is received when value of this Grant is expected to exceed $5,000. Prior approval requests shall include a copy of proposed Grants and any related procurement documents and justification for non-competitive procurement, if applicable. 28. PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF BONUS OR COMMISSION The funds provided under this Grant shall not be used in payment of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining approval of the application for such funds or any other approval or concurrence under this Grant provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical consultant, managerial, or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as project costs. 29. PUBLICITY The Grantee agrees not to publish or use any advertising or publicity materials in which the state of Washington or COMMERCE's name is mentioned, or language used from which the connection with the state of Washington's or COMMERCE's name may reasonably be inferred or implied, without the prior written consent of COMMERCE. 30. RECAPTURE In the event that the Grantee fails to perform this Grant in accordance with state laws, federal laws, and/or the provisions of this Grant, COMMERCE reserves the right to recapture funds in an amount to compensate COMMERCE for the noncompliance in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. Repayment by the Grantee of funds under this recapture provision shall occur within the time period specified by COMMERCE. In the alternative, COMMERCE may recapture such funds from payments due under this Grant. 14 164 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 31. RECORDS MAINTENANCE The Grantee shall maintain all books, records, documents, data and other evidence relating to this Grant and performance of the services described herein, including but not limited to accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this Grant. Grantee shall retain such records for a period of six years following the date of final payment. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been finally resolved. 32. REGISTRATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE If required by law, the Grantee shall -complete registration with the Washington State Department of Revenue. 33. RIGHT OF INSPECTION At no additional cost all records relating to the Grantee's performance under this Grant shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review, and audit by COMMERCE, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal and state officials so authorized by law, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and quality assurance under this Grant. The Grantee shall provide access to its facilities for this purpose. 34. SAVINGS In the event funding from state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date of this Grant and prior to normal completion, COMMERCE may terminate the Grant under the "Termination for Convenience" clause, without the ten business day notice requirement. In lieu of termination, the Grant may be amended to reflect the new funding limitations and conditions. 35. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Grant or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Grant that can be given effect without the invalid provision, if such remainder conforms to the requirements of law and the fundamental purpose of this Grant and to. this end the provisions of this Grant are declared to be severable. 36. SUBGRANTING The Grantee may only subgrant work contemplated under this Grant if it obtains the prior written approval of COMMERCE. If COMMERCE approves subgranting, the Grantee shall maintain written procedures related to subgranting, as well as copies of all subgrants and records related to subgrants. For cause, COMMERCE in writing may: (a) require the Grantee to amend its subgranting procedures as they relate to this Grant; (b) prohibit the Grantee from subgranting with a particular person or entity; or (c) require the Grantee to rescind or amend a subgrant. Every subgrant shall bind the Subgrantee to follow all applicable terms of this Grant. The Grantee is responsible to COMMERCE if the Subgrantee fails to comply with any applicable term or condition of this Grant. The Grantee shall appropriately monitor the activities of the Subgrantee to assure fiscal conditions of this Grant. In no event shall the existence of a subgrant operate to release or reduce the liability of the Grantee to COMMERCE for any breach in the performance of the Grantee's duties. Every subgrant shall include a term that COMMERCE and the State of Washington are not liable for claims or damages arising from a Subgrantee's performance of the subgrant. 15 165 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 37. SURVIVAL The terms, conditions, and warranties contained in this Grant that by their sense and context are intended to survive the completion of the performance, cancellation or termination of this Grant shall so survive. 38. TAXES All payments accrued on account of payroll taxes, unemployment contributions, the Grantee's income or gross receipts, any other taxes, insurance or expenses for the Grantee or its staff shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. 39. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE / SUSPENSION In event COMMERCE determines that the Grantee failed to comply with any term or condition of this Grant, COMMERCE may terminate the Grant in whole or in part upon written notice to the Grantee. Such termination shall be deemed "for cause." Termination shall take effect on the date specified in the notice. In the alternative, COMMERCE upon written notice may allow the Grantee a specific period of time in which to correct the non-compliance. During the corrective -action time period, COMMERCE may suspend further payment to the Grantee in whole or in part, or may restrict the Grantee's right to perform duties under this Grant. Failure by the Grantee to take timely corrective action shall allow COMMERCE to terminate the Grant upon written notice to the Grantee. "Termination for Cause" shall be deemed a "Termination for Convenience" when COMMERCE determines that the Grantee did not fail to comply with the terms of the Grant or when COMMERCE determines the failure was not caused by the Grantee's actions or negligence. If the Grant is terminated for cause, the Grantee shall be liable for damages as authorized by law, including, but not limited to, any cost difference between the original Grant and the replacement Grant, as well as all costs associated with entering into the replacement Grant (i.e., competitive bidding, mailing, advertising, and staff time). 40. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE Except as otherwise provided in this Grant COMMERCE may, by ten (10) business days written notice, beginning on the second day after the mailing, terminate this Grant, in whole or in part. if this Grant is so terminated, the Grantor shall be liable only for payment required under the terms of this Grant for services rendered or goods delivered prior to the effective date of termination. 41. TERMINATION PROCEDURES After receipt of a notice of termination, except as otherwise directed by COMMERCE, the Grantee shall: A. Stop work under the Grant on the date, and to the extent specified, in the notice; B. Place no further orders or subgrants for materials, services, or facilities related to the Grant; C. Assign to COMMERCE all of the rights, title, and interest of the Grantee under the orders and subgrants so terminated, in which case COMMERCE has the right, at its discretion, to settle or pay any or all claims arising out of the termination of such orders and subgrants. Any attempt by the Grantee to settle such claims must have the prior written approval of COMMERCE; and D. Preserve and transfer any materials, Grant deliverables and/or COMMERCE property in the Grantee's possession as directed by COMMERCE. 16 166 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS M09-34021-017 Upon termination of the Grant, COMMERCE shall pay the Grantee for any service provided by the Grantee under the Grant prior to the date of termination. COMMERCE may withhold any amount due as COMMERCE reasonably determines is necessary to protect COMMERCE against potential loss or liability resulting from the termination. COMMERCE shall pay any withheld amount to the Grantee if COMMERCE later determines that loss or liability will not occur. The rights and remedies of COMMERCE under this section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided under this Grant or otherwise provided under law. 42. WAIVER Waiver of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default or breach. Any waiver shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Grant unless stated to be such in writing and signed by Authorized Representative of COMMERCE. 17 167 M09-34021-017 Attachment A Scope of Work The Contractor will implement the Multi -Jurisdictional Narcotics Task Force Program as specified in the Contractor's application for Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Multi -Jurisdictional Narcotics Task Force Program funding, and in compliance with the assurances and certifications made in conjunction with that application. 18 168 M09-34021-017 Attachment B Budget Year 1 : SFY 2010 (October 1, 2009 — June 30, 2010) Funding Source FFY'09 Justice Assistance Grant — CFDA# 16.738 State General Fund Yr 1 Total Year 2 : SFY 2011 (July 1, 2010 —June 30, 2011) Funding Source FFY'## Justice Assistance Grant — CFDA# 16.738 State General Fund Yr 2 Total Total Budget Budget Conditions: Amount $ 120,853 $ 71,390 $ 192,243 Amount To be announced/ awarded by amendment To be announced/ awarded by amendment To be announce $ 192,243 Funding designated for Year 1 may not be carried forward into Year 2, nor may Year 2 funding be brought forward into Year 1. Sequence of application of expenditures against grant funds in Year 1 shall be as follows: 1s` — FFY'09 Recovery Act funds (CFDA # 16.803) awarded to the Contractor for the purpose of interdicting drugs though the Multi -Jurisdictional Task Force Program. 2rd —State General Fund monies awarded under this Agreement. 3d — FFY'09 Justice Assistance Grant monies awarded under this Agreement. Budget Assumption and Notes (Not binding as an element of this Agreement): The total of Year 2 funding will closely approximate the total of Year 1 funding for both this Agreement, and the Contractor's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 award (CFDA # 16.803) for multi -jurisdictional task force drug interdiction. The Justice Assistance Grant funds provided through this Grant are from the normal congressional appropriations for the US Department of Justice, and are not from appropriations made under authority of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 19 169 BUDGET -ATTACHMENT B — M09-34021-017 Whatcom County Sheriff's Office - Deputy/Detective Whatcom County Sheriff's Office — Records Specialist Whatcom County Prosecutor Ferndale Police Department - Detective Bellingham Police Department - Detective To Be Determined TOTAL $47,890.75 $10,682.00 $34,495.75 $47,890.75 $47,890.75 $ 3,393.00 $192,243.00 170 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-441 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 11/24/2009 Finance/Council Kw 10/16/09 V E ILL),, 07, L� G NOV., 17 2009 Division Head: Vl� U Dept. Head:W�i I Prosecutor: G _ _ W H ATC O M COUNTY i Purchasing/Budget: i 3 COUNCIL Executive: t N 7 d 5 TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Agreement for services between Whatcom County and Whatcom Community College ATTACHMENTS: 2 Originals of the Interagency Agreement between Whatcom Community College and Whatcom County Jail Memo to Pete Kremen SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( )Fes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMAR Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. It is the purpose of this agreement to provide Adult Basic Education (ABE) and GED classes to people residing in the county jail. ABE and GED classes include basic reading, writing, math, and computer skills. The goal of such classes is to improve the student's levels to the point where they would be successful on the GED or college entrance tests, or for employment. Due to a reduction in state funding for this program and a reduction in services in another area of the Jail operation, we are able to maintain this program for the Jail. COMMITTEEACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing andprinting on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 171 Whatcom County Sheriffs Office Corrections Bureau 311 Grand Ave. Bellingham, WA 98225 10 0_WI�.mo I Bill Elfo, Sheriff Wendy Jones, Chief Corrections Deputy RECEIVED TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive NOV 13 2009 FROM: Bill Elfo, Sheriff PETE KREMEN COUNTY MCUTIVE RE: Interagency Agreement between Whatcom County and Whatcom Community College DATE: November 10, 2009 Enclosed are two (2) originals of the Interagency Agreement between Whatcom Community College and Whatcom County Jail for your review and signature. ■ Background and Purpose The agreement between Whatcom County and Whatcom Community College provides for funding for the Adult Basic Education and GED classes made available to people residing in the county jail. The goal of these classes is to improve the student's levels to the point where they would be successful on the GED, thus increasing their opportunity for employment. ■ Funding Amount and Source: The funding for this service is increasing in 2010 due to significant reductions in State Funding for Adult Basic Education. The increase is an additional $20,000. This increase can be covered with funds re -allocated from another area of the jail's budget. Alternative State funding was found by the Health Department to pay for some case management services in the jail. As a result, $42,000 will be released from the jail budget back to the General and Jail Sales Tax funds. After re -allocating $20,000 of those funds into this program, the County will still see a savings of $22,000. ■ Differences from Previous Contract The original agreement provided $14,374 annually. This additional $20,000 would be paid out over 2010. Please contact Wendy Jones at extension 50470, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement, Encl. 172 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. 200q ii o 15 Ori inatin Department: Whatcom County Sheri /Corrections Contract Administrator: Karen Walker Contractor's I Agency Name: I Whatcom Community College Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes X No _ _ Yes _ No X If yes, previous number(s): 200705042 Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No _X_ Ifyes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes _ No X If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No X If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Contract Amount: (sum of orig If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a contract amt and any prior Bid is more than $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for amendments) Council approval and a supporting memo. Any amendment that Total Amended Amount: provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than $10, 000, $36, 374.00 for 2010 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 supporting memo or approval. Scope of Services This agreement adds additional funding for the Adult Basic Education and GED classes made available to people residing in the county jail. The goal of these classes is to improve the student's levels to the point where they would be successful on the GED or college entrance tests, or for employment. Term of Contract: l year Expiration Date: 12131110 Contract Routing Steps & Signoff.- [sipn or initial] [indicate date transmitted] 1. Prepared by: kw Date 10106109 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: Date [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed: �,�+� Date /e /3%D9 [electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date _ [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date electronic] 6. Attorney signoff� J Date f � 7. Contractor signed: Date 11-/0 -0 j 8. Submitted to Exec Office ,/ Date 1 1-13-09 %summary hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (f necessary) Date 11. Executive signed. Date 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept, Date 14. County Original hard copy printed via electronic; to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page 173 COUNTY ORIGINAL INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN Whatcom Community College AND Whatcom County Jail Whatcom County Contract No. a009 //o/5' IAA No. 2 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Whatcom County Jail, hereinafter referred to as "the Jail", and Whatcom Community College, hereinafter referred to as "WCC.", pursuant to the authority granted by Chapter 39.34 RCW. IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT to provide Adult Basic Education (ABE) and GED classes to people residing in the county jail. ABE and GED classes include basic reading, writing, math, and computer skills. The goal of such classes is to improve the student's levels to the point where they would be successful on the GED or college entrance tests, or for employment. THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: Whatcom Community College will work in partnership with the Whatcom County Jail to offer Adult Basic Education (ABE classes) to inmates. Fourteen hours of class per week for 11 weeks in fall, winter, and spring quarters and for 6 weeks in summer quarter. STATEMENT OF WORK Whatcom Community College will work in partnership with the Whatcom County Jail to offer ABE and GED classes to inmates. Whatcom Community College will provide the following: • An instructor who will assess the students and provide lessons that will help them gain basic skills in reading, writing, math, and computers. • Confidential record keeping and evaluations as mandated by SBCTC, state, and federal laws. • Regular communication with the Whatcom County Jail The Whatcom County Jail will provide the following: • Security to the teacher and assistant • An appropriate place to conduct classes • Secure/lockable storage space and a voice mail box • Student referrals and transport to and from the classroom • Payments to Whatcom Community College totaling $36,374.00 for 2010. Supplies will be provided by mutual agreement by both parties. JAIL CLEARANCE: All personnel hired by WCC to fulfill positions in the Jail must pass a standard background check in order to have access to the facility. Access may not be granted or may be pulled by Jail Administrative staff if it is determined the individual represents a security concern to the Facility. Notice will be made to the WCC Program Manager for any denial or revocation of Jail Access. SECURITY: Staff at the Whatcom County Jail will work with the instructor to evaluate the security status of offenders applying to participate in the ABE classes. Correctional personnel may remove individuals from participation in the program if there are indications the offender may present a security risk to the program or the instructor. Every reasonable effort will be made to provide security to WCC personnel, however, instructors . 174 Interagency Agreement # 2 page 2 of 6 and aids acknowledge that they will be working with inmate populations, and that they may be exposed to risks not typical of an educational environment. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE Subject to its other provisions, the period of performance of this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2010, and be completed on December 31, 2010 unless terminated sooner or extended, as provided herein. After this initial period, this agreement shall automatically renew annually unless one or both parties provide notice of non -renewal as provided below. Either party may, as a matter or right, effect an early termination of this agreement at any time prior to the end of the contractual period by providing the other party with a written notice of intent to terminate thirty (30) days prior to the desired date of termination. BILLING PROCEDURE WCC shall submit invoices according to the following payment schedule for an annual total compensation by Whatcom County Jail of $36,374.00 Invoice Date Amount Janu$ 12,124.67 April 1 s $ 12,124.67 June 1s' $ 12,124.67 Payment to WCC for approved and completed work will be made by warrant or account transfer by the Jail within 30 days of receipt of the invoice. Upon expiration of the Agreement, any claim for payment not already made shall be submitted within 30 days after the expiration date or at the end of the fiscal year, whichever is earlier. RECORDS MAINTENANCE The parties to this Agreement 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 parties, other personnel duly authorized by either party, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal officials so authorized by law. 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 WCC. 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. 175 Interagency Agreement # Z INDEPENDENT CAPACITY page 3 of 5 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 CHANGES, MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be changed, modified, or amended by written agreement executed by both 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. 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 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 by a 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, agreement 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 Agreement 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 following order: a. Applicable state and federal statutes and rules; b. Statement of work; and c. Any other provisions of the agreement, including materials incorporated by reference. ASSIGNMENT The work to be provided under this Agreement, and any claim arising there under, 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. 176 Interagency Agreement # 2 page 4 of 5 WAIVER A failure by either party to exercise 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 writing, signed by an authorized representative of the party and attached to the original Agreement. SEVERABILITY 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 Agreement 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. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT The program manager for each of the parties shall be responsible for and shall be the contact person for all communications and billings regarding the performance of this Agreement. The Program Manager for the Jail is: Wendy Jones Chief Corrections Deputy Whatcom County Sheriff/Corrections Bureau 311 Grand Ave. Bellingham, WA 96225 ph: 360.676.6787 fax: 360.676.6833 wj6nes@co.whatcom.wa.us ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN The Program Manager for WCC is: Katie Jensen Director for Transitional Learning Programs Whatcom Community College 237 West Kellogg Road, Bellingham, WA 98226 Ph: 360.383.3061 Fax: 360.383.3257 KJensen@whatcom.ctc.edu 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. 177 Interagency Agreement # 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. Recommended for Approval: WHATCOM COMMUNITY COLLEGE: 1 l A D 0 WFjA'f COM COUNTY: Recommen or r al: �D S riff's ffi a bat A roved as to form: \-, \V.—) Alz Prosecuting Att Date Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )SS COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) page 5 of 5 On this day of , 2009, 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 178 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-442 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date 11/24/2009 Assigned to: Originator: TOW 11/09109 D NOVA 17 2009 Finance/Counc' Division Head.- De t. Head. Prosecutor: P.Z. 4,.. .{p VI�I-IATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Purchasin Bud et: G � � � © Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) 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.) Whatcom County intends to obtain animal control services from the Whatcom Humane Society. Services include but are not exclusive to: housing, administering regulations, enforcement and penalties pursuant to County ordinances, statutes and local code as described in Exhibit A. Beginning January 1 and ending December 31, 2010 the contractor is to be reimbursed for actual costs less any collected fee revenue. An annual sum not to exceed $453,309.41 Total Reimbursement for a 12 month service contract shall not exceed $453,309.41 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, 179 WHATCOM COUNTY Administrative Services DEPT. 311 Grand Avenut, Ste 108 Bellingham, WA 982254038 MEMORANDUM TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Dewey Desler RE: Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement DATE: 11 /09/09 Dewey Desler Director Enclosed are two (2) originals of a Service Agreement between Whatcom County and Whatcom Humane Society for your review and signature. ■ Background and Purpose Whatcom County will contract with Whatcom Humane Society for the purpose of providing animal control and shelter services in compliance with County code and statutes as described in Exhibit A. ■ Funding Amount and Source Beginning January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 An annual sum not to exceed Four Hundred Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Nine Dollars and Forty One cents ($453,309.41) to be paid in monthly installments towards actual reimbursable expenses less any collected fee revenue. Total Reimbursement for a 12 month service contract shall not exceed $453,309.41 Additional cost for vehicles; fuel, maintenance and building maintenance are not included in this contract but are covered by the County at the additional cost of $54,314 for 2010. ■ Differences from Previous Contract This contract is for a 12 month period and includes a savings over the 2009 contract of $52,000. Savings will come largely through the reduction of expenses such as supplies and training. The success of the animal spay/neuter program has reduced the number of unwanted and abused animals that end up at the Whatcom Humane Society ultimately reducing overall costs. A nominal adoption fee increase will raise revenue and the repeal of ordinance 6.04.050 which allows for an unspecified number of animals to be licensed under one multiple dog license will nominally increase revenue through the purchase of individual licenses. More importantly the repeal of this ordinance will help to mitigate the exploitation of kennel licenses for upwards of 20 animals on one property. Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Service Agreement] Page 1 v 1.0 im WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATIONSHEET Whatcom County Contract No. '2,00q 1101-7 Originating Department: Administrative Services Contract Administrator: Dewey Desler/Tawni Helms Contractor's /Agent Name: Whatcom Humane Society Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes x No Yes _ No If yes, previous number(s): 200710013 Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No x If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes _ No x If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No x If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) 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 $ 453 309.41 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 Contractor to provide animal control and shelter services for Whatcom County as described in Exhibit A Term of Contract: Ex iration Date: I Z - 31-1 O Contract Routing Steps & Signoff` (sign or initiall findicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: TWH Date_11109109 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: �� , Date _ [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed. Date electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date _ [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date (electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff.• Date 7. Contractor signed: Date 8. Submitted to Exec Office Date 1 l -17 09 [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date I.I. Executive signed: Date 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept; Date 14. County Original to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Service Agreement] Page 2 v 1.0 181 October 7, 2009 Mr. Dewey Desler Deputy Administrator Whatcom County Executive Office 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225 Dear Mr. Desler, Per the request of your office, below is a proposed outline of a 2010 budget from the Whatcom Humane Society to continue to provide animal control services to Whatcom County. It has been a pleasure for our organization to serve the residents of Whatcom County the past two years, and we look forward to the opportunity to continue to provide county citizens and animals with quality and professional services in the future. In conversations and emails with Tawni Helms, I recognize the financial difficulties and decisions facing the County Council. The Whatcom Humane Society understands the economic situation and the need to be fiscally responsible when contracting with the municipalities we serve. We have no intention of taking undue liberties with public funds and take our responsibilities very seriously. Our current contract budget and staffing levels are based on criteria and standards set forth by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the National Animal Control Association (NACA). These standards are based on the number of animals received, number of animal control complaints received, the geographic area served and human population of area served. In 2008, we received 2,447 homeless, unwanted and abused animals into our county facility, not including animals received DOA. We estimate that in 2009, we will most likely receive approximately 500 fewer animals into the county facility. This drop in numbers is due to our aggressive spay/neuter campaign/program targeting county animals as well as our ongoing humane education and community outreach programs throughout the county. In 2008 our county facility was involved with several large-scale animal hoarding/cruelty cases. Each case involved 50+ animals that needed immediate and extensive veterinary care and services as well as additional staffing levels to provide adequate care. It is impossible to estimate how many similar cases we will encounter in the future, yet we must be prepared as an organization to effectively manage them. 182 Our animal control and rescue department responded to 1,238 calls for assistance from county residents in 2008. Based on year-to-date projections, we estimate that our animal control officers will respond to over 1,313 calls in 2009. A detailed break down of the types of calls and geographic locations is available upon-,equest. As you know, the contract between the Whatcom Humane Society and Whatcom County is a cost reimbursable contract. Whatcom County is billed monthly for actual reimbursable expenditures, less revenue collected by WHS. The current contract of $505,419.49 includes provisions for 24 hour a day animal control & rescue coverage, as well as professional and highly trained staff providing customer service, animal care, veterinary services, animal adoptions, volunteer services and more. Working with our board of directors, I have carefully considered ways to increase revenue and decrease costs. In the budget narrative attached you will see that our budgeted payroll expenses for 2010 would decrease by over $10,000. Some staffing levels remain necessary regardless of the number of total animals in our care, but due to our estimate of total animals received, the cost per animal would decrease. Our 2010 budget for expenses would be reduced by $31,597. Projected income for 2010 would include an increase in our dog/cat adoption fees from the current $95.00 to $115.00. This would increase revenue by $10,000. Additionally, WHS would like to propose the removal of the current "Kennel License" ordinance (20.97.191) which allows any county resident owning 5 or more dogs to apply and pay for an annual kennel license costing $65.00. WHS strongly feels that this ordinance is responsible for thousands of dollars in lost income, and the ordinance also enables many residents to own more animals than they can responsibly care for. Our records indicate that some current residents who pay for annual kennel licenses own between 20 - 35 dogs each. We estimate that by removing the "Kennel License" ordinance and requiring county residents to license each individual animal, as well as embarking on a proactive dog licensing campaign throughout Whatcom County, revenue from dog licensing could increase by approximately $10,000 in 2010. Monies from the contract pay for the cost of animal control services and staffing levels to provide basic care for the animals during their 72 hour stray holding period and/or quarantine stay at the shelter. Contract monies do not pay for the following services, but the Whatcom Humane Society provides them at no additional cost: * Veterinary care above what the contract covers - orthopedic surgeries, dental work, x-rays, medications, grooming, additional treatments * Outreach &.humane education programs * Media exposure of county animals through monthly tv & radio show and print advertising * Low cost-microchip/vaccination/dog licensing programs * Foster care program * Farm property upkeep * Assistance for injured wildlife 183 * Pick-up and disposal of DOA deer and other large animals on county roadways In 2008, WHS funded programs and staff positions totally $26,464.85 at no additional cost to the County and are continuing to fund these important services at no cost to you again this year. Please also keep in mind, that the Whatcom Humane Society is privileged to have an active, trained, professional group of volunteers assisting our staff on a daily basis. These dedicated people allow us to augment out services and staffing levels in order to meet the HSUS and NACA standards. In 2008, volunteers at the county facility volunteered 3,247 hours. We estimate that this year, volunteers will spend 4,486 hours assisting in the care and treatment of the shelter animals as well as assist with important and time consuming administrative duties. These volunteer hours do not include the 24 hour in -home care our volunteer foster families provide for "special needs" animals, injured animals and/or unweaned puppies and kittens. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the information in this letter or the attached budget narrative you requested. Our non-profit organization looks forward to the opportunity to continue to work with you to provide quality services to Whatcom County. Best Regards, Laura Clark Executive Director (360)733-2080, extension # 3026 directors-whatcomhumane.org Whatcom Humane Society Budget Narrative Contract 2009 2010 Wages -Shelter Services 258,257.97 244,150.94 Wages -Animal Control & Licensing 152,737.78 170,744.97 Wages -Administration 76,436.74 61,963.50 Subtotal -Wages 487,432.49 476,859.41 Animal Food 5,000.00 5,350.00 Disposal -Dead Animals 3,900.00 3,900.00 Computer Expense 3,300.00 500.00 Human Resources 2,915.00 2,150.00 Insurance 3,075.00 1,075.00 Insurance -Animal Control & Licensing 6,220.00 6,750.00 Microchips 2,700.00 1,750.00 Postage 2,098.00 2,250.00 Printing 1,350.00 500.00 Professional Services -Shelter Services 8,975.00 8,625.00 Professional Services -Animal Ctrl & Lic 240.00 200.00 Professional Services -Administration 7,914.00 5,375.00 Radio/Pager-Animal Control 2,520.00 1,500.00 Supplies -Medical 23,000.00 15,250.00 Supplies -Shelter Services 18,930.00 11,225.00 Supplies -Animal Control & Licensing 1,000.00 1,000.00 Supplies -Administration 260.00 700.00 Telephone -Animal Control 4,000.00 2,700.00 Telephone -Office 6,600.00 6,600.00 Training/Education 4,625.00 1,000.00 Uniforms 2,625.00 1,250.00 Utilities 15,000.00 15,000.00 Subtotal -Expenses 126,247.00 94,650.00 Total 613,679.49 571,509.41 Income License 32,500.00 License Late Fee 1,750.00 Impound 25,000.00 Board 4,800.00 Owner Release 4,800.00 Dog Adoptions 20,800.00 Cat Adoptions 23,000.00 Microchip 2,500.00 Other Animal Adoption 2,600.00 Trap Rental 450.00 108, 260.00 118, 200.00 505,419.49 453,309.41 185 Whatcom County Contract No. a009 /10 /7 CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement Whatcom Humane Society , hereinafter called Contractor, and Whatcom County, hereinafter referred to as County, agree and contract as set forth in this Agreement, including: General Conditions, pp. 2 to 6 , Exhibit A (Scope of Work), pp. 7 to 11 Exhibit B (Compensation), pp. 12 to 15 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 1 day of January 20 10 , and shall, unless terminated or renewed as elsewhere provided in the Agreement, terminate on the 31 day of December 120 10 . The general purpose or objective of this Agreement is to: provide animal control and shelter services for Whatcom County 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 $ 453,309.41 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: Whatcom Humane Society Add more lines if more than one party Laura Clark, Executive Director STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF On this — day of , 20 _, before me personally appeared to me known to be the (title) of (Company) 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 Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 1 v 1.0 WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for Approval: Dewey Desler Date Approved as to form: r R � �— \ \ \\o\l 1 A 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: Whatcom Humane Society Laura Clark, Executive Director Address: 3710 Williamson Way Bellingham, WA 98226 Mailing Address: Same Contact Name: Laura Clark Contact Phone: (360) 733-2080 Contact FAX: (360) 733-4746 Contact Email: director()whatcomhumane.org Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Service Agreement] Page 2 v 1.0 187 GENERAL CONDITIONS ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES AGREEMENT . BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM HUMANE SOCIETY THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of December , 2009, by and between WHATCOM COUNTY, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and Whatcom Humane Society, hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor" for the purpose of animal control services as described herein. Intent: The intent of this document is for the County to obtain animal control services such as housing, administering regulations, enforcement and penalties pursuant to the following statutes and local code: RCW 9.08 Crimes Relating to Animals RCW.16.04 Trespass of Animals RCW 16.08 Dogs RCW 16.10 Dogs -Licensing- Control Zones RCW 16.24 Stock Restricted Areas RCW 16.52 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals RCW 16.54 Abandoned Animals RCW 16.68 Disposal of Dead Animals RCW 16.70 Control Of Pet Animals Infected With Disease Communicable To Humans WCC 6.04 Animal Control WCC 6.08 Restriction of Livestock 2. Description of Services: The Contractor agrees to provide and the County agrees to accept the services as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Consideration: As consideration for the services provided, the County agrees to reimburse the Contractor as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4. Term and Extensions: The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of twelve months beginning January 1, 2009. The term shall be as stated regardless of the date of signature. At the conclusion of the contract, the County may extend the agreement for two additional years. At the conclusion of the contract and any extension, the contract shall be reopened for bidding. The County reserves the right to terminate the contract at any time for substandard performance or non-cornpliance with contract terms. Records and Reports: The Contractor agrees to maintain all books, records, documents, reports and other evidence of accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended and services performed under this Agreement, including a complete system of records that shall show the kinds and number of animals in its custody obtained from the unincorporated areas of Whatcom County, the locations where such animals were found, the reasons for confinement and final disposition. The Contractor shall also provide the County Executive, or his or her designee, a monthly report detailing all fees collected and a quarterly report showing resources, all expenses and cash balances, with a comprehensive year-end report due thirty (30) days after the end of the fiscal year. the Contractor also agrees to provide the County Executive, or his or her designee, a monthly report detailing the levels of service provided over the period being billed, together with a monthly report on the license program in accordance with Section 3.1 in Exhibit A. All income and expenditures shall be recorded in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial records shall be subject to audit by any governmental agency with jurisdiction at a time and place mutually convenient to the parties. Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 3 v 1.0 im 6. 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 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. Contracts with other. Governmental Jurisdictions: The County agrees to permit the Contractor to extend its services within Whatcom County. The County does not agree to provide a financial subsidy, either directly or indirectly to any city or any other local government. The Contractor guarantees that it will manage its affairs so that any agency contracting with it for services bears that agency's pro-rata share of costs incurred. 8. Licensing: The contractor 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 Contractor shall also be responsible for obtaining any necessary approvals and permits and shall be given a reasonable period of time to bring operations into compliance with all laws and standards. 9. Communications: Communications between the Contractor and the County shall be addressed to the regular places of business. In the case of the Contractor, the address shall be: Laura Clark Whatcom Humane Society 3710 Williamson Way Bellingham, WA 98226 In the case of the County, communications shall be sent to: Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator 311 Grand Ave, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA 98225 10. Administration of Agreement: The Sheriffs office, Prosecuting Attorney and County Executive or designee shall have administrative authority to establish policies and procedures pertaining to: 1. Training of animal control officers regarding proper conduct and enforcement actions., 2. Setting guidelines regarding legal and enforcement issues and standards for the limited deputization of Contractor enforcement personnel. 3. How and when citations will be issued and notifications of same shall be made. b. The County Executive's office shall administer all other aspects of this Agreement and shall receive all reports and documents related to this Agreement from the Contractor. 11. Relationship to Parties: The parties intend that an independent Contractor/County relationship will be created by the Agreement. The County is interested only in the results to be achieved; the implementation of services will lie solely with the Contractor. Neither the Contractor, nor any agent, employee or representative of the Contractor shall be deemed to be an agent, employee, or representative of the County for any purpose. Employees of the Contractor are not entitled to any of the benefits the County provides for County employees. The Contractor will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts, Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 4 v 1.0 .0 and for the acts of its agents, employees, subcontractors or others during the performance of this Agreement. In the performance of services herein contemplated, the Contractor is an Independent Contractor as to the performance of the details of the work; however, the results of the work contemplated herein must meet the approval of the County and shall be subject to the County's general rights of inspection and review to secure the satisfactory completion thereof. 12. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: The Contractor agrees and covenants to indemnify, defend and save harmless the County and those persons who were, now are, or shall be duly elected or appointed officials or members or employees thereof, hereinafter referred to as the County, against and from any loss, damage, cost, charge, expense, liability, claim, demand or judgment, of whatsoever kind or nature, whether to persons or property, arising wholly or partially out of any act, action, neglect, omission or default on the part of the Contractor, his subcontractors, and/or employees, except to the extent such injury or damage shall have been caused by or resulted from the negligence of the County. In case any suit or cause of action shall be brought against the County on account of any act, action, neglect, omission or default on the part of the Contractor, his agents, subcontractors, and/or employees, the Contractor hereby agrees and covenants to appear and assume the defense thereof and to pay any and all costs, charges, attorney's fees and other expenses and any and all judgments that may be incurred or obtained against the County. In the event the County is required to institute legal action and/or participate in legal action to enforce this indemnification and hold harmless clause, the Contractor agrees to pay the County's legal fees, costs and disbursements incurred in establishing the right to indemnification. 13. Social Security and Other Taxes: Contractor 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 Contractor and all persons employed by the Contractor as to all duties, activities, and requirements by the Contractor in performance of the work pursuant to this Agreement and shall assume exclusive liability therefore, and meet all requirements thereunder pursuant to any rules and regulations that are now and may be promulgated in connection therewith. 14. Proof of Insurance: The Contractor shall maintain the following insurance coverage and shall provide the County with certificates of insurance, naming the County as additional insured on all the following policies: a. General Liability: Comprehensive general liability, premises, operations, contractual and personal injury coverage, for a minimum of $1,000,000. b. Automobile Liability: Comprehensive bodily injury and property damage combined limit of at least $1,000,000. c. Automobile Collision: Coverage adequate to replace vehicles. d. Law Enforcement Professional: False arrest, assault and battery, and related coverage, for a combined policy limit of at least $1,000,000. 15. Suspension/Termination: The County reserves the right to terminate the Agreement at any time for substandard performance or non-compliance with the terms of this Agreement. If the Contractor 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 the Agreement in the manner specified herein. a. Suspensions: If either party is unable to substantiate full compliance with the provisions of this Agreement, or full cooperation in its performance, the non -breaching party may suspend the Agreement pending corrective acts or investigation, which suspension shall be effective upon seven (7) days written notification to the other party. b. Termination — Just cause: For just cause, this Agreement may be terminated by either party hereto upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party unless circumstances warrant the immediate termination of the Agreement. Said written notice shall include a detailed statement of "just cause." Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 5 v 1.0 190 16. 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, age, marital status, Vietnam -era or disabled veteran status, or disability. The Contractor shall comply with all laws prohibiting discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, Vietnam -era or disabled veteran status, or disability, 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, 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. 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 without employees. 17. Non -Discrimination in Client Services: The Contractor shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, Vietnam -era or disabled veteran status, or disability, 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 his/her/its receipt of 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. . 18. Assignment and/or 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. 19. Modification: No change or addition to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by both parties. 20. Waiver: Waiver of any breach or condition of this contract shall not be deemed a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. No term or condition of this contract shall be held to be waived, modified or deleted except by an instrument, in writing, signed by the parties hereto. The failure of the County to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of this Agreement or to exercise any option herein conferred in any one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such, or any other covenants or agreements, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect 21. Venue and Choice of Law: In the event that any litigation should arise concerning the construction or interpretation of any of the terms of this Agreement, the venue of such action of litigation shall be in the courts of the State of Washington in and for the County of Whatcom. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 22. Severability: 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. 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 [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 6 v 1.0 191 EXHIBIT "A" SERVICES A-1. Description of Services: The Contractor agrees to provide the following described services: Al.1. Operate Animal Shelter Facility., The Contractor shall provide and operate such animal control shelter and care facilities as may be necessary to receive, maintain, care for and provide for the appropriate disposition of all animals that come within the legal animal control authority and responsibility of the County. A1.2. Conduct Animal -Related Investigations and Enforcement: The Contractor shall provide all necessary investigation, enforcement, testimony, follow up and administrative services, including hearings, as may be required to fulfill the County's legal responsibility regarding animals, violations of law and animal control issues. A1.3. Conduct Animal Control Patrol and Impoundment: The Contractor shall provide all necessary services associated with the control of strays, dangerous or unsupervised animals including receiving reports, responding to complaints, addressing animal -related issues, receiving and impounding animals and conducting such activities as may be reasonably necessary to ensure the effective control of animals that come under the legal authority and responsibility of the County. A1.4. Administer Animal Licensing Programs: The Contractor shall provide for the administration and operation of all animal licensing programs necessary for the County to fulfill its legal licensing responsibility under state law or county ordinance. A-2. Legislation: The Contractor shall provide continuing assistance and advice to the County on the updating and revision of its animal control code. A_3. Animal License Program: The Contractor is solely responsible for administration of all licensing programs. A3.1. License Issuance: The Contractor shall issue animal licenses as required by the Whatcom County Code, shall collect the required fees, and shall maintain a comprehensive set of records on all animal licenses issued by it. At the close of each month the Contractor shall submit a report to the County Executive of licenses issued. The report shall include a list of each license sold showing the name and address of the owner, any associated fees received by the Contractor and the description of the animal licensed. Similar information shall be submitted for all animals impounded. A3.2. Stray Animal Licenses: Stray animals picked up in the County and sold or adopted to private individuals residing in the County shall not be released to their new owners until a valid County license is obtained. A3.3. Education: Education programs for the general public to encourage the licensing of dogs shall be conducted at the discretion of the Contractor at no additional cost to the County. A3.4. Purchase Point The Contractor shall have an outlet where people may purchase required licenses for their animals. A_4. Animal Shelter Facility and Operations: A4.1. Shelter Hours: The shelter or a shelter representative shall be available for contact 24 hours a day, seven days a week on an emergency -response basis. The animal shelter facility shall be open to the public at reasonable hours, at least five days a week, one day being Saturday, on a schedule approved by the County Executive or designee. The shelter must be open at least forty (40) hours per week on a normal basis. A4.2. Telephones: Telephones must be answered during regular business hours and there must be an emergency number or rotating contact whereby the shelter may be contacted 24 hours a day, seven days a week on an emergency -response basis. Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 7 v 1.0 192 A4.3. Animal Shelter Facility: The shelter shall have an adequate number of dog kennels and cat cages, isolation facilities for sick dogs and cats, quarantine facilities for biting, dangerous or injured animals which are not necessarily sick, and access to large animal housing. The animal shelter shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and the Contractor will not permit any condition to exist which might constitute a public nuisance. The kennel shall comply with the standards set forth in the Humane Society's Uniform Standards Guidelines (HSUS) for the operation of the animal shelter. The Contractor shall provide a facility that has year round fenced and drained hard surface pads to be used as outdoor exercise yards for the animals. At a minimum there shall be two (2) exercise yards with minimum dimensions of 8 x 20 feet that comply with HSUS guidelines. The outside exercise areas are to be located within viewable distance of Contractor's employees to maintain security of the animals within. The facility site shall be in conformance with the local zoning regulations and shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations. A4.4. Acceptance and Care of Animals: The best possible care and treatment shall be given to all animals held in custody. Adequate housing and food shall be provided and the shelter shall not be overpopulated. The Contractor shall be responsible for the care, medical treatment, medication and inoculation required to assure the humane treatment of the animals received into the Contractor's facility. Any injured animals coming in to the shelter must be seen by a veterinarian for treatment or decision regarding euthanasia within 24 hours of entry. The shelter shall accept unwanted small domestic pets (i.e., dogs and cats) from County residents, including strays and owner -released animals for humane euthanasia. The Contractor shall also accept pigs, goats, sheep, cattle, horses, ferrets, llamas, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, snakes and domestic birds and other animals as circumstances require. A4.5. Adoption: The Contractor shall be responsible for making every reasonable effort to prepare and present animals for adoption by the public and to facilitate the same. All animals released for adoption shall be vaccinated and either spayed or neutered. Spaying or neutering may be suspended depending on the health and age of the animal at the discretion of a licensed veterinarian associated with the Contractor. A4.6. Disposal of Unclaimed Animals: The Contractor shall provide for the humane disposal of unclaimed animals after holding them for no fewer than 72 hours, unless sickness or injury requires earlier disposal. Under no circumstances shall unadopted animals be sold for purposes of medical research or other activities, which may harm them. The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining animals beyond the minimum 72-hour period as may be required for the completion of any judicial process or to the extent required by law. A4.7. Euthanasia: Humane euthanasia and disposal of unwanted animals must be by lethal injection of sodium pentobarbital or other approved method administered by a licensed veterinarian or by an agency which has obtained a Washington State and Federal Drug License and certification for staff to administer same. A4.8. Certification: The Contractor assumes full responsibility for complying with all licensing, certification, or accreditation as required by law including regulation of facilities, programs, and euthanasia certification and licensing. All animal control officers and assistant administrator will be certified to assist with euthanasia under the direction of a veterinarian. A4.9 Volunteer Program: The Contractor will actively promote a volunteer program to assist with the animals, supported through the shelter as described below. Any and all volunteer programs outlined herein, created during the term of the agreement, and/or affiliated with the Contractor must be in compliance with state employment laws, and subject to any and all special insurance requirements. 1. Volunteers must be at least 12 years of age to volunteer at the shelter. 2. Students between the ages of 12 and 16 must be accompanied by an adult. 3. All volunteers must attend a two hour volunteer orientation and complete animal handling classes before working directly with the shelter animals. 4. Volunteers are supervised and managed by the WHS Volunteer and Humane Education Coordinator. A_5. Enforcement and Field Operations: The Contractor shall be fully responsible for taking animals into custody, transportation of animals, administration and enforcement of animal control regulations, investigation of animal control complaints, as well as imposing penalties in accordance with Whatcom County Code and the Revised Code of Washington. Full services are Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 8 v 1.0 193 required in all of rural Whatcom County, including Point Roberts, Lummi Island, and Newhalem. Dog control zones are established in all of the unincorporated areas of Whatcom County except areas designed R-5, R-10 and AG. A5.1. Enforcement Hours: The Contractor shall provide for a minimum/maximum range of field operation services each week to include patrol, enforcement, investigation of complaints and impoundment of animals, including Sheriff approved after- hoars call -outs. The County recognizes that the amount of field operation hours may vary and, therefore, requires that the Contractor's animal control officers provide a minimum of 80 hours of field operation services per week and be capable and responsive to levels of activity, including Sheriff approved call -outs, that may require up to 120 hours per week, as need dictates. Within this inclusive range, the Contractor shall be responsible for all such services. A5.2. Emergency Response: With regard to animal control enforcement, the Contractor shall be available twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, on an emergency -response basis. Emergency response shall be for: 1. Vicious animals, animals running at large, or animals that may reasonably constitute a hazard to persons or other animals or threaten public safety, 2. Injured or very sick domestic animals. 3. Domestic animals in distress, such as those caught in traps. 4. Hardship cases or law enforcement (Sheriff) assistance matters. Note: The Sheriffs shift sergeant or duty staff officer shall review and authorize any questioned after-hours call -out of Contractor's staff. A5.3. Complaints and Referrals: The Contractor shall investigate and follow up on all animal control complaints referred to it by the public, appropriate officers, health services or other entities where the complaints constitute violations of Whatcom County Code Title 6. A5.4. Distressed Animals: Animals in distress, including hardship cases such as owner arrest or house fires, must be taken to the shelter facilities. Vicious animals at large must be impounded. If distressed or vicious animals cannot be safely impounded, they may be destroyed. A5.5. Hazard Removal: Dead domestic animals whose owners are unknown and which constitute traffic hazards on County roadways must be removed. In other instances where violations of the Code are observed, the animal shall be impounded. A5.6. Disposal of Dead Animals: The Contractor shall pick up and dispose of small or large dead domestic animals from County roads within 24 hours of notification. A5.7. Vehicles and Equipment: The County will provide, either directly or through reimbursement to Contractor, animal transport vehicles and related equipment as are required for Contractor's operation of the facility. All such items shall be addressed within the County approved budget for the Contractor (see Item B-2 within Exhibit B of this Agreement). Any items falling outside of said approved budget must be authorized in advance by the County. The Contractor shall be responsible for keeping accurate inventory of all equipment purchased by the County, either directly or through reimbursement to Contractor, and Contractor shall not remove, destroy or otherwise alter said equipment without prior approval by the County. The County may, at its discretion, "asset tag" certain items to keep on their inventory rolls as well. The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining, or causing to be maintained, all equipment in good working order. The County's Equipment Services Division will dictate appropriate maintenance on all vehicles supplied and Contractor will ensure the availability of the vehicles for such service. Additionally, the County's Equipment Services Division will provide to the Contractor appropriate cards to enable Contractor access to fuel for these vehicles. A5.8. Vehicle Insurance and Use: Contractor shall maintain appropriate insurance on all vehicles. Vehicles are only to be utilized by Contractor's personnel for official business and may not carry passengers. Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 9 v 1.0 194 A5.9. Court Appearances: The Contractor's personnel may, on occasion, be required to appear in court in support of enforcement action. The Contractor shall not receive additional compensation under this Agreement for these appearances. A5.10. Quarantine Services: The Contractor shall provide quarantine services within incorporated and unincorporated areas of Whatcom County in accordance with the procedures outlined in WCC 6.04.140 Control of Rabid or Potentially Rabid Animals, when requested by the Health Department or when an animal of a species which may transmit disease through its saliva, bites and breaks the skin of any person. Specifically, the Contractor shall: 1. Notify the Health Department of: • unusual behavior of a recently captured domestic animal; • unusual behavior or death of a quarantined domestic animal; or • any non -domestic animal bite report if it is of a species which may transmit disease through its bite. 2. Notify caretakers of a quarantined animal of their duty to report unusual behavior or the death of a quarantined animal. 3. Follow-up on the status of a quarantined animal at the end of the quarantine period. 4. Obtain authorization from the Health Department prior to euthanizing any quarantined animal. 5. Remove and transport the head of any potentially rabid animal only as directed by the Health Department. 6. Assist in the capture and transport of potentially rabid bats upon request of the Health Department. A-6. Animal Control Officers: A6.1. Authority: The Contractor shall act as an agency on behalf of the County for the enforcement of animal control and related ordinances and statutes. A6.2. Qualifications and Training: The Contractor assumes full responsibility for the selection, qualification, and training of its animal control officers. A6.3. Patrol Strength: The Contractor shall provide at least a minimum of eighty (80) hours and up to one hundred twenty (120) hours weekly of field service time to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and shall ensure that sufficient staff and vehicles are available Monday through Saturday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p:m. or on an alternate schedule approved by the County Executive. A-7. Other: A7.1. From time to time, special assistance may be required to respond to unique circumstances and/or animal care needs. Normally, such special assistance or care shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. Excessive cases may be addressed to the Executive's Office for special consideration. A7.2. The Contractor will make every reasonable effort to establish and maintain a positive working relationship with all organizations concerned with animal welfare in Whatcom County. The Contractor shall afford other animal welfare organizations reasonable opportunities to review and receive any viable animal from the Contractor for purpose of adoption prior to its euthanasia. A7.3. The Contractor shall represent the County as its primary animal control service provider for the unincorporated areas of Whatcom County. As such, the Contractor will be expected to provide excellent customer service and public relations. The Contractor shall not be expected to operate beyond the scope of this Agreement in the County's interest unless specifically requested to do so by an appropriate representative of the County. The County will not agree to any expense beyond the terms of this Agreement without preauthorization by an official of the County empowered to so bind the County. A-8. Activities Not Covered: The Contractor shall not be responsible under the terms of this agreement for the following items: A8.1. Receiving wild, non -domestic animals into the shelter facility or care of the Contractor. A8.2. Responding to complaints or incidents involving wild animals, except where it is in the interest of public safety. Contractor will stand by to assist a state agency, law enforcement agency or any wild life animal rescue group when the presence Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 10 v 1.0 195 of a wild animal, dead or alive, is on a public roadway or within the right-of-way. Contractor will attempt to move the animal from the right of way traffic lanes. A8.3. Rehabilitating and restoring to health animals that have been injured, neglected or abused that is not required by state law or county ordinance. A8.4. Responding to non -emergent calls or complaints that have not been reviewed and approved for after-hours call -out by the Sheriffs office. A8.5. Providing other services or activities that are not reasonably related to the contracted services or the intent of this Agreement, and that create an undue finance burden on the Contractor. Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 11 v 1.0 196 EXHIBIT "B" (COMPENSATION) As consideration for the services provided pursuant to Exhibit A. Scope of work, the county agrees to compensate the contractor based on actual costs incurred consistent with exhibit C. Program Budget. Expenses incurred shall be reimbursed. Contractor will request reimbursement on a monthly basis. Request for reimbursements of wages must be supported by payroll summaries identifying employee, hours worked and amount of compensation. Requests for reimbursement of expenses must be accompanies by copies of paid invoices itemizing costs incurred. Costs of alcoholic beverages are not eligible for reimbursement. Compensation shall not exceed $453,309,41. 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. B-1. Animal Control & License Fees: B1.1. The following animal control and license fees are authorized in the Whatcom County Unified Fee Schedule, effective January 1, 2010 by Executive Order Description Fee Comments Adoption Fee - Cat $115 Adoption Fee - Do $115 Board/Care - Domestic Animals $15 Per Day Board/Care - Large Livestock $40 Per Day after 24 hours Board/Care - Small Livestock $40 Per Day after 24 hours Boarding Fee/Special Requirements $40 Per Day Call Out Fee (Livestock at Large) $50 Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 1st - Altered and wearing ID $25 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 2nd - Altered and wearing ID $45 Per Im /]2 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 3rd - Altered and wearing ID $65 Per Im /]2 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 4th + - Altered and wearing ID $100 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 1st - Altered and w/o ID $45 Per Im /]2 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 2nd - Altered and w/o ID $65 Per Im /l2 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 3rd - Altered and w/o ID $85 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 4th + - Altered and w/o ID $120 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals ,1st - Unaltered and wearing ID $45 Per Im /12 mo period Irn poundment - Cats and other small animals 2nd - Unaltered and wearing ID $65 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 3rd - Unaltered and wearing ID $85 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 4th + - Unaltered and wearing ID $120 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 1 st - Unaltered and w/o ID $65 Per Im /] 2 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 2nd - Unaltered and w/o ID $85 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 3rd - Unaltered and w/o ID $105 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Cats and other small animals 4th + - Unaltered and w/o ID $140 1 Per Imp/ 12 mo period Impoundment - Dos I st - Altered and wearing current license $40 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 2nd - Altered and wearing current license $60 Per Imp/] 2 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 3rd - Altered and wearing current license $80 : Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 4th + - Altered and wearing current license $150 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Dos 1st - Altered and unlicensed or not wearing license $60 Per Imp/ 12 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 2nd - Altered and unlicensed or not wearing license $80 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 3rd - Altered and unlicensed or not wearing license $100 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 4th + - Altered and unlicensed or not wearing license $170 Per Im /I2 mo period Impoundment - Dos 1st - Unaltered and wearing current license $60 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 2nd - Unaltered and wearing current license $80 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 3rd - Unaltered and wearing current license $100 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 4th +- Unaltered and wearing current license $170 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Dos I st - Unaltered and unlicensed or not wearing license $80 Per Imp/12 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 2nd - Unaltered and unlicensed or not wearing license $100 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Dogs 3rd - Unaltered and unlicensed or not wearing license $120 Per Im /12 mo period Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 12 v 1.0 197 Impoundment - Dogs 4th + - Unaltered and unlicensed or not wearing license $190 Per Imp/ 2 mo period Impoundment - Large Livestock 1 st $75 Per Imp/ 12 mo period Impoundment - Large Livestock 2nd $100 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Large Livestock 3rd $125 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Large Livestock 4th + $200 Per Im /12 mo period Impoundment - Small Livestock 1st $60 Per Imp/ 12 mo period Impoundment - Small Livestock 2nd $80 Per Imp/12 mo period Impoundment - Smal.l Livestock 3rd $100 Per Im /l2 mo eriod Impoundment - Small Livestock 4th + $150 Per Im /12 mo period License Fee - Wild or Exotic Animal - Initial License $500 License Fee - Wild or Exotic Animal - Annual Renewal $100 License Fee - Altered Do $11 License Fee - Unaltered Do $61 License Fee - Past Due - Additional $10 Added to License Fee Owner Release Fee $50 Owner Release Fee - Additional for Litter w/Mother $10 Pickup/Disposition Fee $55 Pickup/Disposition Fee - Each Additional Animal and/or Litter w/Mother $10 Same trip Registration Fee - Potentially Dangerous Dog $100. Registration Fee - Dangerous Dog $150 Veterinarian Fees and Medications during BoardinglImpoundment if required Cost Actual Costs Charged 131.2. Accounting requirements imposed by the State of Washington require that all fees included in the Unified Fee Schedule be appropriately accounted for. To comply with this requirement the Contractor will be required to submit a monthly report detailing all fees collected. This report will be delivered to the County Executive. 131.3. Contractor's Fees: The Contractor shall deduct the amount of fees collected each month from the monthly expenses paid by the County and shall be solely responsible for the imposition, collection, and disbursement of the following fees: License fees. Spay/neuter clinic revenue paid to the Contractor/veterinarian. Purchase charges related to the adoption of animals. Vaccination clinic revenue paid to the Contractor/veterinarian. Other similar or like fees as approved by the County. B1.4. The County shall assist the Contractor in recovering exceptional costs from owners or other responsible parties, for the care of animals taken into custody or maintained by the Contractor, on behalf of the County. The appropriateness and the extent of action taken or to be taken by the County shall be determined by and at the sole discretion of the County. B_2. Consideration: As consideration for the services provided the County agrees to reimburse the Contractor as follows: B2.1. An annual sum not to exceed: • January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 Four Hundred Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Nina and Forty One Cents ($453,309.41) to be paid in monthly installments towards actual reimbursable expenditures, less any collected fee revenue. • Total reimbursement for a 12 month service contract shall not exceed $453,309.41 B2.2. Unless specifically approved by County Council as a part of animal control and license fees, the Contractor shall be responsible for the administration of any and all animal licensing programs. All animal control and license fees, listed in Section B1.1 will be collected and retained by the Contractor as outlined in B1.3 and reported to the County as outlined in B1.2. Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 13 v 1.0 B2.3. The Contractor shall not receive any additional compensation for after-hours call -outs. Necessity for questioned after-hours call -outs shall be determined and authorized by the Sheriffs sergeant, shift supervisor, or duty staff officer. B.2.4. All payments under this Agreement are considered reimbursement for services rendered. Request for each monthly payment shall be by invoice showing what services were rendered so as to comply with auditing requirements. The County agrees to make payment for services provided promptly in accordance with the County's customary procedures. Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Page 14 v 1.0 199 EXHIBIT "C" Program Budget Whatcom Humane Society 2010 Program Budget Line Item Wages — Shelter Services Wages — Animal Control & Licensing Wages - Administration Animal Food Disposal - Dead Animals Computer Expense Human Resources Insurance Insurance —Animal Control & Licensing Microchips Postage Printing Professional Services/Shelter Professional Services/Animal Control & Lic. Professional Services/Administration Radio Pager Supplies — Shelter Services Supplies - Medical Supplies - Administration Supplies —Animal Control & Licensing Telephone Animal Control Telephone Office Training/Education Uniforms Utilities Sub Total Anticipated Fee Revenue Total: Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement] Amount $244,150.94 $170,744.97 $61,963.50 $5,350.00 $3,900.00 $500.00 $2,150.00 $1,075.00 $6,750.00 $1,750.00 $2,250.00 $500.00 $8,625.00 $200.00 $5,375.00 $1,500.00 $11,225.00 $15,250.00 $700.00 $1,000.00 $2,700.00 $6,600.00 $1,000.00 $1,250.00 $15, 000.00 $571,509.41 $118,200.00 $453,309.41 Comments Unemployment Insurance Shelter Services Animal control and licensing Administration Cellular Phones Page 15 v 1.0 200 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-443 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assi ned to: Originator: mg 1012 6A"E� E� p p E D V NOV, 17 200 HwCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 11/24/2009 Finance%Council:= Division Head: Dept Head: Prosecutor 4 36 Purchasing/Budget: Executive: 01,310 !! SUBJECT.- s Registered Sex Offender Address and Residency Verification Program ATTACHMENTS: Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Interagency Agreement for Registered Sex Offender Address and Residency Verification Program SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes, ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT.• Washington State has provided funding to law enforcement to verify the address and residency of all registered sex offenders and kidnapping offenders under RCW 9A.44.130.. This agreement is for July 1,2009 -June 30, 2010. Distribution Request Indicate those who should receive a copy after Council action. List specific names to the right. ADS Facilities Management ADS Finance ADS Human Resources ADS Info Services Assessor Auditor Cooperative Extension District Court Executive Health Hearing Examiner Jail COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Juvenile Parks Planning Prosecutor Public Works Sheriff Superior Court Related County Contract #: Treasurer Other Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number (this item): 201 WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE BILL ELFO SHERIFF PUBLIC SAFELY BUILDING 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225-4078 (360) 676-6650 LT, 1 :4 LT, Eel ZT-11 , I NON] LT, CAREY JAMES UNDERSHERIFF JEFF PARKS CHIEF DEPUTY ART EDGE CHIEF DEPUTY STEVE COOLEY CHIEF INSPECTOR WENDY JONES CHIEF OF CORRECTIONS RECEIVED TO: Pete Kremen, Count xecuti NOV 3 2009 FETE KREMEN FROM: Bill Elfo, Sheri COUNTYExECUTIVE RE: Registered Sex Offender ress and Residency Verification Program DATE: October 26, 2009 Enclosed are two (2) originals between Whatcom County Sheriffs Office and Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Interagency Agreement for your review and signature. Background and Purpose To track the addresses and residencies of all registered sex offenders and kidnapping offenders under RCW 9A.44.130 in Whatcom County. ■ Funding Amount and Source The source of the funding is through the State of Washington in the amount of $143,603.87. ■ Differences from Previous Contract N/a Please contact Sheriff Bill Elfo or Undersheriff Jeff Parks at extension 50422 or 50421, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement, Encl. Our Vision: The Office of Sheriff: Dedicated to making Whatcom County the Safest in the State through Excellence in Public Safet202 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMA TION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. aoogiioo3 Originating Department: Whatcom County Sheriffs Office Contract Administrator: SheriffBill EZ o Contractor's /A enc Name: Washington association o Sheri s and Police Chiefs Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes X No Yes _ No If yes, previous number(s): Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No X If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes _ No If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) _ Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No X If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is amt and any prior amendments) more than $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council $_143, 603.87 approval and a supporting memo. Any amendment that provides _ either a 10% increase in amount or more than $10, 000, whichever is This Amendment Amount: 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 supporting memo for approval. Total Amended Amount: $ 143, 603.87 Scope of Services [Insert language from contract (Exhibit A) or summarize; expand space as necessary] To continue employment of one full time employee and one part time employee to track all sex offenders and kidnapping offenders under RCW 9.A.44.130 in Whatcom County. This program requires face -to face verification of these individuals Term of Contract. -July 1, 2009 Expiration Date:June 30, 2010 Contract Routing SteDS & Sienoif Isign or initial] (indicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by. Date [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: e Date e GC [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed Date 3 O [electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date [electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff Date 7. Contractor signed.- ,/ Date 6 -16 -0 9 8. Submitted to Exec Office ,/ Date 11-.3-0 9 [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date 11. Executive signed Date 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept; Date 203 COUNTyORIGINAL WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT NO. a009 r / O03 861- '� and the WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS Registered Sex Offender Address and Residency Verification Program This AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS (hereinafter referred to as WASPC) and the Whatcom County Sheriffs Office (hereinafter referred to as the RECIPIENT). FUNDING SOURCE Funding for this AGREEMENT is provided to WASPC from the State of Washington through the Criminal Justice Training Commission. Funding awarded the RECIPIENT shall not exceed the amount shown on the award letter. SCOPE OF SERVICES The RECIPIENT shall use the funds awarded to meet the requirements identified in the award letter. A quarterly report, attached, will be submitted within ten days of the end of the quarter. Funds will be disbursed in equal amounts by the end of the reporting month. Delays in report submittal or project related activities may result in delay in disbursement of funds. The RECIPIENT shall keep records for possible audit showing compliance to the requirements of this funding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WASPC and RECIPIENT acknowledge and accept the terms of this AGREEMENT and attachments hereto, and in witness whereof have executed this AGREEMENT as of the date and year written below. The rights and obligations of both parties to this AGREEMENT are governed by the information on this Award Sheet and Letter and other documents incorporated herein. FOR WASPC: Name: Donald G. Pierce Title: Executive Director Date: June 16, 2009 FOR;Mfi REC IENT: vY Name: Bill Elfo Title: Sheriff Date: 10-27-09 204 Approved as to form: Prosecuting A rney Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County )i/— SG--GQ Date Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive Date 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 acknowledge to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires: 205 WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS & POLICE CHIEFS 3060 Willamette Or NE Lacey, WA 98516 PHONE (360) 486-2380 FAX (360) 486-2381 WEBSITE — www.waspc.org Serving the Law Enforcement Community & the Citizens of Washington June 16, 2009 Sheriff Bill Elfo Whatcom County Sheriffs Office 311 Grand Ave Bellingham, WA 98225 i4 Dear Sheriff Elfo: I am pleased to inform you that the Whatcom County Sheriffs Office will receive $143,603.87 for the Registered Sex Offender Address and Residency Verification Program. As you know, $4.8 million of state funding was allocated to local law enforcement for fiscal year 2010 to verify the address and residency of all registered sex offenders and kidnapping offenders under RCW 9A.44.130. The grant award is effective July 1, 2009 and expires on June 30, 2010. Funding has been earmarked for the second year of the biennium and it is expected that the grant award will be renewed through June 30, 2011. The requirement of this program is for face-to-face verification of a registered sex offender's address at the place of residency: 1. For level I offenders, once every twelve months 2. For level II offenders, once every six months 3. For level III offenders, once every three months For the purposes of this program unclassified offenders and kidnapping offenders shall be considered at risk level I, unless in the opinion of the local jurisdiction a higher classification is in the interest of public safety. Enclosed is an award agreement which needs to be signed and returned to WASPC. The quarterly reporting from is also included. Quarterly reports are to be submitted electronically or by mail by the l Ot of the month following the end of the quarter. Once the report is received, a check for a quarter of the total award will be sent. If you have any questions please contact Dawn Larsen at 360-438-2419 or dlarsengwaspc.org. Sincerely, Donald G. Pierce Executive Director President President Elect Vice President Past President Treasurer JOHN DIDION SCOTTSMITH MIKE HARUM COLLEEN WILSON BRUCE BJORK Sheriff -Pacific County Chief-Tulalip Sheriff -Chelan County Chief -Pon ofSeaale Chief -WA Fish & Wildlife Executive Board ED HOLMES TOM SCHLICKER RANDY STEGMEiER JOHN BATISTE SAMUEL GRANATO Chief -Mercer Island Chief- Svinomish Chief- Western WA University Chief - WA Stale Patrol Chief—raklma MIKE HUMPHREYS BILL ELFO ' SUE RAHR LAURA LAUGHLIN DONALD PIERCE Sheriff- Walla Walla County Sheriff-Whalcont County Sheriff -King Counly SAC -Fill, Seattle Erecutive Director 206 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-444 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 10130109 � E � V ED 11/24/2009 r Finance/Council— Consent A enda 10/30/09 Division Head: j 2009 J Dept. Head: w N®V AA AA 1 1 r, A�C01v, C0� CD�NC Prosecutor: d1g 10115109 Purchasin /Bud et: I If Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT.• Agreement for Administrative Services between Whatcom County and Eberle Vivian for administration and claims processing for the self -insured Workers' Compensation Program ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter to Pete Kremen 2. Administrative Services Agreement for period January], 2010 through December 31, 2012 SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) 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.) Whatcom County complies with RCW 51 for Industrial Insurance through its self -insured workers' compensation program (AD143500Z Administering Workers' Compensation) by contracting with a qualified farm to provide services for claims processing and administration. This Administrative Services Agreement continues the relationship with Eberle Vivian as the successful proposal in Request for Proposal process (09-55). 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, 207 WHATCOM COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Human Resources Division Suite 107 — County Courthouse TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Pete Kremen, County Executive Dewey G. Desler Director RECEIVED NOV 13 2009 PETE MEMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE Karen S. Goens, A.S. Human Resources Manager SELF -INSURED WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM November 13, 2009 Enclosed are two (2) originals of an Administrative Services Agreement between Whatcom County and Eberle Vivian for administration and claims processing services for the self - insured workers' compensation program for your review and signature. ■ Background and Purpose The County has self -insured its workers' compensation program since 1984. Since 2005, the County has been using Eberle Vivian to administer this program. The County's recent Request for Proposal process yielded bids from five firms of which Eberle Vivian was unanimously recommended due to the following strengths: • One point of contact for all claims • Business focus on self-insurance and workers' compensation in Washington State • Small, regional, family -owned company; not likely to change ownership • Interactive, claims data -base customized to Washington law • Imaging and on-line inquiry to reduce paperwork and improve communications • Downloadable, flexible reporting — data available in Excel • Knowledge of Bellingham providers (also serve Intalco and City of Bellingham) • Competitive pricing ■ Funding Amount and Source Eberle Vivian's administration costs were a flat rate of $33,480 (2005, 2006), $35,154 (2007, 2008) and $36,300 (2009). This new three-year agreement would commence in 2010 at $37,000 with adjustments in 2011 and 2012 at the annual Seattle Metro CPI (Consumer Price Index) annual percentage change plus 2%. Program costs are funded through revenue generated from County departments based on rates tied to job classification which vary by orb -the -job injury loss experience and risk. Differences from Previous Contract The only change is a modest increase in administrative rates. Please contact me at extension 50550, if you have any questions or concerns regarding my recommendation or the terms of this agreement. WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATIONSHEET Whatcom County Contract No. Originating Department: Administrative Services(A.S.) — Human Resources Contract Administrator: Karen S. Goens, A.S. Human Resources Manager Contractor's /A enc Name: Eberle Vivian Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes X No Yes _ No If yes, previous number(s): Is this a grant agreement? Yes _ No X If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes _ No X If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes X No I es, RFP and Bid number(s) 09-55 Contract Amount: (sum of orig contract amt If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15, 000 or a Bid is more than and arty prior amendments) $35, 000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting $ 37, 000 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 Claims administration services include: Contractor will administer the County's Toll free telephone service self -insured workers' compensation Single point of claims contact for Whatcom County's injured workers program Benefits mailed to injured workers within legally specified timeframes Aid in returning injured workers to work Filing payments and documentation pursuant to state law Auditing medical bills Claims reserving and cost analysis Claims management data -base Representation at informal Workers' Compensation hearings Term of Contract.-3 years Expiration Date: December 31, 2012 Contract Routing Steps & Signoff.` [sign or initial? [indicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: KSGoens Date [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed. Daniel L. Gibson Date_10115109 [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed: ,� `,��' Date i��electronic] 4. IT reviewed OUT related Date [electronic] S. Corrections made: Date := [electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff L. Gibson Date_10/15109 _Daniel 7. Contractor signed.,_L,/Sq Date 11hQ� 8. Submitted to Exec Office ,� Date //- t Z-D 9 [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (f necessary) Date 11. Executive signed: Date 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept Date 14. County Original to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page 209 N,T�. ORIGINAL Whatcom CountyContract No. ®U , c)00 CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT Third Party Administrator for Self -insured Workers' Compensation Program Eberle Vivian, 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 7, Exhibit A (Scope of Work), p. 8, Exhibit B (Compensation), p. 9 , Exhibit C (Certificate of Insurance), pp.10-11. 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 1st day of January, 2010, and shall, unless terminated or renewed as elsewhere provided in the Agreement, terminate on the 315t day of December, 2012. The general purpose or objective of this Agreement is to provide administration for Whatcom County's self -insured workers' compensation program 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 the amounts set forth in Exhibit B. 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 21st day of October, 2009. CONTRACTOR: Lisa Vivian, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF k, On this 12 day of K i;VJQ j '000, before me personally appeared L kVi 6 UV1 to me known to be the President of Eberle Vivian and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to m e act of signing a seal thereof. 11 NQTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washingto , residing at 1 -ev&, W A . My commission expires 1,01 i 1 2 01 Contract for Services Agreement Workers' Compensation Program Administrator Page 1 v 1.0 210 WHATCOM COUNTY: Rec ended for Appr al ew y G. Desle , Dep rtmen i or Approved as to form: Prosecuting Attorney Date Approved: Accepted for Whatoom 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: EBERLE VIVIAN Lisa Vivian, President Address: 1209 Central Avenue S. — Suite 118 Kent, WA 98032 Mailing Address: 1209 Central Avenue S. — Suite 118 Kent, WA 98032 Contact Name: Stacey Bailey -Brown, Claims Contact Phone: 800-927-8448 ext 138 (253) 854-4647 Contact FAX: (253) 854-6404 Contact Email: staceyC@eberlevivian.com Contract for Services Agreement Workers' Compensation Program Administrator Page 2 v 1.0 211 GENERAL CONDITIONS Series 30-39: Provisions Related to Administration of Agreement 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, for a period of up to three years, and for a total of no longer than six years. 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: 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 provisions of this Agreement. Termination under this section shall be effective upon receipt of written notice as specified herein, or within three days of the mailing of the notice, whichever occurs first. 11.3 Termination for Public Convenience: Not Applicable Series 20-29: Provisions Related to Consideration and Payments 20.1 Accounting and Payment for Contractor Services: Payment to the Contractor for services rendered under this Agreement shall be as set forth in Exhibit "B." Where Exhibit "B" requires payments by the County, payment shall be based upon written claims supported, unless otherwise provided in Exhibit "B," by documentation of units of work actually performed and amounts earned, including, where appropriate, the actual number of days worked each month, total number of hours for the month, and the total dollar payment requested, so as to comply with municipal auditing requirements. Unless specifically stated in Exhibit "B" or approved in writing in advance by the official executing this Agreement for the County or his designee (hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Officer") the County will not reimburse the Contractor for any costs or expenses incurred by the Contractor in the performance of this contract. Where required, the County shall, upon receipt of appropriate documentation, compensate the Contractor, no more often than monthly, in accordance with the County's customary procedures, pursuant to the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "B." Contract for Services Agreement Workers' Compensation Program Administrator Page 3 v 1.0 212 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: Not Applicable 23.1 Labor Standards: The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable state and federal requirements, including but not limited to those 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 Contractor's 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/she/It maintains a separate place of business, serves clients other than the County, will report all income and expense accrued under this contract to the Internal Revenue Service on a Schedule C, and has a tax account with the State of Washington Department of Revenue for payment of all sales and use and Business and Occupation taxes collected by the State of Washington. Contractor will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents or employees from any loss or expense, including, but not limited to, settlements, judgments, setoffs, attorneys' fees or costs incurred by reason of claims or demands because of breach of the provisions of this paragraph. 30.2 Assignment and Subcontracting: The performance of all activities contemplated by this agreement shall be accomplished by the Contractor. No portion of this contract may be assigned or subcontracted to any other individual, firm or entity without the express and prior written approval of the County. 30.3 No Guarantee of Employment: The performance of all or part of this contract by the Contractor shall not operate to vest any employment rights whatsoever and shall not be deemed to guarantee any employment of the Contractor or any employee of the Contractor or any subcontractor or any employee of any subcontractor by the County at the present time or in the future. 31.1 Ownership of Items Produced: All writings, programs, data, public records or other materials prepared by the Contractor and/or its consultants.or subcontractors, in connection with performance of this Agreement, shall be the sole and absolute property of the County. 31.2 Patent/Copyright Infringement: Not Applicable 32.1 Confidentiality: Contract for Services Agreement Workers' Compensation Program Administrator Page 4 v 1.0 213 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, Vtoffs, 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 insurance with the following minimums: Business Owners' General Liability & Property Damage for bodily injury - $1,000,000 Professional Liability - $2,000,000 each claim; $2,000,000 aggregate A certificate of suchinsurance, that also identifies the County as an additional insured, is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 34.2 Industrial Insurance Waiver: Not Applicable 34.3 Defense & Indemnity Agreement: The Contractor will indemnify and hold harmless the County from any and all damages, loss, cost, fines, assessments, penalties or expense to which the County may be subjected, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses in defending against any threatened or actual claim, arising directly or indirectly from the Contractor's breach of this Agreement or the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of the Contractor and/or its employees in connection with activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. The County will indemnify and hold harmless the Contractor from any and all damages, loss, cost, fines, assessments, penalties or expense to which the Contractor and/or its employees may be subjected, including a reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses in defending against any threatened or actual claim, arising from the Contractor's or its employees' activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement unless such threatened or actual claim was solely the result, directly or indirectly, of the Contractor's breach of this Agreement or the willful misconduct or the negligent act or omission of the Contractor and/or its employees, in which event the County shall have no obligation to defend or indemnify under this subsection. 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, sexual orientation, disability, or veteran status, except where such constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification. Such action shall include, but not be limited to: advertising, hiring, promotions, layoffs or terminations, rate of pay or other forms of compensation benefits, selection for training including 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. Contract for Services Agreement Workers' Compensation Program Administrator Page 5 v 1.0 214 35.2 Non -Discrimination in Client Services: Not Applicable 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 take reasonable steps to remove the conflict of interest. The County may also terminate this contract according to the provisions herein for termination. 37.1 Administration of Contract: This Agreement shall be subject to all laws, rules, and regulations of the United States of America, the State of Washington, and political subdivisions of the State of Washington. The Contractor also agrees to comply with applicable federal, state, county or municipal standards for licensing, certification and operation of facilities and programs, and accreditation and licensing of individuals. The County hereby appoints, and the Contractor hereby accepts, the Whatcom County Executive, and his or her designee, as the County's representative, hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Officer, for the purposes of administering the provisions of this Agreement, including the County's right to receive and act on all reports and documents, and any auditing performed by the County related to this Agreement. The Administrative Officer for purposes of this agreement is: Karen Sterling Goens, Human Resources Manager Administrative Services Department 311 Grand Avenue — Suite 107 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 (360)676-6802 KGoens anco.whatcom.wa.us Send billings to attention of: Bonnie Le Van, Human Resources Office Coordinator Bank Account Reconciliation: Jeff Klingensmith, Finance Accountant II 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. 38.1 Certification of Public Works Contractor's Status under State Law: Not Applicable 38.2 Certification Regarding Federal Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions: Not Applicable 38.3 E-Verify: Not Applicable 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: Not Applicable 41.1 Severabili : If any term or condition of this contract or the application thereof to any person(s) or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions or applications which can be given effect without the invalid term, condition or application. To this end, the terms and conditions of this contract are declared severable. Contract for Services Agreement Workers' Compensation Program Administrator Page 6 v 1.0 215 41.2 Waiver: Waiver of any breach or condition of this contract shall not be deemed a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. No term or condition of this contract shall be held to be waived, modified or deleted except by an instrument, in writing, signed by the parties hereto. The failure of the County to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of this Agreement, or to exercise any option herein conferred in any one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such, or any other covenants or agreements, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 42.1 Disputes: a. General: Differences between the Contractor and the County, arising under and by virtue of the Contract Documents, shall be brought to the attention of the County at the earliest possible time in order that such matters may be settled or other appropriate action promptly taken. Except for such objections as are made of record in the manner hereinafter specified and within the time limits stated, the records, orders, rulings, instructions, and decisions of the Administrative Officer shall be final and conclusive. b. Notice of Potential Claims: The Contractor shall not be entitled to additional compensation which otherwise may be payable, or to extension of time for (1) any act or failure to act by the Administrative Officer or the County, or (2) the happening of any event or occurrence, unless the Contractor has given the County a written Notice of Potential Claim within ten (10) days of the commencement of the act, failure, or event giving rise to the claim, and before final payment by the County. The written Notice of Potential Claim shall set forth the reasons for which the Contractor believes additional compensation or extension of time is due, the nature of the cost involved, and insofar as possible, the amount of the potential claim. Contractor shall keep full and complete daily records of the work performed, labor and material used, and all costs and additional time claimed to be additional. c, Detailed Claim: The Contractor shall not be entitled to claim any such additional compensation, or extension of time, unless within thirty (30) days of the accomplishment of the portion of the work from which the claim arose, and before final payment by the County, the Contractor has given the County a detailed written statement of each element of cost or other compensation requested and of all elements of additional time required, and copies of any supporting documents evidencing the amount or the extension of time claimed to be due. d. Arbitration: Not Applicable 43.1 Venue and Choice of Law: In the event that any litigation should arise concerning the construction or interpretation of any of the terms of this Agreement, the venue of such action of litigation shall be in the courts of the State of Washington in and for the County of Whatcom. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 44.1 Survival: The provisions of paragraphs 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 , 21.1, 22.1, 30.1, 31.1, 31.2, 32.1, 33.1, 34.2, 34.3, 36.1, 40.2, 41.2, 42.1, and 43.1, if utilized, shall survive, notwithstanding the termination or invalidity of this Agreement for any reason. 45.1 Entire Agreement: This written Agreement, comprised of the writings signed or otherwise identified and attached hereto, represents the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior oral statements, discussions or understandings between the parties. Contract for Services Agreement Workers' Compensation Program Administrator Page 7 v 1.0 216 EXHIBIT "A" (SCOPE OF WORK) Contractor shall provide Claims Administration for Whatcom County on Workers' Compensation matters as follows: • Provide toll -free telephone service • Provide single point of claims contact for Whatcom County's injured workers • Make prompt personal contact with all injured workers • Review all incident reports • . Determine employees' eligibility for benefits • Verify correct wages and compute benefit amounts • Mail benefits to injured workers within legally specified timeframes • Set claims reserves and promptly report major reserve changes • Keep records of specific retention levels and requirements for excess reporting • Coordinate medical treatment and monitor disability payments with objective of returning injured worker to work as soon as possible • Make referral to certified rehabilitation specialist where indicated • Print checks for claim and expense payments • Supply and replenish required report forms • Create claim file on each reported incident which may result in a claim • Code file material and enter data into statistical system • Verify accident, compensability, disability, and liability. Perform investigations, where necessary. • File workers' compensation payments and documentation form pursuant to state law • Audit and control medical bills • Assure medical management and rehabilitation • Process requests for sub-rosa or activity checks as needed. • Retain appropriate independent experts in fields of medicine, law, etc. • Apportion liability and/or use of administrative funds (Second Injury Fund, etc. ) in handling claims • Provide representation at informal Workers' Compensation hearings where legal counsel is not required • Provide prompt referral to attorneys and specific control of claims in litigation • Investigate for subrogation purposes. • Pursue appropriate third parties for subrogation and contribution. • Continually review reserves and revise as additional facts develop. • Confer with Whatcom County staff on all claims involving serious and/or questionable exposure, including appeals. • Report to excess insurer. • Maintain and store all claim files and/or incident reports. • Provide central storage of closed files. • Maintain claim status report forms on all claims reserved over $50,000 • Provide i.COMP claims management database • Provide program reports on daily, monthly, quarterly, or annual basis based on Whatcom County's needs • Work with Whatcom County to effectively manage volume of paper documentation, including document -imaging. • Analyze loss trends and develop loss control service recommendations Account Management The Contractor established a trust account for the purpose of paying all liabilities incurred by Whatcom County's self -insured workers' compensation program. The County agrees to prefund this account with the balance available from the Key Bank revolving checking account (limit of $50,000). This account will be reimbursed by the County following review of claim payments made using an Automated Clearing House (ACH) process. Contractor agrees to transmit a check register electronically with details about each payment every Friday morning. Contractor will alert the County of anticipated check dispersals of $5,000 or more. Checks in excess of $5,000 will require two signatures. For amounts in excess of $50,000, special authorization. must be obtained before reimbursement can occur. The County will receive and reconcile the monthly bank statement and will be responsible for paying any fees charged by the bank for services such as stop payments, overdrafts, and check processing. All checks issued will have supporting bill documentation available to the County at all times. Contractor agrees to take prudent steps and actions to prevent fraud. Contract for Services Agreement Workers' Compensation Program Administrator Page 8 v 1.0 217 EXHIBIT "B" (COMPENSATION) In 2010, all claims management service and standard loss analysis reports will be provided for an annual fee of $37,000 payable in monthly installments of $3,083. In 2011, the 2010 annual fee shall be increased by the Seattle Metro CPI (Consumer Price Index) plus 2%. In 2012, the 2011 annual fee shall be increased by the Seattle Metro CPI (Consumer Price Index) plus 2%. Loss control services shall be provided by the Synergy Group at an hourly rate of $105 for the duration of the agreement through direct billing to Whatcom County. In addition, allocated expenses will be charged against the file upon which they are included: • Court, trial, formal hearings and defense costs, including attorney fees • Expenses and fees of experts • Cost of photocopies or records from public authorities, medical facilities and state agencies • Professional photocopy charge • Activity investigations • Arbitration filing fees • Medical or consultant witness fees • Any assessment, taxes, filing fees, cost of surety bond required by state regulatory authorities Contract for Services Agreement Workers' Compensation Program Administrator Page 9 v 1.0 218 EXHIBIT "C" (INSURANCE) '`' 6 CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MMIDDIYYYY) �r.•� 08/26/2009 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION IRELAND INSURANCE ASSOCIATES ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE 13635 NE 8TH ST STE 101 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR BELLEVUE WA 98008 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. (425) 746-6047 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE I NAIC # INSURED INSURER A: Eberle Vivian,lnc & i.Comp LLC Eberle Vivian INSURER B: 1209 Central Ave So. Suite120 INSURERC: Kent WA 98032- INSURER D: INSURER E: Ctwi=P ir:FC THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADVIL POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION 09/08/2010 LIMITS A GENERAL LIABILITY 52SBAPK5062 09/08/2009 EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTED $ 300000 X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS MADE OCCUR MED EXP JAn oneperson) S 10,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY 1 000 O O GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG 1 2000000 X1 POLICY PRO- LOC A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 52SBAPK5062 09/08/2009 09/08/2010 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 ANY AUTO (Ea accident) BODILY INJURY $ ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) BODILY INJURY $ X HIREDAUTOS NON•OWNED AU70S (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Per accident) GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY -FA ACCIDENT S OTHER THAN EA ACC $ ANY AUTO - S AUTO ONLY: AGG A EXCESSIUMBRELIALIABILITY 52SBAPK5062 09/08/2009 09/08/2010 EACH OCCURRENCE $3000000 X OCCUR CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ 3,000,000 $ DEDUCTIBLE a, S %(x RETENTION $ 10,000 WORKERS COMPENSATION WC STATU• OTH- M FP AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY y I N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ (Mandatory in NH) E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes, describe under SPECI L PROVISIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT 1 SPECIAL PROVISIONS Evidence of Insurance r FRTI;:IrATF 14()l nFR rAIJr FI I ATITIM a n1 nRn SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN Whatcom County Attn: Karen Goens, Whatcom County HR Manager NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO $0 SHALL 311 Grand Ave., Suite 107 IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR Bellingham WA 98225-4038 REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE J�/l • NJ�-�. f�v ACORD 25 (2009/01) Fax: ( ) - ©1988-2009 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Page 1.0. 219 EXHIBIT "C" (INSURANCE) Ac R ® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MMIDD/YYYY) 11 /09/2009 PRODUCER CERTIFICATETHIS ON IRELAND INSURANCE ASSOCIATES ONLY ANDCON ERS NO RIIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE 13635 NE 8TH ST STE 101 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR BELLEVUE WA 98008 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. (425) 746-6047 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURED INSURERNUndmark American Ins- Co. Eberle Vivian,lnc & i.Comp LLC INSURERB: Eberle Vivian 1209 Central Ave So. Suite120 INSURERC: Kent WA 98032- INSURER D: INSURER E: f`l1VRRAl:f=S THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR DD' POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION fiminnrayYj LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTED $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS MADE OCCUR MED EXP (Any one rson $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS -COMPIOPAGG $ POLICY Ping-LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULEDAUTOS BODILY INJURY (Peraccidenl) $ HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNEDAUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY -EAACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN EA ACC S ANY AUTO - $ AUTO ONLY: AGG EXCESS I UMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ OCCUR CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ $ DEDUCTIBLE of $ RETENTION $ WORKERS COMPENSATION WC STAm U- I OTH- ITq FR AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y/ N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ (Mandatory in NH) E.L. DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE $ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ N yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below A OTHER Professional Liability E&O LHR812530 10/19/2009 10/19/2010 Each Claim 2,000,000 Aggregate 2,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/ SPECIAL PROVISIONS "Evidence of Insurance" This policy is written on a Claims Made Form, A $20,000 Deductible applies to each claim. Whatcom County Attn: Karen Goens, Whatcom County HR Manager 311 Grand Ave., Suite 107 Bellingham WA 98225-4038 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION � 0 DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL JDAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR ACORD 25 (2009/01) ©1988-2009 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Page 11 220 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL No. 2009-445 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in, Council O cce A ends Date Assigned to: Originator: 11/13/09 D R 11/24/09 Finance/Coup Division Head: \NWTC®M COUNTY COUNCIL Dept.. Head.:, Prosecutor.: Purchasin /Bud et: 11/13//09 Executive: aLlllo/ TITLE OF DO WENT: Bid 09-81 Upgrades to the Sheriff's Compound at Pt Roberts ATTACHMENTS: Memos from Finance and Facilities Management & the Sheriff SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (x ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Facilities Management and the Sheriff is requesting approval to award the bid and enter into a contract for the upgrades to the Sheriff Compound at Pt. Roberts. Two bids were received and both divisions would like to award to the low bidder, Ebenal General in the amount of $240,870.00. This is a planned project and REET I funds are in the current 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 221 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: 13 November 2009 FINANCE/ACCOUN`I'ING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 503 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 Finance@co.whatcom.wa.us TO: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, AS Finance Manger SUBJECT: Award of Bid 09-81 Upgrades to the Sheriffs Compound at Pt Roberts BRAD BENNETT Manager Background & Purpose Bids were advertised for the upgrades to the Sheriff's Pt. Roberts Compound. Two bids were received on Tuesday November 3 and are noted below: Ebenal General 195,000.00 16,000.00 11,000.00 18,870.00 $240,870.00 Coast Construction 190,625.00 24,000.00 1 23,600.00 1 20,249.13 1 258,474.13 Facilities Management and the Sheriff are requesting approval to award the bid and to enter into a contract with the low bidder, Ebenal General for a total amount of $240,870.00. ■ Funding Funds for the project were approved in REE-fl for $240,000.00 in the current budget. I concur with this recommendation. AS Finance Manager Approved as Recommended: County Executive Date of Council Approval 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) 738-45-22 WHATCOM COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA 98255 Dewey Desler, Director MEMO TO: Brad Bennett, Finance Manager. . FROM: Dewey Desler, Director Administrative Services Michael Russell, Facilities Manager DATE: November 12, 2009 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 316 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225 Michael Russell, Manager RE: Recommend to Accept Bid Award #09-81 — Upgrades to Sheriff's Compound in Pt. Roberts On Tuesday, November 3, 2009 two bids were received in response to Whatcom County Bid #09-81, Upgrades to Sheriff's Compound in Pt Roberts. The following bids were received: ✓ Coast Construction in the amount of: ✓ Ebenal General in the amount of: $258,474.13 $240,870.00 Ebenal General met all of the required specifications for performing the work required for this project. Our office recommends the low bid submitted by Ebenal General be accepted. The project includes: • One new 3 bdrm./ 2 bath manufactured home • Upgrades to the existing home that will include new foundation skirting, a new roof, updated wiring, plumbing replacement, new carpet, paint and repairs throughout. • A new septic system to support both homes The recommendation includes the acceptance of two alternates which will enhance the comfort of the officers and add value to the property. The alternate bid provides for: • A new wooden deck attached to each home • A new carport for each home Funding for this project is provided from the approved budget ordinance adopting the 2009/2010 Whatcom County Budget (AB2008-227E) in the amount of $240,000.00. We are requesting an additional $25,000 be approved and appropriated from the REET 1 budget to support a 10% contingency for this project. Point Roberts historically has had the need for higher contingencies to be placed on projects due to the location of the work. Please request Council approval of: 1. Construction Contract with Ebenal General of $240,870. 2. A $25,000 additional budget for possible contingencies. Total. requested for approval: $265,000.00 For additional information please call Mike Russell at extension 50575 223 WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Memorandum TO: Dewey Desler, Brad Bennett FROM: Chief Deputy A. Edge DATE:11/12/09 SUBJECT: Pt. Roberts Upgrade to Deputy Sheriff Housing I've reviewed the bids regarding the Pt. Roberts housing, discussed the specifics with Carol Rofkar and Undersheriff Parks, and concur with the Facilities Manager's recommendation on the bid award. The Sheriff s Office would like to move ahead as planned on the purchase of one new housing unit and upgrade of the remaining existing housing unit, to include; carports, decks, and septic system. The Sheriffs Office wants to replace the upgraded unit with new at a time in the near future when it's fiscally possible. 224 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-432 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council O ice Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Alex Cleanihous A l0 2 11/10 Introduction 11 �C LC u mE)ll I�C C E � � E D Division Head: Wain Harrison 11/24 ic Works & NOV 0 2 2009 SafePublty Committee Dept. Head. David Stalheim \ 11/24/2009 & Council Prosecutor: /0 Royce Buckingham WHATCOM COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: COUNCIL Executive: Pete Kremen — TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Amendment ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Plannina Commission Findin s of Fact & Reasons for Action SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( x ) 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.) 'Whatcom County Administrative Services applied for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The application was to amend the Six -Year CIP to reflect Real Estate Excise Tax funds that are allocated for repair/replacement of two mobile homes in Pt. Roberts that are used for Sheriff's offices. COMMITTEEACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. 11/10/2009: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. PLN2009-0016 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 225 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: PDS INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM APPENDIX F OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, On June 24, 2009 Whatcom County Planning and Development Services received a Comprehensive Plan amendment application, from Whatcom County Administrative Services. WHEREAS, In accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 Whatcom County provided the Department of Commerce with 60-Day notice of the intent to adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment. WHEREAS, legal notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in the Bellingham Herald on October 11, 2009 WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council hereby adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On July 11, 2009 Whatcom County received acknowledgement from Department of Commerce of Whatcom County's intent to adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 2. Resolution 2009-044 was approved by the Whatcom County Council on July 21, 2009. This resolution added to the docket an amendment to the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program regarding updates to the Pt. Roberts Sherriff facilities. 3. The 2009-2014 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program was adopted in Ordinance 2008-056 on December 9, 2008. 4. A Determination of Non -Significance was issued by the Whatcom County SEPA official on August 8, 2008 for the adoption of the 2009-2014 Whatcom County Six -Year Capital Improvement Program. 5. No SEPA determination was issued for this amendment to the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program. The Whatcom County SEPA official determined that the amendment to the Six -Year CIP is minor in nature and does not require additional environmental review. 6. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 22, 2009 and voted unanimously 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Six - Year CIP element of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 226 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1: Appendix F of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is amended as shown on Exhibit A of this Ordinance ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED as to CivU�puty Prosecutor ►911121 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Chairperson () Approved () Denied Pete Kremen, Executive Date: 227 Exhibit A * Note - Only the tables show below from the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program are affected by the proposed amendment. EXISTING STRUCTURES Existing Structure Project 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total for the Name six year period Minimum Security $324,000 $324,000 0 0 0 0 $648,000 Correction Facility (Division Street) — 50 additional work release beds Civic Center Annex $1,000,000 $35,000 $65,000 0 0 0 $1,100,000 Repair & retrofit, HVAC Engineering, and Lighting Retrofit Upgrade Jail and Juvenile $1,000,000 $1,400,000 0 0 0 0 $2,400,000 Controls and Improve Exiting Courthouse 0 $180,000 $1,000,000 0 0 0 $1,180,000 - Exterior Engineering Evaluation & Repairs Courthouse $250,000 0 0 0 0 0 $250,000 - Window Replacement Sheriff's Facilities $140,000 0 0 0 0 0 $140,000 -Point Roberts Manufactured Home Repair Total $2,574,000 $2,091,000 $1,065,000 0 0 0 $5,578,000 $2,714,000 $1,939,000 $5,718,000 CONSTRUCTIONIACQUISITION OF NEW STRUCTURES New Structure 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totalfor Project Name the six year period East County $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,250,000 0 0 0 $7,250,000 Regional Resource Center Central Plaza $1,800,000 0 0 0 0 0 $1,800,000 Building (acquisition of existing building) Consolidated Services $2,000,000 $12,000,000 $12,000,000 0 0 0 $26,000,000 Building Master Plan for New $100,000 0 0 0 0 0 $100,000 Sheriff's Office Sheriff's Office (at 0 0 $500,000 $200,000 $4,000,000 $2,500,000 $7,200,000 Law and Justice 228 Center Campus) New Jail (at Law and $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $17,000,000 $42,000,000 Justice Center Campus) Sheriff's Facilities $130,000 0 0 0 0 0 $130,000 -Point Roberts Manufactured Home Replacement Total $5,900,000 $20,000,00 $16,750,000 $8,200,000 $14,000,000 $19,500,000 $84,350,000 $6,030,000 $84,480,000 GRAND TOTALS Project Category 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total for the six ear period Transportation $14,254,000 $5,659,000 $4,950,000 $2,058,333 $2,058,333 $2,058,333 $31,038,000 Parks $150,000 $200,000 $365,000 $907,000 $750,000 $758,500 $3,130,500 Trails $1,942,928 $7,851,328 $10,498,063 $3,058,563 $3,216,563 $3,555,063 $30,122,508 Existing Structures $2,574,000 $2,714,000 $1,939,000 $1,065,000 0 0 0 $5,578,000 $5,718,000 New Structures $5,900,000 $6,030,000 $20,000,000 $16,750,000 $8,200,000 $14,000,000 $19,500,000 $84,350,000 $84,480,000 Stormwater $700,000 $640,000 $460,000 0 0 0 $1,800,000 GRAND TOTAL $24,820,928 25,790 928 $35,649,328 $36,289,328 $33,628,063 $34,088,063 $14,223,896 $20,024,896 $25,871,896 $154,219,008 $156,289,008 229 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Whatcom County Council amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan's Six -Year Capital Improvement Program as set forth in Exhibit "A". Commissioners Present: Lesow, Steensma, Wilson, Mann, Belisle, Melious, and Hunter Commissioners Vote: 7-0 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Melious, Chairperson Date l 2 - David Stalheim, Secretary 1n-�&-6y Date 230 THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENTERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION A Comprehensive Plan amendment application was submitted by Whatcom County Administrative Services. The application was received by Whatcom County Planning and Development Services on June 24, 2009. 2. In accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 Whatcom County provided the Department of Commerce with 60-Day notice of the intent to adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 3. On July 11, 2009 Whatcom County received acknowledgement from the Department of Commerce of Whatcom County's intent to adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 4. Resolution 2009-044 was approved by the Whatcom County Council on July 21, 2009. This resolution added to the docket an amendment to the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program regarding updates to the Pt. Roberts Sherriff facilities. 5. The Six -Year CIP was adopted in Ordinance 2008-056 on December 9, 2008. 6. A Determination of Non -Significance was issued by the Whatcom County SEPA official on August 8, 2008 for the adoption of the 2009-2014 Whatcom County Six -Year Capital Improvement Program. 7. No SEPA determination was issued for this amendment. The Whatcom County SEPA official determined that the amendment to the Six -Year CIP is minor in nature and does not require additional environmental review. 8. A legal notice of the Whatcom County Planning Commission Public Hearing was published October 11, 2009 in the Bellingham Herald. 9. A Whatcom County Planning Commission Public Hearing was held October 22, 2009. CONCLUSION The proposal meets all of the legal requirements as noted within the Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action. The proposed amendment is compatible with the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, and Whatcom County's County Wide Planning Policies. Approval of this amendment is in the public interest. 231 Exhibit A * Note - Only the tables show below from the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program are affected by the proposed amendment. EXISTING STRUCTURES Existing Structure Project 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total for the Name six ear eriod Minimum Security $324,000 $324,000 0 0 0 0 $648,000 Correction Facility (Division Street) — 50 additional work release beds Civic Center Annex $1,000,000 $35,000 $65,000 0 0 0 $1,100,000 Repair & retrofit, HVAC Engineering, and Lighting Retrofit Upgrade Jail and Juvenile $1,000,000 $1,400,000 0 0 0 0 $2,400,000 Controls and Improve Exiting Courthouse 0 $180,000 $1,000,000 0 0 0 $I,180,000 - Exterior Engineering Evaluation & Repairs Courthouse $250,000 0 0 0 0 0 $250,000 - Window Replacement SI eriffs Facilities mt Roberts Home S140,000 0 0 0 0 U $140,000 -P Manufactured Repair Total 2,091,000 $1,065,000 0 0 0 $2,714,000 $5.718,000 CONSTRUCTION/ACQUISITION OF NEW STRUCTURES New Structure 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totalfor Project Name the six year period East County $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,250,000 0 0 0 $7,250,000 Regional Resource Center Central Plaza $1,800,000 0 0 0 0 0 $1,800,000 Building (acquisition of existing building) Consolidated Services $2,000,000 $12,000,000 $12,000,000 0 0 0 $26,000,000 Building Master Plan for New $100,000 0 0 0 0 0 $I00,000 Sheriff's Office Sheriff's Office (at 0 0 $500,000 $200,000 $4,000,000 $2,500,000 $7,200,000 Law and Justice Deleted: $ Deleted: 2,574,000 Deleted: $5,578,000 232 Center Campus) New Jail (at Law and $1,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $17,000,000 $42,000,000 J4tice Center Campus) St eriffs Facilities 3int Roberts mufactured Ilome placement $130,000 0. Q. 0 o U. $130,000 -P M Rt Total $20,000,00 $16,750,000 $8,200,000 $14,000,000 $19,500,000 _ _ _ Deleted: $5,900,000 $6,030.000 §94 86 00 Deleted: $84,350,000 Deleted: ¶ GRAND TOTALS Project 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total jar die six Category ear eriod Transportation $14,254,000 $5,659,000 $4,950,000 $2,058,333 $2,058,333 $2,058,333 $31,038,000 Parks $150,000 $200,000 $365,000 $907,000 $750,000 $758,500 $3,130,500 Trails $1,942,928 $7,851,328 $10,498,063 $3,058,563 $3,216,563 $3,555,063 $3Q 122,508 E fisting % $1,939,000 $1,065,000 0 0 0 55.718.000 Deleted:2,574,000 St ctures $2 714 000 — - 1-Deleted: $5,578,000 N wStructures $ $20,000,000 $16,750,000 $8 00,000 $14,000,000 $19,500,000 $6.030.000 $84.480.000 yDeleted: ¶ GFUND V5,090,928 $35,649,328 $33,628,063 $14,223,896 $20,024,896 $25,871,896 Deleted5,900,000 T TAL $1.54,489 OU$ Deleted: $84,350,000 Deleted: 24,820,928 Deleted: $154,219,008 233 WHATCOMCOUNTYCOUNCILAGENDABILL No AB2009-419A CLEARANCES Initial Date rice Date Received in Council Of Agenda Date Assigned to: DGD 11112109 November 24, Finance Originator: E C 2�� V /] 2 D L� L� 2009 Division Head: Dept. Head: NOV,, 17 2009 Prosecutor: VUHATCOM COUNTY Purchasing/Bud et: COUNCIL Executive: Al"t, � / "11/0, TITLE OFDOCUMENT. Response to Council inquiry regarding the Administrative Services Fund and the Equipment Rental and Revolving Fund (ER&R). ATTACHMENTS. Memo, AS description, Fund Equity by Function table, ER&R Fund table, and 2010 budget analysis. SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO. Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( x ) Requested Date: NO SUM11ARYSTATEMENT 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.) Response to questions posed by Council regarding the Administrative Services Fund and the Equipment Rental and Revolving Fund as it relates to the 2010 budget. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCILACTION. 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. 234 WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #108 Bellingham, WA 98225-4082 MEMORANDUM To: Seth Fleetwood, County Council Chair County Council Members Cc: Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council From: Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator Date: November 10, 2009 Subject: Fund Equity and Cash Balances Based on your request I am providing the following information. Pete Kremen County Executive Dewey Desler Deputy Administrator The Administrative Service Fund is described on the attached pages. The spreadsheet on page 3 shows the balance in the Fund Equity by Function since its inception in 1994. The current projected equity balance is $5.4 million of which approximately $4.4 million is the fund equity for the self-insurance funds that include; medical, unemployment, workers compensation and dental. These are necessary reserves to ensure payment of deductibles as well as meet the minirnum requirements as a self -insured local government. The Equipment Rental and Revolving (ER&R) Fund balances are summarized on pages 4 and 5. All County and Department funds with equipment have an equity interest in the ER&R funds. The ER&R Fund allows departments to make monthly payments to cover the cost of maintenance, repairs, fueling and replacement of their equipment. With this fund in place and in balance we are able to replace equipment at the end of their useful life. If there is not enough money in the fund once equipment has exceeded its useful life then we have two options. 1. Don't replace the vehicle/equipment 2. Seek an extra/special appropriation to cover the replacement. The report on page 4 & 5 shows that the General Fund equity balance is short by over $1 million in its ability to replace our vehicles and equipment. At the same time this report reflects the Road Fund as having a surplus of over $1.5 million. Office (360) 676-6717 County (360) 384-1403 FAX (360) 676-6775 TDD (360) 738-4555 235 Any excess amount of funding can only be returned to the original Fund. Please note the 2010 Budget Analysis on page 6 reflects the projected Fund Balance at end of 2010. The Administration believes there needs to be a reserve of $7 million in the Fund Balance on January 1, to ensure that we will not have to borrow money during the fiscal year to pay our bills. To ensure this reserve we may have to implement other spending restraints. Maintaining an adequate General Fund cash balance not only sustains our ability to pay our bills over the entire year but, it also serves as a barometer of the county's fiscal health. We are currently preparing to present our Fiscal status to the national bond rating organizations. Our goal during that review is to maintain our historically favorable bond ratings. 236 Hse�a+ht�h l;nsuran(c(eFund , Whatcom County is self -insured for its Medical Plan and assumes all risk for costs regardless of the rate set as the contribution amount each year. The self -insured plan covers 545 employees and 1,418 dependents or roughly half of Whatcom County's benefit -eligible employees (all but Teamster Master employees), including 80 junior taxing district employees and 148 dependents. Washington State's Office of Financial Management is currently drafting more stringent reserving requirements for local government self-insurance programs. Whatcom County received its latest examination report of management, operations, fiscal solvency, and conformity with state laws and regulations in August 2008 and was found in full compliance. Whatcom County's excess insurance coverage has a $250K deductible per claim. To protect County resources, the Health Insurance Fund includes an amount set aside to pay off pending liabilities (claims in the pipeline) in the event of plan closure. Additionally, we are required to maintain contingent reserves to cover costs in the event of unusually high claim years. In 1994, when the Health Insurance Fund was established in Administrative Services there was a beginning equity of $1 million at a time when plan costs were also about $1 million. By 2008, plan costs had risen to $5 million and are anticipated to rise to $7 million by the end of 2010 with the ending fund equity projected at $2.5 million. Whatcom County is self -insured for unemployment costs. The cost of unemployment` claims began rising in 2008 and for the first half of 2009 is up 60% over the same period last year. The County is required to cover the first 26 weeks of unemployment compensation for eligible separated employees up to a maximum of $611 per week. 'E' .7 m ..�- i ms � e" '``kesC�omp�esago�nu(nd Whatcom County is self -insured for workers' compensation. Annual costs are difficult to predict because claims from previous years often remain active. Currently our annual costs are averaging around $1 million, so fund equity at $300K is where it needs to be to cover any potential liabilities in excess of annual projected expenses. TR&R is funded with transfers From the General Fund, Road Fund, ER&R Fund and Storm Water Fund. The Fund covers the cost of replacement of technology related equipment over a multi -year schedule. The Direct Reimbursement Dental program for unrepresented employees is self -funded. Costs in 2008 were $280K. The fund equity at $78K is slightly under where it needs to be to cover liabilities in potential claims. 0 0 Q' assistance,T is fund covers employee health employment background checking costs. I:\DEWEY\BUDGET\2ND QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT 2009\AS FUND EQUITY SUMMARY DGD.DOC 11/17/2009 A 237 c to O O (0 N O 0) O r N r CD M � r N W v O e~- eF M N r 0 �, t' N 0) h M N li 00 4:6 O (D N 7 0) r to M N in M m m ~ N 'd �i p m W N r In d N r V, V, V} V, to V, V, V, V} V, V, O y r y 't to M CD CD t- CD 00 t- N �, r N O N N M O O O O N (O ' O 00 ' 0) ti r fD N 0) W 00 M M CD CDto Cn N N M N O 7 Q m V, V, V, V, fn V, V, V, V, v, v, � ,; 4- O 0 CD 0) N I- 00 le 00 co M CD CD CD CD CD1� M t-- r to y 00 r ci + (MO O N t- !t' Cl)0000 CD m 4O s �+ d W O b Q m V, V, V, K, V, V, V, V, V, V, V} 'e r p w N O 0) O r le M 00 to to r. d' w N N 0) co 0) C ti L It N 00 M O r 'I N tL 00 t- (0 t- t- to N 00 ~ (0 M 00 r W M M It M (p 'd Cc Cl N 00 W 4a N O O G N (R V), V, V, V, V, V} V} O :3 i-+ m 00 (O n 0 O 00 (D CD L mO O 00 (O to 00 co r 'V d CD N co It co O N t- t- w Q = C O N 7 N = p) 00 (D co 00 O d co N 0M . N d `' O 00 O a- co (O N t. le N W N ��5 O C t- 0) t- N O (D r r M � a 'Cie)~ C. ao (O (M O M N .� v m x llJ V} V} V} V} 64 6 ) 6 ) V} V, V} V, co V) m h N It O O O N to O () Gi OO O O 00 (O O O N w n (D 00 O O O (D N O d () to co O N c0 O 0) N 7 r 0) N (D 0) 00 (D 0) 0) N Lf) N id c co 00 It h O n O h () co tt (1) o> N It O to to to d h N to co (3 0M (D cr) N r d () N r O r M N (6 N T 0) .= LL 6, 613� 69� 613 6f!3 69- V, 64 6-, 61, V, •� to M 'It It 0) to wr ItM i i i i co Q V r- M LO CD .�-' 7 CO h to (o O T W r r N V, F-Im C z p = N y U N C c O O 'a c.> � O y C d m of fOA CL N~ m O t0 d i4 pt d E O R c o Q V tm O o E C ma y y N LL .R C N O C. � M O m c o O d 0) N E O LL Q lL F-- 2 :3 w U 3: f- w cl W I- 0) ll, M N rn � M Iq ti n W ° � m - O m Lo LO Z W W) M W n 000 N C7 cl (P - C' W LL_ O 6F3. (» 64 (» 64 (» 6) (» Z� N 00 � Iq O (WD W W O O � -- O (DC) (D H O (O O o m IQ N IIl oc LU VQ N N 00 N C:)N F.-Q H 5 N (D (h (OD 0) (D N 00 ce) J d W W W W 69 69 69 69 d3 69 69 69 69 cOl 000 m m ONO I O N m VM oOo n CO7 O n 000 M (OD O Q (A W C' 'cF O (D N (D Z N 0) 0 QN (OD N (OD d' (co 'nd W Q e- N m ` 69 vi 69 69 69 69 69 ff-J vi O O O O 0 O O LU O O O O O O O QC)O O O - C) 00 CD h CD 00 C)O O O ce) M W CV cf� v N (D O W W (� 69 69 69 69 69 Efl EA 69 Efl O O O O OO O O LU O O O O O O O } Vi C) CD 0 CD O O O Q w C)O O O (DO W h O cc (D°' O CD N W COD W v p 69 E4 69 69 69 69 Efl 64 69 N(A NW (07 000 m L O N m O C9 z 0o Z a oc cl (o N (`nD (nD ((C 4Z c7 N ^ W W N° +� W m 'ct n N N 64 Efl 69 64 69 w w w Efl H Z w ° O z ►- ° J w u. O � w C� w U— F- Q JQ w a W O O J Z L( O ° LU W Q W f- J Z Y Z Q U) w U_ w U) w F- z_ ° a O F::� co O t*, N 00 N _N Cl c7 O C7 69 69 69 c� O O (D N W O (D It � co 69 (f3 69 Cl) It (D C7 O m (C Cl) co 00 69 69 69 69 64 69 (9 (» � I r co c+i 6 � QZ Cl) 00 W (29 69 69 ° z ° w w U c Z ~ ~ 0 OLL J a Z U J Q LL. Q Q O 7 (Drn o n v LO v m w O dN' ' L (n O O 0 O O O 69. 69 69. 69. 69 rn tO0 N (O � W (OD ONO (Nn O O N O (D f: (D N Cl)N co d m 6q 6� 69 69 O O M (O O N dam'_ (IQ 000_ O - N W c�7 ((DD m M C) O 69 69 69 64 69 vi 69 69 (ri � 69 d9 69 69 tf3 0 0 m (o 0 0 O N (IQ 00 N W (M ((DD O) M ce) O E9 69 E9 64 69 Z Q O cr ° m z of o u°. Z C, z O w w z Q O J Q a (9 O X F ad n. O W � ZO 239 A 0 Z w w w F- O 00 O N M O (D Un h CM 0 h co N O O O 00 O M M 0 00 M N M N O N � 69 b9 69 6'3 H9 CD O � O COO 0) M N M O) O) h CD 00 co Cfl N N O O) M CA CD CD 00 0) ct v9 H9 u9 69 Q% Cii CND n n N CD 0 o 0 m o o �t 0 co N It m 0 h N M H9 H9 H9 1.9 69 H9 e» 69 69 69 69 6900 fA Vi MCND n ti NO 0 0 0 0 m O :- O v O M _o � to M N 7 (A N h M N 69 69 b9 V? Vi 11 of w Q > J � J Z (� w W z z O U U w (~j w w 0 o w O J w O0 0 w i W w V! Vs 0 0 0 0 0 V) Cl) co tq ,It co N u'1 V► 240 2010 BUDGET ANALYSIS GENERAL FUND Amounts Original 2010 Adopted Revenue Budget 77,442,509 Original 2010 Adopted Expenditure Budget (82,764,552) Net (5,322,043) 1 District Court infraction revenues (190,000), 2 District Ct jury software (37,523) 3 Estimated Attrition 1,518,961 4 Estimated Budget Lapse 750,000 5 Estimated Furlough - 40 hrs 925,823 6 Estimated Hiring Freeze 1,758,153 7 Estimated Increased Tort Allocation (302,400) 8 Estimated reduction in PERS rates 600,000 9 Estimated reserve for supplementals (325,000) 10 Health Adjustments - net 322,581 11 Non -Departmental - Animal Control 15,000 12 Non -Departmental - GF Transfers to other funds 155,098 13 Non -Departmental - Reduce LEOFF I budget in GF 100,000 14 Non -Departmental Emergency Management transfer (11,858) 15 Non -Departmental LEOFF I Fund transfer 600,000 16 Non -Departmental Mt Baker lawsuit settlement (33,000) 17 Non -Departmental Pictometry transfer (30,000) 18 Non -Departmental Revenues - PILT increase 768,445 19 Non -Departmental Revenues - Property tax bgt reductions (435,000) 20 Non -Departmental Revenues - Sales Tax decr. (1,127,500) 21 Non -Departmental Revenues - Timber Sales decr. (350,000) 22 Non -Departmental What -Comm increase (9,854) 23 PDS Revenue decrease (1,100,000) 24 PDS Adjustments - Other 145,000 25 PDS - Additional adjustments needed 400,000 26 Probation revenue decrease (329,026) 27 Probation current attrition savings over target 96,258 28 Probation - Additional adjustments needed 153,210 29 Sheriff revenue decreases (51,894) 30 Suppl # 1 ATS 1,417,564 31 Treasurer - Interest & Other Taxes Decrease (1,625,000) 32 Options necessary for Fund Balance 1,600,000 Revised Net 45,995 Projected 12/31/2009 Fund Balance* 7,793,983 Est'd Fund Balance at 12/31/2010 7,839,978 *Based on 2009 Eight Month Financial Report I:\Budget Projections\Financial Crisis 2009\2010projections.xis 11/10/20092:47 PM 6 , 241 ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N Cif N N �`:�`•�:;:i. z�. ci ,:'�. `a�=r ' s'�.;=>a: r's".�i,. - ra:__5.1'_.: �L�.�'-�::=:�;�; •,y�� r. i�x ,� e x is h. t a ` �,aa f ir.Y av'y dry !yAN, �r '�vnr�� c? ��4� rj IdJC�� i �Fs � � a p�', r�-�y} sr -[ 1,� PdQ WS Qu 'h r f � 1 t �� 1H�,,,;�',, � i ��.1•� ttC 'v'•w ! S9 x wF ' $ x 1 4 1 Lh sd 4�1 s1 �l"I5 irr { a i In kj '" 2' -C . w �o ik3v k i r 1 1 t r: 4a , v (7J�B� s'I wF310 pon tP av l atk ,.,�i' ast,u k r - �}, b' "alsrf -it 3• d `1.�a �`Py Z yrr� yr fi y'aa+ate x a '-i 17t�s iiir hk +. °4 1 .� E•` ''�+° a 4x adr.'y rs s n r ..t5 r LL E. KZ�B "Ill :aaf;..;.v:` .e� i:. 'Y`Nt `Zr"i('.' +s iA.;h - .'j.,'.�,�-�Y� yti•:, r v , 5i'a'+El`a��,`� �Y s r�r1+t�rs e ON �t- a„M r� ��..'�, 5 }• C� �h '.��' ° Ey WSJ E i t���+ � 8 fl Yd� 4 (•7`�: ��.j C i N`r �k31 r<. �IJ�.Lc. h T h ��- t x �r T A ell t 0 0 O ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Ln O L O L co N cIq 101 0) N ri O O N 2R a X L a L to m 0 C CL (D C Q) O O N rn U �U ED C C LL i LE 242 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-411 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 4ee% /� EC E�VIED 10127109 Introduction Division Head: 11 / 10 / 0 9 Hearing pecial COTW/ t. De Head. 0C * I. 2.0 2009 WHA COUNC COUNTY 11/24/09 Council Prosecutor: z G G Purchasin /Bu e '�1U aq Executive: TITLE F DOCUMENT: An Ordinance Authorizing a Shift of $1,750,000 From The Road Levy To The General Fund Levy For 2010 ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( )Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: 11/20/2009 SUMMARY STATEMENT 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 the action.) The proposed ordinance shifts $1,750,000 of the Road Fund levy to the General Fund pursuant to RCW 84.52.043. COMMITTEEACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION.• 10/27/2009: Introduced 11/10/2009: Held to November 24, 6-1 Caskey-Schreiber opposed. Written record open to November 24. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: 243 PROPOSED BY: COUNTY EXECUTIVE SPONSORED BY: CONSENT INTRODUCTION DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. AUTHORIZING A SHIFT OF $1,750,000 FROM THE ROAD LEVY TO THE GENERAL FUND LEVY FOR 2010 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84.52.043, at the option of the County Legislative Authority, some of the unused levy capacity of the County Road Fund may be shifted to the County General Fund, provided that: 1) the rate for the general levy does not exceed $2.475/$1,000 of assessed value; and 2) the total levy rate for both the General Fund Levy and the Road Levy within the County does not exceed $4.05/$1,000 of assessed value; and 3) no other district has its levy capacity reduced as the result of the shift; and 4) the aggregate of levy rates for all junior and senior taxing districts, other than the state, does not exceed $5.90/$1,000 of assessed value; and WHEREAS, based on preliminary values, the County Assessor has determined that a shift in the amount of $1,750,000 from the Road Levy to the General Fund Levy will not conflict with any provisions set forth in RCW 84.52.043; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the County Council to reduce the 2010 Road Fund Levy in the amount of $1,750,000 to keep the combined General Fund and Road Fund Levy at 2009 levels; and WHEREAS, in the event that calculations made after final values are available would conflict with any provisions set forth in RCW 84.52.043, the County Assessor will reduce the levy shift to an amount that will not cause conflict with any provisions set forth in RCW 84.52.043; and WHEREAS, the County Council, after hearing and considering all relevant public comment, has determined that the General Fund Levy requires an increase in property tax revenue from the previous year in order to meet the expected expenses and obligations, in addition to the taxes on the value of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state assessed property, and it is in the best interest of the taxpayers of Whatcom County that the amount authorized for collection in 2010 is increased by $1,750,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that $1,750,000 be shifted from the Road Levy to the General Fund Levy for collection in 2010 ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: I . U7� i v i I Deputy Prose or 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Pete Kremen, Executive Date: Page 1 244 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2009-419 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office A enda Date Assigned to: 10127109 Intro Originator: u u E /% D v Division Head: 11/10/09 Finance Committee, ®�� ?u9 WHATCOM COUNTY Council Dept. Head: 11/24/2009 COTW/Council � � - Prosecutor: o COUNCIL Purchasin Bu et: j / 2 b�% Executive: ��(o TITLE OF D CUMENT: 2010 Supplemental Budget Request #2 ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, Memoranda & Budget Modification Requests SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Supplemental #2 requests funding from the General Fund. (1) To record various revenue and expenditure adjustments for the 2010 budget in the Health Department. Expenditure reductions total $658,191, revenue reductions total $334,849. (2) To record various revenue and expenditure adjustments for the 2010 budget in Planning & Development Services. Expenditure reductions total $145,000, revenue reductions total $1,100,000. (3) To record various revenue and expenditure adjustments in the 2010 budget in Parks & Recreation. Expenditure and revenue reductions total $125,745 each. (4) To record various revenue reductions in the Treasurer's Office totaling $1,625,000. Expenditure budget is not affected. (5) To record reduction in Detention Bed Rent account in Juvenile of $30,000. Expenditure budget is not affected. (6) To record reduction in traffic infraction revenue of $190,000, to fund video recording system - $15,000, to reappropriate jury software system - $37,523 in District Court. (7) To record various revenue and expenditure adjustments in the 2010 budget in District Court Probation. Expenditure reductions total $33,675, revenue reductions total $362,701. Continued on next page COMMITTEE ACTION.- COUNCIL ACTION.• 11/10/2009: Held to COTW in two weeks 10/27/2009: Introduced 11/10/2009: Held to November 24 Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. 245 Summary Statement for 2010 Budget Supplemental #2 continued: From the General Fund: (8) To fund increase in Emergency Management transfer - $11,858, to fund What -Comm increase - $9,854, to fund 2010 Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan settlement - $33,000, to reappropriate pictomety transfer - $30,000 all in Non - Departmental (9) To fund Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant in Non -Departmental - $324,894. (10) To record various revenue and expenditure adjustments in the 2010 budget in Non Departmental. Expenditure reductions total $270,338, revenue reductions total $544,055. From the Road Fund. (H) To reappropriate pictometry transfer and fund 2010 Civic Center moving expenses - $44,000. From the Whatcom County Jail Fund. (12) To fund increases in Jail medications, psychiatrist services, nursing services and GED services totaling $451, 646. (13) To record various revenue and expenditure adjustments in the 2010 Jail budget. Expenditure reductions total $153,152, revenue reductions total $1,343,350. From the Stormwater Fund. (14) To fund 2010 Level of Service 2 Enhancements to Lake Whatcom Program totaling $810,000. From the Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund. (15) To fund Jail and Triage Center services totaling $515,000. (16) To fund mental health and chemical dependency service contracts totaling $1,945,000. (17) To fund transfer to Health Department for a. 5 FTE Human Services Program Specialist ($43,475) and to fund transfer for administrative costs ($348,000). (18) To record reduction in sales tax revenue budget of $300,000. From the Countywide Emergency Medical Services Fund. (19) To record revenue and expenditure adjustments to the Emergency Medical Services budget. Expense reductions total $982,456, revenue reductions total $319,026. (20) To record revenue reductions to the Criminal Justice part of the EMS Fund budget - $111,276. From the Trial Court Improvement Fund. (21) To fund transfer for District Court video recording equipment - $15,000. From the LEOFF I Healthcare Fund. (22) To fund transfer to General Fund ($600,000) and increase budget for LEOFF I retiree healthcare ($200,000). From Real Estate Excise Tax Fund H.• (23) To record decrease in revenue projections - $400,000. (24) To fund additional transfer out to Stormwater Fund - $250,000. From Real Estate Excise Tax Fund I. (25) To record reduction in revenue projections - $400,000. From the Public Utilities Improvement Fund. (26) To record reduction in revenue projections - $350,000. From the Administrative Services Fund. (27) To reappropriate regional pictometry project budget — $140,000. 246 SPONSORED BY: Finance PROPOSED BY: Executive INTRODUCTION DATE: 10/27/09 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDMENT NO. 2 OF THE 2010 BUDGET WHEREAS, the 2009-2010 budget was adopted November 25, 2008; and, WHEREAS, changing circumstances require modifications to the approved 2009-2010 budget; and, WHEREAS, the modifications to the budget have been assembled here for deliberation by the Whatcom County Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the 2009- 2010 Whatcom County Budget Ordinance #2008-053 is hereby amended by adding the following additional amounts to the budgets included therein: Expenditures Revenues Net Effect General Fund Health 658,191 334,849 323,342 Planning & Development Services 145,000 1,100,000 955,000 Parks 125,745 125,745 - Treasurer - 1,625,000 1,625,000 Juvenile - 30,000 30,000 District Court 52,523 175,000 227,523 District Court Probation 33,675 362,701 329,026 Non -Departmental 139,268 219,161 358,429 Total General Fund (770,820) 3,972,456 3,201,636 Road Fund 44,000 - 44,000 Whatcom County Jail Fund 298,494 (223,750) 74,744. Stormwater Fund 810,000 (750,000) 60.000 Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund 2 851 475 300 000 3151 475 Countywide Emergency Medical Services Fund (982.456) 430,302 (552,154 Trial Court Improvement Fund 15,000 15,000 LEOFF I Healthcare Fund 800,000 - 800,000 Real Estate Excise Tax Fund II 250,000 400,000 650,000 Real Estate Excise Tax Fund I - 400,000 400.000 Public Utilities Improvement Fd - 350,000 350.000 Administrative Services Fund 140,000 (140,000) - Total Add'l Supplemental 3 440,693 4,754,008 8,194,701 ADOPTED this day of , 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana B wn-Davis, Council Clerk APPR ED AS TO F�P - _-- divl Deputy Prosecutor Seth Fleetwood, Chair of the Council ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, County Executive Date: I:\BUDGET\SUPPLS\2010_Suppl\Supplementa1 #2-2010.doc 247 WHATCOM COUNTY Summary of the 2010 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 2 Net Effect to Fund Increased Balance Expenditure (Increased) (Increase) Department/Fund Description Decrease Revenue Decrease General Fund Health Record Women Infant Children Program Grant Increase - 39,150 391150 Health Reduce 5930 Blue Ribbon Funding Part 1 - 41,668 41,668 Health Record Reduction in Tobacco Prevention Funding 12,300 22,000 9,700 Health Reduce 5930 Blue Ribbon Funding Part 2 - 13,906 13,906 Health Record Site Hazard Assessment Grant Decrease 6,650 6,650 - Health Record Local Source Control Partnership Grant Decrease 4,000 28,560 24,560 Health Record Group B Plan Review DOH Funding Decrease - 7,500 7,500 Health Record New OSS Op & Maint Grant - 50,000 50,000 Health Record On Site Septic Permit Service Level Reduction - 58,000 58,000 Health Record SW - Coordinator Prevention Agreement Increase - 3,500 3,500 Health Reduce Restaurant Permit Ree Revenue Budget - 19,239 19,239 Health Record Developmental Disabilities Decreased Funding 108,254 116,402 8,148 Health Reappropriate Unspent 2009 DD Milla a 93,100 - 93,100 Health Record Update to 2010 Prop Tax Estimate - Developmental Disabilities 19,700 22,000 2,300 Record Update to 2010 Prop Tax & Health Eliminate Gen Fd Support - Mental Health 149,735 - 149,735 Health Record Reduction in DASA Fundin 495,944 551,049 55,105 Health Record NSRSN Mental Health Administration Grant Reduction - 11,000 11,000 Health Record Transfer From Mental Health Fund for Indirect Costs - 358,000 358,000 Health Record Triage Support Transfer - 45,000 45,000 Health Fund Upgrade of Position to Program S ecialist 5,892 43,475 37,583 Health Record Jail Transfer Deletion - 20,000 20,000 Planning & Development Reduce 2010 Revenue Budget Services - 1,100,000 1,100,000 am WHATCOM COUNTY Summary of the 2010 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 2 Net Effect to Fund Increased Balance Expenditure (Increased) (Increase) Department/Fund Description Decrease Revenue Decrease Planning & Development Record & Fund Other PDS Services Adjustments 145,000 - 145,000 Record 2010 General Fund Budget Parks Adjustments 125,745 125,745 - Treasurer Record Decrease in 2010 Revenue Budget - 1,625,000 1,625,000 Record Decrease in Detention Bed Juvenile Rent Revenue Account - 30,000 30,000 District Court Record Decrease in Infraction Revenue Budget - 190,000 190,000 District Court Fund Replacement of Video Recording, 1 Courtroom a year 15,000 15,000 - Reappropriate Funding for Jury District Court Software 37,523 - 37,523 District Court Probation Record Decrease in Probation Revenues - 329,026 329,026 Record Decrease in District Court Probation Revenues/Expenditures in Substance Abuse Program 33,675 33,675 - Non -Departmental Fund Increase in Transfer to Emergency Management 11,858 - 11,858 Non -Departmental Fund Increase in What -Comm Appropriation 9,854 - 9,854 Non -Departmental Fund DOE - Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant 324,894 324,894 - Non -Departmental Record General Fund Transfer Reduction 155,098 - 155,098 Non -Departmental Record Removal of LEOFF I Healthcare Budget from General Fd 100,000 - 100,000 Non -Departmental Recognize Transfer In from LEOFF I Healthcare Fund - 600,000 600,000 Non -Departmental Fund 2010 Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan Settlement 33,000 - 33,000 Non -Departmental Record Non -Departmental Revenue Adjustments - 709,055 709,055 Non -Departmental Record Decrease in Original Property Tax Budget - 435,000 435,000 Non -Departmental Reappropriate GF Pictometry Transfer 30,000 - 30,000 Non -Departmental Record Adjustment of 2010 Animal Control Budget (15,240) - (15,240) Total General Fund (770,8201 3,972,456 3,201,636 249 WHATCOM COUNTY Summary of the 2010 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 2 Net Effect to Fund Increased Balance Expenditure (Increased) (Increase) Department/Fund Description Decrease Revenue Decrease Road Fund Public Works Admin Reappropriate pictometry transfer 10,000 - 10,000 Public Works Admin Fund 2010 Civic Center Moving Expenses 34,000 - 34,000 Total Road Fund 44,000 - 44,000 Whatcom County Jail Fund Jail Fund Increase in Jail Medications 241,222 241,222 - Jail Fund Increase in Jail Psychiatrist Services 135,680 135,680 - Jail Fund Increase in Jail Nursing Contract 54,744 - 54,744 Jail Fund GED Services 20,000 - 20,000 Jail Remove Case Manager Interfund Transfers 42,000 42,000 - Jail Record EHD Program Reduction 111,152 111,152 - Jail Record Adjustments to 2010 Jail Revenue Budget - 1,190,198 1,190,198 Total Whatcom County Jail Fund 298,494 (223,750) 74,744 Stormwater Fund Fund 2010 LOS2 Enhancements to Stormwater Lake Whatcom Program - CIP 750,000 750,000 - Fund 2010 LOS2 Enhancements to Stormwater Lake Whatcom Program - LID 60,000 - 60,000 Total Stormwater Fund 810,000 (750,000) 60,000 Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund Health Fund Mental Health Services Transfer From 0.1 % Tax Fd 515,000 - 515,000 Health Fund Mental Health & Chem Dependency Service Contracts 1,945,000 - 1,945,000 Health Fund Human Services Program Specialist Transfer 43,475 - 43,475 Health Fund Transfer to General Fund for Administrative Costs 348,000 - 348,000 Health Record Reduction in MH/CD Sales Tax Revenue Budget - 300,000 300,000 Total Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund 2,851,475 300,000 3,151,475 Countywide Emergency Medical Services Fund Non -Departmental Record Adjustments to 2010 EMS Budget 982,456 319,026 663,430 Non -Departmental Reduce 2010 Revenue for EMS Fund - Criminal Justice Part - 111,2761 111,276 Total Countywide Emergency Medical Services Fund (982,456) 430,302 (552,154) 250 WHATCOM COUNTY Summary of the 2010 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 2 Net Effect to Fund Increased Balance Expenditure (Increased) (Increase) Department/Fund Description Decrease Revenue Decrease Trial Court Improvement Transfer to Fund District Court Video Fund Recorder 15,000 15,000 LEOFF I Healthcare Fund Non -Departmental Fund 2010 LEOFF I Healthcare Fund Transfer to General Fund 600,000 - 600,000 Non -Departmental Fund Increase in Budget for LEOFF I Healthcare Fd 200,000 - 200,000 Total LEOFF I Healthcare Fund 800,000 800,000 Real Estate Excise Tax Fund II Non -Departmental Reduce REET II 2010 revenue ro'ections - 400,000 400,000 Non -Departmental Fund Additional REET II Transfer Out to Stormwater Fund 250,000 - 250,000 Total Real Estate Excise Tax Fund II 250,000 400,000 650,000 Real Estate Excise Tax Reduce REET 12010 revenue Fund I projection 400,000 400,000 Public Utilities Reduce 2010 Public Utilities Fund Improvement Fund Revenue Projections 350,000 350,000 Administrative Services Reappropriate Regional Pictometry Fund - Information Technology Project 140,000 (140,000) Total Add'I Supplemental 3,440,693 4,754,008 8,194,701 251 WHATCOM COUNTY Health Department Memorandum TO: Dewey DDesler, Deputy Administrator ub FROM: Regina Delahunt, Director DATE: October 2, 2009 RE: 2010 Supplemental Budget Regina A. Delahunt Director Greg Stern, M.D. Health Officer RECEIVED OCT 01 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE The 2010 supplemental budget for the Health Department is attached. It includes changes to the budget that we are aware of at this time. I have not included a supplemental budget for H1 N1 Flu response funding because we are waiting for final word on the amount of that funding. Once that occurs we will prepare a supplemental budget for 2009 and 2010 for H1 N1 related activities. The table on -the following pages summarizes the additional service requests included with this memo. If you have any questions contact me or Terry Hinz. ADMINISTRATION 509 Girard Street COMMUNITY HEALTH 1500 North State Street PUBLIC HEALTH DISEASE RESPONSE Bellingham, WA 98225-4005 Bellingham, WA 98225-4551 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FAX (676-7646 676-6724 ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND (360) 676-4593 HUMAN SERVICES HEALTHIER WASHINGTBN (360) 676-6762 252 Summary of Health Department Additional Service Requests for 2010: Revenue Expenditure ASR# Change Change Net Change Description General Fund 868 (6,650) (6,650) - Site Hazard Assessment Funding Decrease 870 39,150 39,150 WIC program revenue increase 871 (28,560) (4,000) (24,560) Local Source Control Reduced Funding 872 (7,500) (7,500) Elimination of Group B Water Funding 876 (116,402) (108,254) (8,148) Reduced Developmental Disability Funding 882 - 93,100 (93,100) Reappropriate unspent 2009 DID Millage 883 22,000 19,700 2,300 Update 2010 DID Property Tax Estimate 884 - (149,735) 149,735 Eliminate General Fund Mental Health Support 885 (41,668) (41,668) Reduce 5930 Blue Ribbon Funding 886 (13,906) (13,906) Reduce 5930 Blue Ribbon Funding 887 (22,000) (12,300) (9,700) Reduce Tobacco Grant Funding 888 (551,049) (495,944) (55,105) Reduction in DASA Funding 889 50,000 50,000 Dept of Health OSS O&M Program Grant 890 (11,000) (11,000) Reduction in NSMHA Grant Funding 904 (58,000) (58,000) Reduced OSS Permit Activity 908 3,500 3,500 Increase in Solid Waste Grant 923 358,000 358,000 Transfer from Mental Health Fund to General for indirect costs 933 43,475 5,892 37,583 Human Services Program Specialist Position 925 45,000 45,000 Transfer from Mental Health Fund to General for Triage Center 956 (19,239) (19,239) Reduce restaurant permit fee revenue 958 (20,000) (20,000) Delete operating transfer in Total (334,849) (658,191) 323,342 0.1% Mental Health Tax Fund 877 - 515,000 (515,000) Transfer from Mental Health Fund to General and Jail Funds 879 - 1,945,000 (1,945,000) Mental Health Fund Contracts 881 - 43,475 (43,475) Transfer from Mental Health Fund to General for Prog Spec 893 348,000 (348,000) Transfer from Mental Health Fund to General for indirect costs 973 (300,000) - (300,000) Reduce 2010 MH/CD fund sales tax projections Total (300,000) 2,851,475 (3,151,475) 253 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Community Health Supp'l ID # 870 1 Fund 1 Cost Center 625200 Originator. Sandi Hughes -McMillan Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Women Infant Children Program Increase X — totz'- Depal4m4& Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object 2910.1000 4333.1057 Request Total Object Description Fund Balance Women -Infants -Children Amount Requested 1i ($39,150) - ($39,150) 1a. Description of request: The Women, Infant, Children program (WIC) has a State goal to improve the health and well being of the women and infants in Washington State. This request, adds additional revenue thru an amendment to our Consolidate Contract C14970 to add funds in the WIC/USDA Nutrition and Local Support category. 1b. Primary customers: Women, infants and young children in Whatcom County in specific risk categories. 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: N/A 4a. Outcomes: We are providing nutrition education services to clients and caregivers in accordance with federal and state requirements. We provide breastfeeding promotion activities as well as a retail food delivery system as defined by the Washington State WIC Nutrition program policy. By the end of 2009, the incidence of breastfeeding will be at least 89 %. Using the Breastfeeding Duration Report for All Infants, by the end of 2009, the duration of breastfeeding will be at least 75% at more then 4 weeks of age for infants included in the report. 4b. Measures: Documentation is maintained and reviewed on a biennial WIC monitoring event. Caseload management reports are reviewed often by Health Dept staff to measure outcomes. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: N/A 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. N/A 6. Funding Source: Consolidated Contract funds C14970. Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 254 Supplemental Budget Request Health Community Health Supp'l ID # 885 Fund 1 Cost Center 677500 Originator: Terry Hinz Status: Pending Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space i Priority 1 Name of Request: Reduce 5930 Blue Ribbon Funding, Part 1 X -"� -- ----- /O 407 Departm n ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 4334.0499 Other Public Hlth Svcs $41,668 J Request Total $41,668 la. Description of request: Funding was reduced by 20% by the State Legislature. This funding is used for a chronic disease prevention program. We will use Local Capacity Development Funds to continue this project in 2010. 1b. Primary customers: na 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options / Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: Develop a public health response to chronic disease issues in Whatcom County. 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: na 6. Funding Source: Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 255 Supplemental Budget Request Health Community Health Supp'11D # 887 Fund 1 Cost Center 677610 Originator. Terry Hinz Status: Pending Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Reduction in Tobacco Funding x kco,�A . -_ Departm ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: ' Object_ Object Description Amount Requested 4334.0497 MCH/Enhancement $22,000 6320 Office & Op Supplies 6339 Printing-Interfund j ($500) 6780 Travel-Educ/Training ($900) 6810 Advertising ($3, 000) r6870 Space Rental ($300) 7110 Registration/Tuition ($900) 7140 Meeting Refreshments ($1,200) r-- 7190 - - ---- - - - - - - Other Miscellaneous - - ($1,000) j Request Total $9,700 la. Description of request: Funding was reduced by 20% by the State Legislature. All non -personnel costs have been reduced from the budget. We intend to keep staffing at the same level for 2010 by using Local Capacity Development Funds. That funding source is already included in the 2010 budget. 1 b. Primary customers: na 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: To decrease the level of smoking in Whatcom County children 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. na 6. Funding Source: Consolidated Contract funds C14970. Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 256 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Disease Response & Control Supp'I ID # 886 Fund 1 Cost Center 660400 Originator: Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Reduce 5930 Blue Ribbon Funding, Part 2 x -A !o j2JO9' Department ad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested it �4334.0499 Other Public Hlth Svcs $13,90ti Request Total ! $13,906 1a. Description of request: Funding was reduced by 20% by the State Legislature. This funding is used to support the communicable disease program. H1 N1 response funds will cover this gap in funding in 2010 because staff will be working on responding to pandemic flu. 1b. Primary customers: na 2. Problem to be solved: na 3a. Options l Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other DepartmentslAgencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. na 6. Funding Source: na Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 257 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Environmental Health Supp'I ID # 868 Fund 1 Cost Center 656300 Originator. Sandi Hughes -McMillan Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space L_._i Priority 1 Name of Request: Site Hazard Assessment decrease x 10Z 0 Depa ` t Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description 4334.0325 State Grants 6320 Office & Op Supplies 6510 Tools & Equip 6630 Professional Services ............ 7110 Registration/Tuition r 7190 Other Miscellaneous luest Total Amount Requested $6,650 - — - -- ($150) ($2,000) ($3,000) ($900) --------------- - - - - - - ($600) 0 1 a. Description of request: The Site .Hazard Assessment grant thru Washington State Department of Ecology was decreased. The goal of this Site Hazard Assessment grant project is to investigate and analyze potential hazardous waste sites in Whatcom County. 1 b. Primary customers: N/A 2. Problem to be solved. N/A 3a. Options /Advantages: N/A 3b. Cost savings: N/A 4a. Outcomes: N/A 4b. Measures: N/A 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: N/A 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. N/A 6. Funding Source: WA DOE - Remedial Action Grant Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 258 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Environmental Health j Supp'l ID # 871 1 Fund 1 Cost Center 657200 Originator: Sandi Hughes -McMillan Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space _ Priority 1 Name of Request: Local Source Control Partnership decrease X Departure ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: F Object Object Description Amount Requested 4334.0314 — Solid Waste — ---^ 6320 Office & Op Supplies 6330 Printing 6510 Tools & Equip 6780 Travel-Educ/Training 6790 Travel -Other 7110 Registration/Tuition Request Total $28,560 li ($1,500) ($500) --($100) ($900) ($100) ($900) jl $24,560 la. Description of request: The Department of Ecology (Ecology) Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program supports local government efforts in the Puget Sound region to control, reduce or eliminate toxic pollution sources. The program, known as the Local Source Control Partnership, provides funding for local governments to hire 'Local Source Control Specialists (LSCS) 'to conduct source control site visits, implement pollution prevention practices, and provide technical assistance services. The purpose of the program is to help protect Puget Sound. -this reduction in funding funds 0.8 FTE of an Environmental Health Specialist. The remaining 0.2 FTE of this position has been transferred to the on -site sewage project funded by public works. 1b. Primary customers: N/A 2. Problem to be solved: N/A 3a. Options /Advantages: N/A 3b. Cost savings: N/A 4a. Outcomes: N/A 4b. Measures: N/A 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: N/A 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. N/A Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 259 Supplemental Budget Request Health Environmental Health Status: Pending Supp'I ID # 871 Fund 1 Cost Center 657200 Originator. Sandi Hughes -McMillan 6. Funding Source: WA DOE Local Source Control Partnership #200907004 Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 260 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Environmental Health Supp'l ID # 872 ! Fund 1 Cost Center 651200 Originator. Sandi Hughes -McMillan Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE Add'I Space ! Priority 1 Name of Request. Group B Plan Review DOH decrease X v /0(2-�0�' Depart a Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description 4334.0491 State Grants Request Total Amount Requested $7,500 ---$7,500 1a. Description of request: Consolidated Contract funding for Group B Water system plan reviews was eliminated. Historically the Group B water system program has been funded by the general fund. "this grant provides a small portion of support for this program. We will be working with the Board of Health the determine what changes we should make to the Group B program in Whatcom County. 1b. Primary customers: Whatcom County citizens served by Group B water systems. 2. Problem to be solved. N/A 3a. Options /Advantages: n/a 3b. Cost savings: n/a 4a. Outcomes: n/a 4b. Measures: n/a 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: No. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: n/a 6. Funding Source: Consolidated Contract thru Department of Health C14970 Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 261 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Environmental Health Supp'i iD # 889 Fund 1 Cost Center 654600 Originator. Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space a Priority 1 Name of Request: New OSS Op & Maint Grant X.. Departm "'en"ad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object 4334.0493 4346.5535 Object Description State Grants Filing Fee Amount Requested ($50,000) Request Total ($50,000) 1a. Description of request: The purpose of this grant is funding the implementation of on -site local management plan Operations and Maintenance program. This grant will help fund program costs of implementation. 1b. Primary customers: All of Whatcom County citizens benefit from clean drinking water and the enforcement of failing septic systems. 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: na 6. Funding Source: Consolidated Contract funds C14970 for the $50,000 grant. Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 262 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Environmental Health j Supp'l 1D # 904 Fund 1 Cost Center 654200 Originator. Sandi Hughes -McMillan Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'i FTE Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: On Site Septic permit service level reduction 1 X DeparttheAllead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested j 4322.1010 Septic Tank Installation $58,000 Request Total $58,000 la. Description of request: The On Site septic program estimated permits at 441 (at $950/each) for 2010. That estimate needs to be adjusted for current actual permitting levels to 380. This supplemental budget request reduces the revenue to the 380 permit level. 1 b. Primary customers: N/A 2. Problem to be solved. N/A 3a. Options /Advantages: N/A 3b. Cost savings: N/A 4a. Outcomes: N/A 4b. Measures: N/A 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: N/A 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: N/A 6. Funding Source: Permitting fee revenue. Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 263 Supplemental Budget Request Health Environmental Health Status: Pending Supp'I ID # 9o8 Fund 1 Cost Center 655200 Originator: Sandi Hughes -McMillan Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE L Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: SW- Coordinated Prevention Agreement increase X_� a Departm n ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) ate Costs: Object Object Description j 4334.0310 State Grants Request Total Amount Requested ($3,500) I� ($3, 500) 1a. Description of request. The Whatcom County Health Department seeks to protect human health and the environment in Whatcom County from the negative impacts of improper solid waste management by promoting and enforcing management requirements at exempt solid waste handling facilities. Tasks related to exempt solid waste facilities are funded in part through the Washington Department of Ecology, under the Coordinated Prevention Agreement. Grant agreement #200801026 will be increasing in funding. 1b. Primary customers: Whatcom County exempt solid waste handling facilities. 2. Problem to be solved: N/A 3a. Options /Advantages: N/A 3b. Cost savings: N/A 4a. Outcomes: N/A 4b. Measures: N/A 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: N/A 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. N/A 6. Funding Source: WA DOE Coordinated Prevention Agreement #200801026 increase in funding Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 264 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Environmental Health Supp'l ID # 956 Fund 1 Cost Center 652200 Originator: Sandi Hughes -McMillan Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Reduce restaurant permit fee revenue I X Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 4321.2100 Restaurant-Tavern-Groce $19,239 Request Total $19,239 la. Description of request: Reduce restaurant fee revenue to current activity level. 1 b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Permit fees. Tuesday, October 20, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 265 Supplemental Budget Request Health Human Services Status: Pending Supp'l ID # 876 Fund 1 Cost Center 673800 Originator: Sandi Hughes -McMillan Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE E Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Developmental Disabilities decreased funding X -A /O -1 Departrneead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date costs: object 4333.9667 — 4334.0468 6610 Request Total Object Description Social Svc Block Grant Developmental Disabilit Contractual Services Amount Requested - ($331,098) — - - - --�----- $447,500 -� ($108,254) ;I $8,148 la. Description of request: The state reduced funding for 2010 resulting in contract fewer services next year. 1b. Primary customers: na 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: No 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: na 6. Funding Source: State of Washington DDD County Services contract 0963-67948. County agreement 200906041 Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 266 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services Supp'l ID # 882 Fund 1 Cost Center 673200 Originator. Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Reappropriate unspent 2009 DD Millage X41.0A Depart en ad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object 2910.1000 6610 - Request Total Object Description Fund Balance Contractual Services Amount Requested $93,100 $93,100 la. Description of request: This represents the amount of developmental disabilities (DD) property tax millage from 2009 that was unspent during this year. This is the balance remaining after accounting for DD indirect costs for 2009. This is a request to reappropriated these unspent funds to be used to contract for services benefiting Whatcom County residents with developmental disabilities. This is in compliance with state law and county policy. 1 b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: na 6. Funding Source: DD tax levy Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 267 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services Supp l iD # 883 Fund 1 Cost Center 673200 Originator. Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space Cl Priority 1 Name of Request: Update 2010 Prop Tax Estimate- Developmental Dis. X -Mo�� to Departmenil6ad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object 4311.1000 6610 Request Total Object Description Current Year Collections Contractual Services Amount Requested ($22,000) $19,700 1 a. Description of request: This is to update the estimate for 2010 property tax collections. These funds will be used to provide services to persons with developmental disabilities as required by state law and county policy. 1 b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: na 6. Funding Source: DD tax levy, Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular a Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Health Human Services Supp'i lD # 8847 Fund 1 Cost Center 671300 Originator: Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Update 2010 Prop Tax & Eliminate Gen Fd Support �A Department tHead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 4311.1000 Current Year Collections ($22,000) 6610 Contractual Services ($149,735) 8301.1800 Operating Transfer In $22,000 Request Total ($149,735) 1a. Description of request: This is to update the estimate for 2010 property tax collections and to remove general fund support for mental health services. Mental health services funded by property tax millage will be limited to the amount of tax collected less an allowance for indirect costs for the program. Eliminates jail services transfer in due to higher property tax collections can now fund without the need for the jail transfer. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: na 6. Funding Source: Mental health tax levy. Tuesday, October 20, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 269 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services Supp l ID # 888 Fund 1 Cost Center 675200 Originator. Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space D Priority 1 Name of Request: Reduction in DASH Funding X Departm n ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description 4333.9959 Federal Grants - Indirect 4334.0466 DASA - CJTA 6610 Contractual Services Request Total Amount Requested ($67,756) $618,805 ($495,944) $55,105 1a. Description of request: The Whatcom County Substance Abuse Program builds an integrated substance abuse treatment network in order to ensure connectivity among individual programs and services, both within the local continuum of care and in collaboration with other service providers. The funding for the substance abuse program largely comes from DSHS - Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (DASA). The funding that comes from DASA for this year is less than originally budgeted. This supplemental request reduces the original budget. 1b. Primary customers: na 2. Problem to be solved: na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: na 6. Funding Source: na Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 270 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services suppl lO # sso Fund 1 Cost Center 671200 Originator. Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'l Space Priority 1 Name of Request: NSRSN Mental Health Administration Grant Reduction x DepartentAad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) `Date Costs: Object Object Description AmountRequested 4334.04641 State Grants $11,000 Request Total - $11,000 1 a. Description of request: Our contract for the administration of the Human Services mental health program was reduced by North Sound Regional Support Network. 1 b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. na 6. Funding Source: North Sound Regional Support Network Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp[ Regular 271 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services Supp'I ID # 92s Fund 1 Cost Center 670200 Originator: Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Transfer from Mental Health Fund for Indirect Cost X Departrnlenoead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 8301 Operating Transfer In — ($348,000)_ 8301 Operating Transfer In ($10,000) Request Total ($358,000) 1 a. Description of request: This is a transfer of administrative costs for the Methamphetamine grant included in cost center 124100 ($10,000) and the balance represents indirect costs of the new 0.1 % Mental Health tax fund. "rhe indirect costs are estimated to be 12% of total expenditures in the fund. The actual amount will be based on the Health Department's approved indirect rate for 2010. See ASR 893 1 b. Primary customers: na 2. Problem to be solved: na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. na 6. Funding Source: 01.% Mental Health Tax Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt. Rpt Supp! Regular 272 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services Supp'I ID # 925 Fund 1 Cost Center 675300 Originator: Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 1 2009 Add'I FTE Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Triage Support Depart a ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description 8301 Operating Transfer In Request Total 1 a. Description of request: Amount Requested �I - ($45,000) ($45,000) The Whatcom County Crisis Triage Center (WCCTC) is a facility that provides expedited assessment, stabilizing interventions for persons in crisis, and links them with community services. The center functions as a no -refusal point of entry for individuals who appear to be behaviorally disturbed, and who are at risk of ending up in jail or hospital because of that behavior. After being stabilized, individuals are quickly transitioned into existing community services and supports that can best meet their needs. The triage model is intended to provide a holistic continuum of multi -disciplinary activities and services that supports long-term stabilization and successful outcomes for persons experiencing behavioral health crisis. This is a transfer from the 0.1 % Mental Health tax fund to replace general fund support to the Triage Center. 1b. Primary customers: The Triage Center will work closely with local law enforcement, emergency medical providers, and social service providers to create a seamless intervention system that will connect crisis and underserved consumers with mental health, substance abuse, health, and other social programs. The focus of the Triage Center will be to provide Whatcom County residents with a single no wrong door point of entry to evaluation, stabilization, and referral/transitional supports. 2. Problem to be solved: The Triage Center provides an alternative for behavioral health consumers to relying upon hospital emergency room for non -medical and frequently sub acute crisis needs. Emergency rooms would be used as a referral when medical and or inpatient psychiatric care was indicated. The Crisis Triage Services provides collocated behavioral health beds and serve adults ages 18 years of age or older. The Triage Center provides brief crisis intervention services for individuals not requiring residential supports. Some individuals will be referred after their initial assessment to other more appropriate resources depending upon identified needs and risk management factors identified. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: By diverting behaviorally disturbed individuals to the Triage Center at the time of initial police contact, it is anticipated that the number of mentally ill and/or chemically dependent individuals booked into the local county jail will decrease. This reduction will allow the increasingly scare jail beds to be used for people who represent a greater risk to community safety. 4a. Outcomes: The Crisis Triage Center is an ongoing collaboration by Whatcom County and community social service Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 273 Supplemental Budget Request Health Human Services Supp'I ID # 925 Fund 1 Cost Center 675300 Originator: Terry Hinz Status: Pending providers to introduce cost effective best practice models of diverting behavioral health consumers from the criminal justice system and reducing the need for the creation of unnecessary jail capacity to serve chronic misdemeanants. 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 274 Supplemental Budget Request Health Human Services Supp'l ID # 933 I Fund 1 Cost Center 677300 Originator. Terry Hinz Status: Pending Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'1 Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Upgrade Position to Program Specialist Departmen ad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object _ObjectDescription 6110 Regular Salaries & Wages 6210 Retirement 6230 Social Security 6269 Unemployment-Interfund 8301 Operating Transfer In Request Total Amount Requested : $5,075 $414 $388 $15 ($43,475) 07,583) 1 a. Description of request: This is a proposal to upgrade an existing Prevention Coordinator position to Program Specialist. New duties will include the implementation of the new 0.1 % Mental Health program. Funding is also being transferred from the 0.1 % Mental Health Tax fund to pay for the new duties to be performed by this position. See ASR 881 1 b. Primary customers: na 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. na 6. Funding Source: 0.1 % Mental Health Tax Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 275 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending . Health Human Services ..... 1 , . Supp'l ID # 958 Fund 1 Cost Center 675300 Originator. Sandi Hughes -McMillan Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. Jail transfer deletion I X Department Aead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 8301.1800 Operating Transfer In $20,000 Request Total $20,000 1a. Description of request. Other funding was obtained by Human Services so they no longer need the jail transfer of funds to occur. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Friday, October 23, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppi Regular 276 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending .. Planning & Development Services Administration _. 00. Supp'l ID # 9s5 Fund 1 Cost Center Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. Reduce 2010 Revenue Budget X Dep rtment kead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Casts: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($1,100,000) 4345.8910 Critical Area Ord Fees $1,100,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Reduce 2010 revenue budget for PDS based on 2009 projected year-end results (projected as of 9/30/09). 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. Whatcom County General Fund needs to have a more accurate representation of the amount of revenues that will actually be available to support expenditures in 2010 in order to manage the budget. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 277 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending &. Planning Development Services Administration .. .. . . , 1. 04 0.00 Supp'l ID # 966 Fund 1 Cost Center Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 .. , ........ . Name of Request: Other PDS Adjustments X DepWnment ead Signature (ReI.quired on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 6110 Regular Salaries & Wages $50,000 6110 Regular Salaries & Wages 6630 Professional Services ($110,000) 11 Request Total ($145,000) la. Description of request. Adjust 2010 PDS budget by removing CPAL program now funded by Flood ($110,000), remove Flood - funded Code Enforcement FTE ($85,000), add $50,000 to cover SKEP promotions for existing personnel. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: Items in the PDS budget need to be adjusted to be able to accurately manage the 2010 budget. The CPAL program originally added in PDS will now be funded in the Flood Fund. Duties of a code enforcement FTE added in PDS to be paid for by a Flood transfer have been reassigned as compliance and education duties in the Stormwater Fund. A provision for SKEP promotions and reclasses which have happened since the beginning of the budget cycle is needed. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp[ Regular 278 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Parks & Recreation Supp'l ID # 935 Fund 1 Cost Center Originator: Michael McFarlane Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'i FTE ❑ Add'i Space ❑ Priority 1 .. . ... . .... . -.4 _. Name of Request: 2010 General Fund Budget Adjustment rN Costs: Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Object Object Description Amount Requested 4347.6020 Program Instruction Fee $52,700 4347.6040 Boat Launching Fees $2,500 4362.4105 Paddle Boats ($1,649) 4362.4106 Campsites ($14,412) 4362.4109 Building Rentals ($1,862) 4362.4110 Group Picnics $2,188 4362.4190 Miscellaneous Rentals ($13,178) 4369.9002 Lost & Damaged Books Re $4,209 6120 Extra Help 6230 Social Security ($4,239) 6259 Worker's Comp-Interfund ($1,988) 6269 Unemployment-Interfund ($245) 6320 Office & Op Supplies ($7,950) 6320.001 Office & Op Supplies ($100) 6329 Office & Op Supplies-Int ($100) 6330 Printing ($3,725) 6339 Printing-Interfund ($9,202) 6340 Books-Publications-Supsc ($100) 6410 Fuel ($1,493) 6510 Tools & Equip ($2,500) 6630 Professional Services ($20,272) 6635 Health Care Services ($500) 6710 Postage/Shipping/Freight ($6,425) 6720 Telephone 6760 Miscellaneous Communicat 6780 Travel-Educ/Training ($166) 6790 Travel -Other ($1,500) 6810 Advertising ($4,150) 6860 Equipment Rental ($1,250) 7060 Repairs & Maintenance ($100) 7110 Registrationfruition ($90) Thursday, October 08, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 279 Supplemental Budget Request Status. Pending Parks & Recreation Supp'I iD # 935 Fund 1 Cost Center Originator. Michael McFarlane 7190 Other Miscellaneous ($2,250) 8301 Operating Transfer In $95,249 Request Total $0 1a. Description of request. Adjustments in Parks & Recreation Department's 2010 projected revenues and expenditures are being proposed to maintain a balance between expenditures and revenues in 2010 as part of the County's mid - biennium budget review. 1b. Primary customers: The general public that utilize the Department's facilities and services. 2. Problem to be solved: This adjustment is being proposed as part of the 2009-2010 mid -biennium budget review process. 3a. Options /Advantages: The proposed adjustments meet the requirements for being budget neutral. Anticipated decreases in projected revenues have been off -set by decreases in expenditures. 3b. Cost savings: N/A 4a. Outcomes: A decrease in services and productivity will occur as a result of expenditure reductions. 4b. Measures: Departmental expenditures will not exceed approved revenues during 2010. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Some programming, service and facility costs may be assumed by other partner agencies if services are to be maintained at existing levels. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: N/A 6. Funding Source: N/A This is a budget adjustment. Thursday, October 08, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular ME$ Supplemental Budget Request Sratus: Pending Treasurer Supp'l ID # 950 Fund 1 Cost Center 3300 Originator: M Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 __.. Name of Request. Decrease 2010 Revenue Budget x G Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($1,625,000) 4311.1010 Delinquent Tax-1 Yr $90,000 4311.1020 Delinquent Tax-2 Yr $25,000 4311.1040 Delinq Tax-4 or More Yr $5,000 4312.1000 Private Harvest Tax $40,000 4317.3200 REET Processing Fee $75,000 4319.1100 Property Tax Penalties $120,000 4319.1600 Property Tax Interest $25,000 4361.1100 Investment Interest $1,245,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Decrease 2010 revenue budgets as follows: $120,000 Delinquent tax collections have slowed significantly $40,000 Private Harvest Tax due to downturn in lumber market $75,000 REET processing fee due to depressed real estate market $145,000 Property tax interest and penalty collections due to growth in delinquencies $1,245,00 Investment income decreases due to falling interest rates, decreasing fund balances, and requirements to shift interest income to the Flood Fund and EMS Fund. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options / Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: Thursday, October 15, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 281 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending M. .. ... Treasurer 00 Supp'I ID . ... .... M. .. .... ::.... .... , # 950 Fund 1 Cost Center 3300 Originator. M Caldwell 6. Funding Source: General Fund Thursday, October 1 S, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 282 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Juvenile Detention . .. Supp'l ID # 953 Fund 1 Cost Center 1970 Originator. M Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 1 2009 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Decrease Detention Bed Rent Rev Account X Department lVead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date costs. Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($30,000) 4342.7030 Juvenile Det Bed Rent $30,000 Request Total $0 1a. Description of request: Record decrease in Juvenile Detention lied Rent budget due to reduction in utilization of the contract. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: General Fund Friday, October 16, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 283 Supplemental Budget Request Status., Pending _. District Court Supp'l fo # s4� Fund 1 Cost Center 1300 Originator: M Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. Decrease Infraction Revenue Budget X rtment Head Signature (Reauired on Hard Com Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($190,000) 4353.1000 Traffic Infraction Pen $190,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Decrease 2010 budget for Traffic Infraction revenue based on 2009 projections. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: General Fund Thursday, October 15, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp1 Regular Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending District Court su lipp, o # 901 Fund 1 Cost Center 1300 Originator. Bruce Van Glubt ... ... ... . Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE Cii Add'I Space D Priority 1 Name of Request. Replace Video Recording, 1 Courtroom a year Department Head Signa r i Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 7420 Computer -Capital Outlays $15,000 8301.135 Operating Transfer In ($15,000) Request Total - — - - --- -- --- - $0 la. Description of request. Replace JAYS courtroom recording equipment. 1b. Primary customers: The courts, judicial officers, attorneys-, Aefendants, and the public 2. Problem to be solved. The recording equipment used in District Court is currently approximately 8 years on. All are custom built computers with a video processing unit built into the computer. All units are failing on a regular basis and cannot be maintained by DoIT. The vender reports that the equipment is so old that critical replacement parts are no longer being manufactured. -rhe vender reports that they will have to "cannibalize" parts from discarded equipment of other customers. The equipmentis increasingly unstable. 3a. Options /Advantages: Hire court reporters, which would be significantly more expensive, or rely on unreliable cassette recordings. 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: Quality recordings may be saved directly to network locations and permit real time monitoring and retrieval of proceedings. 4b. Measures: Equipment will be thoroughly tested upon installation. In addition, customers will provide feedback. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Installation of the recording equipment will be coordinated with DoIT. The computers will be serviced by county DoIT staff, while vendor maintain the software. Prosecutor and Public Defender may access proceedings as they occur and immediately self retrieve copies. Video files will be secured and stored on the network. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. DoIT will work with vendor to identify path to server storage folder 6. Funding Source: Trial Court Improvement Account funds. Friday, September 25, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 285 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending District Court Supp'I �� # goo ^! Fund 1 Cost Center 1300 Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Name of Request: Jury System Originator. Bruce Van Glubt Add'1 FTE ❑ Add'1 Space ❑ _._ Priority 1 Department Head Signatul( a uired on Hard Copy Submission) ate costs: Object 7420 Request Total Object Description Computer -Capital Outlays la. Description of request: Installation of new jury system. Amount Requested $37,523 $37,523 1b. Primary customers: The primary customers are the courts, judicial officers, defendants, attorneys, and the public. Each of these groups depend on reliable jury software to appropriately summons a jury pool for criminal and civil trials. 2. Problem to be solved: The current system has become unreliable over the last several years. The program crashes on a regular basis requiring the attention of DoIT and additional work on the part of the jury coordinator and District Court staff. DoIT was consulted before this ASR was submitted. 3a. Options / Advantages: The only other option would be to continue to use the current system. This is not a very good option because the system already is using DoIT time to repair the program on a continuous basis. In addition, jury coordinator time is wasted having to repeatedly reenter data that is lost. 3b. Cost savings: 1. The DoIT department will not be required to spend as much time dealing with jury software issues. The jury coordinator and District Court staff will not be required to reenter data or spend time trouble shooting system problems. 4a. Outcomes: The positive results of the new software should be seen immediately upon installation and training. The outcome will be jury pools being properly summoned for the correct day, time and court. 4b. Measures: The administrator will monitor the project. Failure to meet the desired outcome will become immediately evident if the proper jury pools are not summoned. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: DoIT will need to be involved in the installation of the software. This ASR was prepared with the support of DoIT. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. DoIT will coordinate the installation of the new software and hardware. 6. Funding Source: General fund. Friday, September 25, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp[ Regular Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending District Court Probation 00 Supp'I !D _ ... .. # 948 Fund 1 Cost Center 1310 Originator. M Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'i FTE ❑ Add'i Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Decrease Probation Revenues X Costs: sad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($329,026) 4338.1202 Cities/District Court $55,705 4342.3300 Adult Probation Svc Fee $273,321 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Decrease 2010 probation fee budget based on departmental projections and 2009 experience. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: General Fund Thursday, October 15, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 287 Request Status: Pending ._, upp emental Budget equ _ . .... ... District Court Probation 01 Supp9ID # 949 Fund 1 Cost Center 1311 Originator: M Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 .. .. Name of Request. Decrease Revenue/Expenditure in Substance Abuse rtment Fkad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Casts: Object Object Description Amount Requested 4346.3000 Substance Abuse Svc Chg $33,675 6110 Regular Salaries & Wages ($15,589) 6120 Extra Help 6210 Retirement ($2,189) 6230 Social Security ($2,149) 6255 Other H&W Benefits ($22) 6259 Workers Comp-Interfund ($640) 6269 Unemployment-Interfund ($109) 6630 Professional Services ($477) Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Decrease 2010 revenue budget based on 2009 experience and 2010 departmental projections. Decrease expenditures by a corresponding amount. Cost center should be self-supporting or close to self- supporting. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Thursday, October 15, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular WQ Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental Supp'l !o # 942 I Fund 1 Cost Center 4530 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 - _.. . Name of Request: Increase transfer to Emergency Management X Department q0ad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance 8351.16700 Operating Transfer Out $11,858 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. The Emergency Management Council approved a motion to increase local jurisdiction funding from $1.98 per capita to $2.18 per capita to make up budget shortfalls. 1b. Primary customers: Citizens of Whatcom County 2. Problem to be solved. The Division of Emergency Management's original 2010 budget required donations of over $147,669 be raised to supplement existing local jurisdiction contributions. That budget included 2.5 FTEs. The Emergency Management Council has been unable to raise the donations needed for the 2009 budget and is unlikely to be able to do so in 2010. The Division presented a revised 2009 budget to the Council which eliminated 1 FTE, added inkind services from other departments, and reduced other expenses. The 2010 budget will retain the revisions made in 2009. This results in the need to appropriate an additional $11,858 over what is currently in the 2010 approved budget. 3a. Options /Advantages: This was the option adopted by the Emergency Management Council of which Whatcom County is a member. The option funds 1.5 FTEs out of member contributions. The other option presented to the Emergency Management Council was for 2 FTEs which would have required total additional contributions. 3b. Cost savings: None 4a. Outcomes: The Division of Emergency Management will have the capacity to continue operations. In addition, due to restructuring and meeting target budgets through the addition of in -kind services the Division will be able to maintain an adequate level of funding to qualify for EMPG grant funds to continue its administrative position. 4b. Measures: The revised budget plan will be fully implemented. In -kind services will be accurately tracked and recorded. The Division will be able to continue its EMPG grant -funded position and the FTE funding set aside in the SHSP grant will be utilized. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Additional funding will be required by the other municipalities that are members of the Emergency Management Council. In addition, tracking of in -kind services has been implemented in the Sheriffs Office, Administrative Services and the Road Fund. Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular KW Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Non -Departmental _.. _ Supp'I ID # s42 Fund 1 Cost Center 4530 Originator. Marianne Caldwell 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: The Sheriffs Office accountant will be billing the other jurisdictions for their additional contributions. 6. Funding Source: General Fund Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Apt Suppl Regular 290 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental Supp'11D # 943 Fund 1 Cost Center 4250 Originator: Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. Increase What -Comm Appropriation X "�.ef Dep" rtmentad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($9,854) 7210 Intergov Prof Svcs $9,854 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Increase the 2010 budget appropriation for What -Comm based on approved 2010 City of Bellingham budget and allocation formula. 1b. Primary customers: Fire Districts and City of Bellingham 2. Problem to be solved. Whatcom County pays What -Comm dispatch charges on behalf of fire districts providing first responder services and on behalf of the Sheriffs Office. The 2010 allocation for these services amounts to $9,854 more than the amount allocated during the biennial budget process. Our agreement with the City of Bellingham mandates that we pay these charges. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: General Fund Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 291 WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #108 Bellingham, WA 98225-4082 "OM co 3rP G� e 9`SMING�� MEMORANDUM TO: Whatcom County Council FROM: Dewey Desler, Deputy AdministratA,kr,'r. RE: Energy Efficiency Conservation Blnt DATE: 10/16/09 Pete Kremen County Executive Dewey Desler Deputy Administrator The U.S. Department of Energy via the Recovery Act awarded Whatcom County an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) in the amount of $470,000. Desired outcomes of the EECBG project include: • Increased energy efficiency, reduced energy consumption and reduced energy costs • New jobs and increased productivity • Accelerated deployment of market -ready renewable energy technologies • Improved air quality and related environmental and health indicators associated with the reduction of fossil fuel emissions • Improved coordination of energy -related policies and programs across jurisdictional levels of governance and local/community level programs • Increased security, resilience, and reliability of energy generation and transmission infrastructure • Leveraging of the resource of federal, state and local governments, utilities and utility regulators, private sector and non-profit organizations to maximize the resulting energy, economic and environmental benefits • Widespread use of innovative financial mechanisms that transform energy markets. The attached budget supplemental includes the expenditures and revenues for the first year of the grant, 2010. The grant award will fund three energy efficiency programs unanimously supported by the Council when presented 6/23/09. They are: 1. $250, 000. Revolving Leveraged Loan Fund: Whatcom County has been working with Sustainable Connections and the city of Bellingham to utilize a portion of the grant as leverage for a community wide loan program to be used for residential/commercial energy efficiency retrofits. Under this approach the County would commit $250K and the City of Bellingham would commit $250K to the project. Sustainable Connections in partnership with the County, the City of Bellingham, the Opportunity Council and other partners would manage the Energy Efficiency Community Challenge program (EECC) targeting residential and commercial sectors. Sustainable Connections and Opportunity Council will create a "one -stop shop" for property owners to get assistance to develop and implement Office (360) 676-6717 County (360) 384-1403 FAX (360) 676-6775 TDD (360) 738-4555 292 energy efficiency projects in their buildings and market the Program together with the County, City and other partners. An essential part of the Program is to arrange financing solutions for participating energy users, allowing them to overcome the first cost barrier and pay for energy efficiency improvements over time, matching energy cost savings with loan payments. To this end, the County and City will contract with Sustainable Connections which in turn will sub -contract with the Energy Efficiency Finance Corporation (EEFC) to develop and oversee the financing component of the Program. This program would be matched or "leveraged" by loans through Banks and Credit Unions to create a self-sustaining program that could last for years. County and City grant funds along with local bank resources would be loaned to residential and commercial energy users for energy efficiency investments. The loans repaid over time would fuel other loans for the same purposes. The County and City respectively have committed in principal to devote $250,000 each of their federal Energy and Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds to provide credit enhancement and/other incentives supporting the planned commercial financing program. The County and City are also working on applying for separate State energy grant funds to enhance this program. 2. $160, 000 .8 FTE for Resource Conservation Manager (grant funded) Whatcom County would like to utilize a portion of the grant to refill a vacant position. This position is vital to the organization to achieve increased energy efficiency, reduced energy consumption and reduced energy costs. This position would also be responsible for pursuing grants for energy efficient capital projects including retrofits. The grant would cover benefits and wages over the three years of the grant. 3. $60, 000. Smart Trips Whatcom County through the award of this grant will support the Council of Government's Whatcom Smart Trips program for the on-line trip recording process that generates data and statistics resulting from the program. Program user data is anticipated to reflect decreases in greenhouse gases, fossil fuel usage, and reduction in vehicle miles. Tawni Helms who led this effort to pull together this grant program for Whatcom County is available to respond to questions. She can be reached at 50124. 293 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Non -Departmental Supp'l io Fund 1 Cost Center 4264 Originator. Tawni Helms Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'i FTE ❑ Add'i Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. DOE - Enegy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 4339 Federal Grant - ARRA ($314,114) 4369.9001 Miscellaneous Revenues ($10,780) 6110 Regular Salaries & Wages $36,480 6210 Retirement $2,674 6230 Social Security $2,791 6245 Medical Insurance $10,596 6255 Other H&W Benefits $1,662 6259 Worker's Comp-Interfund $5g2 6269 Unemployment-Interfund $109 6610 Contractual Services $250,000 7210 Intergov Prof Svcs $20,000 Request Total $o la. Description of request. The U.S. Department of Energy via the Recovery Act is distributing Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG). Whatcom County applied for a grant in the amount of $470,000. Whatcom County was awarded the full $470,000. for a period of 3 years. 1.$250,000. Revolving Leveraged Loan Fund: Whatcom County has been working with Sustainable Connections and the city of Bellingham to utilize a portion of the grant as leverage for a community wide loan program to be used for residential/commercial energy efficiency retrofits. Under this approach the County would commit $250K and the City of Bellingham would commit $250K to the project. Sustainable Connections in partnership with the County, the City of Bellingham, the Opportunity Council and other partners would manage the Energy Efficiency Community Challenge program (EECC) targeting residential and commercial sectors. To this end, the County and City will contract with Sustainable Connections which in turn will sub -contract with the Energy Efficiency Finance Corporation (EEFC) to develop and oversee the financing component of the Program. This program would be matched or "leveraged" by loans through Banks and Credit Unions to create a self- sustaining program that could last for years. County and City grant funds along with local bank resources would be loaned to residential and commercial energy users for energy efficiency investments. The loans repaid over time would fuel other loans for the same purposes. The County and City respectively have committed in principal to devote $250,000 each of their federal Energy and Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds to provide credit enhancement and/other incentives supporting the planned commercial financing program. The County and City are also working on applying for separate State energy grant funds to enhance this program. 2. $160,000 .8 FTE for Resource Conservation Manager (grant funded) Friday, October 23, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp[ Regular 294 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Non -Departmental Supp'I ID # 951 Fund 1 Cost Center 4264 Originator: Tawni Helms Whatcom County would like to utilize a portion of the grant to refill a vacant position. This position is vital to the organization to achieve increased energy efficiency, reduced energy consumption and reduced energy costs. This position would also be responsible for pursuing grants for energy efficient capital projects including retrofits. The grant would cover all benefits and wages over the three years of the grant. 3.$60,000. Smart Trips Whatcom County through the award of this grant will support the Council of Government's Whatcom Smart Trips program for the on-line trip recording process that generates data and statistics resulting from the program. Program user data is anticipated to reflect decreases in greenhouse gases, fossil fuel usage, and reduction in vehicle miles. 1 b. Primary customers: Whatcom County Citizens 2. Problem to be solved: 1. Loss Loan Reserve Sustainable Connections and Opportunity Council will create a "one -stop shop" for property owners to get assistance to develop and implement energy efficiency projects in their buildings and market the Program together with the County, City and other partners. An essential part of the Program is to arrange financing solutions for participating energy users, allowing them to overcome the first cost barrier and pay for energy efficiency improvements over time, matching energy cost savings with loan payments. 2. Resource Conservation Manager Energy Waste accounts for lost resources and revenue for the County and community at large. 3. Smart Trips High carbon output into the environment through high numbers of single occupancy vehicle trips. 3a. Options /Advantages: Not appling for the formula grant. Although there is an intense application and reporting process for this award the benefits of receiving the funding to support these valuable conservation efforts far outweigh the option of not pursing the funding. 3b. Cost savings: Loss Loan Reserve: No cost savings. Benefits are to the citizens who will have greater access to loans for energy audits and retrofits saving money through energy efficiency strategies. Conservation Resource Analyst. Grant funding allows for the recruitment of a new Conservation Resource Analyst. The position has been vacant due to the hiring freeze for close to a year. Cost savings will be achieved throught the exercise of energy efficency strategies championed by the this FTE. Smart Trips: Savings benefits for the Smart Trips program allows greater opportunity for education and awareness for the community and ultimately encouraging alternate commute trips. 4a. Outcomes: Desired outcomes of the EECBG project include: 1. Increased energy efficiency, reduced energy consumption and reduced energy costs 2. New jobs and increased productivity 3. Accelerated deployment of market -ready renewable energy technologies 4. Improved air quality and related environmental and health indicators associated with the reduction of fossil fuel emissions Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 295 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental Supp l ID # 951 Fund 1 Cost Center 4264 Originator. Tawni Helms 5. Improved coordination of energy -related policies and programs across jurisdictional levels of governance and local/community level programs 6. Increased security, resilience, and reliability of energy generation and transmission infrastructure 7. Leveraging of the resource of federal, state and local governments, utilities and utility regulators, private sector and non-profit organizations to maximize the resulting energy, economic and environmental benefits 8. Widespread use of innovative financial mechanisms that transform energy markets. 4b. Measures: 1. The Loss Loan Reserve program will jump start residential and commercial energy audits and retrofits helping to generate energy savings throughout the community. The Loss Loan Reserve program will leverage the original $500,000 (from the County and City grant awards) towards a multi -million dollar loan program. 2. Resource Conservation Manager. This County position will be responsible for generating and measuring a decrease in energy waste through the development of employee based programs and ititiatives. 3. Smart Trips will encourage greater participation throughout the community for using alternate modes transportation such as walking, biking and mass transit. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: The Executive's Office for oversight of the Federal Grant. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 296 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Non -Departmental Supp'l ID # s5a Fund 1 Cost Center 4530 Originator: M Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority Name of Request: General Fund Transfer Reductions X Department Heed Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance $155,098 8351.10907 Operating Transfer Out ($20,000) 8351.118 Operating Transfer Out ($135,098) Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Reduce General Fund transfer to Election Reserve Fund in 2010 due to increased revenue projections of $20,000 in city registration fees. Reduce General Fund transfer to Jail Fund due to Mental Health Sales Tax Fund now funding the following items in the Jail budget: $42,000 in transfers to the Health Dept for Mental Health Case Manager services and Chemical Dependency Case Manager services $34,320 in Psychiatric services $58,778 in psychotropic medications See related Jail Fund supplementals #919 Jail Medications, #921 Psychiatrist Services, and #939 Case Manager fund transfers 1 b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: This will save the General Fund $155,098 in 2010. 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp[ Regular 297 Supplemental Budget Request Status. Pending Non -Departmental Supp9 to # 959 Fund 1 Cost Center 2945 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'i FTE ❑ Add'll Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Remove LEOFF I healthcare budget from General Fund [I Costs: Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance $100,000 6245 Medical Insurance ($10Q000) Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Remove LEOFF I medical insurance budget from General Fund. All LEOFF I retiree medical costs to be paid out of LEOFF I Healthcare Fund. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending 0. Non -Departmental Supp'l ID # 962 Fund 1 Cost Center 4530 Originator: Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 me of Request: Recognize trf in from LEOFF I Healthcare Fund X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance $600,000 9101 Res Equity Trans In - Inf ($600,000) Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Recognize transfer in from LEOFF I Healthcare Fund for $600,000. See supplemental ID #961 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: 3a. Options / Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 299 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental Suppl ID # 963 Fund 1 Cost Center 4900 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'l Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. 2010 Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan settlement X Departme ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date 0. . I . I . - WON Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($33,000) 7120 Judgements & Damages $33,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Per the DNR lawsuit settlement case, Whatcom County paid Mount Baker School district $150,000 in 2009 (see 2009 Suppl ID #842) and is obligated to pay $33,000 in 2010. This request is for the 2010 payment. 1b. Primary customers: Mount Baker School District 2. Problem to be solved. This payment is to compensate Mount Baker School District for the impact of lost timber harvest revenues as a result of a DNR lawsuit regarding the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan. 3a. Options /Advantages: none 3b. Cost savings: none 4a. Outcomes: Lawsuit settlement 4b. Measures: Second of two payments will be made. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Prosecuting Attorney's Office - Karen Frakes 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: General Fund Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 300 Supplemental Budget Request Stars: Pending Non -Departmental _. Supp'I ID # 964 Fund 1 Cost Center 120 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'i FTE ❑ Add'i Space ❑ Priority 1 61. Name of Request. Record Non -Dept Revenue Adjustments X Dep rtment lad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($709,055) 4313.1000 Sales & Use Tax Collecte $887,794 4313.7100 Criminal Justice Sales T $239,7066 4332.1523 Federal In Lieu Of Taxes ($768,445) 8110 State Timber Sales $350,000 Request Total $0 1a. Description of request: Record projected decreases in sales tax revenue budget for the general sales tax and the criminal justice sales tax. Revenue amounts were originally budgeted during summer of 2008. Sales tax budget was based on 2008 projected year-end amounts plus a 3% increase in 2009 and 3% in 2010. As of the 2009 Eight Month Financial Report, revenues are expected to be down almost $413,000 in the general sales tax account and almost $240,000 in the criminal justice account. In addition, the general sales tax account benefited by approximately $475,000 of one-time refinery work adjustments posted in April 2009. Those adjustments will not be repeated in 2010. Total decreases are $1,127,500. 2010 adjusted amounts are still projected to grow at 3% over the projected 2009 annual amount less one-time adjustments. Record projected decreases in timber sales activity based on 2009 levels (-$350,000). Record projected increase in federal payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) payment based on Congressional action (+$768,445). 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. Whatcom County budget needs to more accurately reflect changing revenue conditions due to the current economic downturn. Actually recording these decreases in the budget will enable management to more effectively manage the budget. 3a. Options / Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 301 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental Supp'11D # 967 Fund 1 Cost Center 3300 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 1 2009 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 _... __. ... . Name of Request. Decrease Original Property Tax Budget X 4z� Departmen ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($435,000) 4311.1000 Current Year Collections $435,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Decrease the original budget for the current expense property tax account by $435,000. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. Property tax projections done during the summer of 2008 for the current expense property tax account were higher than actual assessments due to lower than projected new construction valuations added to the tax rolls and lower than projected levy rates applied to the new construction. To more accurately assess the financial condition of Whatcom County the 2010 budget should be reduced. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Friday, October 23, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 302 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental _0 wow Supp'11D # s7o Fund 1 Cost Center 4530 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority Name of Request. Reappropriate GF pictometry transfer X De artment 14ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($30,000) 8351.507110 Operating Transfer Out $30,000 Request Total $0 1a. Description of request. Reappropriate $30,000 general fund transfer to support pictometry project in AS- IT (GIS section). This project also includes $110,000 in funding from other funds and other entities. See supplemental ID 9929 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Saturday, October 24, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 303 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending . . Non -Departmental . Supp'1 !o # 972 1 Fund 1 Cost Center 4300 Originator: Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request . . Adjust 2010 Animal Control budget X 'A Department kead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance $15,240 6610 Contractual Services ($29,980) 6610 Contractual Services $450 6659 Building Maintenance Fee $14,290 Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Adjust animal control budget for requested decrease in contract amount and addition of building maintenance fees to pay for building utilities and maintenance. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: During biennial budget preparation, the Council fully funded the 2009 animal control budget but the 2010 budget was put on hold due to the fact the Humane Society did not have a projected 2010 budget at the time. The 2009 animal control contract with the Humane Society is for $505,419.49. The Society has been asked by the Administration to decrease that amount by $50,000. In addition, security service charges and building maintenance fees to cover utilities and maintenance on the building are not incorporated into the budget. This supplemental request modifies the 2010 animal control budget to make those adjustments. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 304 O o \o m m w I n o C o m lfl �p m r m n N z Y' n ��.= o o \o \o o � I ❑ O H l7 N l7 )v �., m z n r (D H c3 C` o o z ' r o dtzj 3 '1 ry (D o a a r h O b7 w V to in � I i y r r o O H o O o a a O o a o O o v \\ O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�❑'' rt rt rt N fD "J' ,pC O Y• i co H H H NW N roG Y xrn n'Y ro1Nn O O O O Y• Y (D ry 'ii G O O co a 11 ly O fD H 'Iy y y o r1 r1 a 3 ri G xu I a o r i H y \o m In p ai a 0 n \o r ro r >4 'U r(D fD G N O N o r a H k t1i< H R+ x G m p (D O H. O '.7 G H(D i H C, 0 ro C r a 0 rYorra rm � o `f. O Oa a w ro a mo r Oo z .'U 0 ft30 \o a a N h r o ?� 10 \o G o o Y Y 'N n aMO (D m i n xl .ro b .'7 ": C*7 Y tf o lfl t'1 fD b n 7 r r z m C (D ry 7 x r H n n Y ID (D G H R, rr rr m a C Y (D H ro n n 3 G G r G F to fD G Y 3(D z a s a rr CD r a ?I Y (D a N [*] Hp G r 0 n \o a3 N rd O O G I O rr O a \ ` O N rrrG rGr oQ 0'O H �N I W H. N O - p. G 0.0 H \" m In rrNHron (D I q a a ,p r1 0 `C rt O n 0 O O O r U) O M r(D r r I G O Y H T w P. a d(D(D w r�r n 30 a Pl ryO n Y O G a < Y w oR�<n w' O m 3 (D P (D a m °rP.m (D n r n d o r h (D Y] a O h O a H O G O rn H p (D x7 rn Y(T N G Y Pry O n r .� �oroa r 3 G n m o N 0 3 a m n In rT (D O m D N rT O O (T (D H O O N a N fD G O x IDn O O rr Y- G 11 O G n n O D H G (D (DH N N O $ O 3 rT O O n n o o Y D 0 m o 3 r a N G - G nHao m p ro A m Y N W 0 0 i o-i m n y (D Y' N O fD 3 (D m° rt a m tr R In a w D R G Y. fD n rn rn (D -- G (Da❑ a a U) N W `-' lQ I N O O E 13 Lla0 Caa l7 z 0 � n y N K rr (D 305 k�:g-; `{ 0 Cll Whatcom County Contract No. z e a00r0R0aD' CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT Whatcom Humane Society Service Agreement Whatoom Humane Society hereinafter called Contractor, and Whatcom County, hereinafter referred to as County, agree and contract as set forth in this Agreement, including: General Conditions, pp._ to _, Exhibit A (Scope of Work), pp. — to Exhibit B (Compensation), pp. _ to 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 1 day of January 20 09 . and shall, unless terminated or renewed as elsewhere provided in the Agreement, terminate on the 31 day of December 20 09 . The general purpose or objective of this Agreement is to: provide animal control and shelter services for Whatcom County 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 $ 505,419.49 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 Qa&jAA±U 20 Qom. CONTRACTOR: Whatco Human Soaeia Add more li s if more than one party Penny Cistaro, Executive Director STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On t s S day of 20 � before me personally appeared (Com'any) anti the above instr' acTAgy -00 4M U10 Contract for Services Agreement [Whatcom Humane Service Agreement] v 1.0 w to me known to be the EA,- . r (title) of 3pcnooedged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. IC in and'fdr the State of Washington rest ing at A6. My commission expires I t Page 1 306 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Public Works Administration Supp7 ID # 983 Fund 108 Cost Center 10890 Originator: Perry Rice Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 1 2009 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space 0 Priority 1 Name of Request: Road Fund Transfer for Regional Pictometry x aL Dep rtment 46ad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Costs: Object 2910.1000 8351.4530 Request Total Object Description Fund Balance Operating Transfer Out Date Amount Requested ($10,000) $10,000 $0 la. Description of request: Road Fund Transfer to fund a portion of the cost of Regional Pictometry See Suplemental LID # 929 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Road Fund Fund Balance Saturday, October 24, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 307 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Public Works Administration Supp7 ID # 899 1 Fund 108 Cost Center 10895 Originator. Peggy Leviton Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: PWA - 2010 Civic Center moving expenses K Costs: ff"-, r .W, _ V� � � � � � ent Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($34,000) 6610 Contractual Services $34,000 8351 Operating Transfer Out $0 Request Total $0 1a. Description of request. Attached is a preliminary estimate, solicited from Facilities Management, in the amount of approximately $34,000 for the project to move PW Engineering from the Copper Building to the 3rd floor of the Civic Center building. This entails taking the old furniture apart at the Copper Building (to control the dismantle and reduce damage), moving to the new site (to control the transport and reduce damage), and reassembly at the new location with new materials as needed (to control and assume responsibility for installation). 1b. Primary customers: Whatcom County and Public Works 2. Problem to be solved. Moving Public Works Engineering Division from the Copper Buildling to the 3rd floor of the Civic Center building after completion of Civic Center buildout. 3a. Options / Advantages: This option is the most feasible to control the risks associatedwith this move. 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Road Fund balance. Thursday, October 15, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular "Ii OTWI WorksProposal 1415 Western Ave Whatcom County Facilities Management Seattle Wa 98101 Carol Rofkar Ingrid Amirault 316 Lottie Project Manager Bellingham WA 98225 206-396-6124 ph fax ingridamirault@omworkspace.com Whatcom County Leverage Solution NEW 60109 Item Qty Product Sell Price: Date: 9/15/2009 Reference #: Unit Extended 1 5 KCC663 $40.80 $204.00 Three -Way Connector, 66"h Foundation & Mica Finish Colors —Foundat Foundation Colors Foundation Finish Colors E Ebony (Satin) 2 16 KCCN6690 $62.00 $992.00 Two -Way Connector 90 deg., 66"h Foundation & Mica Finish Colors —Foundat Foundation Colors Foundation Finish Colors E Ebony (Satin) 3 12 KCW66 $28.40 $340.80 Panel Wall Adapter, 66"h Foundation & Mica Finish Colors —Foundat Foundation Colors Foundation Finish Colors E Ebony (Satin) 4 15 KTE66 $12.00 $180.00 Panel End Trim, 66"h Foundation & Mica Finish Colors —Foundat Foundation Colors Foundation Finish Colors E Ebony (Satin) Electrical 5 5 EBFQ8T72 $100.00 $500.00 Base Feed, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, 72" long Country of Installation A Canada/USA 6 2 EBH8T96 $72.00 $144,00 Power Harness, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, 96" long Country of Installation A Canada/USA 7 1 EBH8T24 $47.60 $47.60 Power Harness, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, 24" long Country of Installation A Canada/USA 8 3 EBH8T96 $72.00 $216.00 Power Harness, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, 96" long Country of Installation A Canada/USA 9 2 EBH8T144 $92.00 $184.00 Power Harness, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, 144" long Country of Installation A Canada/USA www.omworkspace.com Page 1 of 5 309 rkspace 1415 western Ave Whatcom County Facilities Management Seattle Wa 98101 Carol Rofkar Ingrid Amirault 316 Lottie Project Manager Bellingham WA 98225 206-396-6124 ph fax ingridamirault@omworkspace.com Whatcom County Leverage Solution NEW 60109 Item Qty Product Sell Price: Proposal Date: 9/15/2009 Reference #: Unit Extended 10 2 EBH8T24 $47.60 $95.20 Power Harness, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, 24" long Country of Installation A Canada/USA 11 1 EBH8T48 $58.80 $58.80 Power Harness, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, 48" long Country of Installation A Canada/USA 12 2 EBH8T96 $72.00 $144.00 Power Harness, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, 96" long Country of Installation A Canada/USA 13 1 EFQ8T $66.40 $66.40 Power Distribution Box, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground Country of Installation A Canada/USA 14 4 ERQDA8T13 $80.80 $323.20 Double Power Box, Single -Sided, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, Circuits 1&3 Country of Installation A Canada/USA Finish Black 15 3 ERQDA8T25 $80.80 $242.40 Double Power Box, Single -Sided, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, Circuits 2&5 Country of Installation A Canada/USA Finish Black 16 2 ERQDB8T1313 $113.60 $227.20 Double Power Box, Double -Sided, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, Circuits 1&3 Country of Installation A Canada/USA Finish Black 17 3 ERQDB8T2525 $113.60 $340.80 Double Power Box, Double -Sided, 8-Wire, Isolated Ground, Circuits 2&5 Country of Installation A Canada/USA Finish Black 18 1 KEE23036 $38.00 $38.00 Fabric Power/Comm. Element, Power & Comm., 30"h x 36"w Teknion, Cosmic & Luna/Maharam Fabrics "1 Teknion Fabric GrA Fabric Grade 1 D4 India www.omworkspace.com Page 2 of 5 310 C. .Works ace Proposal 1415 Western Ave Whatcom County Facilities Management Date: 9/15/2009 Seattle Wa 98101 Carol ROfkar Reference #: Ingrid Amirault 316 Lottie Project Manager Bellingham WA 98225 206-396-6124 ph fax ingridamirault@omworkspace.com Whatcom County Leverage Solution NEW 60109 Item Qty Product Sell Price: Unit Extended Fabric Color 03 Jaipur Bezel Finish N Black 19 3 KEE23048 $42.40 $127.20 Fabric Power/Comm. Element, Power & Comm., 30"h x 48"w Teknion, Cosmic & Luna/Maharani Fabrics —1 Teknion Fabric GrA Fabric Grade 1 D4 India Fabric Color 03 Jaipur Bezel Finish N Black New 20 2 KPET66_A 24 $190.00 $380.00 24" Panel Config 21 19 KPET66_A 30 $207.60 $3,944.40 30" Panel Config 22 24 KPET66_A 36 $227.20 $5,452.80 36" Panel Config 23 1 KPET66_A 42 $255.60 $255.60 42" Panel Config 24 5 KPET66_A 48 $281.60 $1,408.00 48" Panel Config 25 5 KPET66_D2_A 48 $292.00 $1,460.00 48" Panel Config 26 1 KPET66_S2_A 30 $220.00 $220.00 30" Panel Config 27 2 KPET66_S2_A 36 $238.40 $476.80 36" Panel Config 28 1 KPET66_S2_A 48 $286.80 $286.80 48" Panel Config Z-INSTALL 29 1 NEW $4,240.51 $4,240.51 RECEIVE DELIVER AND INSTALL www.omworkspace.com Page 3 of 5 311 1 .Workspace Proposal 1415 Western Ave Whatcom County Facilities Management Date: 9/15/2009 Seattle Wa 98101 Carol Rofkar Ingrid Amirault 316 Lottie Reference #: Project Manager Bellingham WA 98225 206-396-6124 ph fax ingridamiraultOo omworkspace.com Whatcom County Leverage Solution NEW 60109 Item Qty Product Sell Price: Unit Extended INTEGRATE NEW PANELS AND DESKING - REGULAR HOURS QUOTED 30 1 EXISTING $6,835.44 $6,835.44 KNOCK DOWN EXISTING PANEL SYSTEM AND DESKING SYSTEM DISASSEMBLE AND MOVE PER DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY OMW AND APPROVED BY WHATCOM COUNTY REGULAR HOURS QUOTED 31 1 MISC FURNITURE $4,493.67 $4,493.67 INCLUDES MISC BOOKCASES, FILING DRAWERS DOES NOT INCLUDE: CONTENTS OF FILES, BC PLOTTERS OR OTHER SENSITIVE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT -REGULAR HOURS QUOTED Total: www.omworkspace.com $33,925.62 Page 4 of 5 312 l9 l9 y z I%wno3 wool-qM HMO?' s� v a ,� � H �• ut �`.' o IA 2 F,29� a5s �yg Z � pp_ N oC O O O O Ae O •9 s • — O I O a: - • 'T a 1 •! A i 1 k :y �a 9 aid O n 1 I ' O nT I I � cO� h 71 I U 0 :J ��'771r ��Ijjl � 1-1 El (9) O O u O \ ___- L O OOO h O - tl3'NI10] 7tllIlI1J I II •� � c G q A '•� � ' S � � P x O I( R P m LU1 i i s` a I I / LU ! ! ! L1 J 313 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Jail Supp'I ID # 9197 Fund 118 Cost Center 118160 Originator: Wendy Jones Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2010 Add'1 FTE ❑ Add'1 Space ❑ Priority Name of Request: Jail Medications X Departmek Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 6320.001 Office & Op Supplies $241,222 8301.001 Operating Transfer In $58,778 8301.124 Op Trnsfr In -Chem Dep ($300,000) Request Total $0 1a. Description of request: This request is to utilize funding provided by the Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Sales Tax for the purchase and administration of psychotropic medications for jail offenders. The jail is legally required to provide the community standard of medical care for incarcerated offenders. This includes medications. This line item has been significantly under funded for a number of years, due to not only the number of offenders on medically necessary medications, but the number and types of medication they are on. Approximately 60% of the medications administered in the jail are for the treatment of serious mental illness. This Supplemental include the following assumptions: Expenditures: Approximately $300,000 will be needed for Psychotropic Medications An additional $140,000 will be needed for non-psychotropic medications Total requirement = $440,000 Funding: Mental Health/Chemical Dependency funding $300,000 Approved Jail Medication Budget for 2010 + $198,778 Total currently possible funding = $498,778 Funds needed for 2010 Jail Medications - $440,000 BALANCE TO RETURN TO GENERAL FUND = $ 58,778 1b. Primary customers: Offenders incarcerated in the Whatcom County Jail and Work Center. 2. Problem to be solved: The jail is legally mandated to provide medication to offenders. We have insufficient funding in our budget to do so. Funds have now become available through the Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Sales Tax to provide adequate funding for this service. 3a. Options /Advantages: Alternatives to funding this service from the Mental Health/Chemical Dependency sales tax include: 1) Not provide medications which has been determined to be medically necessary. This has two negative effects; the first is to exacerbate existing mental health conditions in a vulnerable population and contribute to their mental health deterioration. The second is to expose the County to a significant legal liability by violating the constitutional mandate established by Estelle V Gamble. Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Apt: Apt Suppl Regular 314 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Jail .. Supp'I ID # 919 Fund 118 Cost Center 118160 Originator: Wendy Jones 2) Continue to draw the funds from the County General fund. This stresses an already overburdened funding source for the County. The request to use the new sales tax dollars to cover this service fits within the intent and letter of the law, and will allow the service to be provided without drawing from the General fund. Neither of the above options are optimal. By accessing this new funding source, we reduce dependence on the General fund, provide badly needed medications to a vulnerable population and reduce liability exposure for the County. 3b. Cost savings: $300,000 General Fund dollars that would be needed to provide medications. 4a. Outcomes: Adequate funds will be available to cover medication costs for the Jail. 4b. Measures: Monthly monitoring of Jail Expenditures as measured against our budget allocation. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Whatcom County Health Department. The Health Department is statutorily designated as the County Department administering these funds. This Supplemental will require a one time fund transfer from the Mental Health/Chemical Dependency sales tax fund into the Jail's Medical cost center. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. Anne Deacon, Human Services Manager and Terry Hinz, Health Assistant Director. They will be responsible for authorizing the funds transfer. 6. Funding Source: Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Sales Tax Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Rpt: Apt Suppl Regular 315 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Jail _ . supp,11D # 921 Fund 118 Cost Center 118160 Originator: Wendy Jones Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority _ .. . Name of Request: Psychiatrist Services X Departme4 Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 6635.006 Contract Medical Provide $135,680 8301.001 Operating Transfer In $34,320 8301.124 Op Tmsfr In -Chem Dep ($170,000) Request Total $0 la. Description of request: This supplemental will provide funding for Psychiatrist services for the Jail and Work Center. Our population of mentally ill offenders is increasing in both numbers and acuity, and additional clinic hours are needed. This new funding, drawn from the Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund, will provide the additional clinic hours needed to adequately manage this population, and will allow us to replace currently allocated funding for this service. The assumptions made for this Supplemental budget request are as follows: Mental Health/Chemical Dependency fund will provide $170,000 Existing Jail 2010 Psychiatrist allocations is - $34,320 Net amount of spending authority requested=$135,680 Releasing the currently approved allocation will reduce the total amount of funding available to spend on these services to $135,680, which should be adequate to provide the clinic hours needed to provide evaluation and treatment services to this population. 1b. Primary customers: Mentally ill offenders housed at the Whatcom County Jail or Work Center. 2. Problem to be solved: The jail has always been a primary treatment provider for in -patient mental health services. As much as we would like to get out of this business, the reality is that for a myriad of reasons, a high percentage of seriously mentally ill community members wind up in jail. We have been trying for years to increase the number of clinic hours available to evaluate and/or treat these offenders, with only limited success. With the passage of the Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Sales Tax, a new funding source has become available to provide this service at a more realistic level, Currently, severely ill inmates may wait weeks to see the jail psychiatrist, due to lack of clinic hours. This leaves the ill inmate without meaningful treatment and increases management problems for Jail staff. 3a. Options /Advantages: Alternatives to funding these increased hours include: 1) Continue to draw funding from the General Fund and the Jail Sales Tax Fund. These fund are being stressed past their capacity, and it is prudent to utilize alternative funding when it is available. 2) Not provide the service. This denies needed treatment to seriously ill community member and exposes the County to a significant legal liability via the constitutional requirement to provide medical care Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 316 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Jail Supp'I 1D Fund 118 Cost Center 118160 Originator: Wendy Jones set down by Estelle V Gamble. 3b. Cost savings: This eliminates the need to draw the funding from the General fund/Jail Sales Tax fund. 4a. Outcomes: October 1, 2009, negotiations will begin with Whatcom Counseling and Psychiatric Services to determine the extent and types of the expanded services. Beginning January 1, 2010 additional clinic hours to evaluate, treat and follow up treatment plans for mentally ill offenders will begin. 4b. Measures: 1) Monitoring of the monthly billing as compared against allocation. 2) Review of rates of service (number of offenders seen) during the Quarterly Medical Meeting. 3) Update of the medical services statistics kept by the Chief Corrections Deputy. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Whatcom County Health Department. The Health Department is statutorily designated as the County Department administering these funds. This Supplemental will require a one time fund transfer from the Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Sales Tax fund into the Jail's Medical cost center. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: Anne Deacon, Human Services Manager and Terry Hinz, Health Assistant Director. They will be responsible for authorizing the funds transfer. The Whatcom Counseling and Psychiatric Clinic is currently the provider for these services. They have indicated a willingness to work with us to increase the level of service. If, for some reason, they would be unable to do so, we would issue an RFQ to the community. 6. Funding Source: Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Sales Tax Fund. Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 317 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Jail Supp'1 to # 937 Fund 118 Cost Center 118160 Originator: Wendy Jones Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority Name of Request: Jail Nursing Contract XJ),41, e,at Department ad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($54,744) 6635.003 Visiting Nurse Personal $54,744 Request Total $0 la. Description of request: This Supplemental request is being submitted at the request of ADS Finance. When the Jail's 2010 budget was approved, it was anticipated that funds would need to be shifted within the Jail budget to make up for a deficit in the allocation for nursing services in the Jail. That shortfall is $54,744. We have now been informed that the proper mechanism to accomplish this will be to submit this supplemental, with an explanation of where the funds are originating. Due to the provision of funding for mental health and chemical dependency services via the new Mental Health/Chemical Dependency sales tax, allocated funding the amount of $93,098 are being released from the jail budget back to the General Fund. These amounts were drawn from funds allocated for Psychiatric services and Psychotropic medications. This supplemental requests that $54,744 be re -allocated to the Jail's medical budget to provide the balance of funding needed for nursing and medical administration services. The cost for these services will not increase from 2009 to 2010, and when the budget was constructed, it was planned that the additional funding would need to be provided. 1 b. Primary customers: Inmates at the Whatcom County Jail. 2. Problem to be solved. There is insufficient funding for the contract we hold with Visiting Nurse Home Health Care to provide basic nursing and medical administrative services. These services must be provided to offenders who are incarcerated, and are provided at a very cost effective level by this provider. Costs for these services will not increase in 2010. 3a. Options /Advantages: N/A 3b. Cost savings: N/A 4a. Outcomes: Adequate funding will be available to fulfill our contract with this provider. 4b. Measures: Monitoring of the Jail's monthly expenditures. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Visiting Nurse Home Health Care. They are the contractors for this service. Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 318 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Jail . Supp'l ro # 937 Fund 118 Cost Center 118160 Originator. Wendy Jones 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. - Jean Brock, Jail Health Program Manager. 6. Funding Source: Jail Sales Tax Fund, and off -setting funds being released from other portions of the jail's budget. Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp[ Regular 319 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Jail Supp't ID # s3s Fund 118 Cost Center 118000 Originator: Wendy Jones Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. GED De artmen ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($20,000) 6630 Professional Services $20,000 Request Total $0 1a. Description of request: This supplemental is being submitted at the request of ADS -Finance. The jail was notified earlier this year by Whatcom Community College that due to drastic reductions in State funding for Adult Education, the GED program at the jail would need additional financial support from our budget or would have to be discontinued. At approximately the same time, we were notified by Anne Deacon at the Health Department that she had found alternative State funding for 2 small program in the jail, one for mental health case management and one for a very part-time chemical dependency case manager. My intention was to transfer some of the funding allocated in the jail's approved budget from the chemical dependency case management allocation to GED. This would allow the service to continue without increasing the jails draw on the General Fund/Jail Sales Tax fund. We have now been informed by ADS Finance that in order to accomplish this fund transfer, this Supplemental would need to be submitted. This supplemental requests to reallocate some of the funds that are being returned to the County's General fund via ASR 939 to the Jail's GED program. 1b. Primary customers: Inmates at the Whatcom County Jail and the community. 2. Problem to be solved. Approximately 75% of the jail population does not have either a High School diploma or a GED. This significantly impacts the ability of these offenders to ever acquire gainful employment and serves as a contributing factor to continuing incarceration. We know, based on information provided by the 2006 Washington State Institute for Public Policy's report on Evidence -Based Adult Corrections Programs that basic adult education programs reduces recidivism rates by approximately 5%. Given the magnitude of the problem, this is a program that can and does have a small, but steady, positive impact on the offender population. This program has been in place in the jail for approximately 30 years. It would be tragic if for want of a relatively small amount of funding, already allocated in the jail's budget, it were to be lost. 3a. Options / Advantages: WCC is the only entity willing and able to provide basic education to the offenders in the jail. They have worked very well with us over the past 30 years to provide this service, and see it as an extension of their community mission. 3b. Cost savings: There will be no additional net cost to the County, as the funding for this request is being provided by savings from another area in the jail's budget. 4a. Outcomes: There will be adequate funding to pay for these services and they will continue uninterrupted in 2010. 4b. Measures: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 320 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Jail Supp'l ID # 938 Fund 118 Cost Center 118000 Originator: Wendy Jones The number of students who attend classes and who pass their GED examinations are tracked on a regular basis and provided to me on an annual basis. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Whatcom Community College. They provide the instructor for the GED program. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. - Trish Onion at WCC. She oversees the adult education program and works with us to provide the instruction and testing. 6. Funding Source: Funds that are being turned back to the Jail Sales Tax/General fund as the result of a new funding stream for some other small jail programs. Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppi Regular 321 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Jail Su1 l� # s3s Fund 118 Cost Center 118160 Originator. pp' g r Wendy Jones Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2010 I Name of Request. Case Manager fund transfers Add'I FTE ❑ Add'1 Space ❑ Priority X Dep Irtment He d Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Casts: Object Object Description Amount Requested 8301.001 Operating Transfer In $42,000 8351.675300 Operating Transfer Out ($20,000) 8351 Operating Transfer Out ($22,000) Request Total $0 la. Description of request: This supplemental is being submitted at the request of ADS -Finance. It seeks to refund to the General Fund/Jail Sales Tax Fund monies that were allocated and are not needed in for the proposed services. Alternative State funding was discovered for both the Mental Health Case Manager and the Chemical Dependency Case manager by Anne Deacon at the Heath Department, and as a result, these funds will not be needed in 2010 for those purposes. Supplemental request 938 does seek to re -allocate some of these savings for another purpose within the jail budget. 1b. Primary customers: N/A 2. Problem to be solved. N/A 3a. Options /Advantages: N/A 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: N/A 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: N/A 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Jail Budget Friday, October 16, 2009 Apt: Apt Suppl Regular 322 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Jail I.M. - . ... .. oil 1.1i... _ Supp l to 9940 Fund 118 Cost Center 118145 Originator. Wendy Jones Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. Electronic Home Detention program reduction I X Costs: nt HeaiVSignature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Object Object Description Amount Requested 4342.3350 Electronic Home Monitor $111,152 6110 Regular Salaries & Wages ($32,692) 6210 Retirement ($3,318) 6230 Social Security 6245 Medical Insurance ($10,596) 6255 Other H&W Benefits ($1,315) 6259 Worker's Comp-Interfund ($520) 6275 Uniforms ($210) 6630 Professional Services ($60,000) Request Total $0 1a. Description of request. Due to the softened economy over the past 2 years, demand for EHD services have not been as great as we had anticipated. The growth we have experienced we have been able to accommodate with current staff. This Supplemental returns to the County funds allocated for the expansion of this service, including an additional FTE. Once the economy recovers and an pool of eligible offenders with the financial resources to be on the program expands, we will re -visit this expansion. 1b. Primary customers: N/A 2. Problem to be solved. N/A 3a. Options /Advantages: N/A 3b. Cost savings: N/A 4a. Outcomes: N/A 4b. Measures: N/A 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: N/A 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. N/A 6. Funding Source: Saturday, October 24, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 323 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Jail Supp'l ID If 940 Fund 118 Cost Center 118145 Originator: Wendy Jones Jail Sales Tax/General Fund Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp[ Regular 324 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Jail Supp'l ID # 978 Fund 118 Cost Center Originator: Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Adjust 2010 Jail Revenue Budget X D Appartmebt Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($1,1g0,1gg) 4313.7200 Juvenile Criminal Justic $613,226 4337.0002 Other $81,705 4338.2102 Intergovernmental Revenue ($1,200) 4338.2300 Intergovernmental Revenue $54,811 4338.2300 Intergovernmental Revenue $486,130 4338.2302 Intergovernmental Revenue ($48,004) 4341.0004 Work Crew Fees ($10,000) 4341.6900 Copy Fees ($50)11 4341.7003 Indigent & Damage Rev ($1,760) 4342.3605 Security of Persons & Property Fees ($500) 4342.3320 Security of Persons & Property Fees $416 4342.3300 Security of Persons & Property Fees $7,436 4369.9001 Miscellaneous Revenues $17,988 8301.108110 Operating Transfer In ($10,000) Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Adjust 2010 budgeted revenue amounts in the Jail Fund. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: 2010 revenue amounts need to be adjusted in order to better manage the Jail budget. The following significant changes need to be made: -Due to a downturn in the economy, sales tax receipts are much lower than budgeted. (-$613,226) -Prisoner room and board amounts are lower due to a greater percentage of felony offenders being housed and lower than expected per diem rates. Per diem rates are a function of projected bed days and expenses. Prior year per diem rates included Main Jail building depreciation. 'fhe Main Jail is now fully depreciated so that expense decrease is offsetting other expense increases. Per diem rates are expected to remain about the same as 2009 amounts. (-$486,130) -The Jail lost Title III funding for one forest service work crew during 2009 and Bellingham City Parks did not renew its work crew contract due to economic conditions. Even though other smaller contracts are expected to be obtained, it necessitates a decrease in the Work Crew program revenue budget of $123,952. -Other miscellaneous adjustments result in $33,110 of increases to the revenue budget. Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 325 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART DIRECTOR TO: THROUGH FROM: RE: DATE: 4 M CO` 3�P tiA lulliw-1 �9Sh1NG�0 MEMORANDUM Stormwater 2011 Young Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, WA 98225-4042 Phone: (360) 715-7450 www.whatcomcounty.us The Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors Frank M: Abart, Public Works Director -4k / 0l1 b /o q Jon Hutchings, Assistant Director Kirk N.Christensen, P.E., Stormwater Manager 2010 Revised Stormwater Budget/Supplemental Budget Requests September 30, 2009 The attached Supplemental Budget Requests (ID# 902, 903 and 906) are proposed adjustments to the 2010 Stormwater budget adopted in the County's 2009 biennial budget. The proposed 2010 budget and will be discussed at the October 20, 2009 Surface Water Work Session. The County Council will be asked to adopt the 2010 Stormwater budget at their regularly scheduled meeting on November 10, 2009. In summary, the proposed adjustments to the 2010 Stormwater budget will: • Reauthorize $380,000 of previously budgeted REET II funds and authorize $370,000 of new 2010 REET II funds for capital construction. • Reauthorize $60,000 in unspent 2009 budget authority for Silver Beach Pilot Project - Low Impact Development implementation. Please contact Kirk Christensen at extension 50209 or Jon Hutchings at 50963, if you have any questions or concerns regarding this Supplemental Budget Request. Encl. (2) 326 Supplemental Budget Request Public Works Stormwater Supp'l 1D # 902 Fund 123 Cost Center 123201 Originator. Remy Stratton Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: 2010 LOS2 enhancements to Lake Whatcom program-CIP X � -, gc�0 91 a5 Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance 6630 Professional Services $750,000 8301 Operating Transfer In ($750,000) Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Stormwater Capital Construction (CIP) program: Hillsdale bioinfiltration facility at Lahti Drive (CIP4 in Lake Whatcom Stormwater Plan) and Silver Beach Creek engineered bank stabilization and velocity reduction between Brownsville Drive to E. 16th Place (CIP1 and CIP2). Projects were not completed in 2009 because we were unable to secure permits and complete construction within the Lake Whatcom watershed construction window. Budget authority was previously granted in 2009 as SBR#812 and 813. 1b. Primary customers: Residents of Silver Beach Creek neighborhoods, City of Bellingham, Urban Growth Areas, and other users of Lake Whatcom water. 2. Problem to be solved: Phosphorus and fecal coliform loading into Lake Whatcom is targeted for reduction as County Water Resources Database ID# 07-094, 07-095 and 07-096 (RANK=84). 3a. Options / Advantages: "fhe "no action" alternative is not viable because of Federal Clean Water Act stormwater permit requirements and pending TMDL. Other sources of funding could include a stormwater utility fee. 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: Measurable reduction in phosphorus and fecal coliform loading. 4b. Measures: Water quality sampling and other metrics. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: Jon Hutchings, Public Works -Administration 6. Funding Source: 1) $380,000 in 2009 lapsed funding from REET. 2) New 2010 authorization of an additional $370,000 from REET. Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 327 Supplemental Budget Request Public Works Stormwater Supp'i iD # 903 Fund 123 Cost Center 123201 Originator: Remy Stratton Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 2 Name of Request: 2010 LOS2 enhancements to Lake Whatcom program -LID x y 30 Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($60,000) 6630 Professional Services $60,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Reappropriate lapsed budget authority from 2009 to implement Lake Whatcom Stormwater Plan priority for Low Impact Development (LID) Individual Homeowner Retrofit/Silver Beach Creek demonstration project. 1b. Primary customers: Residents of Lake Whatcom, City of Bellingham, Urban Growth Areas, and other users of Lake Whatcom water. 2. Problem to be solved. Phosphorus and fecal coliform loading into Lake Whatcom is targeted for reduction as County Water Resource Database ID# 07-063 and 07-068 (RANK=60 and 64). 3a. Options / Advantages: The "no action" alternative is not viable because of Federal Clean Water Act stormwater permit requirements and pending TMDL. Other sources of funding could include a stormwater utility fee. 3b. Cost savings: NA 4a. Outcomes: Reductions in phosphorus and fecal coliform loading. 4b. Measures: Water quality sampling. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Original 2009 funding was authorized from FCZD Fund Balance. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Stormwater Fund Balance Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 328 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services Supp'l ID # 877 1 Fund 124 Cost Center 124100 Originator. Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2010 Add'i FTE ❑ Add'i Space '❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Mental Health Services Transfer From 0.1 % Tax Fd X�,,, / o Z c► Depar6tneQ Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) date Costs: Object Object Description 8351 Operating Transfer Out 8351 Operating Transfer Out Total Amount Requested $470,000 $45,000 $515,000 1a. Description of request: Funds will be transferred from the 0.1% Mental Health fund to the General Fund and Jail Fund to support several mental health services: Jail MH Professional Psychotropic medications in Jail Psychiatry services in Jail Triage facility 1b. Primary customers: na 2. Problem to be solved: na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. na 6. Funding Source: 0.1% tax -1 Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 329 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services Supp'I ID # 879 Fund 124 Cost Center 124100 Originator. Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space Priority 1 Name of Request: Mental Health & Chem Dependency Service Contracts X -C� /a&/0 f f Depart a ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 6610 Contractual Services $1,945,000 Request Total $1,945,000 la. Description of request: Untreated, serious mental illness and chemical dependency disorders overwhelm our criminal justice system and other public services, including the hospital emergency department. Many adults and juveniles end up in our courts and jails due to these disorders, resulting in substantial spending that could otherwise be better targeted to the offenders who pose a greater public safety risk. As a result of recent community service planning processes, local experts in the fields of criminal justice, mental health, chemical dependency, health care, housing, and others have recommended strategies to prevent, intervene, treat, and divert behavioral health cases away from continual cycles of recidivism due to inadequate local resources. The costs are expressed as unnecessary criminal justice encounters and expense, endless cycles of dependence on local public services and facilities, reduced productivity and unemployment, homelessness, child abuse and neglect, disease and mortality. 1 b. Primary customers: The substantial public and tragic personal costs of inadequate community -based treatment are very real. Most citizens in Whatcom County are impacted. 2. Problem to be solved. Criminal justice costs and public safety: Per capita law and justice costs in Whatcom County have increased 46% since 1999. This trend is associated with increased bookings (34% from 2001 to 2008) and increased jail population (70% from 2001 to 2008). Most jail inmates have a behavioral health disorder and 20% have a serious mental illness. The average number of inmates per month that use psychotropic medication has increased 170% over the past decade (from 19 in 1997 to 52 in 2007). The dozen most frequent offenders in Whatcom County all have a behavioral health disorder, they have been arrested an average of 32 times per offender and had 93 and 79 contacts with the County Sheriff and Bellingham Police, respectively. Just these twelve individuals have cost taxpayers $722,611 in jail costs alone. Persons with behavioral health disorders are much more likely to be arrested than other individuals, and once in jail, they are likely to be incarcerated longer. Furthermore, incarceration impedes treatment and recovery by limiting access to services. Mental illness: A conservative estimate of the number of County residents who need publicly subsidized mental health treatment, but are not receiving it — primarily because they do not qualify for Medicaid — is 2,776 persons. That means that local treatment providers are forced to ration treatment to only those that qualify for Medicaid or meet other narrowly defined criteria. A real tragedy of these inadequacies is the individual and societal opportunities lost. Persons who would otherwise not escalate to a severe need status or who would not end up in a crisis that results in hospitalization or incarceration end up in those situations unnecessarily. This is particularly true, and troublesome, for children with mental illness, 75- 80% of whom do not receive adequate mental health services. From a public cost viewpoint, this amounts to poor or negative returns on investment. Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 330 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services Supp71D # ass Fund 124 Cost Center 124100 Originator. Terry Hinz Substance abuse: DSHS estimates that 76% of the 4,249 low-income households in Whatcom County that need subsidized substance abuse treatment are not getting it. In the most recent statewide assessment of Washington residents, Whatcom County ranked 3rd out of 39 counties for substance abuse need, and 32nd for providing treatment. Even the most needy — those incapacitated from employment — and who are actively seeking substance abuse treatment have a difficult time accessing it. the waiting list for treatment assistance for this group of individuals has more than quadrupled since 1991, but most of that growth has occurred in the last decade. Alarmingly, Whatcom County's youth methamphetamine addiction rate is rising much faster than the statewide rate. As measured by treatment admission rates per 100,000 population, Whatcom County has seen a 430% increase, compared to a statewide increase of 47%. Homelessness: Behavioral health disorders are often precursors to homelessness. This is especially true among the chronically homeless and people with multiple homeless episodes. In 2008, 42% of Whatcom County's homeless households said that substance abuse was a primary reason for their homelessness. Similarly, mental illness is also an important precursor to homelessness. In 2008, 30% of Whatcom County's homeless households said that mental illness was a primary reason for their homelessness. Additionally, homeless persons counted in 2008 who reported a mental illness disability were nearly three times as likely (49%) to have also reported a substance abuse disorder compared to those with no reported mental illness (18%). Productivity: One of the costs of untreated chemical dependency and mental illness is lost productivity. Society loses some or all of the productive ability of those with untreated behavioral health disorders. These costs are difficult to measure, but there is good evidence to suggest that treatment reduces these costs. More than half (56%) of students with a mental health disorder age 14 and older drop out of high school; this is the highest dropout rate for any disability group. Mental illness is also associated with low employment rates and low wages. 3a. Options /Advantages: As a result of recent community service planning processes, local experts in the fields of criminal justice, mental health, chemical dependency, health care, housing, and others have recommended strategies to prevent, intervene, treat, and divert behavioral health cases away from continual cycles of recidivism due to inadequate local resources. 3b. Cost savings: The costs are expressed as unnecessary criminal justice encounters and expense, endless cycles of dependence on local public services and facilities, reduced productivity and unemployment, homelessness, child abuse and neglect, disease and mortality. Cost-effective, evidence -based and emerging best practices are available to address many of the problems associated with inadequate community -based treatment and supportive services. 4a. Outcomes: Six recommended behavioral health strategies emerge from an array of community planning processes. The Substance Abuse, Mental Health Region, Law and Justice, and other strategic plans were examined for commonly recommended strategies to address the problems associated with inadequate behavioral health services in Whatcom County. These strategies include: 1. Increase access to community mental health and substance abuse treatment services 2. Expand prevention, early intervention and outreach services for adolescents and adults 3. Expand access to diversion options and therapeutic courts 4. Create and expand access to services that support people in recovery and people reintegrating upon release from jail or prison 5. Increase integration and coordination between behavioral health service systems 6. Develop stable source of local funding 4b. Measures: Cost-effective, evidence -based and emerging best practices are available to address many of the problems associated with inadequate community -based treatment and supportive services. Local, state and national -level evaluation data have demonstrated positive returns on community investment for Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 331 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Health Human Services supp7 ID # 8791 Fund 124 Cost Center 124100 Originator. Terry Hinz behavioral health treatment expansion and related programs and services designed to treat persons with mental illness and chemical dependency. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: Yes. Law and Justice will be impacted. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: 1/10 of 1% of retail sales tax revenue funding. Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 332 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services supp'l ID # 881 ' Fund 124 Cost Center 124100 Originator. Terry Hinz Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ' _ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. Human Services Program Specialist Departr'hd�A Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object 8351 Request Total Object Description Operating Transfer Out Amount Requested' $43,475 - - $43,475 1 a. Description of request: This is a request to reclassify an existing Prevention Coordinator position to a Program Specialist position and use this funding source pay half the cost of this position. This position will be working to implement the 0.1% Mental Health program. See ASR 933 for additional information. 1b. Primary customers: na 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. na 6. Funding Source: 0.1 % tax Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 333 Supplemental Budget Request Health Human Services Supp'l lD # 893 Fund 124 Cost Center 124100 Originator. Terry Hinz Status: Pending Expenditure Type: Ongoing Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space Priority 1 Name of Request: Transfer to General Fund for Administrative Costs X 1 - 4 (27 1 Depart a Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date -- Costs: FOLject Object Description 8351 Operating Transfer Out Request Total - Amount Requested $348,000 $348, 000 -- la. Description of request: This is a transfer of administrative costs for indirect costs of the new 0.1 % Mental Health tax fund. The indirect costs are estimated to be 12% of total expenditures in the fund. The actual amount will be based on the Health Department's approved indirect rate for 2010. See ASR 923. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. na 3a. Options /Advantages: na 3b. Cost savings: na 4a. Outcomes: na 4b. Measures: na 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: na 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. na 6. Funding Source: 0.1% Mental Health tax Friday, October 02, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 334 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Health Human Services .. Supp'l ID # 973 Fund 124 Cost Center 124100 Originator: Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request: Reduction in MH/CD Sales Tax revenue budget X Department ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($300,000) 4313.1000 Sales & Use Tax Collecte $300,000 I Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Reduce 2010 Mental Health/Chemical Dependency Fund sales tax projections. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. Due to the current economic downturn, the sales tax revenue budget for the MH/CD Fund needs to be reduced from $3.5 million in 2010 down to $3.2 million. This adjustment will enable more effective budget management. 3a. Options / Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 335 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental .., , .. .. ... .. .. Supp'I ID # 952 Fund 130 Cost Center 130100 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'1 FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority I Name of Request: Adjust 2010 EMS budget X Dep rtment ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance $663,430 4313.1500 Special Purpose Tax $408,451 4361.1100 Investment Interest 7210.001 Intergov Prof Svcs $80,000 7210 Intergov Prof Svcs ($1,062,456) Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Adjust Emergency Medical Services (EMS) fund budget for the effect of 2010 proposals as follows: Sales Tax revenue - due to the downturn in the economy the sales tax revenue budget should be decreased by $408,451 from $2,401,904 to $1,993,453. Interest Income - add interest income budget in accordance with interlocal agreement between the City of Bellingham (COB) and Whatcom County. Interest income estimated at 2% of beginning fund balance plus sales tax less payments to municipalities. Intergovernmental Services - increase of $80,000 This amount is needed to provide for paramedic incentive pay [$54,000] and continuing education [$26,000] for recently trained paramedics from Fire District 7 (FD7). Intergovernmental Services - decrease of $1,062,456. The EMS Plan adopted in 2005 provided for a fully implemented 5th Medic Unit in 2010. Due to reduced call volumes and efforts to conserve EMS Fund reserves, the unit will not be implemented in 2010. 1b. Primary customers: Citizens of Whatcom County 2. Problem to be solved. The supplemental addresses the need to adjust the EMS fund budget to reflect changes happening in the EMS Fund and the EMS system. -Falling sales tax revenues dictate the need to decrease revenue projections. -Section III of the Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Medical Services Between the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County requires that interest income generated by the EMS portion of the EMS Sales Tax Fund be recorded in the fund. -In the original EMS Plan adopted in 2005, Fire District 7 was to fully implement a 12/7 Fifth Medic Unit in January 2010. Due to the need to conserve EMS Fund balance for future use, and due to call volume projections being less than originally forecast in the Plan, Fire District 7 has agreed to delay implementation of the Fifth Unit. However, the District does need funding for the increased costs of having 5 paramedics on staff [$80,000]. The District will also be answering calls within its own boundaries, as other duties allow, without adding another unit. -The 2005 EMS Plan projected the need for a $2,396,736 contribution from the EMS Fund to sustain the Medic One System of 4 full City of Bellingham units, 1 City of Bellingham supervisory chase car unit and a 12/7 unit from Fire District 7. Delay in implementing the 12/7 unit from Fire District 7, as well as higher than expected user fee revenues, have resulted in decreasing the contribution needed to fund the Medic Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Apt Suppl Regular 336 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental . Supp'1ID # 952 Fund 130 Cost Center 130100 Originator: Marianne Caldwell One system by $1,062,456. 3a. Options /Advantages: Consideration was given to implementing the Fifth Unit on schedule (1/1/10) which would have cost the system another $1,085,963 in one-time start-up and operations costs. This is the best option as it will delay the need to seek additional outside funding sources in the future. This has been made possible through the cooperation of Fire District 7 and by most fire districts and municipal fire departments participating in Basic Life Support (BLS) transports. Participation in BLS transports has reduced the call volume pressure on the current Medic One system. 3b. Cost savings: See above 4a. Outcomes: It is expected that Fire District 7, without incurring the full cost of implementing a 12/7 unit in 2010 as originally envisioned in the adopted EMS Plan, will be able to respond to many calls in their district. This will relieve call volume pressure on the other units in the Medic One system and conserve the EMS Fund balance for future use. Fire District 7 will begin answering Advanced Life Support calls as soon as their 5 trainee paramedics are certified by the Whatcom County Medical Program Director. These paramedics will be able to respond to calls within the district as long as the calls do not conflict with fire response and BLS calls in progress. 4b. Measures: Call volumes will be measured and monitored so that the Fifth Unit from FD7 is fully implemented at an optimum time. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: The revised 2010 budget includes budget authority for supporting contributions to the City of Bellingham Medic One system and to Fire District 7. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. City of Bellingham and Fire District 7 finance departments will bill the County for the agreed -upon services. 6. Funding Source: EMS Sales Tax Fund Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp[ Regular 337 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental ft Supp'l ID # 976 1 Fund 130 Cost Center 130200 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 Name of Request. Reduce 2010 revenue for EMS Fund - Crim. Justice X -- a De Aartme�t Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Descdption Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($111,276) 4313.7300 Criminal Justice(Sp Purp $111,276 Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Reduce 2010 revenue budget for criminal justice portion of the EMS Sales Tax Fund. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. Due to a downturn in the economy, 2010 revenue projections are too high. This supplemental requests lowering the 2010 revenue estimate from $711,276 to $600,000. This adjustment will enable management to better monitor fund activity. 3a. Options / Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 338 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental . Supp7ID # sas Fund 135 Cost Center 135100 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority I Name of Request: Transfer to fund District Court Video Recorder X Department Read Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance 8351.1300 Operating Transfer Out $15,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request: District Court needs to replace JAYS courtroom recording equipment. This transfer will provide enough funding to replace one courtroom video recorder in 2010. Please see related District Court supplemental #901 "Replace Video Recording, 1 Courtroom a year." 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Trial Court Improvement fund balance Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 339 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Non-DeWi,partment0.1­al Supp7ID Fund 137 Cost Center 137100 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 I Name of Request. 2010 LEOFF I Healthcare Fund trf to GF XJJL Dep rtment Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($600,000) 9201 Residual Equity Trans -Out $600,00 1 Request Total $0 1a. Description of request. Transfer $600,000 of LEOFF I Healthcare fund balance to the General Fund 1b. Primary customers: Recipients of operations supported by the General Fund 2. Problem to be solved: Due to the downturn in revenues and a declining fund balance, the General Fund is in need of funding to bridge the gap between the current level of expenditures and the current level of revenues. This funding will be a stop -gap measure while the Executive and the Council adopt measures to bring spending levels back into alignment with incoming revenues. $3.5 million to set up a reserve for LEOFF I retiree healthcare liabilities was voluntarily transferred our of the General Fund in 2007. The liability for healthcare for the County's 25 remaining retirees is expected to occur spread out over the next 30 years. The County will still need to fund those liabilities but they will not all occur within the next few years. The current cashflow needs of the General Fund are of more immediate concern. The Executive transferred $1.2 million back to the General Fund during the summer of 2009 (refer to 2009 supplemental ID #843) and proposed another $600,000 for 2010. This is the request for the remaining $600,000 for 2010. 3a. Options /Advantages: Do not transfer the stop -gap funding from available sources and instead take severe measures to reduce spending in the General Fund immediately. 3b. Cost savings: None 4a. Outcomes: The immediate outcome is to help the county take a more thoughtful approach to "gliding" into to reduced level of spending. 4b. Measures: Success will be measured in not having to take drastic actions to reduce spending all at once. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: May eventually have an impact on General Fund expenditure levels in the future if the economy does not recover. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: N/A 6. Funding Source: LEOFF I Healthcare fund balance Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 340 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental .. Supp7 iFund 137 Cost Center 137100 Originator: Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 I Name of Request. Increase Budget for LEOFF I Healthcare Fund X Af, t Depa m nt 16ad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($200,000) 6245 Medical Insurance $200,000 Request Total $0 1a. Description of request. All LEOFF I retiree healthcare will be paid for out of the LEOFF I Healthcare Fund rather than the General Fund. The current 2010 budget only has $200,000 of budget authority in it. County medical insurance premiums are currently $300,000 per year and are expected to increase in 2010.. We have one retiree in a long-term care facility which will run approximately $40,000 per year. Medicare supplemental insurance premiums are expected to cost $22,000 per year. Retirees are also entitled to dental and vision coverage as well as other health related items not usually covered by medical insurance. 1b. Primary customers: LEOFF I retirees 2. Problem to be solved. The General Fund currently cannot afford to cover LEOFF I retiree healthcare costs. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: LEOFF I Healthcare fund balance Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 341 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental Supp71D # 9�5 Fund 324 Cost Center 32400 Originator: Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority Name of Request: Reduce REET l/ 2010 revenue projections X Depa ment ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($400,000) 4317.3400 Local REET $400,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request: Decrease 2010 REET II revenue projections 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: Due to the current economic downturn, revenue projections for the REET II fund should be decreased by $400,000. This adjustment will enable more effective budget management in 2010. 3a. Options / Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for: 6. Funding Source: Thursday, October 22, 2009 Apt: Apt Suppl Regular 342 Supplemental Budget Request status: Pending Non -Departmental Supp'l ID # 945 Fund 324 Cost Center 32469 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 I Name of Request. Additional REET 11 Trf Out to Stormwater I X Departmen ead Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($250,000) 8351.123 Operating Transfer Out $250,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. See Stormwater supplemental ID 902 - 2010 LOS2 enhancements to Lake Whatcom program - CIP. Stormwater will be lapsing $380,000 of REET II funding for stormwater projects in 2009 due to permitting and scheduling issues. $250,000 of additional funding will be needed in 2010 to accomplish the projects listed in supplemental ID 902. $500,000 of funding has already been appropriated in the 2010 budget but a total of $750,000 is needed. This supplemental will increase total Stormwater Project 2010 appropriations to $750,000. 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. 3a. Options / Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: REET II fund balance Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Supp! Regular 343 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental Supp'11D # 9K Fund 326 Cost Center 32600 Originator: Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'i FTE ❑ Add'i Space ❑ Priority 1 . ..Name of Re . ..... . ....... _ ... .... , .. ... quest: Reduce REET 12010 revenue projections X Department HVad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($400,000) 4317.3000 State REET $400,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Decrease 2010 REET I revenue projections 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved: Due to the current economic downturn, revenue projections for the REET I fund should be decreased by $400,000. This adjustment will enable more effective budget management in 2010. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 344 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending Non -Departmental .- 0 1._ .. ._...... W. Supp7ID # Fund 332 Cost Center 332100 Originator. Marianne Caldwell Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority I Name of Request: Reduce 2010 Public Utilities Fund revenue prof. I X Department Head Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: i Object Object Description Amount Requested u 2910.1000 Fund Balance ($350,000) 4313.1 S00 Sales & Use Tax-Distresd $350,000 Request Total $0 la. Description of request. Reduce 2010 revenue budget for Public Utilities Improvement Fund (aka Rural Sales Tax or EDI Fund). 1b. Primary customers: 2. Problem to be solved. Due to a downturn in the economy, 2010 revenue projections are too high. This supplemental requests lowering the 2010 revenue estimate from $3,312,000 to $2,962,000. This adjustment will enable management to better monitor fund activity. 3a. Options /Advantages: 3b. Cost savings: 4a. Outcomes: 4b. Measures: 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. 6. Funding Source: Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 345 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending . . ... . Administrative Services Information Technology . . Supp'l /D # 929 Fund 507 Cost Center 507102 Originator. Perry L. Rice Expenditure Type: One -Time Year 2 2010 Add'I FTE ❑ Add'I Space ❑ Priority 1 _F... Name of Request. Regional Pictometry X Department FWad Signature (Required on Hard Copy Submission) Date Costs: Object Object Description Amount Requested 4338.2111 Local Support/Multi Jur ($90,000) 6630 Professional Services $140,000 8301.10890 Operating Transfer In 8301.169100 Operating Transfer In 8301.4530 Op Trf In - Non -Departmental ($30,000) Request Total $0 la. Description of request: In 2008, Pictometry provided the Whatcom Region Pictometry Partnership with ortho and oblique imagery per Whatcom County Contract 200802010. Whatcom County rejected this dataset from Pictometry due to the lateness of the flight and leaf -on condition of the vegetation. Pictometry has scheduled a re -flight of Whatcom County under this contract for the spring of 2010. This request is to move existing budget authority to 2010. (See Supplemental Budget Request ID #581 for Approved Budget Authority) 1b. Primary customers: Whatcom Co. Departments: AS, PDS, PW, SO, Health, Assessor's Office, Treasurer's Office Regional Partners: Cities, Tribes, Fire Districts 2. Problem to be solved. Whatcom Co. acquired ortho and oblique imagery from Pictometry Corporation in 2004. The imagery has been used extensively by Whatcom Co. departments and offices over the past 4-years. The imagery was updated in 2008, but rejected by Whatcom County and a reflight has been scheduled for 2010. 3a. Options /Advantages: Whatcom County can not pay Pictometry with this year's budget authority since the product has not been accepted. Whatcom County will need to pay Pictometry in 2010 once the reflight imagery has been accepted. 3b. Cost savings: An ad hoc regional Pictometry partnership has formed to share the costs across numerous organizations. Due to this partnership, the cost to the County has been reduced by $90,000. 4a. Outcomes: Updated imagery will be received from Pictometry during 2008 following a Spring flight. Staff in AS, PDS, PW, Sheriffs Office, Assessor's Office and Health Department will be provided with access to the imagery prior to the end of 2008. Imagery will be provided to our regional partners on the same schedule. The reflight in 2010 will result in updated and improved imagery. 4b. Measures: Updated ortho and oblique imagery delivered from vendor. Saturday, October 24, 2009 Rpt: Rpt Suppl Regular 346 Supplemental Budget Request Status: Pending . . Administrative Services Information Technology om— Supp'l !o # 929 Fund 507 Cost Center 507102 Originator: Perry L. Rice Distributing the imagery to regional partners. Providing access to the imagery to -100 County employees. 5a. Other Departments/Agencies: AS Division of Information Technology will assist users in PDS, PW, Health, Sheriffs Office and Assessor's Office with access to the imagery, software configuration and training. 5b. Name the person in charge of implementation and what they are responsible for. Whatcom County will be partnering with leads from the cities, tribes, and fire districts. 6. Funding Source: Interlocal agreements with the cities, tribes and fire districts are in place as additional sources of revenue. It is currently estimated that partner contributions will be close to $90,000. The remainder has been budgeted as transfers from the following funds: $30K GF, $1 OK Road, $1 OK Flood. Saturday, October 24, 2009 Apt: Rpt Suppl Regular 347 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-412 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: /d 10127109 Introduction Originator: 2 M � C C E E � Hearing Division Head: " OCT 2 0 2W9 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 11/10/09 Dept. Head: 11/24/2009 Special COTW/ Council Prosecutor: v Purchasin / Executive: e�p� TITLE 6F DOCUMENT. An Ordinance Limiting The 2010 Road Fund Property Tax Levy ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( g ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: 11 / 10 / 2009 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.) The proposed ordinance limits the Whatcom County 2010 Property tax levy and establishes new maximum allowable Road Fund property tax levy. COMMITTEEACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 10/27/2009: Introduced 11/10/2009: Held to November 24, 7-0 - written record open to November 24 Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: im PROPOSED BY: COUNTY EXECUTIVE SPONSORED BY: CONSENT INTRODUCTION DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. LIMITING THE 2010 ROAD FUND PROPERTY LEVY WHEREAS, the County Council has met and considered amendments to the 2009-2010 biennial budget, and; WHEREAS, the County Council, in the course of considering the budget for 2009-2010 has reviewed all sources of revenue and examined all anticipated expenses and obligations; and WHEREAS, the County Council has determined not to increase the Road Fund property tax levy for 2010; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED by the Whatcom County Council that amounts collected through the County Road levy shall be limited to the amount of 2009 taxes, increased for the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state assessed property. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that a property tax increase in addition to an amount resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state -assessed property is hereby authorized for the 2010 levy in the amount of $0, which is a percentage increase of 0% from the previous yea r. ADOPTED this day of , 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Pros cutor Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Pete Kremen, Executive Date: Page 1 349 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-413 CLEARANCES Initial Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Ori inator: /Date �1z0 09 D 10127109 Introduction Hearing Division Head. OCT. 2 0 WHATCOM COUNTY 11 / 10 / 09 Dept. Head. 11/24/09 Special COTW/ Council Prosecutor: j Purchasin B e � COUNCI6. Executive: % TITLE OF DOCUMENT.• Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing the Levy of Taxes for County Conservation Futures Purposes for 2010 ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( g ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: 11 / 10 / 2009 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.) The proposed ordinance adopts the Whatcom County 2010 tax levy for Conservation Futures. COMMITTEEACTION: COUNCIL ACTION. 10/27/2009: Introduced 11/10/2009: Held to November 24, 7-0 Written record open to November 24 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. 350 PROPOSED BY: COUNTY EXECUTIVE SPONSORED BY: CONSENT INTRODUCTION DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR CONSERVATION FUTURES PURPOSES FOR 2010 WHEREAS, pursuant to Home Rule Charter Section 6.10 the County Executive is required to submit for Council consideration a budget and proposed tax and revenue ordinances necessary to raise sufficient revenues to balance the budget; and, WHEREAS, the County Council has approved a budget, for the 2009-2010 biennium, including all sources of revenues and anticipated expenditures; and, WHEREAS, the biennial budget provides detailed listings of various revenues including property taxes; and, WHEREAS, the County Council has held a public hearing concerning the biennial budget, the property tax rates, and revenues included therein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED by the Whatcom County Council that amounts collected through the County Conservation Futures levy shall be limited to the amount of 2009 taxes, increased for the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state assessed property. A property tax increase, in addition to the amount resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state -assessed property, is hereby authorized for the 2010 levy in the amount of $0, which is a percentage increase of 0% from the previous year. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: � I �' � , Civil Deputy'13`roseNkor 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED_ Pete Kremen, Executive Date: Page 1 351 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-414 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: v � � � � � � � D ryry OCT L 2009 I0/27/09 Introduction Division Head: 11 / 10 / 0 9 Hearing Special COTW/ Dept. Head. WHATCOMn' COUNTY CO U N C I L 11/24/09 Council Prosecutor: U 2 L �G�ZU Purchasin /Bu Executive:� TITLE F DOCUMENT: An Ordinance Limiting The 2010 General Fund Property Tax Levy ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( g ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: 11 / 10 / 2009 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.) The proposed ordinance limits the Whatcom County 2010 Property tax levy and establishes new maximum allowable General Fund property tax levy. COMMITTEEACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION. 10/27/2009: Introduced 11/10/2009: Held to November 24, 7-0 Written record open to November 24 Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: 352 PROPOSED BY: County Executive SPONSORED BY: Consent INTRODUCTION DATE: October 27, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. LIMITING THE 2010 GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHEREAS, the County Council has met and considered amendments to the 2009-2010 biennial budget, and; WHEREAS, the County Council, in the course of considering the budget for 2009-2010 has reviewed all sources of revenue and examined all anticipated expenses and obligations; and WHEREAS, the County Council has decided not to increase the General Fund property tax levy for 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED by the Whatcom County Council that amounts collected through the County general levy shall be limited to the amount of 2009 taxes, increased for the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state assessed property. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that a property tax increase in addition to an amount resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state -assessed property is hereby authorized for the 2010 levy in the amount of $0, which is a percentage increase of 0% from the previous year. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORIA: m �\',) Z&r';Z- Civil Deputy P \ecutor_ 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Pete Kremen, Executive Date: 353 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-415 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Of rice Agenda Date Assigned to: �h) 10127109 Introduction Originator: ��D ' J D Hearing Division Head: OCT2009 1 2 �co�A (+UouNTY � lUNCIL 11 / 10 / 0 9 [. De Head: 11/24/09Council' Special COTW/ ounouncil ' Prosecutor:�vvi e U� / ud . Purchasin /�/J /�j C� Executive? TITLE 6F DOCUMENT. Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing the Levy of Taxes for County and State Purposes in Whatcom County, Washington, for the Year of 2010 ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: 11 / 10 / 2009 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 proposed ordinance adopts the Whatcom County 2010 Property tax levy. COMMITTEEACTION. COUNCIL ACTION. 10/27/2009: Introduced 11/10/2009: Held to November 24, 7-0 Written record open to November 24 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. 354 PROPOSED BY: COUNTY EXECUTIVE SPONSORED BY: CONSENT INTRODUCTION DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND STATE PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, FOR THE YEAR OF 2010 WHEREAS, pursuant to Home Rule Charter Section 6.10 the County Executive is required to submit for Council consideration a budget and proposed tax and revenue ordinances necessary to raise sufficient revenues to balance the budget; and, WHEREAS, the County Council has approved a budget for the 2009-2010 biennium, including all sources of revenues and anticipated expenditures; and, WHEREAS, the biennial budget has detailed listings of various revenues including property taxes; and, WHEREAS, the County Council approved an ordinance authorizing a shift of $1,750,000 From the County Road Fund levy to The County General Fund levy for 2010; and WHEREAS, the County Council held a public hearing regarding the mid biennium review of the county budget which included property tax rates, and other revenues; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED by the Whatcom County Council that: (A) The property taxes for Whatcom County are hereby levied and are to be charged to the assessment and tax rolls of Whatcom County; and, (B) Property taxes are levied in 2009 for collection in 2010; and, (C) The amounts collected through the County general levy shall be limited to the amount of 2009 taxes, increased for the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state assessed property. (D) The amounts collected through the County general levy shall include a levy shift of $1-,750,000 from the Whatcom County Road Fund. (E) Because the state of Washington is unable to provide the figures and documentation necessary to establish fixed levy rates, as these figures do become available From the state, levies shall be fixed per "Exhibit A" which shall be prepared by the County Assessor, and attached and incorporated herein by reference. 355 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the taxes to be levied against parcels of property within the Diking Districts, Drainage Districts, and Drainage Improvement Districts are to be credited to the individual maintenance funds for the year 2010, and the amounts to be apportioned to the original assessments for construction in said districts are as follows per "Exhibit B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED, that if the Washington State Legislature changes any laws affecting levies contained herein, and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office concurs, the Whatcom County administration will change such levies accordingly. ADOPTED this day of , 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Pr e utor ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Pete Kremen, Executive Date: 356 EXHIBIT A WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR 2010 Page 3 357 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Diking District No. 1 / 636 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $8,973.00 $5,926.00 $14,742.00 $157.00 $0.00 $29,641.00 $157.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $29,484.00 Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $14,742.00 ($2.50 per acre) $5,000.00 $39,226.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $44,226.00 $14,742.00 ($2.50 per acre) **This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 358 ATTACHMENT B Revenues BUDGET FOR 2010 Deming Diking District No. 2 / 637 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (incl. 2009 andpastyears and (including cost -share from FCZD Interlocal agreement) Funds borrowed from Treasurer against 2010 assessments Expenditures Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $2,294.00 $12,491.00 $21,800.00 $5,800.00 $35,402.00 $6,736.03 _F Projected 2009 year end fund balance Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve Less Treasurer loan repayment $42,3 85.00 $42,13 8.03 $246.97 $12,000.00 with a $5 minimum $5,000.00 $1,446.97 $5,800.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $6,446.97 $12,000.00 with a $5 minimum 'This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 359 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Diking District No. 3 / 638 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $14,894.00 $16,583.00 $41,477.00 $10,000.00 $15,935.00 $15,93 5.00 $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $25,542.00 Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $10,000.00 with a $5 minimum $10,000.00 $25,542.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $35,542.00 $10,000.00 with a $5 minimum **This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 360 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Diking District No. 4 / 639 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $2,796.00 $60,126.00 $82,922 $20,000.00 J $41,012.00 $52,012 $11,000.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $30,910.00 Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $20,000.00 with a $5 minimum $20,000.00 $30,910.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $50,910.00 $20,000.00 with a $5 minimum **This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 361 I_AU_TS]: ►fri[: al" BUDGET FOR 2010 Butler Ditch District / 622 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $3,264.00 $1,471.00 $7,850.00 $3,115.00 $232.00 $232.00 $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $7,618.00 Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $4,125.00 with a $5 minimum ($8.00 per acre x 515 acres) $11,743.00 $5,000.00 $6,743.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $4,125.00 with a $5 minimum "This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 362 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Consolidated Drainage Improvement District No. 1 / 623 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues $871.00 $53,571.00 $57,442.00 $3,000.00 $643.00 $643.00 $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $56,799.00 Assessments $3,000.00 with a $5 minimum Expenditures available for budget $59,799.00 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $3,000.00 Emergency Reserve $56,799.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $3,000.00 with a $5 minimum *"This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 363 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Drainage District No. 2 / 624 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $6,486.00 $3,003.00 $4,000.00 $2,475.00 $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $13,489.00 $2,475.00 $11,014.00 $2,000.00 with a $5 minimum $3,000.00 $10,014.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $13,014.00 $2,000.00 with a $5 minimum "This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve"should be reduced accordingly. 364 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Drainage District No. 3 / 625 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues $3,668.00 $3,265.00 $3,000.00 $2,075.00 $0.00 $9,933.00 $2,075.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $7,858.00 Assessments $3,000.00 with a $5 minimum Expenditures available for budget $10,858.00 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $39000.00 Emergency Reserve $7,858.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $3,000.00 with a $5 minimum '"This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 365 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Drainage Improvement District No. 5 / 626 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $2,544.00 $25,117.00 $30,661.00 $3,000.00 $710.00 $710.00 $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $29,951.00 Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $3,000.00 with a $5 minimum $3,000.00 $29,951.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $32,951.00 $3,000.00 with a $5 minimum "This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 366 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Drainage Improvement District No. 6 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $5,427.00 $6,305.00 $2,500.00 $75.00 $100.00 $14,232 $175 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $14,057.00 Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $2,500.00 with a $10 minimum $10,000.00 $6,557.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $16,557.00 $2,500.00 with a $10 minimum **This budget was developed using. estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 367 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Drainage Improvement District No. 7 / 628 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues $17,678.00 $3,375.00 $8,000.00 $5,948.00 $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $29,053.00 $5,948.00 $23,105.00 Assessments $8,000.00 with a $5 minimum Expenditures available for budget $31,105.00 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $8,000.00 Emergency Reserve $23,105.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $8,000.00 with a $5 minimum **This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for 'Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Drainage Improvement District No. 15 / 629 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account $36,675.00 WCIP Investments $9,422.00 $66,097.00 Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) $20,000.00 Actual 2009 expenditures $12,143.00 $12,143.00 Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $53,954.00 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $20,000.00 with a $5 minimum Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $12,000.00 $61,954.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $73,954.00 $20,000.00 with a $5 minimum **This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 369 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Drainage Improvement District No. 17 / 630 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $3,106.00 $991.00 L $7,097.00 $3,000.00 J $79.00 $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $0.00 (ZERO) $2,000.00 $5,018.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $0.00 (ZERO) $79.00 $7,018.00 $7,018.00 **This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 370 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Consolidated Drainage Improvement District No. 20 / 631 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $2,447.00 $18,797.00 $4,500.00 $472.00 $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $23,769.00 $472.00 $25,272.00 $4,500.00 with a $5 minimum $10,000.00 $19,772.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $29,772.00 $4,500.00 with a $5 minimum **This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 371 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Consolidated Drainage Improvement District No. 21 / 632 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $10,833.00 $65.00 $15,458.00 $4,560.00 $736.00 $736.00 $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $14,722.00 Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $10,000.00 with a $5 minimum $10,000.00 $14,722.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $24,722.00 $10,000.00 with a $5 minimum "This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 372 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Drainage Improvement District No. 30 / 633 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account $165.00 WCIP Investments $2,712.00 $2,877.00 Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) $0.00 Actual 2009 expenditures $0.00 $0.00 Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $2,877.00 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $0.00 Expenditures available for budget $2,877.00 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $1,000.00 Emergency Reserve $1,877.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $0.00 "This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 373 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Drainage Improvement District No. 30A / 635 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) Actual 2009 expenditures Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $791.00 $960.00 $0.00 $0.00 $700.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance Expenditures available for budget Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses Emergency Reserve $1,751.00 $700.00 $1,051.00 $500.00 with a $5 minimum $1,551.00 $1,000.00 $551.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $500.00 with a $5 minimum "*This budget was developed using estimates for 2008 expenditures. Should the actual 2008 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 374 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET FOR 2010 Consolidated Drainage Improvement District No. 31 / 634 As of December 31, 2008 Cash in Account $19,622.00 WCIP Investments $74,207.00 $93,829.00 Uncollected Assessments (including 2009 and past years) $0.00 Actual 2009 expenditures $5,392.00 $1,392.00 Less any Estimated 2009 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) $0.00 Projected 2009 year end fund balance $88,437.00 2010 Budget Revenues Assessments $0.00 Expenditures available for budget $88,437.00 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $20,000.00 Emergency Reserve $68,437.00 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2010 $0.00 (ZERO) "This budget was developed using estimates for 2009 expenditures. Should the actual 2009 expenditure exceed the estimated amount used to develop this budget, the amount budgeted for "Emergency Reserve" should be reduced accordingly. 375 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-416 CLEARANCES Initial Date ate Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: %w � E V E D OCT 2 0 2009 10127109 Introduction Division Head: 11/10/09 Hearing Special COTW/ Dept Head: WHATCOM COUNTY 11/24/09 Council Prosecutor: COUNCIL Purchastn t: Executtve:e�� TITLE OFDOCUMENT. Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing the Levy of Taxes for County Road Purposes for 2010 ATTACHMENTS. Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? (Y,) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: 11 / 10 / 2009 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.) The proposed ordinance adopts the Whatcom County 2010 tax levy for County Road Purposes. COMMITTEEACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION. 10/27/2009: Introduced 11/10/2009: Held to November 24, 7-0 Written record open to November 24 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. 376 PROPOSED BY: COUNTY EXECUTIVE SPONSORED BY: CONSENT DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF 2010 PROPERTY TAXES FOR COUNTY ROAD PURPOSES WHEREAS, pursuant to Home Rule Charter Section 6.10 the County Executive is required to submit for Council consideration proposed tax and revenue ordinances necessary to raise sufficient revenues to balance the Budget; and, WHEREAS, the County taxes having been on estimates filed in accordance with Home Rule Charter 6.20; and, WHEREAS, the County Council approved an ordinance authorizing a shift of $1,750,000 from the County Road Fund levy to The County General Fund levy for 2010; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED by the Whatcom County Council that: A. The amounts collected through the County Road levy shall be limited to the amount of 2009 taxes, increased for the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state assessed property. B. The amounts collected through the County Road levy and shall be decreased $1,750,000 as a result of a levy shift from the Whatcom County Road Fund to the County General Fund. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the Whatcom County Council does hereby authorize_a diverting of a portion of the County Road District levy in the amount of $706,530, for the budget year 2010 to the Current Expense Fund account Diverted County Road Taxes to be used for the support of county traffic law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of Whatcom County. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Pete Kremen, Executive Date: 377 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special Committee Of The Whole October 20, 2009 Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Bob Kelly Sam Crawford Carl Weimer Laurie Caskey-Schreiber L. Ward Nelson Seth Fleetwood 1. DISCUSSION WITH WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS REGARDING FERRY DOCK LEASE NEGOTIATIONS (AB2009-018) Crawford moved to go into executive session to discuss this item. Motion carried 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair 378 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session October 20, 2009 Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 11:07 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Bob Kelly Carl Weimer Laurie Caskey-Schreiber L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2009-024) 1. UPDATE OF SUMAS RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAPPING Rollin Harper, City of Nooksack, handed out maps (on file) and thanked the Council for partnering on this project. The results will save quite a bit of flood insurance payment money for residents. It will also open areas not in the floodway for additional infill in the city of Nooksack. Areas in the city had an extensive flood plain where people were paying flood insurance. That has been significantly reduced. At least 115 properties have been removed from the 100-year flood plain. That is a savings of almost $70,000 per year to those residents. Also, flood plain mapping was adjusted in Whatcom County. Properties are now in the flood plain that weren't before. The final step in this process is to include this map in regulations through the flood insurance rate maps. They are in the process of amending those maps, which is a long process. He asked for continued County support, including County staff support. They will pursue alternatives with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to amend those maps. Brenner asked where the areas have changed. Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, described the locations on the maps. Caskey-Schreiber asked about a concern regarding a slough area that needs to be dredged. Harper indicated the location of the slough on the map. Sediment buildup can plug the water in the slough. The City dredged a few years ago. If it fills again, a concern is that it could raise the flood level again. Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated that if it's contaminated sediment, the County would want to know. 379 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 2. STATUS REPORT ON ORDINANCE CHANGES REQUIRED UNDER NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, stated there is a timeline for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) phase II requirements. They still have to do Title 20 changes, adopt the State Department of Ecology (DOE) stormwater manual, and lower the threshold from two acres to one acre. Those are minor changes. The DOE manual is already required in the urban growth area (UGA) through interlocal agreements with Ferndale and Bellingham. A change from two to one acre only affects a few rural acres. A final Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) ordinance needs to happen. A public meeting on October 28 at 6:30 p.m. will cover phase II requirements and the IDDE ordinance. The Title 20 changes will go to the Planning Commission on December 10. The Council will introduce the Title 20 changes and final IDDE ordinance on January 12 to meet the February deadline. 3. REVISED FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (FCZD) ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRIORITIZATION METHOD AND RESULTS OF 2009 PROJECT REVIEW (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. Board Chair Weimer assumed the duties of the Chair for this portion of the meeting.) Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, handed out information and read from a presentation (on file). The Advisory Committee wanted to change the criteria for how they prioritize projects. This is from the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee looking only at flood benefit. They looked for the broadest benefit and uses consistent with the hazard. She read from the presentation on the individual projects. 4. REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE 2010 FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (FCZD) BUDGET (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. Board Chair Weimer assumed the duties of the Chair for this portion of the meeting.) Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted handouts (on file). They may continue this discussion at the next Natural Resources Committee meeting. He referenced and read through the flood control zone district fund balance analysis handout. Brenner asked if the projection includes reimbursements. Hutchings stated it does. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Brenner asked if the Council has had presentations on how the Conservation Program on Agricultural Lands (CPAL) is working. According to farmers, the program is not working. She would like George Boggs to set up a tour of the locations. Hutchings stated there will be additions to expenditures, revenue reductions, and drawing down the fund balance. The Deming levee improvement project will be delayed for 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. a year, which will improve the ending fund balance for 2010. It provides a margin of safety against a flood. However, when they go forward with that large construction project, which is a high priority, there will be a lot of angst about what they are doing with the flood district money. The ending fund balance for 2012 puts them at the margin of safety to respond to flood events. Weimer asked for a proposed fix for the declining flood fund. Hutchings stated there's been discussion about vetting out options during the 2010 budget year. Brenner asked if some of these things should be funded through the conservation futures fund because it protects agricultural lands. Hutchings stated some of these things could. They are already dipping into the real estate excise tax (REET) II program. There are stormwater projects in the Lake Whatcom watershed scheduled for 2010. The REET money is a bridge right now. They need to get to some of these projects built in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Crawford asked about the Academy Road project. Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated it is item six or seven on the stormwater plan. It's not a 2010 project. It will be designed in 2011, with construction in 2012. Crawford asked if those residents know that. Hutchings stated they do. Hutchings referenced Exhibit A, the Flood Control Zone District Budget Summary by budget code and the Flood Control Zone District 2010 Budget/Supplement Budget Request detail. The councilmembers should review these handouts to see that they are getting the work done. The numbers don't add up exactly, but the principal components of the plan are going forward. Brenner asked if Deming Levee Improvement could be funded with REET. Hutchings stated it could. Weimer stated REET revenue is going down. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:07 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on ATTEST: 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 381 1 2 3 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. Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair Surface Water Work Session, 10/20/2009, Page 4 382 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Committee Of The Whole October 27, 2009 Council Vice -Chair Laurie Caskey-Schreiber called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Bob Kelly Sam Crawford Carl Weimer Laurie Caskey-Schreiber L. Ward Nelson Seth Fleetwood 1. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT PROPERTY ACQUISITION (AB2009-181A) (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors.) Crawford moved to go into executive session to discuss the agenda item. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Brenner, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (6) Nays: None (0) Absent; Fleetwood (1) (Out of the room.) OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on , 2009. ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair 383 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council October 27, 2009 Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL Present: Barbara Brenner, Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Sam Crawford, Seth Fleetwood, Bob Kelly, L. Ward Nelson and Carl Weimer. Absent: None. FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS Fleetwood announced there was discussion of potential Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District property acquisition (AB2009-181A) in executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting. Crawford moved to authorize the County Executive, acting on behalf of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, to move forward with and complete acquisition of one property on Jones Creek, as long as the purchase price does not exceed the amount discussed in executive session. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (6) Nays: Brenner (1) Crawford moved to authorized the County Executive, acting on behalf of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zoned District Board of Supervisors, to move forward with and complete acquisition of one property in Marietta, as long as the purchase price does not exceed the amount discussed in executive session. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) PLEASE ADD TO COUNCIL, SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 1. PROCLAMATION BY COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN AFFIRMING SUPPORT FOR THE 2010 CENSUS (AB2009-017) 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated the proclamation is important for the community to participate and understand. He read the proclamation. Laverne Lamoureux, Census Bureau, stated she met with councilmembers earlier today to answer questions. She looks forward to partnering with Whatcom County to see that the County has a fair share and appropriate representation. MINUTES CONSENT Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) 1. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 4. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR OCTOBER 13, 2009 OPEN SESSION William James Corbett, citizen, stated he is homeless and unable to get public housing, due to felonies from ten years ago. He is living in a motor home. He has not been able to work because of back surgeries. He is not getting any support. He asked if there is something the Council can do to get someone into housing. Has been denied for the housing list, because he only has $300 per month from the State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). He's worked and lived in this community all his life. He's having a hard time from his felonies in 1999. Nobody wants to see how he is growing to better himself. He is trying to make it in his own community. He keeps getting knocked down because of his past. He doesn't know what to do. He can't get housing unless he has $800 per month. Being homeless is devastating to him and others in the same situation. Someone should help them move on with their lives. Caskey-Schreiber asked if Mr. Corbett has contacted the Opportunity Council for their Homeless Service Center. Corbett stated he has been to the Opportunity Council, Homeless Connect, the Hope House, and the churches. He is on a list for housing through the Bellingham Housing Authority, but only if he makes $800 per month. Brenner asked if he's applied for supplemental security income (SSI). Corbett stated he has. Someone is helping him with the SSI application. Homeless Connect is helping as much as it can, but the felony thing was ten years ago. It's holding him back from growing better. 385 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner asked if there is anything that someone with an old felony can do. Fleetwood stated there is a process to get the record expunged. Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the person has to meet certain criteria. Andy Accimus, 3110 Racine Street, Apartment 111, stated he is on the Whatcom Housing Advisory committee, he was homeless for eight years. Many people out there are trying, like the previous speaker, but are stuck with a felony conviction or other circumstances. It's something the Council may not be aware of. The system is very complicated and difficult for people to get through. The extent of the problem is not known to the elected officials. The Point in Time Count indicates there are 1,500 homeless people. This problem has to be addressed. Everyone in the country has a right to housing. It's up to every elected official to do the best they can to help people get back on their feet, regardless of past circumstances. Laura McBeath, 6319 Everson Goshen Road, stated she wants to talk about her story regarding the building permit process but is concerned about retribution. She went through the building process in 2001 as planned. She started the permit process for a horse barn in 2008. Things proceeded normally through the permit process, until one individual seemed to target her. The employee tried to dictate the entire use of her property, not just the building site. The employee required that she hire a biologist to map the entire property, not just the building site. She hired someone on the department's list and paid $1,100 for the report. The employee said she didn't believe the report. She invited the employee to her property to discuss the employees requirements for a permit. The first thing the employee said to her that day was that the driveway must be wetlands because of standing water. That day was a day of severe flooding in November 2008. The employee made several inappropriate comments, including that it is unhealthy to allow horses outside. The employee tried to insist that she keep the horses in their 12 x 12 stalls at all times, unless she's riding them. That's not a good thing for horses. Then the employee insisted on the farm plan. Later that month, the employee came to her property and walked with others around her property. She worries about these people injuring her horses if the gates aren't shut properly. This type of stuff goes on. She did get her permit, but the employee is dictating where the horses are allowed to go on her property, and trying to keep them corralled. Doug Robertson, 900 Dupont Street, Whatcom County State and Federal Bar Association Member, stated he is a member of a Bar Association subcommittee regarding the funding for the court system. The government does not have enough money to pay for all the services the community wishes it could fund. Everything the County does is important. There isn't rampant waste. However, the legislatures have to define the community's priorities by looking back at the Constitutional base of government. The single most important purpose is common defense, and then domestic tranquility. Domestic tranquility is based on enforcement of the rule of law. Their entire rule of law is based on a functioning judiciary and an effective police force. Now, the court system is crumbling under the lack of resources. Priority civil cases are being bumped. Family calendars are being cancelled. They can't get a court date. The Council needs to define priorities. The rule of law is the first priority. Fully fund the court system. Rule of law needs to be enforced effectively. The highest priority of the 2010 budget should be the court system. 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Mr. Robertson requested that his/her testimony not be included in the minutes.) Wes Withrow, 1463 Country Lane, stated he would talk about the proposed sites for a new County jail. He is a member of the Rural Avenue Neighborhood Association. County citizens should have public input. The association has concerns about the transparency of this process, environmental impacts, and the impact to the rural neighborhood and surrounding areas. County citizens should be more involved in these discussions. The jail selection process was supposed to involve the public. This hasn't happened. Even neighbors living adjacent to the sites have not been notified. Over $700,000 has been spent to narrow the selection to two sites that would impact the same rural neighborhood, have wetland issues, are home to numerous species, and don't meet the County's own guidelines outlined in the essential public facilities site selection criteria. The sites don't have access to utilities and infrastructure to accommodate a facility of that nature. They've been told that the public would have a chance to provide input after a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) has been issued. This is too late. He would like to speak sooner. He asked who is conducting the environmental impact study, and if it is the same consultant who conducted the site survey study. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County is using its Facilities Division staff and a consulting team, developed by a firm called HDR. They are well away from completing the environmental impact statement. The administration will discuss the information and process with the County Council. They haven't purchased or committed to a property, other than identified sites on which the EIS is written. Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he would talk about funding for the Lake Whatcom Management Plan. The City of Bellingham and Water District 10 have a land acquisition fund they developed in the late 1990s. Bellingham has spent $11.7 million. The Water District fund collects only $16.80 per year, per property. Sudden Valley has a density reduction fund that is about $1.8 million. He described the history of that fund. This fund has been absconded by the Board for purposes that were not agreed to by the County Council, Water District, or City of Bellingham. He hopes that they will work the community of Sudden Valley, including the Board, to fund the Lake Whatcom Management Plan. If not, hold them responsible. He expects the money to be used for density reduction, stormwater improvements, best management practices for whatever is built, and outreach. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he thanked the Council for providing time for the small cities to state their cases about their urban growth areas (UGA's). The small cities are doing a better job of planning than the County. The County should consider their concerns. The County needs to get real and have a new attitude to help people. Donald Littrell, 8359 Delta Line Road, stated he bought a 40-acre farm. He also bought a 20-acre tract and 25-acre tract. At the time of purchase, they were zoned as one - acre parcels. Since, they have been downzoned to five -acre parcels. Now, they are trying to change the zone to ten -acre parcels. He has 30 grandchildren and 16 great grandchildren, some of whom live on his parcels. He is trying to subdivide to five -acre tracts before the zoning is changed. The 20-acre tract is listed as less than 20 acres on the tax statement. If it is downzoned, he can get only one residence on the tract, which destroys the plans he had when he purchased those properties. He bought the property to 387 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. provide an opportunity for his children to live in the area. He cannot leave any heritage to his children. Caskey-Schreiber stated she thought the recommendation was for five -acre parcels, not ten -acre parcels. David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the Planning Commission recommends a density of one unit per ten acres in the areas being reviewed as part of the rural element, the limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD) areas. The Council will address that recommendation. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION — REQUEST #TR2009-03 (AB2009-389A) No one spoke Fleetwood opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Weimer moved to approve the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) 2. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION — REQUEST #TR2009-04 (AB2009-390A) Fleetwood opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to approve the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) 3. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION — REQUEST #TR2009-05 (AB2009-391A) Fleetwood opened the public hearing and the following person spoke: Steve Oliver, Treasurer, stated this is an old piece of railroad right-of-way acquired by foreclosure in 1950. There are four homes using this property to access their homes. The applicant is not one of those adjacent property owners. Brenner asked if the right-of-way is the only ingress and egress to those four properties. Oliver stated he can't say for certain. KM 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated table the issue until they have more information. Caskey-Schreiber asked if the four adjacent property owners were notified of this transaction. Oliver stated they have been notified. Brenner asked if they can negotiate with the adjacent property owners. Oliver stated the issue with this parcel is their right to sell property by negotiation to an adjacent property owner. It is only allowed for parcels valued less than $500. This piece of right-of- way has been assessed for more than $500. It's not eligible for negotiation with an adjacent property owner. The Property Management Committee recommends going forward for public auction. He agrees with the recommendation. Crawford stated the adjacent property owners are notified that the property will be up for auction. Let those owners decide whether or not if they want it. Brenner stated it may be the only access to those four properties. She asked if the County is required to insure that people have access to and from their property. They can't be landlocked. Crawford stated that if the property owners have an issue with that, they can purchase an easement from other properties. Brenner asked if the County requires ingress and egress when it allows someone to build a house. Crawford stated it may predate the rules. Hearing no one else, Fleetwood closed the public hearing. Nelson moved to approve the resolution. Brenner stated she's not comfortable until she gets answers about when the houses were built and whether there was ingress and egress. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (5) Nays: Brenner and Caskey-Schreiber (2) 4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2010 ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB2009-393) Fleetwood opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to approve the resolution. Weimer moved to hold for two weeks until they talk about the budget. It's based on a levy shift option on which they haven't decided. Once they vote on this, it takes a unanimous vote of the Council to change it. This doesn't have to pass this evening. 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Crawford stated he is going to support the program, regardless of what they decide about the tax shift. The tax shift will not effect these properties. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly, and Weimer (5) Nays: Crawford and Nelson (2) CONSENT AGENDA Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one, two, and four through seven. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) 1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AMENDMENT #6 BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR PHASE IV WORK OF THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IN THE AMENDED AMOUNT OF $74,999 (AB2009-400) 2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. FOR DESIGN ASSISTANCE OF STORMWATER PROJECTS IN THE SILVER BEACH CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN, IN THE AMOUNT OF $122,430 (AB2009-401) 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LINSLEY, KRAEGER ASSOCIATES, LTD FOR CALIBRATION OF THE LOWER NOOKSACK RIVER HYDRAULIC MODEL TO THE JANUARY 2009 FLOOD EVENT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO COUNTY STAFF AS NEEDED, IN THE AMOUNT $25,000 (AB2009-402) (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. Board Chair Weimer assumed the duties of the Chair for this portion of the meeting.) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve the request. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) 390 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WILSON ENGINEERING, LLC FOR EVALUATION, INSPECTION AND PRE -DESIGN REPORT FOR THE SILVER BEACH CREEK WATERSHED STORMWATER FACILITY RETROFITS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $49,767 (AB2009-403) S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE ANNUAL PURCHASE OF 2009, 2010 SUPPLY OF SNOW AND ICE CONTROL PRODUCTS USING WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, IN AN AMOUNT THAT COULD EXCEED $35,000 (AB2009-404) 6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID 09-47 TO LOW BIDDER, ANDGAR CORPORATION, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL COOLING EQUIPMENT IN THE COURTHOUSE COMPUTER ROOM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $82,677 (AB2009-405) 7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO PROVIDE THE COUNTY WITH $50,000 TOWARD PHASE II STORMWATER PROGRAMS (THIS PASS -THROUGH GRANT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY MATCH FROM THE COUNTY) AB2009-418 OTHER ITEMS 1. RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF PORTAL WAY (AB2009-406) Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and moved to approve the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None(0) 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, ELEVENTH REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $287,325 (AB2009-394) Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) 3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION BOARD ON BEHALF OF THE NORTHWEST ECONOMIC COUNCIL (AB2009-399) 391 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 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 the resolution. Caskey-Schreiber asked for an example of assistance provided to small business with tools for global competition, including areas of engineering, light manufacturing, marine petroleum engineering, and water conservation technology. Nancy Jordan, Northwest Economic Council, stated companies in these areas are engaged in cutting edge technology. Other companies and graduating students are coming up with new ideas. They want to make sure they're on the cutting edge, which many other communities are doing. They will bring together the people who have the ideas and mentors. The Bellingham Angel Group is part of this team. It has a wealth of knowledge in business and global marketing. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF EVERSON INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 9.83 ACRES (SKILLMAN EAST EVERSON ANNEXATION), PER THE CONDITIONS OF ORDINANCE 2007-049 (AB2009- 407) Caskey-Schreiber reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to approve the request. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) INTRODUCTION ITEMS Brenner moved to accept all ten Introduction Items. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) 1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2010 BUDGET FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT AND SUBZONES (AB2009-409) (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Zone District Board of Supervisors) 392 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT FOR 2010 (AB2009-410) (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Zone District Board of Supervisors) 3. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A SHIFT OF $1,750,000 FROM THE ROAD LEVY TO THE GENERAL FUND LEVY FOR 2010 PURSUANT TO RCW 84.52.043 (AB2009-411) 4. ORDINANCE LIMITING THE 2010 ROAD FUND PROPERTY TAX LEVY (AB2009-412) 5. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES PURPOSES FOR 2010 (AB2009-413) 6. ORDINANCE LIMITING THE 2010 GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX LEVY (AB2009-414) 7. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND STATE PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY FOR THE YEAR 2010 (AB2009-415) S. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY ROAD PURPOSES FOR 2010 9. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2010 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SECOND REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,440,693 (AB2009-419) 10. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2010 WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BUDGET, FIRST REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,140 (AB2009-420) (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors) OTHER BUSINESS Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated there is an informational meeting on Lummi Island to discuss the Ferry System beginning at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. on November 9 at the Grange. Staff attending the meeting will include Public Works Department Director Frank Abart and hopefully a representative from the Prosecutor's Office. All the councilmembers are welcome to attend. Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated the committee discussed the proposed South Fork Park. The residents of the area want the main entrance at the south end of the park, which would be easy to develop. The Acme residents are having a meeting about the park at 7 p.m. at the Acme Elementary School. Kelly asked if there is an alternative staff proposal that includes a southern park entrance. 393 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 herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated the Parks Director said they are considering north and south entrances. She hasn't heard anyone from the Acme area who wants a northern entrance. Many have said they don't want a northern entrance. Staff said they made a request to the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding easements to the south. There is one more week of public comment, and then it goes to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The staff are talking about a southern entrance only as an addition to the northern entrance. The community doesn't want the northern entrance because it will affect the Elk herds, in addition to other problems. Nelson stated the County cannot consider a southern easement because it does not own the land to the south. The staff requested the environmental impact statement (EIS) to look at both areas. In light of that, the committee recommended sending a letter to DNR again, asking for an easement through DNR land to the south end. He moved request that the administration send a letter to DNR asking DNR to allow County access through the southern area. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Caskey-Schreiber, Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Kremen asked for more specific information. Nelson stated Parks and Recreation Department Director McFarland has more information. Kremen stated he will work cooperatively and collaboratively with the Council. Caskey-Schreiber stated a special Committee of the Whole meeting is scheduled from 9 a.m. to noon and 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on November 3. The meeting is to develop the Council's proposal for how cities and small towns should grow. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS There were no reports or other items from councilmembers. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on , 2009. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 394 1 2 3 4 5 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. Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 10/27/2009, Page 12 395 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009-436 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: SM 10129109 1111012009 Introduction Originator: j" IE C E. r� V p E D I!-ll LS u LS 11/24/2009 Public Hearing Division Head: NOY 0 2, Z009 WHATCOM COUNTY Dept. Head: Prosecutor: COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget: Executive: j TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Public Hearing regarding project proposals for CDBG General Purposes Grant funding in 2010. ATTACHMENTS. Memorandum, Project proposals from Opportunity Council and Kulshan Community Land Trust. SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( x ) Requested Date: November 24, 2009 NO 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.) Schedule a public hearing on November 24, 2009 for the County Council to receive testimony from 2 potential applicants for Community Development Block Grant funding. Council may select one applicant to partner with for submission of a 2010 General Purposes Grant for up to P-million. Public Hearing Notice lanyuaQe: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held to consider 2 applications for funding from the State's Community Development Block Grant program for 2010. The Whatcom County Council will hear presentations and take testimony on the following proposed projects: ])Housing Rehabilitation Program through the Opportunity Council; and 2) Whatcom Farm Incubator Project through Kulshan Community Land Trust. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers, Is'Floor, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, WA. After the public hearing, the Council will decide which, if any, project to sponsor by way of adopting a Resolution in favor of submitting a CDBG application to the Washington State Department of Commerce. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 11/10/2009: 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 County's website at: www.co.whatconi.►va.us/courtcil. 396 WHATCOM COUNTY �GOM COG EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE 3sP a� County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #108 Bellingham, WA 98225-4082 9SNIN�+�O MEMORANDUM To: Whatcom County Council Members From: Pete Kremen, County Executive Subject: 2010 CDBG General Purposes Grant Opportunity Date: November 2, 2009 Pete Kremen County Executive Dewey Desler Deputy Administrator The Washington State Department of Commerce (formerly "CTED") offers the CDBG General Purposes Grant opportunity on an annual basis, with grant awards of up to $1- million available to local governments. In past years, the County Council has signed a Resolution in support of a specific application that was received by a local agency or a non-profit group. This year, the administration published a notice soliciting applicants for this funding. We received five project proposals, three of which it was determined were not eligible or project -ready for funding in this cycle. The two remaining project proposals are now being submitted for your consideration, and we are requesting a public hearing on November 24th in order for you to hear testimony from the applicants as to the merits of each project. We are asking you to consider both projects, and select the one that will most closely align with our goals and priorities, and will provide the most benefit to the citizens of our community. Following the selection of a project/applicant, a Resolution will be presented for your approval that will authorize the Executive office to sign and submit an application for funding to the Washington State Department of Commerce before the deadline in mid - January, 2010. Thank you for your consideration. If you should have any questions, please contact Suzanne Mildner in this office at extension 50118. Office (360) 676-6717 County (360) 384-1403 FAX (360) 676-6775 TDD (360) 738-4555 397 6 1%0400 a human service agency A Community Action Agency serving Whatcom, Island and San Juan Counties since 1965 Whatcom County 1111 Cornwall Ave., Suite C Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 734-5121 (800) 649-5121 Fax (360) 671-0541 Building Performance Center 1322 N. State Street Bellingham, WA. 98225 (360) 733-6559 Fax (360) 671-2753 Island County 1791 NE 1st Ave. P.O. Box 922 Oak Harbor, WA 98277 (360) 679-6577 (800) 317-5427 Fax (360) 679-2440 San Juan County (800) 649-5121 www.oppco.org Opportunity Council 10/21 /09 To: Whatcom County Executive's Office From: Dave Finet 01 RE: CDBG Proposal RECEIVED OCT 2 1 2009 PETE KREMEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE The Opportunity Council is pleased to submit the attached proposal to Whatcom County for consideration for the 2010 Community Development Block Grant General Purpose fund. This proposal is for a Housing Repair and Rehabilitation program, and would assist up to 69 Whatcom County homeowners with repairs and rehabilitation in their homes.. These proposed activities are high priorities in the recommendations made to Whatcom County by the Countywide Housing Advisory Taskforce in August of 2010. The work activities will provide economic activity in the local economy, create jobs and help maintain the low-income housing stock. If there are any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to contact me r Jon Martin. Jon can be reached at 733-6559 x 100. �Qa6llt - _Or�� WV Block Grant Project Proposal Opportunity Council The Opportunity Council is interested in submitting a Block Grant Project Proposal for the upcoming Community Development Block Grant General Purpose fund through Whatcom County. The proposed request is for $500,000, for an owner -occupied housing rehabilitation program to be operated throughout Whatcom County (except for within the city limits of Bellingham.) Whatcom County has an exciting and timely opportunity to simultaneously create "green collar jobs", save energy and reduce carbon emissions, stimulate local economic development and generate tax.revenue locally and statewide, while at the same time preserving existing housing stock and creating a stepping stone for sustainable communities. In August of 2009, the Countywide Housing Affordability Task Force (CHAT) recommended to the Whatcom County Council a group of measures that could be undertaken within Whatcom County to ensure that affordable housing is available now and into the future. One of the CHAT's top priorities was to maintain the existing housing stock where low-income families reside: "Tasks 8-12: Retain older housing stock We must retain older housing stock — estimated in 2000 to be approximately 10,763 single family and 5,364 multifamily units built before 1930 throughout the cities and unincorporated county as these units constitute a large portion of the existing affordable housing supply. We should utilize a wide variety- of innovative approaches including: ❑ grants, ❑ no and low interest loans, ❑ no and low interest loans as liens due at the time of sale or inheritance, and ❑ land trusts where the title to the property is acquired and the property is placed in a land trust with the purchase proceeds used to rehab the housing units." Use of the CDBG funds to provide housing repair and rehabilitation services would be directly in line with the CHAT recommendations, and bean important step that Whatcom County can immediately take. The CHAT also identified a measurethat calls for mobile homes to be retained and replaced: "Tasks B-14: Retain and replace mobile and manufactured homes We also must retain and/or replace older mobile and manufactured homes — estimated in 2000 to be 9,535 units — especially within the unincorporated county as these units also constitute a significant portion of the existing O C CDBG Request Pagel 10/30/09 399. affordable housing supply. We should utilize a wide variety of aggressive approaches including: ❑ grants, ❑ no and low interest loans ❑ retaining existing mobile home parks where feasible and practical, and ❑ develop new mobile home parks to retain or increase this low cost housing option." It is the Opportunity Council's experience that a growing number of low-income individuals and families live in mobile homes throughout the County. It is also our experience that mobile homes can deteriorate quickly if they are not maintained. Often, an investment in a new roof system, an insulation package and new doors and windows can ensure that an existing mobile home will remain safe, functional, and be able to continue offering affordable housing for at least an additional 25 years. The Opportunity Council's proposed housing rehabilitation program would target 25% of the repair funds towards the repair and rehabilitation of mobile homes. Project Readiness The Opportunity Council (OC) is ready and able to immediately begin the implementation of the proposed repair and rehabilitation activities. In today's parlance, this project is truly "shovel ready". The OC has been operating housing repair and rehabilitation programs since 1992. The OC has experienced crews who can do the work, a developed system of processes to ensure smooth program operations, functioning policies and procedures, a network of established relationships with specialty trade contractors, and additional sources of funds committed to the project. A large percentage of the funds would be loaned to eligible homeowners, to be repaid into the OC's revolving loan fund, thus ensuring_ that the funds are recycled into future repair and rehabilitation activities. This project is directly aligned with State and Federal Recovery Act strategies to help stimulate local economies. With the construction sector slowly rebounding from the downturn of the last several years, this proposed project will provide an influx of funds to local building material suppliers and small, specialty trade contractors such. as plumbers, electricians and roofers. This will help these small family businesses continue to stay in business. Households Served This proposed project will assist an estimated 35 households. The initial estimate is that 25% of the repair and rehabilitation funds would be targeted for emergency repairs of less than $8,500, with an average cost of $4,000. This would assist approximately 23 homeowners with emergency repairs, ranging from water heater replacements to roof replacements. One trend that has been increasing in the last several years is that roofing contractors are reluctant to repair roofs, most likely because of liability issues and repeated call-backs. This has resulted in the need for roof replacements, which are often needed in order to insulate attics. Additional emergency repairs that are commonly O C CDBG Request Page 2 10/30/09 M identified are electrical system problems (especially with knob and tube wiring), water problems from leaking supply and drain systems, unsafe stairs and landings and inadequate heat systems. Handicapped access issues are occasionally identified, where a wheelchair ramp might need to be installed, or bathroom remodeled to allow for wheelchair access. An additional 12 homeowners would be assisted with more comprehensive repair and rehabilitation. These homes would receive an average of $23,500 in direct repair benefits. This more comprehensive rehabilitation identifies all of the health and safety items needing repairs, and prioritizes those that are most important to address. One or two major systems, such as roofing system or electrical system, are typically repaired or replaced. The OC has funding in place to address lead hazards in housing built before 1978 where a child under the age of six resides. This funding allows $13,100 to be spent to mitigate all identified lead hazards. These would be the first dollars spent, but it the OC's experience that this may not be enough to fully address the hazards. The OC would propose that an additional $10,000 per house, if needed, could be granted to a homeowner to ensure all hazards are addressed. Matching Funds It is estimated that 90% or more of participating homeowners will receive an average of $9,500 in energy efficiency improvements to their homes, bringing an additional $332,500 in matching funds. These funds come from contracts that the OC has in place with the State of Washington and local utilities. In addition to weatherization the Opportunity Council has a contract with the State of Washington to provide lead hazard mitigation in households with children under the age of six. It is estimated that 5 of the participating households will be assisted with Lead Hazard Mitigation funds, at an average of $13,100 per home. This will bring in an additional $65,500. Revolving Funds It is estimated that 75% of the repair and rehabilitation funding will be loaned to homeowners. Loans are deferred -payment with 0 interest, resulting in no immediate financial burden being placed on a low-income family. Loans are repaid at the time the house. sells or the use of the house changes, and all loans are secured with a deed of trust and a promissory note. 25% of the repair and rehabilitation funds will be granted to homeowners living in mobile homes in parks or on trust land. These dwellings are not considered "real property" and thus cannot have deeds of trust filed. . Timeframe This project can be implemented immediately, and would be completed within 12 months of contract execution. O C CDBG Request Page 3 10/30/09 401 PROJECT BUDGET OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL HOUSING REPAIR AND REHABILITATION PROPOSAL Repair and Rehabilitation Activities 360,000 Project Coordination 90,000 Administrative Expenses 50,000 Project Total 500,000 Repair and Rehabilitation activities include the costs associated with performing the work on the housing units. This work may be performed by contractors or by Opportunity Crews, depending on the type of work. Project coordination includes all costs associated to determining eligibility, initial inspection, developing scope of work, soliciting bids for specialty trades, developing contracts for work, coordinating work activities, inspecting work, filing liens and closing out jobs. These are typically considered general contractor duties. Administrative expenses includes fiscal and contract reporting activities. The federally approved indirect cost rate for 2010, which includes the fiscal and contract reporting functions, is set for the Opportunity Council at 11.1%. CDBG caps administrative costs at 10%. 402 Ci KulshanCLT a community land mist November 13, 2009 To: Whatcom County Executive and Whatcom County Council From: Paul Schissler, Executive Direct& �C„_ gat si ...,.... HOP s� a 293 ALL �( ; RE: Potential Community Development Block Grant project: Whatcom Farm Incubator KulshanCLT requests that Whatcom County consider making the Whatcom Farm Incubator its highest priority for the next round of CDBG General Purpose Grant Program funding, with a January, 2010, application submittal deadline. I understand that you have other CDBG-eligible projects to consider, and I want to encourage you to pick one of those projects for this once -a -year opportunity for federal funding. The Whatcom Farm Incubator (WFI) will meet the CDBG requirement for principally benefiting low- and moderate -income (LMI) households by (1) producing food that benefits LMI people as well as programs that assist LMI and special needs households, and (2) by incubating farm business that, if successful, will graduate off the WFI to affordable farmland elsewhere in Whatcom County. The WFI is a land -based project dedicated to the promotion and growth of local farm businesses. The farmers of the WFI will learn from each other, produce healthy food and draw together diverse farming communities while protecting and nurturing the farmland that will become the WFI. (For more detail, please see attached file brochure from the Whatcom Community Foundation.) The total WFI budget includes both CDBG-eligible costs (land acquisition, infiastructure, buildings and fixtures) and non-CDBG-eligible costs (equipment, supplies, programming, etc.) For CDBG application purposes, the budget will depend on the site to be acquired. Currently, the WFI project may be close to identifying and securing a purchase and sale agreement for the acquisition of a farmland site. Depending on the site, the CDBG application might include land acquisition costs only or it may need to include CDBG-eligible improvements to the site, including repair or construction of farm buildings, irrigation infrastructure, off -site improvements, etc. The CDBG budget will be firmed up when the appropriate location is under contract for acquisition. Until then, real estate negotiations must remain somewhat confidential. Matching funding is available from local sources including the Whatcom Farm Incubator Fund of the Whatcom Community Foundation. Currently that Fund includes a pledge of $250,000 and additional challenge of matching funds of up to $750,000. The Fund may be used for acquisition of the site and/or for the cost of programming on the site. The Conservation Futures funding that the County manages might also be a source of matching funding. KulshanCLT, Sustainable Connections and the many other organizations are collaborating to create the WFI, and we would appreciate the opportunity to provide more information about the project. Thank you for your consideration. 215 w holly st suite h 20 bellingham, wa 98225 phone: (360) 671.5600 fax: (360) 676.6222 web: www.kdt.org 403 0 Sustainable KulshanCLT Connection s a community land trust A Community of Businesses Whatcom Farm Incubator Project — Brief Overview The Whatcom Farm Incubator (WFIP) is a land -based project dedicated to the promotion and growth of local, sustainable and socially responsible farm businesses. The farmers of the WFIP will learn from each other, generate healthy food and draw together diverse farming communities while protecting and nurturing the land. At WFIP we believe that food connects us to each other and to the land. Why a WFIP? As Whatcom County faces the challenges of a growing future the need to maintain a safe, sustainable and economically viable agricultural foundation becomes increasingly clear. As our County's population grows, so do the economic and social challenges of building and maintaining our agricultural roots. Sustainable Connections and Kulshan Community Land Trust (KulshanCLT) have teamed up to create a land - based farm incubator project in Whatcom County. Through reviewing the surveys of current and past participants in Sustainable Connections Food to Bank On (FTBO) program and in speaking directly with those farmers and others with interests in agriculture, it is clear that the most common barriers to success for beginning farmers are: 1) Access to affordable and available organic farmland, 2) Access to affordable infrastructure like tractors, greenhouses, 'Irrigation equipment, etc. 3) Opportunity to spend more time -in proximity with peers to share ideas and learn production, marketing and other best practices from one another. A Whatcom Farm Incubator Project (WFIP) has great potential to expand opportunities and markets for local farmers while raising awareness for protection of agricultural lands. This project will strengthen community among farmers and work to raise awareness for food justice and food shed issues. The WFIP is modeled after other programs around the country that not only support and help economically viable and sustainable farm based enterprises but also work with communities on issues of food and social justice and natural resource protection. Some of the models we have turned to for ideas, guidance and advice include: • Intervale- Burlington, VT. (www.intervate.org) • FarmStart- Guelph, Ontario (www.farmstart.ca) • ALBA (Agricultural and Land -Based Training Association)- Salinas, CA (www.albafarmcirs.org) Kim What is a Farm Incubator? Farm Incubators are land -based educational, training and support programs for beginning farmers who wish to start their own agricultural enterprises but may lack the initial capital outlay and/or experience to farm on their own. Components of an Incubator often include: access to land and farm infrastructure at a reasonable rate; mentorships with experienced farmers; educational opportunities; financial planning support including loan counseling and grant application assistance; individualized business consulting; and marketing and distribution cooperatives. Incubators also serve to educate the public about the importance of agricultural preservation and local food production and consumption. ALBA in California and the Intervale Center in VT are examples of well -established and successful farm incubators. Click here for a list of links to other incubator projects happening across the country and related resources. Who, Where and When? In October 2007, Sustainable Connections and Kulshan Community Land Trust (KulshanCLT) prepared a Phase 1 Report on the feasibility of creating a Farm Incubator in Whatcom County. Sustainable Connections' experience working with beginning farmers through the Food To Bank On program and KulshanCLT's expertise -in acquiring property, along with their commitment to preserving affordable access to land, makes these two organizations uniquely suited to implement a Farm Incubator in Whatcom County. In Jan/Feb 2008, an advisory committee was formed and in September 2008 Sustainable Connections hired an Americorps VISTA to work just over half time on developing the WFIP. To date we have been in contact with other incubator projects to gather information on their models, leasing options, programs and budgets. A multitude of different funding sources have also been investigated, with many solid leads and community support indicating that we would, with some legwork and targeted fundraising, be able to fund the project. The major work to be done for the WFIP to move forward is finding the project a home. Ideally, the WFIP would sit on a minimum of 100 acres with a current water right and would have farm buildings that could work for a variety of uses. The possibility of on -site housing and an administrative office is also a consideration. The site should also be easily accessible and relatively close to either Bellingham or Ferndale. Extensive site research and visits have already taken place and we are always looking for new leads. Due to the collaboration of these two non -profits and the broad range of support for the project the WFIP has received a pledged gift from the Whatcom Community Foundation. This generous gift will help jumpstart the project and provide funds for land acquisition as well as operating expenses. The three-year acquisition, improvements, and operating budgets are expected to be up to $3 million. 405 Looking to the future, the WFIP partners envision offering technical assistance and customized business development assistance to all farmers, not just those involved in the program, as well as taking steps to increase market access for Whatcom County agricultural products, such as a site for consolidation and distribution to larger customers or for value-added food production. We welcome your feedback! We are seeking input, ideas, tips and referrals (particularly towards available farmland) from the community. If you have something you would like to share please contact Eva Agudelo or Derek Long at Sustainable Connections (eva@sconnect.orp-, or derek@sconnect.org, 360-647-7093) or Ann Russell at KulshanCLT (annrusseti@kclt.org, 360-671-5600). www.SustainableConnections.or • www.kcit.org �1• Cd N �M• CC cd N � N hp a P�� coCd co C cD o Cd M o c Z _ " �++ w cCd bD U O � cd O bA ¢, co 4- . Cd o o bD cz oCd �. bD CO Q a = N O co mo w O cd P, C o ° P. d O U (a 0 O � N o ,b � •b y y A w m o a o N t, 4)i c°. 4 m o IA t 9 w w a y y ° A y A a o0 o N q a o °CZ m UU W °� 'b pA c�i a� o o w Ny a a; c�i cn .A o U P, "4 ti k' off! y ui o Cc,'o LAU o " CO -,4 A F7 o W o N ' co y co 407 `tio o o y i H = a u o n E V U C� o � b o m E m U ti r1 E �o Ia Hw 0 y c�0i o �? O w �` c:) L •C aoi � P3 LO H�9 O �0 v0 U o c U m o d ❑❑❑❑ o -raj d �.�C �3 b U o— m Q,o } d o 62 d �+ 3 q a N E o000 ck, o �+ o cD Qa w' o w o E ci o c=y., m d O b cu o o 00�o " d ." a a o atli ti Eo N. v w m o Lu ���� Q O o >-�w .................................................................................................................................................. ❑❑❑❑ ❑w M0 Lu ¢ � C ..................................................................................................................................... o = ❑ 0 3 0 �w 3 oa a o -0 w O co C) , w �a `� y / E Cl ti 9 cd L a N o a 'Ll O o0 > w O LU oo w .. ,. a 5 q V IC o o o a a /A L■ V / � i � � C a N N a o o o Q N � N !d O ti O � y a) �,Z ¢ n n n n n c o cu a) a IC O a O 0 CD •N. bD c A A � W ^ Ocu N w y o d U a y N O. pA" m Eo w b ypw� �jy O E WN a GD J." .f4 o 'b is � P. O c N b O •— O N a O b o O a >> o o o b ao o a� w n n n n n n c 0 o a, C U p C O N Co� E cn a ca 3 O n m a a� ca cn ca cO C � U °J ~ a C �' N O O caLn Q— u- cn Q catjD fC v . fA Q v Q cu a °J � Y T. � a, m ' A a cc o C m Q¢ c rn O F , N - C m C O co in v f�0 O Mco w M C N d — hD 3 bo N p T CU O + h U Oo V cu ro 0 Q y tad °' c CZ 2 P. co u., a) c q Q Ia m (10/19'2009) Dewey Desler Potential CDBG �roiect Page 1_;# From: Paul Schissler <paulschissler@kulshanclt.org> To: Dewey Desler <DDesler@co.whatcom.wa.us>, Suzanne Mildner <SMildner@co.wh CC: Paul Schissler <paulschissler@kulshanclt.org> Date: 10/19/2009 1:54 PM Subject: Potential CDBG project Attachments: KulshanCLT potential CDBG proposal brief description.docx Dewey and Suzanne, Kulshan Community Land Trust would like to respond to the County's request for information about potential projects that are eligible for the state Community Development Block Grant Program. KulshanCLT requests that Whatcom County consider making the Whatcom Farm Incubator its highest priority for the next round of CDBG General Purpose Grant Program funding, with a January, 2010, application submittal deadline. I currently know of no other CDBG-eligible projects being discussed in the County, although I know that the County's recent request for projects might bring other proposals to the fore. Project name: Whatcom Farm Incubator Brief description of the project: The Whatcom Farm Incubator (WFI) will meet the CDBG requirement for principally benefiting low- and moderate -income (LMI) households by (1) producing food that benefits LMI people as well as programs that assist LMI and special needs households, and (2) by incubating farm business that, if successful, will graduate off the WFI to affordable farmland elsewhere in Whatcom County. The WFI is a land -based project dedicated to the promotion and growth of local, sustainable and socially responsible farm businesses. The farmers of the WFI will learn from each other, produce healthy food and draw together diverse farming communities while protecting and nurturing the land. (For more detail, please see attached file: KulshanCLT potential CDBG proposal brief description.) Draft budget: The total WFI budget includes both CDBG-eligible costs (land acquisition, infrastructure, buildings and fixtures) and non-CDBG-eligible costs (equipment, supplies, programming, etc.) For CDBG application purposes, the budget will depend on the site to be acquired. Currently, the WFI project may be close to identifying and securing a purchase and sale agreement for the acquisition of a farmland site. Depending on the site, the CDBG application might include land acquisition costs only or it may need to include CDBG-eligible improvements to the site, including repair or construction, irrigation infrastructure, ,1• 11 oten 10/19/2009� Dewey Desler Ptial CDBGro�ect Page 2 off -site improvements, etc. The CDBG budget will be firmed up when the appropriate location is under contract for acquisition; until then, real estate negotiations must remain somewhat confidential. Matching funding is available from local sources including the Whatcom Farm Incubator Fund of the Whatcom Community Foundation. Currently that Fund includes a pledge of $250,000 and additional matching funds of up to $750,000. The Fund may be used for acquisition of the site and/or for the cost of programming on the site. KulshanCLT, Sustainable Connections and the many other organizations collaborating to create the WFI would appreciate the opportunity to provide more information. Thank you for your consideration. Paul Schissler KulshanCLT executive director 410 PUBLIC HEARING HANDOUT Department of Commerce Y Innovation is in. our nature. Community Development Block Grant Program Introduction For More Information: The Washington State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides funds on a competitive basis for public facilities, Bill Cole community facilities, economic development, housing rehabilitation, public CDP Managing Director services and planning projects that principally benefit low- and moderate- 360.725.3005 income households. bill.cole@commerce.wa.gov Since 1982, the Washington State CDBG Program has distributed and Kaaren Roe managed over $419 million from the U.S. Department of Housing and CDBG Program Lead Urban Development (HUD). With this funding, the CDBG Program 360.725.3018 improves and maintains the environment of eligible, rural cities and kaaren.roe@commerce.wa.gov counties to enhance the quality of life for low- and moderate -income residents, and as a result, make a difference for the entire community. Lynn Kohn General Purpose Grant Manager 2010 Funding Set -Asides 360.725.3042 In 2010, approximately $15 million in federal CDBG funds will be awarded Ivnn.kohn@commerce.wa.gov to Washington State. It is proposed that funds be distributed as follows: Janea Eddy Administrative Assistant General Purpose Grants $12,000,000 360.725.3006 Contact: Lynn Kohn janea.eddy@commerce.wa.gov Annual grant cycle during which eligible applicants may request up to $1 million for public facilities, community facilities, housing Laurie Dschaak rehabilitation, or economic development projects principally benefiting CDBG Contract Assistant low- and moderate -income persons. If total project costs exceed $10 360.725.5020 million, the maximum grant can be $1.5 million. Applications are due laurie.dschaak@commerce.wa.gov by January 21, 2010, with awards announced by early May 2010. Steve Saylor Planning -Only Grants $400,000 Economic Development Contact: Janea Eddy Grants & Loan Services Grants support a range of planning activities that lead to 360.725.4046 implementation of priority projects for eligible small communities and steve.saylor@commerce.wa.gov rural counties. Funding levels vary by type of project, with the www.commerce.wa.gov/cdbg maximum grant for a single jurisdiction at $35,000. Joint planning efforts may receive up to $50,000. The application handbooks for 2010 Dates and amounts are will be available by February 2010 and can be submitted year round proposed in the 2010 Action (on funds available basis) beginning March 2010, with first awards Plan announced by early May 2010. Housing Enhancement Grants $1,000,000 Contact: Kaaren Roe Companion funds to support priority applications submitted to the Washington State Housing Trust Fund, which fund necessary off -site infrastructure or community facility components of the affordable housing project CDBG General Purpose Grant Application Handbook 85 October 2009 411 PUBLIC HEARING HANDOUT Imminent Threat Grants $200,000 Contact: Kaaren Roe Provides funds to address unique emergencies posing a serious and immediate threat to public health and safety on a funds availability basis. Upon formal Declaration of Emergency and completion of an Imminent Threat grant application, costs can be covered for a temporary repair or solution while funding for a permanent fix is secured. Public Services Grants $1,557,612 Contact: Kaaren Roe Provides funds to the 12 eligible counties and community action agencies to fund new or expanded direct services for persons with low- and moderate - incomes. CDBG Loan Portfolio $15,000,000 Contact: Steve Saylor Provides eligible jurisdictions with short-term loans for economic development/job creation financing on CDBG-eligible activities meeting a HUD National Objective. Applications may be submitted after adoption of the 2010 Action Plan. • Float Loan - Economic Development/Job Creation • Rural Washington Loan Fund • HUD Section 108 Guarantee Loans HUD National Objectives CDBG project activities must meet one of three HUD National Objectives: • Principally benefits low -and moderate -income persons • Aids in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight • Addresses imminent threat to public health or safety CDBG Eligibility. Guidelines ■ Eligible applicants are Washington State cities and towns with less than 50,000 in population or.counties with less than 200,000 in population that are non -entitlement jurisdictions and are not participants in a HUD Urban County Entitlement Consortium.. ■ Non-profit organizations, Indian tribes, public housing authorities, port districts, community action agencies, and economic development councils, are not eligible to apply directly to the CDBG Program for funding, but may be partners in projects and subrecipients of funding through eligible jurisdictions. ■ Applicants may submit one request per fund each program year, except for local microenterprise program applicants seeking a General Purpose Grant. CDBG General Purpose Grant Application Handbook 86 October 2009 412 Federal Citizen Participation Requirements for Local Government Applicants to the State CDBG Program Federal Regulations 24 CFR 570.486 (a) (a) Citizen participation requirements of a unit of general local government. Each unit of general local government shall meet the following requirements as required by the state at Sec. 91.115(e) of this title. (1) Provide for and encourage citizen participation, particularly by low and moderate income persons who reside in slum or blighted areas and areas in which CDBG funds are proposed to be used; (2) Ensure that citizens will be given reasonable and timely access to local meetings, information, and records relating to the unit of local government's proposed and actual use of CDBG funds; (3) Furnish citizens information, including but not limited to: (i) The amount of CDBG funds expected to be made available for the current fiscal year (including the grant and anticipated program income); (ii) The range of activities that may be undertaken with the CDBG funds; (iii) The estimated amount of the CDBG funds proposed to be used for activities that will meet the national objective of benefit to low and moderate income persons; and (iv) The proposed CDBG activities likely to result in displacement and the unit of general local government's anti -displacement and relocation plans required under Sec. 570.488. (4) Provide technical assistance to groups representative of persons of low and moderate income that request assistance in developing proposals in accordance with the procedures developed by the state. Such assistance need not include providing funds to such groups; (5) Provide for a minimum of two public hearings, each at a different stage of the program, for the purpose of obtaining citizens' views and responding to proposals and questions. Together the hearings must cover community development and housing needs, development of proposed activities and a review of program performance. The public hearings to cover community development and housing needs must be held before submission of an application to the state. There must be reasonable notice of the hearings and they must be held at times and locations convenient to potential or actual beneficiaries, with accommodations for the handicapped. Public hearings shall be conducted in a manner to meet the needs of non-English speaking residents where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can reasonably be expected to participate; (6) Provide citizens with reasonable advance notice of, and opportunity to comment on, proposed activities in an application to the state and, for grants already made, activities which are proposed to be added, deleted or substantially changed from the unit of general local government's application to the state. Substantially changed means changes made in terms of purpose, scope, location or beneficiaries as defined by criteria established by the state. (7) Provide citizens the address, phone number, and times for submitting complaints and grievances, and provide timely written answers to written complaints and grievances, within 15 working days where practicable. 2010 CDBG General Purpose Grant Application Handbook 87 October 2009 413 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2009 — 52 G CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assi ned to: Originator: Council 11/3/2009 11/10/2009 Introduction Division Head: 11/24/2009 Hearing Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Ordinance amending Code, Comp Plan, and maps - 10-year UGA review ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance and exhibits SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) This ordinance amends Whatcom County Code Title 20, the Official Whatcom County Zoning map, the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and maps, to implement changes relating to completion of the 10 year review of the Urban COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION.• 11/10/2009: 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. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 414 SPONSORED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: Consent INTRODUCTION DATE: November 10, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATING TO COMPLETION OF THE 10 YEAR REVIEW OF THE URBAN GROWTH AREAS REQUIRED UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires Whatcom County to review, at least every ten years, its urban growth areas and the densities permitted within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the urban growth areas; and WHEREAS, the GMA further requires that the county amend its comprehensive plan designating urban growth areas, and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding 20 year period; and WHEREAS, time is of the essence to complete the review and revision of Whatcom County's UGA boundaries and the densities permitted within them due to an order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in Petree, et al v. Whatcom County, Case No. 08-2-0021c requiring completion of the County's 10 year review by December 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County Council Resolution 2009-025 added the required 10 year UGA review to the docket of comprehensive plan and zoning code amendments to be considered this year; WHEREAS, the recommended amendments have been considered by the Whatcom County Planning Commission, the Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee and the Whatcom County Council; and WHEREAS, legal notice requirements have been met; and WHEREAS, the County Council finds the Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare, based on the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT: Growth Management Act Requirements ...... - - - -- --- Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 415 1. The Growth Management Act (GMA) at RCW 36.70A.130(3) requires Whatcom County to review, at least every ten years, its urban growth areas, and the densities permitted within them. The comprehensive plans of the county and each city located within the urban growth area shall be revised to accommodate the urban growth projected to, occur in the county for the succeeding twenty year period. 2. The Growth Management Act at RCW 36.70A.110(1) requires urban growth areas to be designated, within which urban growth is encouraged, and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. 3. The county and each city must include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or.city for the succeeding twenty-year period based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial . management. Urban growth areas shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. Cities and counties have discretion in their comprehensive plans to make many choices about accommodating growth. (RCW 36.70A.110(2)) 4. The Growth Management Act expects that the county attempt to reach agreement with each city on the location of an urban growth area. If such an agreement is not reached with each city, the county must justify in writing why it so designated the area an urban growth area. (RCW 36.70A.110(2)) 5. Urban growth must be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing, public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. (RCW 36.70A.110(3)) 6. The Growth Management Act requires that the land use element of a comprehensive plan "provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies.... Where applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flooding, and storm water run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound." 36.70A.070(1). 7. Notice of proposed comprehensive plan and zoning amendments.were sent to the Department of Commerce on August 21, 2009 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(1). 8. Notice of proposed comprehensive plan and zoning amendments were sent to all cities on August 19, 2009. Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 2 416 Whatcom County Countywide Planning Policies 9. The countywide planning policies (Appendix C of Comprehensive Plan) include several policies that relate to the designation and review of urban growth areas and their size: C. URBAN GROWTH AREAS 1. Urban growth needs shall be met by a combination of in -fill within cities and by growth within designated municipal and non -municipal Urban Growth Areas. 2. The size and location of Urban Growth Areas shall be consistent with adopted local policies and with the capital facilities plans. 3a. The most current, accurate population projections based on a range provided for Whatcom County by the Office of Financial Management shall be used as the basis for determining that Urban Growth Areas shall include sufficient area to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period. 3b. The County and Cities shall develop a consistent approach to calculating the land supply needed within an urban growth area. This approach.shall consider limitations imposed by critical area regulations, infrastructure needs, open space, existing uses, local market factors and the ability of the jurisdiction to provide services. It is recognized that the above limitations may vary by jurisdiction, but the method for applying them shall be consistent. Urban growth areas shall permit a range of densities and uses; however, in recognition of community character, these uses and densities may vary among jurisdictions. 4. Urban Growth Areas shall be evaluated at least every ten years to determine if they contain sufficient area Ito accommodate the urban growth that is projected for the succeeding twenty-year period. The market factor for each Urban Growth Area shall also be evaluated to determine whether the land supply is adequate to meet the needs of the community or whether the land supply is excessive and contributing to sprawl. 5. Urban Growth areas should be established in a way that minimizes impacts on 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. D. CITY URBAN GROWTH AREAS 4. Existing cities should absorb additional population at a range of densities appropriately responsive to the city's community vision before extending city Urban Growth Areas into areas where growth would adversely impact critical areas and resource lands.... 5. All cities should grow in an efficient manner while maintaining their character and, where reasonable, shall provide for adequate open space between cities to prevent strip development. Formatted: volition: Horizontal: ' � Center, Relative to: Margin 417 6. Cities should be encouraged to provide positive incentives for in -fill. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Orders 10. A Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board order (Petree, et al v. Whatcom County, Case No. 08-2-0021c ) found: a. The original deadline to complete the 10-Year UGA review was May 23, 2007, and the County had not completed the required 10-Year UGA review. b. The 10-Year UGA Review was required to be completed by June 30, 2009. 11. On March 30, 2009 the deadline was extended by the Board to December 1, 2009. 12. Early in the review process, the county determined that to most efficiently use resources and avoid duplication of efforts that will be necessary. as the seven-year comprehensive plan update is completed over the next two years, the UGA review would be designed to allow as much information, analysis and public participation as possible to be relevant both for the 10 year UGA review and the seven year update. Since the seven year update of 2011 may amend the comprehensive plan to include a planning horizon of 2031, the combined review and update.project has been called "Whatcom 2031." 13. As stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the 10 year UGA review (Draft EIS) issued on May 8, 2009, the objectives of the County's 10-Year UGA Review were as follow.5: a. Revise the comprehensive plan to extend the planning horizon from the year 2022 to the range 2029-2031. b. Adopt population growth projections within the range of forecasts from the State of Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) as required by GMA. c. Assure continued compliance with Countywide Planning Policies. d. Revise UGA boundaries that direct where urban land uses and urban public services may occur to accommodate adopted growth projections. e. Amend the Plan's land use map designations that direct zoning regulations to accommodate population and employment forecasts and to meet other community objectives for management of growth. f. Incorporate changes to the Plan to accommodate population and employment growth and ensure consistency among elements, j"Formatted: Position: Horizontal: `Center, Relative to: Margin 4 - including, but not limited to land use, transportation, and capital facilities. g. Include additional or updated information and address changes in the Co u nty. County Code Requirements 14. Comprehensive plan amendments require (WCC 2.160.080) that the Planning Commission and County Council find all of the following: a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. b. Further studies made or accepted by the department of planning and development services indicate changed conditions that show need for the amendment. c. The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: i. The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. ii. The anticipated effect on the ability of the county and/or other service providers, such as cities, schools, water and/or sewer purveyors, fire districts, and others as applicable, to provide adequate services and public facilities including transportation facilities. iii. Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands. d. The amendment does not include or facilitate spot zoning. e. Urban growth area amendments that propose the expansion of an urban growth area boundary shall be required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR sending area. i. One development right shall be transferred for every five acres included into an.UGA. The county council may modify this requirement if a development agreement has been entered into that specifies the elements of development in the expanded UGA. The development agreement should include, but not be limited to, affordable housing, density, allowed uses, bulk and setback standards, open space, parks, landscaping, buffers, critical areas, transportation and circulation, streetscapes, design standards and mitigation measures. Formatted, Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 419 ii. Exceptions to required TDRs include urban growth area expansion initiated by a government agency, correction of map errors, properties that are urban in character, or expansions where the public interest is served. iii. Urban growth area expansion initiated by the county, cities or other agencies shall be subject to review by county and city planning staff, and the appropriate administrative bodies, to determine whether the subject site is appropriate for designation as a TDR receiving area. 15. Zoning code amendments require (WCC 20.90.050(4)) the hearing body to evaluate the merits of the amendment in relationship to the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for compliance with any other special provisions as provided by WCC 20.90.060. The hearing body must create written findings and a recommendation to the county council for each amendment. Public Participation and Inter -governmental Coordination 16. GMA Goal 11 states that in developing comprehensive plans and development regulations, local governments should "encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts." (RCW 36.70A.020) GMA further states that counties and cities planning under GMA shall engage the public in "early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans..." (RCW 36.70A.140). 17. Following consultation with county and city representatives at the Growth Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) meeting in August 2008, ICF Jones & Stokes prepared on behalf of Whatcom County a public ' participation plan for Phase 1 of the 10-Year UGA Review process dated September 2008 to address activities between August and December 2008. An updated Phase 2 public participation plan was prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes on behalf of Whatcom County on September 9, 2008 addressing completed activities between January and August 2008, and planned activities from September. through December 2009. The Public . Participation Plan was presented to the Whatcom County Council on September 23, 2008 and was open for public review and comment. A revised public participation plan was prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes on behalf of Whatcom County in December 2008 to address Phase 2 efforts to achieve the 10-Year UGA Review generally between January and June 2009, the original compliance period. Formatted: Position: Horizontal Center, Relative to: Margin 420 18. The Whatcom 2031 page on the County's website (http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/2031) provided a central point of information and announcements about the review process. All public comments received throughout the process (visioning, EIS scoping, DEIS review, comments on city and Executive proposals, comments to GMCC, etc.) have been scanned and posted on the website. In addition, an e-mail distribution list, composed of over 300 contacts, received regular updates and announcements regarding the Whatcom 2031 update process, including the UGA review. 19. Between August 29, 2008 and September 1, 2009, the County received over 100 written comments regarding the UGA update. All comments were reviewed and posted to the website, and were made available to decision makers, staff and consultants in preparation of recommendations and actions. 20. To assist in communication among the various jurisdictions and coordinate information and analysis for the review, the County invited representatives from all seven of the cities to participate with county representatives in a Growth Management Coordinating Council. The Growth Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) held monthly meetings between June 2008 and July 2009.... The County was represented by the County Executive and two County Council members. The City of Bellingham was represented by its Mayor and a City Council member. The cities of Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, and Sumas were represented by their Mayors or City Council members. The GMCC meetings were open to the public. GMCC packets were posted to the Whatcom 2031 website prior to the meetings, and meeting summaries were posted following the meetings. Written public comments were posted to the Whatcom 2031 website and shared with GMCC members. 21. To both assist in development of technical studies, to improve communication among the various jurisdictions, and to provide staff input to the Growth Management Coordinating Council, a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) composed of planning directors and planners from the county, cities, Port of Bellingham, Whatcom Council of Governments and tribes (invited), met approximately fourteen times between October 2008 and June 2009. The TAG recommended growth forecasts, land capacity methodology, growth allocation methodology, EIS scoping documents, public involvement strategies and regional UGA policies to the Growth Management Coordinating Council. 22. Prior to submitting the proposal to the Whatcom County Council and Planning Commission for their consideration, the County Executive met with elected officials and staff from each of the cities in an attempt to reach agreement with the city on the location of the urban growth area. 7 Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 421 23. Whatcom County invited cities, special districts, and other service providers to two coordination meetings regarding development of a comprehensive Capital Facilities Plan focusing on the regional growth alternatives. The first meeting was held on February 18, 2009 and the second meeting was held on March 18, 2009. Drafts of documents were provided to service providers for their review and comment prior to publishing the proposed amendment. 24. The County held three county -wide vision workshops in October 2008. In mid September 2008, a workshop postcard announcement was emailed to community organizations and project stakeholders, who then forwarded the announcement on to their constituents and members. The announcement was also placed in various County offices in public areas. Cities were given an opportunity to place them in their offices. A news release was distributed to local newspapers on October 2, 2008. Articles and workshop announcements were included in"the October 3 and 15, 2008 editions of the Bellingham Herald. Nearly 100 citizens attended the three meetings combined. 25. The County held three regional growth alternatives workshops in March 2009. In mid -March, a workshop announcement was emailed to community organizations and project stakeholders, who then forwarded the announcement on to their constituents and members. A news release was distributed to local newspapers on March 13, 2009. Nearly 65 citizens attended the three meetings combined. 26. Whatcom County held four open houses presenting Executive. recommendations as follows: • August 31, 2009 - Ferndale • September 1, 2009 - Birch Bay • September 3 - Lynden • September 17 - Bellingham 27. Whatcom County held three Birch Bay UGA-specific workshops on January 7, March 23 and May 18, 2009. All meetings were announced with a press release distributed to media outlets, the Whatcom 2031 email list, and through the Birch Bay.list maintained by the Birch Bay Steering Committee. Between 20 and 40 people attended the various workshops. 28. Since 2006, the Columbia Valley UGA residents have had opportunity to provide input at more than 40 Advisory Committee and County -sponsored workshops in association with the Foothills Subarea Plan update. 29. After consultation with the GMCC, Whatcom County released a questionnaire addressing community values, population and economic growth, the natural environment, transportation, and the county vision. The questionnaire was distributed via the Whatcom 2031 website, at public meetings, and at select locations across Whatcom County. Between 8 Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 422 October 10 and November 14, 2008 Whatcom County received 387 responses to the questionnaire. Those results were tabulated and posted on the Whatcom 2031 website, and also presented to the GMCC. 30. With assistance from Whatcom County, the Whatcom Legacy Project conducted a statistically valid phone survey about the values and beliefs of a random sample of Whatcom County residents. The survey addressed questions about residents' attitudes toward population growth and land use. Results of the survey conducted in January 2009 became available on March 31, 2009, and were presented to the GMCC and the County Council. Results were also posted at the Whatcom 2031 website. 31. Following publication of a Determination of Significance and Scoping notice, an EIS scoping comment period extended from January 28 to February 18, 2009, a 21-day period. Public and agency comments were accepted by letter, e-mail, or in person at a public open house held from noon to 7:00 p.m. on February 17, 2009, and at the joint Whatcom County Planning Commission/County Council public hearing to accept comments held that same evening from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. 32. The Draft EIS comment period extended from May 8 to June 22' 2009, a 45-day period, during which time written comments were accepted. 33. A joint County. Planning Commission/County Council work session was held on June 16, 2009 where each City could present its UGA proposal. Each local government developed its UGA proposal with local public participation. The County also presented its proposals for unincorporated UGAs. UGA proposals were made available at the joint County Planning Commission/County Council Workshop, and were posted on the 2031 website. A County Council public hearing was held on June 23, 2009 to ,accept_public comment_ on the UGA proposals ________________________________________________ ..- Deleted: consider the UGA 34. Public Hearings: The County Council and Planning Commission held proposals and hearings to collect public input about various issues. All hearings were duly .Deleted: them advertised and- addressed the following issues: • Land Capacity Methodology (12/9/2008 - County Council) • Environmental Impact Statement Scoping (2/17/2009 - Joint Planning Commission and County Council) • City UGA Proposals (6/23/2009 - County Council with an invitation extended to Planning Commission members) • Executive Recommendations (9/17/2009 - Joint Planning Commission/County Council) • UGA Ordinance amending comprehensive plan and zoning code, including maps (11/24/09 - County Council) 35. City Public Input. Each city conducted its public input and/or hearings ' to develop their respective UGA proposals. The cities documented their j Formatted: Bullets and Numbering j Formatted: Bullets and Numbering t — Deleted: their rFormatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 423 own efforts at public outreach in their proposals submitted in June 2009 and subsequent communications. 36. The Planning and Development Committee of the Whatcom County Council held work sessions to review the Executive's proposal and information being provided by staff at Planning Commission meetings on September 15, September 29, October 6, October 13, October 20, and October 27, 2009. 37. At the October 27 meeting, each of the cities was invited to respond to a series of written questions posed by the Committee and provided to the cities the, previous week. 38. On November 3. 2009, the Council met as a Committee of the Whole in a full -day work session to review, the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission. Approximately two hours of the meeting was devoted to an opportunity for public comment. 39. One November 10, 2009, the Council convened as the Committee of the Whole to review the draft ordinance and findings for the review. The ordinance was introduced for consideration at the evening meeting of the Council that same date. Growth_ Forecasts ------ ------------ - - - - - - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 40. The GMA and the Countywide planning policies require UGAs to include sufficient areas and densities to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the next twenty years. The growth forecast must be based upon the growth management population projection prepared by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). (RCW 36.70A.110 and CWPP C and D.) 41. Cities are to include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses. (RCW 36.70A.110) 42. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan established population growth allocations for the year 2022. The 2022 countywide population forecast is 234,917 people. 43. Between 1990 and 2008, the largest share of population growth in the County was in Bellingham, with the rural unincorporated County areas having the next highest share. After Bellingham, the UGAs receiving the greater shares of growth include Lynden, Ferndale, Columbia Valley, Birch Bay and Blaine. 44. In the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Bellingham was allocated the greatest share of population. Rural areas were slated to take the least share of growth, but have seen substantially more growth than was intended, for a 10 Deleted: ¶ G --- Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 424 variety of reasons, including the presence of more than 18,000 vacant lots in rural and resource lands, and substantial growth in Sudden Valley, a provisional urban growth area which has subsequently been re -designated to non -urban status. 45. As part of the 10-Year UGA Review, Whatcom County is selecting a horizon year of 2029 and has prepared Comprehensive Plan Amendments reflecting that year. OFM forecasts for 2029 for Whatcom County range from a population estimate of 216,300 to a high of 318,832 (the 2008 OFM estimate of population in Whatcom County was 191,000.) 46. Whatcom County contracted with ICF Jones & Stokes and Berk and Associates to develop countywide population and employment extrapolations and scenarios. These projections were reviewed with cities and the Growth Management Coordinating Council, and their report was first published on September 23, 2008 and later edited and re -published on February 9, 2009.. 47. According to the Office of Financial Management, the "development of any series of population projections necessarily reflects the purpose and use of the projections. Purpose and use usually determine the length of the projection horizon, the update cycles, and considerations relating to how and when projection adjustments are made....As such, the long-range population projections used for planning should be allowed to play out over time." (Growth Management (GMA) Population Projections, Final 2007 County Projection Update Population Projections, OFM, Forecasting Division, November 2007) 48. The population projections prepared by OFM, Berk and Associates, and recommended by city, county and regional planning directors, and the Growth Management Coordinating Council, reflect an overall declining rate of growth in Washington State and Whatcom County. 49. The employment projections considered the various sectors of the labor force in Whatcom County, including construction, finance, government, manufacturing, retail, services, transportation, and wholesale trade. The projections also considered the labor participation rate as the proportion of labor to the total population of all ages. 50. The GMCC recommended a countywide population forecast of 253,951 (62,951 additional people from 2008) and an employment forecast of 35,424 additional non-agricultural jobs for the planning horizon of 2031. 51. To determine overall employment growth, the GMCC endorsed a labor participation rate of 49% based on analysis prepared by Berk & Associates, finalized in February 9, 2009. 52. The GMCC supported the allocation requests of the individual jurisdictions without any adjustments. As a result, the GMCC's original population forecast of 251,490 for the year 2031 made in October 2008 was adjusted 11 `Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 425 to compile the individual requests of the cities.. These requests reflected a significant increased shift in the share of growth allocated to the smaller urban areas, and a corresponding decrease in share allocated to the city of Bellingham. 53. The County Executive recommended allocating 245,973 in population to UGAs and rural areas with a reserve population allocation of 8,548. This results in a total potential allocation of 254,521 population. The County Executive proposal was based on the following elements: • The county wide population forecast of 251,490 for the year 2029 was included in the analysis prepared by Berk & Associates, finalized in a report dated February 9, 2009 and recommended by city, county and regional planning directors. • Bellingham has been, and will continue to be, the primary population and employment center in Whatcom County. Bellingham was requested to come back as part of the 7-year review process in 2011 with a proposal for how they would accommodate an additional 4,441 people. • Having small cities become more self-sufficient should allow more efficient delivery of public services and facilities, and reduce commuter traffic into Bellingham. • Growth should be focused in urban areas. The share of rural growth should be reduced compared to historic trends. Growth allocated to areas outside UGAs should not exceed15% of total population growth. 54. The ouncil finds.that the_growth_forecasts recommended by_the Grwth o ------------------------------------ -- Management Coordinating Council and County Executive are likely higher than what is expected to occur in the next 20-year planning period. Since release of the Berk and Associates report on growth forecasts, a recession has significantly reduced growth, resulting in significant drops in employment, construction and net migration to Whatcom County. Migration is an important component of the state and county growth and is largely driven by employment opportunities. According to OFM (2009 Population Trends, OFM Forecasting Division, September 2009), population gains due to migration in the state dropped from 81,000 in 2006 to 58,000 in 2008 to 39,000 in 2009: "Continued housing difficulties nationwide and poor economic conditions appear to be limiting the mobility of the population usually influenced by labor market opportunities. Many job seekers are finding it difficult to find a job and/or sell their homes, thereby inhibiting relocation opportunities." 55. The ouncil finds that the--growth-forecast -of-244,892,-with a_ request_for---- Bellingham to return with a proposal to accommodate additional population of 4,441, is both within the range of OFM population forecasts for 2029 and is a reasonable forecast considering migration trends and the purpose of 12 Deleted: Planning Commission Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: Planning Commission Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 426 and use of the projections during an Urban Growth Area review process. An active land monitoring program, communication with the cities, and monitoring of and participation in efforts to broaden current capital facilities plans will give the County sufficient jnformation to determine if the growth- ... --- Deleted: notice rates, population allocations and land supplies in various localities need to be adjusted. 56. The 2008 share of the population in urban areas is 69% of the county -wide population. The ouncil_finds that the _ all ocation of approximately-_85%0 of ____----- Deleted: Planning commission the forecasted population growth to urban areas, and the remaining growth to rural areas, accommodates the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty year period. 57. The 2008 share of the employment in urban areas is 87% of the county- wide non-agricultural employment. The ouncil finds that the allocation of__------ Deleted: Planning commission approximately 93% of the forecasted employment growth to urban areas, and the remaining growth to rural areas, accommodates the urban employment growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty year period. 58. The current rural population accounts for approximately 31% of the county -wide population. The share of population growth in rural areas has been declining from 24.7% between 1990 and 2000, to 19.7% since 2000. The Growth Management Coordinating Council and County Executive proposed allocation of approximately 15% of the population growth to rural areas. The allocation of approximately 15% of the population growth to rural areas will continue to encourage more growth into urban areas while recognizing that an estimate of over 18,000 existing vacant parcels exist in rural and resource lands (Table 9 and 10, Appendix A - Review of Growth, August 14, 2009). EIS and Alternatives 59. To comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the County --- --1 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering issued a Determination of Significance on January 28, 2009 and initiated the preparation of an EIS. 60. The EIS scoping comment period extended from January 28 to February 18, 2009, a 21-day period. Comments were accepted by letter, e-mail, or in person at a public open house held from noon to 7:00 p.m. on February 17, 2009, and the joint Whatcom County Planning Commission/County Council public hearing held that same evening from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. 61. The Draft EIS compared natural and built environment impacts of and mitigation measures for two No Action alternatives and two Action growth alternatives: Formatted: Posibon: Horizontal: i Center, Relative to: Margin 13 427 • No Action Current Comprehensive Plan Alternative. The No Action Current Comprehensive Alternative assumes growth similar to the 2008 adopted comprehensive plan. • No Action Trends Alternative. The No Action Trends Alternative assumes future growth.that matches the recent historic pattern of urban and rural growth. • Action Alternative X. Action Alternative X would shift future growth from the rural areas and resource lands into the UGAs and would continue to focus on Bellingham as the primary employment and population center in the County. Action Alternative X would emphasize infill development in the existing UGAs and assumes that planned densities would be achieved. • Action Alternative Y. Action Alternative Y would shift future growth from the rural areas and resource lands into the UGAs to a lesser degree than Action Alternative X or the adopted comprehensive plan. Growth would be shifted away from Bellingham to other small urban areas. Densities would be similar to the patterns achieved in the last 5 years. 62. The Draft EIS comment period extended from May 8 to June 22, 2009, a 45-day period, during which time written comments were accepted. 63. The analysis in the Draft EIS was based on an assumption that the County's populatioh will grow to between 234,917 and 258,448 by the years 2029-2031. The Draft EIS. studied employment levels of 110,933 to 122,044 by the years 2029-2031. 64. The Final EIS was published and made available to the public on October 23, 2009. All proposed changes in UGA boundaries are within the range of alternatives studied in the EIS and suitability analysis, as is the countywide population projection for 2029 of 244,892. Land Supply, Land Demand, and Monitoring 65. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.115) requires that "...adoption of and amendments to their comprehensive plans and/or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment growth, ... as adopted in the applicable countywide planning policies and consistent with the twenty-year population forecast from the office of financial management." 66. In the Final Decision and Order, Case No. 08-2-0021c, Jack Petree, et al v. Whatcom County, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board indicated that a Land Capacity Analysis is a "critical mechanism for the sizing of a UGA because it is utilized to determine how much urban land 14 --- Formatted: Bullets and Numbering I------ f Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin W. is needed. It is prospective - looking forward over the coming 20 years to see if there is enough land within the UGA to accommodate the growth that has been allocated to the area. However, part of this determination of how much land is available is filled with assumptions or "educated guesses" that lack absolute certainty..." FDO, October 13, 2008. 67. A land capacity analysis method addressing land demand and land supply was prepared by Berk & Associates in Fall 2008, reviewed by staff from cities and the county, and presented to the GMCC, Planning Commission and County Council between Fall 2008 and Spring 2009. Consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies' requirement of a coordinated effort to establish a methodology for the analysis, Whatcom County's land capacity methodology includes a common framework for preparing the analysis but allows for local jurisdictions to propose alternative assumptions in some instances. Whatcom County's land capacity methodology was approved by the GMCC on December 3, 2008, and subject to public hearing before the Whatcom County Council on December 9, 2008. The GMCC was presented with minor amendments to the methodology on January 21, 2009. The amended land capacity methodology was presented to the Whatcom County Planning Commission and County .Council at the February 17, 2009 EIS Scoping Hearing.. Following that scoping hearing, additional minor amendments to the methodology were incorporated and published on March 11, 2009 based on discussions with city planners. Following discussion with city planners and consideration in the Draft EIS, Executive Recommendations included proposed revisions including additional limitations on calculating development potential in floodplain areas. 68. On February 10, 2009, Whatcom County Planning and Development Services published an initial analysis of the capacity of the ten UGAs in Whatcom County to accommodate growth over the next twenty year period. On March 16, 2009, a revised analysis was published. On August 14, 2009, Executive Recommendations included a slightly revised method and results. 69. Based on results in Draft EIS Chapter 2, achieved single family densities in the UGAs shows a range of 2.2 dwellings per acre in Sumas to 4.9 dwellings per acre in Bellingham, with an average for remaining UGAs of 4.3 dwellings per acre. Planned single family densities are urban in character for all UGAs and range from 4.0 to 5.5. 70. The Draft EIS issued May 8, 2009 was based on the March 16, 2009 land capacity analysis. The Draft EIS tested the use of achieved densities for Alternative Y. 71. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan adopted a countywide 2022 population forecast of 234,917. The land capacity analysis shows that, except for the Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 15 429 Lynden UGA, all UGAs exceed the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected 20-year population growth. 72. With a 2029 countywide growth forecast of 251,490 recommended by Berk and Associates, the land capacity analysis showed that between eight and nine UGAs out of ten were identified as exceeding the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected alternative population growth for a 20-year period. 73. With the exception of the Lynden UGA, the results of the 10-Year UGA Review land capacity analysis in 2009 are similar to the results of the 2008 land capacity analysis contained in Whatcom County Resolution 2008-007 which found all UGAs oversized with respect to allocations contained in the current comprehensive plan when considering just short-term planning areas within UGAs, exclusive of long-term planning areas within UGAs. The 2008 land capacity analysis was generally based on city comprehensive plans and county subarea plans. 74. City proposals presented on June 16, 2009 included requests to modify particular land capacity.analysis assumptions for their communities. These changes to assumptions tended to reduce the potential excess of UGA land though the general conclusions of UGA sizing tended to remain. 75. Executive Recommendations dated August 19, 2009 documented the city proposals for UGAs and the County Executive's recommendations for UGAs and UGA Reserves, and included adjustments in land capacity assumptions and minor changes in methodology. 76. The Land Capacity Analysis process is very data intensive and required significant contributions from local jurisdictions to provide data on recent residential and commercial development, local plans and policies, and critical areas. Cities provided proposed land uses and densities to be used within the analysis, and then checked and modified the classification of parcel status as to vacant, underutilized or developed. The data was then analyzed and represented to cities in both tabular and graphic form to check before being released to the public for review. 77. Whatcom County, in partnership with the cities, intends to monitor growth to ensure that assumptions used in the land capacity analysis are current and accurate. Executive recommendations included a proposed land monitoring methodology recommending annual data collection and reporting tasks to facilitate proposed five-year mid-term report and future 10-year UGA reviews. In addition, periodic review of the land capacity methodology will also be pursued to improve the accuracy of the results. 16 1 Formatted: Position: Horizontal: i Center, Relative to: Margin J 430 UGA Boundaries 78. Based on RCW 36.70A.110, counties must designate UGAs—areas already characterized by urban development or adjacent to areas characterized by urban development —in consultation with cities. UGAs are to be revised, if necessary, to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding 20-year period. Designated UGAs are to accommodate future urban growth; services and facilities and their areas should be available or planned to support future urban growth. All cities must be within UGAs; unincorporated land within UGAs must be urban in character or adjacent to such lands. Lands outside of UGAs are to be designated as resource lands or rural. In general, urban development is not to be permitted on these lands and all development must be resource - related or rural in character. 79. The GMA requires protection of agricultural, forest, and mineral lands of long-term commercial significance. GMA Goal 8 states: "Maintain and, enhance natural resource -based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses." (RCW 36.70A.020) The GMA provides guidelines for classification of resource lands in RCW 36.70A.050, and the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) further defines them in Chapter 365-190 WAC. 80. A Suitability Analysis produced and used in advance of public workshops in mid -March 2009 was also published in the Draft EIS. It provided additional UGA-specific information about factors that influence the shape and size of each UGA in Whatcom County. The suitability analysis considered urbanized areas and areas adjacent to urbanized areas, location of services, environmental, and resource constraints, and community choices. Deleted: 81. Based on County studies, public comments, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) water quality criteria, the Suitability ,Analysis- identified _ land _located in_watersheds iden_tified_as sensitive to ------------------ Deleted:A additional development including Lake Whatcom, Lake Padden, Birch Bay and Drayton Harbor Watersheds. The locations of water bodies that are impaired and do not meet all of the state's water quality criteria were also mapped. ,q!01irtgham_- 82. The City of Bellingham submitted a UGA proposal in June 2009. The city proposed that no changes be made to the UGA at this time, that no additional lots be created in the Lake Whatcom Watershed UGAs, and that the city be allocated at least 113,055 total population and 18,829 new jobs. 17 .- Deleted-----------------------i Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Normal (Formatted: Bullets and Numbering (IFormatted: Position: Horizontal: l Center, Relative to: Margin 11 431 83. The County Executive proposed that the portion of the UGA within the Lake Whatcom watershed be removed from the UGA and that the portion of the UGA in the Lake Padden.watershed be placed in an Urban Growth Area Reserve. The Executive proposed a reduction of the population allocation to what could be accommodated in the proposed UGA without the watershed areas. The Executive also requested that the city develop a proposal as part of the 7-year review process on how they would accommodate an additional population allocation of 4,441 through infills changes in land use densities within the city and UGA, or expansion of the UGA. 84. The City of Bellingham responded to the County Executive proposed UGA on September 17,.2009. The city accepted the request to plan for a future . population of approximately 116,200, requested that the areas within the Lake Whatcom Watershed currently in the UGA remain in the UGA, and agreed with removal of that portion of the Lake Padden watershed until at least the 7-year planning review due in December 2011. 85. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Bellingham to establish new residential developments at densities averaging six to twelve units per net residential acre. The ouncil finds that the cit __of_Bellingham___ - Deleted. Planning commission P �- --------------------- y - should encourage densities at a higher range of six to twenty-four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 7.3 units per net residential acre (7.5 within the city and 7.1 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). 86. Continued urban development within the Lake Whatcom watershed contradicts County goals of protecting the watershed. Lake Whatcom, the drinking water source for the City of Bellingham and other areas of the county, is designated as an impaired water body under the Clean Water Act. In its analysis of the lake in preparation of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), the Washington Department of Ecology has determined that the low dissolved oxygen levels in the lake are the result of excess phosphorous loading, at least partially the result of urbanization in the watershed. (Lake Whatcom Watershed Total Phosphorus and Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Loads: Water Quality Study Findings, DOE publication #08- 03-024) Although the TMDL is not yet final, it is clear that the City and County will be required to significantly reduce the phosphorous loading to the lake and prevent additional loading. One way to prevent additional loading from urbanization is to limit the opportunities for urbanization through comprehensive plan policies and zoning codes. The City of Bellingham requested that the County's UGA review decision prevent the creation of any additional urban lots in the Lake Whatcom watershed. (Resolution #2009-14) Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin J 18 432 87. The interlocal between Bellingham and Whatcom County concerning annexation and development within the City of Bellingham UGA (WC Contract # 9712012) requires the County to consider City input before rezoning any property within the UGA. It further provides that the City and County agree to work on appropriate zoning within the Lake Whatcom watershed, recognizing its status as a water resource protection area. The City has requested by Resolution #2009-14 that the UGA review decision not result in the creation of any additional urban lots in the watershed. The,pums_of the interlocal have been _ met _by the _extensive coordination_______- with the City of Bellingham during the UGA review, and we further find that by rezoning the Lake Whatcom watershed UGAs to UR (1 unit per 5 acres), the zoning will be consistent with the City's request for the creation of no additional urban lots in the watershed and consistent with the procedural requirements of the interlocal agreement. 88. Both the city and county recognize that the Lake Whatcom Watershed should not be further developed at urban densities. The city has requested that the watershed areas stay in the UGA to permit future annexation. The Council finds that permitting future urban level densities is inconsistent with the phosphorous loading reductions necessary to restore the water quality of Lake.Whatcom. The Council also finds that there is very little population capacity remaining in the watershed UGA areas. and that the City of Bellingham has expressed interest in exploring the possibility of annexing those areas. To allow sufficient time for those exploratory discussions to occur and for Bellingham to pursue annexation of the areas under all annexation processes available to it, the watershed UGAs will remain in the Bellingham UGA until December 2612, or until the City of Bellingham formally notifies the County that they do not intend to annex the areas, whichever is sooner. 89. Lake Padden Park is located within the Bellingham city limits, south of the Yew St. Rd. area. The park is used for a variety of recreational activities, including fishing and swimming in Lake Padden. While Lake Padden is on the Clean Water Act's list for PCBs, there are also potential water quality issues associated with development in the watershed. The Final Environmental Impact Statement For: The City of Bellingham; Bellingham Urban Growth Area; Five -Year Review Areas; and Whatcom County Urban Fringe Subarea (July 1, 2004) states: ... Urban runoff, septic tank leakage and fertilizer/pesticide runoff have degraded Padden Creek and Lake Padden water quality. In recent years there have been consistent high fecal coliform counts, turbidity and visible oil sheen. Water quality in Lake Padden has improved with the extension of sewer service to the vicinity, but still suffers late in the 19 Deleted: Planning Commission finds that the i Formatted: Position: Horizontal: I Center, Relative to: Margin 433 summer due to reduced flushing, increased urbanization and growing waterfowl populations. Lake Padden occasionally experiences periods of high water temperature and low dissolved oxygen. Potential threats to this watershed include urban, industrial and commercial runoff, industrial expansion and increased urban development... (p. 3-28). 90. The City of Bellingham has capital facility plans for key urban services ------ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering including sewer and water. The city's water and sewer plans accommodate the population alternatives considered in the 10-Year UGA Review. 91. Draft EIS alternatives generally indicated that there was a surplus of capacity for population and a deficit of capacity for employment; exceptions included the No Action Current Comprehensive Plan Alternative which shows a small surplus of employment capacity and Action Alternative X which showed a deficit for population capacity. 92. In June 2009, a series of modifications to the Land Capacity Analysis were made addressing a variety of issues, including city -specific densities and household sizes, employment corrections, and master planned_ development corrections. The county and city collaborated on these adjustments, which are all within the parameters of the approved LCA methodology. 93. Based on the proposed population allocation, and a proposed UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a balanced residential land demand and land supply. 94. In order to ensure that there is not pressure on development in rural and resource lands due to insufficient housing opportunities in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area, the City of Bellingham is requested to develop a proposal to demonstrate how it will accommodate a future population of 116,200. The comprehensive plan includes a request for the city to submit a proposal as part of the required 7-year comprehensive plan and development regulation update process due December 1, 2011 for how they would accommodate this additional population. Whatcom County will then consider the recommendations of the city, including additional growth allocations and adjustments to land use plans to accommodate the projected growth. 95. Based on the proposed employment,@Ilocation and. the,. Proposed UGA Deleted: allocation, ---- .....--........ boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a surplus of employment acres. 96. The elfin ham_ UGA has sufficient capacity_ to accommodate protected Deleted: findings indicate that 9 ----------------------------- - - -............- -- � the growth, densities allowed are urban in nature except for special environmentally sensitive areas, and adequate public facilities and services can be provided. f Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 434 Birch Bay •------ 97. The current Birch Bay Community Plan for designation of the UGA was submitted by the county in June 2009 as a basis for UGA review. The proposal included keeping the current UGA boundaries and the allocation of population as outlined in the 2004 Community Plan, 98. The County Executive proposed a reduction in the future population forecast for Birch Bay, and a resulting decrease in the size of the UGA. The County Executive also proposed deleting the provisions of a rezone at the intersection of Blaine and Alderson Roads in Ord. 2004-049. 99. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Birch Bay to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The Birch Bay Community Plan also encourages multi -family residential densities in some areas of the UGA. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 5.9 units per net residential acre. 100. Birch Bay serves primarily as a resort community, although its identity is shifting as more full-time residents move into the area. 101. The Birch Bay community has been engaged in ascertaining the viability of incorporation: An incorporation feasibility study was completed in March 2008. 102. The Birch Bay community has actively planned for its future, drafting the Birch Bay Community Plan in 2004, updating the Transportation chapter in 2009, and crafting design guidelines for commercial areas. 103. Public facilities and services have been planned for Birch Bay. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District provides sanitary sewer and domestic water to the area. 104. The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District's 2009 Comprehensive Water Plan indicates that the existing water supply contract with the City of Blaine is only sufficient to provide a maximum daily rate through 2011. The district's plan states that additional water supply, including use of surplus storage, and/or conservation will be necessary to meet the demand beyond that time. The plan further states that the District is able to serve its projected population through 2015 with contracted water sUDDIv provided by the Citv of Blaine and the District's water storage capacity. The district's 2009 Comprehensive Water Plan includes several new supply and distribution projects expected to address supply deficiencies. The district's Comprehensive Water Plan population projection accommodates all studied alternatives including the Executive propgsed_growth al-locatio---n-. --------------------------- 105. The 2009 Sewer Plan indicates that the district will exceed existing capacity by 2019. However, with the wastewater treatment plant upgrade projects noted in the 2009 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, the District will be able to 21 Formatted: Font: Not Italic ~' -Formatted: Normal Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: P I Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 435 accommodate the growth anticipated to 2029. The district's 2009 sewer plan accommodates the proposed growth allocation as well as all but one Draft EIS alternative. 106. Fire District 21 (aka North Whatcom Fire and Rescue), which serves the Birch Bay UGA, has completed and adopted a Capital Facilities Plan for its Ire district. The capital facilities plan is adopted b reference in the - -- ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------ Deleted: their comprehensive plan, and is implemented through concurrency requirements in county code (WCC 20.80.212) and through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 107. The Birch Bay community is developing plans to protect aquatic resources in Birch Bay, through the Birch Bay Watershed Characterization Project and the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Management (BBWARM) program. The Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District designated BBWARM as a subzone of the district and levies an assessment on all properties within the subzone to pay for stormwater management improvements in an effort to improve the water quality of Birch Bay. Whatcom County was also required to designate Birch Bay as a Shellfish Protection District pursuant to RCW 90.72.045 due to water quality degradation caused by ongoing nonpoint sources of pollution that closed or downgraded the recreational Deleted: minor shellfish growing areas in Birch Bay. r Deleted:, 108. The growth forecast in the 2004 Community Plan for Birch Bay was done ;' Deleted: esseniiafly in balance. during a significant boom in residential development in that area. Since Deleted: < Council a optedWhatcom ' County Council adopted then, .construction has slowed (Table 4, Land Capacity & Demand Results, ir! Ordinance 2004-049 which August 14, 2009). °t established a provisional rezone '; area around.,the intersection of 109. Cities in Whatcom County raised the concern during the Growth Blaine and Alderson Roads. The Management Coordinating Council process, and in public hearing 9 9 P � P 9 ordinance set provisions that had to be met in order to have testimony, that the priority should be on urban growth in incorporated Property designated for mutt' areas before growth into unincorporated areas. e . family housing and commer ti I development. The provisions 110. Under all Draft EIS alternatives there was a surplus of land capacity for included a requirement for the multiple property owners to population and employment, except for Action Alternative Y which shows a prepare a site plan showing small deficit for employment. + design and layout lots, � structures, road and pedestrian 111. Based on the proposed population allocation, and a proposed UGA connections, as well as protected reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a $urplus_of residential acres„___ critical areas, buffers and open j space. The provisions also 112. Based on the proposed employment allocation, and the proposed UGA included a requirement to purchase or transfer sufficient boundaries, the land capacity analysis shows a surplus of employment land development rights to achieve supply. the requested density increase.¶ <#>The density requirements of 113. The Birch Bay_ UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected_... r the URM 24 zone, codified at - ----- ---------------------- WCC 20.22.252, require transfer growth, densities allowed are urban in nature except for special of development rights to achieve environmental) sensitive areas, and adequate public facilities and services y q p densities in excess of dwelling ining the units per net acre. Retaining can be provided. The proposed reduction brings the UGA into a greater URM 24 zone would provide a balance between supply and demand for urban land, and removes some potential receiving area for TDRs. ' The findings indicate that t Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 22 436 sensitive lands from the UGA that are not suitable to urban development and might degrade the quality of water entering Birch Bay. Blaine --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 114. The City of Blaine submitted a proposal forAk=UGA in June 2009 that____ included reductions of�ts curren t UGA by_over 2,000 acres focusing on removal of the most environmentally sensitive lands surrounding Drayton Harbor. The city also proposed an allocation of 4,700 additional people and 1,903 additional employees in the 20-year planning period. 115. The County Executive proposed to remove an additional area called "West Blaine" along Semiahmoo Drive from the UGA. The Executive recommended a ,§maller_population allocation,of 4,249______________________. _ . _ 116. No formal response to the County Executive proposal was received from the City of Blaine in the public hearings held in June. Upon request of the County Council, the City of Blaine provided information on October 27, 2009 to the Council Planning and Development Committee relating to its planning efforts for manufacturing and industrial lands in the East Blaine UGA, including transportation and additional infrastructure. To explain why part of the East Blaine planning area within the city limits could not be rezoned to meet the City's industrial land needs, the City provided information relating to two vested subdivisions at either end of the East Blaine area, making the are in the middle incompatible for manufacturing uses, in addition to its distance from major trucking and rail routes. 117. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Blaine to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 4.7 units per net residential acre (4.8 within the city and 4.0 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). 118. Under all Draft EIS alternatives there. would be a significant surplus of capacity for population and a deficit of capacity for employment. 119. Prior land capacity reviews in 2008 identified the surplus capacity as stated in Resolution 2008-007. 120. The City of Blaine's Comprehensive Water System Plan accommodates population projections studied in the Draft EIS and in Executive tgcommendations. The plan notes that the,city has adequate _supply to.._........ meet projected demand. 121. The City of Blaine reaches a sewage treatment deficit by 2031 using existing treatment capacity. The City plans to complete construction on its new wastewater treatment plant and begin operation in 2010. The new wastewater treatment plant's design capacity accommodates projected wastewater flows for the 20-year planning period. 23 - Formatted: Font: Not Italic ~' Formatted: Normal Formatted: Bullets and Nur Deleted: their Deleted: their Deleted: reduction in the Deleted: to Deleted: No formal response to the County Executive proposal was received from the City of Blaine in the public hearings held in June. Deleted: process. Deleted: A letter from the City of Blaine was later received and should be taken into consideration by the County Council in their deliberations.Upon request of the County Council, ton October 27, '2009 Deleted: R I Formatted: Position: Horizontal: l Center, Relative to: Margin 437 122. Fire District 21 (aka North Whatcom Fire and Rescue), which serves the Blaine UGA, has completed and adopted a Capital Facilities Plan for its ire_ Deleted: their district. The capital facilities plan is adopted by reference in the comprehensive plan, and is implemented through concurrency requirements in county code (WCC 20.80.212) and through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 123. Based on the proposed population allocation, and considering a proposed UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a surplus of residential acres, without the need to retain the "West Blaine" part of the UGA. 124. Based on the proposed employment Iloacation and_the_prop osed UGA ---------------- Deleted: allocation, boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a deficit of employment land supply. The area included within the proposed UGA immediately east of the city along Odell Road south to Sweet Road, while designated by the county as residential areas, are planned by the city- as employment lands based onus June 2009 proposal and October 2009--------------- - Deleted: their response to Council questions. These residential lands within the UGA can be used to accommodate the employment deficit. 125. The Blaine UGA lies almost wholly within the Drayton Harbor watershed, which has been designated as a Shellfish Protection District in 1995 pursuant to RCW 901,72.045 due to water quality degradation caused by ongoing nonpoint sources of pollution that closed or downgraded the recreational and commercial shellfish growing areas in Drayton Harbor. From 1999 to 2004, the entire harbor was downgraded to a "Prohibited" status for shellfish harvesting. Due to improvements in water quality, the state conditionally reopened the main shellfish beds to harvesting in 2004. 126. The Maine UGA has sufficient capacity__to_accommod ate Deleted: findings indicate that _projected__growth-______------ densities allowed are urban in nature except for special environmentally sensitive areas, and adequate public facilities and services can be provided. The lands proposed for removal from the UGA are shown to be the most environmentally sensitive where development at higher densities could pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound and Drayton Harbor or waters entering Drayton Harbor. Cherry Point • �•_-- Formatted: Font: Not Italic 127. Cherry Point has been designated for industrial uses since Whatcom ' Formatted: Normal County's first Comprehensive Plan in 1970. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 128. This region of Whatcom County has a number of factors that have made the location ideal for industrial uses, such as the availability of large parcels to meet demands of the types of industries likely to locate there, access to a deep water port, proximity to Canada, energy service from three providers and access to the Burlington Northern Railroad. Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 24 - 129. The Cherry Point UGA is a Major/Port Industrial UGA permitted under a different section of the GMA from other UGAs, RCW 36.70A.365. This GMA section allows for jurisdictions to designate an area outside of the traditional UGAs for Heavy Impact Industrial uses. RCW 36.70A.365 lists a number of criteria that must be met for a jurisdiction to designate a UGA, such as Cherry Point, including a requirement for an inventory of developable land to be conducted with findings that land suitable to site major industrial development is unavailable within other UGAs. This inventory was conducted as part of the designation in 1997, and no additional heavy industry locations have developed within other UGAs to alter these findings. 130. Public Utility District 1 appears to have adequate capital plans for water. 131. Currently the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District does not fully serve the Cherry Point UGA with sewer service. "----- Deleted: Additional sewer plans 1 • "'"_'. would be appropriate in the 132. Industrial UGAs require implementation of a Traffic Demand Management Cherry Point UGA. Program (TDM). The proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning code include a requirement that any employers in the UGA with 100 or more full-time employees meet the TDM requirements of WCC 16.24 133. Reduction of the Cherry Point Industrial UGA is not advisable or practical, even though there appears to be excess capacity beyond the twenty -years. The boundaries are drawn along major roadways that serve as a transition or buffer to adjacent rural areas. Moving the boundary in would only increase the conflicts between rural and heavy industrial uses. Columbia Valley Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 • ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- 134. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan was amended in 1999 to -, pt, Not italic establish a UGA in the Columbia Valley (Ordinance 99-075). A total Formatted: Normal population projection of 5,000 people was established for the 2022 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering planning horizon period (Ordinance 2004-013). 135. The Columbia Valley's 2000 population was approximately 2,490 people. By 2008, the population had grown to about 3,924. The Columbia Valley's population is greater than three of the seven cities in Whatcom County. 136. The Foothills Subarea Plan Advisory Committee issued a Draft Foothills Subarea Plan in October 2007. This Draft Subarea Plan, which has not yet been adopted, contains recommendations for the Columbia Valley UGA. The Foothills Subarea Plan Advisory Committee recommended a total population projection of 7,053 for the UGA. This would have constituted planned growth of 3,129 people if applied to the 2008 to 2029 planning period, or about 149 people per year. — Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 25 439 137. On March 17, 2009, the County Council passed a motion to forward a population projection for 2029-31 of 5,000 people in the Columbia Valley. UGA, consistent with the growth projection and allocation in the current comprehensive plan. This constitutes planned growth of 1,076 people from 2008 to 2029, or about 51 people per year. 138. Under all Draft EIS alternatives there would be a surplus of land capacity for population and employment, except for the No Action Trends Alternative which shows a small deficit for population capacity. 139. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Columbia Valley to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 4.0 units per net residential acre. 140. The Columbia Valley UGA is served by two special purpose districts that provide public water, one district that provides public sewer, and a fire district. However, current capital facility planning does not support allocation of additional population, over the existing projection of 5,000 people, to the Columbia Valley UGA. 141. The Water District 13 Water System Plan (2005) indicates that it has adequate water supply to serve its service area by the district's planning horizon year of 2024. The district's capital improvement plan identifies a variety of projects through 2010 that are needed to ensure adequate water service. Pursuant to state regulations, Water District 13 is required to update its water system plan by March 2011. 142. Water District 13, serving a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA, is expected to experience a sewage treatment deficit under all studied alternatives without additional treatment capacity. The water district is currently updating its Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 143. Evergreen Water and Sewer District 19 provides water service to portions of the Columbia Valley UGA. The Evergreen Water and Sewer District's Comprehensive Water System Plan is from 2004. Pursuant to state regulations, Evergreen Water and Sewer District is required to update its water system plan by August 2010. 144. The Columbia Valley UGA population is greater than the population of three of the seven cities in Whatcom County. However, the Columbia Valley UGA does not have a centrally located town center to meet the commercial and public service needs of the residents. The Foothills Subarea Plan Advisory Committee recommended a 44 acre Planned Town Center in the UGA. General Commercial zoning for this Planned Town Center will allow a mix of commercial, institutional, and higher density residential uses. 145. The retention of,@ portion of the a_pproximate_ly_eighty,acre parcel on__th_e_ west side of the UGA for residential uses will help facilitate the development of the adjacent town center in an effort to provide needed 26 . -- I Deleted: an Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin im commercial services in the area and reduce commuter trips into Bellingham. It is not appropriate to consider urban development within the portion of that parcel that lies within an alluvial fan hazard area. &signation of the Planned town_center for genera( commercial zoning_will___�-;: -- Deleted: The Planning help facilitate employment opportunities in the UGA. `� Commission also finds that 146. Based on the proposed population allocation, and considering a proposed Deleted: d UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a surplus of residential acres. 147. Based on the proposed employment allocation, and the proposed UGA boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a balance of employment land demand and land supply. 148. The golumbia Valley_UGA_has sufficient capacity to_accommodate projected__---- Deleted: findings indicatetnat --------------- - growth, densities allowed are urban in nature, and adequate public facilities the and services should be provided within the 20-year planning period. The Planning Commission ecommended reducing_the_size _of the Colum_bia_____..... Deleted: recommends Valley UGA from 1,489 acres to approximately 1,197 acres. This constitutes a reduction of about 292 acres (just under a 20% reduction). Reducinci the size of the UGA will assist jn bringing a_great_er ba_lance_______ Deleted: The rationale for the ___;--- between supply and demand for urban land and eco nine that there are PP Y reduction includes --- ---------------- capital facility- issues .that need to be addressed as part of the forthcoming Deleted: bringing, 7-year plan and code update process. Deleted: recognizing 27 -- Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25" Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 11 441 Everson 149. The City of Everson submitted a proposal forts UGA in_June 2009. The o� weir - - - - - --------------- proposal included removal of some lands from the UGA and expansion in Formatted: Bullets and Numbering the UGA to the north. In net, the city proposed a reduction of,�s UGA by Deleted: their 22 acres. The city proposed an allocation of 1,948 additional people and 628 additional employees. 150. The County Executive proposed a slightly smaller UGA by removing a portion of the UGA expansion lying within floodplain areas, and placing some large lot residential areas in an Urban Growth Area Reserve. The County Executive also proposed lower allocation of, population and employment to be consistent with historic growth patterns and overall county -wide growth projections. 151. The City of Everson responded to the Executive proposal with. support, but did note that the city believed that it acted responsibly by having a net acreage returned to agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance from urban designations. 152. The City of Everson and its UGA serve the surrounding area as a commercial, retail and industrial center. 153. Under all Draft EIS alternatives, he existing UGA provides a surplus of_______ 1)eleted: there'would be -------- - - capacity for population and employment. 154. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Everson to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The assumption used_ in the land capacity_ analysis was Deleted: s 4.5 units per net residential acre (4.6 within the city and 4.4 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). 155. The City proposal presented to Whatcom County requested a high growth allocation consistent with &.2._5% average „annual growth rate experienced.,- Deleted: their during the 1990s. Some of this additional growth is proposed to accommodate a shift from Bellingham and rural areas to the small cities as envisioned by one of the Draft EIS alternatives. 156. The City would like to see the jobs -to -population ratio increase over time so that more citizens of the area will be able to work in their own community and avoid traveling to job centers. 157. The City proposed a swap of UGA territory that is less suited for urban development for land better suited. The area proposed to be added is adjacent to the current city limits and planned expansion of the city's largest park. This land is within walking distance to downtown and can be easily served by the sewage treatment plant. 158. Land proposed for removal from Everson's Urban Growth Area is composed of prime agricultural soils, as determined by the USDA's Natural Resources 28 Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 442 Conservation Service (Map #18, Prime Agricultural Soils - Designated Agricultural Lands, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, 2008). A majority of the land proposed for removal from the UGA and placement into resource lands are within designated flood plain areas. Parcels range in size and can be used for commercial production of agriculture products. The areas proposed for removal were first proposed by the city and not bextended - --- services will --- indicate & consent that_public facilities and - -- - - ------------------------- - _e- - - -- - Deleted: their and that the most appropriate land designation is agricultural lands of long- term commercial significance. 159. GMA was amended effective July 26, 2009 to prohibit the expansion of an UGA into the one hundred year floodplain of any river or river segment that: (i) Is located west of the crest of the Cascade mountains; and (ii) has a mean annual flow of one thousand or more cubic feet per second as determined by the State of Washington Department of Ecology. (RCW 36.70A.110; Engrossed House Bill 1967). The Nooksack River meets these criteria, and some of the area proposed for removal are consistent with this new provision of GMA. 160. Based on a review of its plans, assumptions, and agreements, the yty_----------------- peed: c concluded in&_proposal_to_the_county_that_the city__has adequate water = Deleted: their source capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. 161. The city's wastewater treatment can serve the majority of growth anticipated within the existing city limits, but is insufficient to meet the demands that are anticipated to serve the entire UGA. Expansion of the treatment plant will be necessary. The City is beginning work on a sewer comprehensive plan that will address future needs at least through 2031. 162. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan identifies agricultural lands as an "important resource to the people of Whatcom County' and Washington State. Yet these lands are often considered available for urban or rural uses. Often the conversion process begins when rural uses move onto agricultural land, creating smaller parcels, more buildings, and activities that, in some cases are incompatible with agriculture. In many cases, this blurs the line of distinction between agriculture uses and other uses and sets the stage for further conversion of the limited agricultural land base in Whatcom County." 163. Based on the proposed population allocation, and considering a proposed UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a surplus of residential acres. _ 164. Based on the proposed employment I� location and the-proposed_UGA ------- Deleted: allocation, boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a small surplus of capacity, but is essentially in balance. 165. The ,Everson_ UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth, .:-""' Deleted: findings indicate that the densities allowed are urban in nature, and adequate public facilities and Formatted: Position: Horizontal Center, Relative to: Margin 29 443 services can be provided. Reducing the Everson UGA will assistjn bringinc a greater balance between supply and demand for urban land and protection of adjacent resource lands from incompatible development. Designation of some lands as urban growth reserve will provide time for the County to complete development of a program to mitigate for the loss of agricultural lands when UGAs are expanded while allowing the city to begin planning for those lands, so that they are fully capable of serving those areas by the time they are needed within the UGA. Ferndale Deleted: The rationale for the reduction includes Deleted: brinoino Deleted: 166. The City of Ferndale submitted a written paper to the County Council and ------ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Planning Commission regarding their UGA on June 9, 2009, The proposal did not include a proposed UGA boundary, but stated the city would submit a specific proposal by October 30, 2009 after the County Council approves the land capacity analysis. The city suggested in&s June _proposal_thatLt_____;--- would request the county reduce the UGA by 900 gross acres for residential purposes, and gxpandhe UGA for employment purposes by 100 gross __;-- acres in the vicinity of Slater and I-5, abutting the Bellingham UGA, and by 80 acres on the west side of Enterprise Road. The city requested an allocation of %687 additional people and 4,747 additional employees, _- 167. The County Executive, after consultation with city elected and administrative officials, recommended reduction of the Ferndale UGA to be consistent with the county -wide land capacity analysis methodology. The Executive proposed a lower allocation of population and employment than requested in order to shift growth back to Bellingham, the county's primary population and employment center, and to be consistent with historic growth patterns and overall county -wide growth projections. The County Executive proposal, released on August 19, 2009 for public review, found the request for additional employment allocation, without any specific area designated or environmental review completed, not timely for consideration during this review process. 168. The City of Ferndale provided a written proposal to the Whatcom County Council on August 19, 2009, the same day that the Executive released his recommendations. The city affirmed ',Its earlierpositions-as to the size of the UGA, provided a map that included proposed reductions in the UGA and proposed expansion of the UGA for employment purposes. The city also did not support the county's proposal for Urban Growth Area Reserves. The city also raised concerns about the inputs and assumptions used in the land capacity analysis. 169. Based on its location north of Bellingham and along-I-5, Ferndale is now both an employment center as well as a residential community. Ferndale 30 Deleted: their Deleted: they Deleted: proposed Deleted: sion Deleted: of Deleted: That requested employment.alloeation is greater than the alternatives studied in the EIS. Deleted: their I F�Formatte:d: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin J ME accounted for 8.2% of the county growth between 19.90 and 2008, third to the City of Bellingham and City of Lynden during this time period. 170. In 2005, the City completed a Buildable Lands Inventory, which concluded "that Ferndale has enough residential land in it's [sic] planning area to accommodate the projected population growth over the next 20 years. In fact, the 20-year "supply" of potential dwelling units at 5,697 is nearly twice the population's "demand" for dwelling units over that same 20- years." This conclusion was reached despite the fact that the city used conservative calculations, "meaning that there is probably more buildable land existing within the city and UGA than this study indicates." 171. The City has provided comments regarding densities that they would like to have used in the land capacity analysis. These proposals are based on a different definition of net developable acres than what is within the County- wide Land Capacity Analysis methodology approved by the Growth Management Coordinating Council and County Council. The City has not provided documentation as to how&�_proposal is consistent with the_____________ _ Deleted: their methodology used for all other UGAs in Whatcom County. Other adjustments to assumptions were considered and included as documented in the assumptions. 172. All Draft EIS alternatives showed a significant surplus of capacity for population and a surplus for employment. 173. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Ferndale to establish new residential developments at densities averaging six to eight units per net residential acre. The Planning Commission finds that the city of Ferndale should encourage densities at a wider range of five to ten units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 5.2 units per net residential acre (6.5 within the city and.4.0 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). 174. Portions of the Ferndale UGA lie within the Drayton Harbor and Birch Bay watersheds, which have been designated as a Shellfish Protection District (Drayton Harbor in 1995) pursuant to RCW 90.72.045. due to water quality degradation caused by ongoing nonpoint sources of pollution that closed or downgraded the recreational and commercial shellfish growing areas in Drayton Harbor and Birch Bay. From 1999 to 2004, the Drayton Harbor was downgraded to a "Prohibited" status for shellfish harvesting. Due to improvements in water quality, the state conditionally reopened the main shellfish beds to harvesting in 2004. 175. The areas proposed by the City of Ferndale for ex ap nsion Slater and I15_____ Formatted: Font: Verdana and Enterprise were not evaluated for employment capacity under the land capacity analysis, but the transportation analysis in the final EIS assumes ___ • ---- Formatted: Font: Verdana capacity for a total of 363 additional jobs within the transportation analysis zones in which they are located. This may be a low estimate depending on rFormatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 31 445 the intensity of commercial or industrial uses that may be developed there. Adding these areas would increase the surplus of commercial and industrial land within the Ferndale UGA. 176. RCW 36.70A.160 states, "Each county and city that is required or chooses to prepare a comprehensive land use plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas." County -wide Planning Policies (D-5) also state, "All cities should grow in an Formatted: Font: Verdana efficient manner while maintaining their character and, where reasonable, shall provide for adequate open space between cities to prevent strip, development." The City of Ferndale's proposed expansion in the Slater. and I-5 is adjacent to the Bellingham UGA. The City of Ferndale has not addressed how the expansion would provide for an open space corridor between the UGA's. 177. The City of Ferndale's proposed expansion in the Enterprise Road area for employment purposes does not address the potential impacts to agricultural lands. The 2007 Whatcom County Rural Land: A Collaborative Report Identifying Areas of Agricultural Significance, was in response to criticisms about the "scattered" nature of protection provided by the county's Agricultural Protection Overlay approach. The Agricultural Advisory Committee.met in 2006 to identify areas in Rural 5 and 10 acre zones that are most important to maintaining the agricultural sector of Whatcom County. The area proposed for expansion by the City of Ferndale was included in the Harksell Road study area as 99% of the area's soils are considered prime APO soils, approximately 44% was in agricultural use and 27% of the total acreage was in parcels greater than 20 acres. The area was identified as a buffer to the agricultural resource lands of long-term commercial significance. Development pressure in this area was seen as a concern due to the proximity of the area to the I-5 corridor and the City of Ferndale UGA. 178. The City of Ferndale did not propose any measures to ensure that measures were in place to buffer the expansion of the UGA on agricultural lands, including those Zural lands_ designated APO. Deleted: Reral ----------------------- 179. The City of Ferndale did not provide any documentation that the proposed urban growth area expansions are appropriate for designation as TDR receiving areas as outlined in WCC 2.160.080. 180. The City of Ferndale has plans to serve a retail water service population greater than any of the population projections of studied alternatives. The city has identified water storage capacity improvements that will be needed in the 20-year planning period, as well as near -term distribution improvements. 181. Small sewage treatment deficits would be anticipated under some Draft EIS alternatives and the Executive Recommendations. The city's 32 Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin J iM Comprehensive Wastewater Facilities Plan does not include the entire UGA within the planning service area, but does include lands outside the UGA (Figure 2-1, 1996 plan). The city currently has no plans to expand sewage treatment capacity. The city does include wastewater treatment plant upgrades as well as a series of sewer collection system -upgrades in its 6- year capital facilities plan for 2007-2012. 182. The Ferndale UGA is provided fire protection services from Fire District 7. Fire District 7does not have a capital facilities plan. 183. Based on the proposed population allocation, and considering a proposed UGA reduction, the land capacity analysis shows a small surplus of residential acres and is essentially in balance 184. Based on the proposed employment Allocation and_the_proposed UGA__________________ Deleted: allocation, . boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a small surplus of capacity but is essentially in balance. 185. The Ferndale UGA has suff_icient_capacity_ to_accommodate_projected___________________ Deleted: The findings indicate growth, densities allowed are urban in nature, and adequate public facilities that t and services can be provided. The land capacity_analy_sis was done Deleted: The findings also ---------------------- consistent with the county -wide methodology used for all UGAs. The indicate that t rationale for the UGA size reduction includes bringing a greater balance between supply and demand for urban land, capital facility items still need to be addressed for areas removed from or not added to the UGA, and measures need to be in place for protection of the waters entering Puget Sound, including Birch Bay and Drayton Harbor watersheds. Lynden 186. The City of Lynden submitted a proposal for expansion of its UGA in May 2009. The city proposed a growth allocation of 7,414 additional population and 3,559 additional employees during the planning period. In order to accommodate this growth request, the city proposed an expansion of the UGA into agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance by approximately 327 acres. 187. The County Executive proposed that the land requested by the City as a UGA expansion into agricultural lands west of Double Ditch Road be placed into an UGA Reserve, allowing the city and county to work on strategies and agreements to ensure that the county maintains the agricultural land base (100,000 acres) necessary to support this industry. 188. The County Executive proposed reducing the overall amount of impact on agricultural lands countywide by removing urban lands and re -designating them for agricultural purposes elsewhere in the county. Reduction of UGAs and placement of lands back into agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance were proposed by the Executive in Everson, Ferndale, NOoksack and Sumas. ( Formmatted: Position: Horizontal Center, Relative to: Margin 33 447 189. The City of Lynden responded to the County Executive proposed UGA in several letters and public input. The city's response included comments regarding jja ability_ to accommodate the requested growthits - Deli: their _within ---------- ---- -- proposed UGA, the extent of capital facility plans completed fonts UGA, ______ Deleted: their the criteria for designation of agricultural lands of long-term commercial Deleted: their significance, and water rights. 190. All Draft EIS alternatives show that maintaining the current UGA size would result in a deficit of capacity for population and a surplus capacity for employment, except that under Action Alternative Y there is a small deficit of employment. 191. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Lynden to establish new residential developments at densities averaging five to eight units per net residential acre. The ou_ncil finds_that the city__ of_Ly_nden should _ ____ .--- -Deleted: Planning Commission encourage densities at a wider range of five to ten units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 6.8 units per net residential acre (6.1 within the city and 8.1 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). 192. In 2003, Whatcom County designated Target Areas for Purchase of Development Rights for agricultural lands north of Badger Road and west of the Guide Meridian following consultation with the City of Lynden (see Resolution 2662-040 and 2003-036). The City's UGA proposal is not located within those Target Areas. 193. The_ W"tg9m_County_Comprehensive Plan identifies agricultural lands as -------------- De an "important resource to the people of Whatcom County and Washington State. Yet these lands are often considered available for urban or rural uses. Often the conversion process begins when rural uses move onto agricultural land, creating smaller parcels, more buildings, and activities that, in some cases are incompatible with agriculture. In many cases, this blurs the line of distinction between agriculture uses and other uses and sets the stage for further conversion of the limited agricultural land base in Whatcom County." 194. The city's proposed UGA expansion did not take into account the need for a sufficient quantity of agricultural land to support a healthy agricultural industry in Whatcom County, nor required mitigation when land is converted to another use, or required buffers on all new non-agricultural uses located adjacent to agricultural activities (Policy 8A-2). 195. The results of the land capacity analysis show that the City's requested growth allocation cannot be accommodated within the existing UGA without modification in land use plans to allow additional infill or increased densities. The city has not proposed any modification to land use plans to accommodate the requested population growth, instead requesting that the UGA be expanded. Without changes in land use plans or meeting the (IFormatted: Position: Horizontal: l Center, Relative to: Margin J 34 - M; county's agricultural resource land protection goals, it was found by.the Planning Commission that the population growth allocation to Lynden would require reduction to fit within the existing UGA. 196. The City of Lynden Water System Plan (August 2008) indicates that the city has adequate water supply to meet the needs of population growth over the 20 year period. The City and the Washington Department of. Ecology (DOE) have entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to address long-standing water rights issues between the city and Ecology. Under the terms of that agreement, DOE agreed not to enforce against what it asserts is Lynden's over -appropriation of its water rights and not to disapprove any update of the city's water system plan based on concerns about the city's water rights for as long as the agreement is in effect. 197. The city's sewer plan accommodates a population similar to studied alternatives and a small sewage treatment capacity reserve was estimated in the Draft EIS. The city's sewer plan anticipates planning for additional sewage treatment capacity during the planning period. The sewer plan indicates future sewer trunk lines to serve areas of the City and UGA not currently served, but additional planning will be necessary for areas proposed to be added to the UGA. 198. Allocating a smaller than requested population to Lynden and leaving the UGA essentially as it currently exists (with a small expansion not affecting its population capacity) will allow time for Lynden to work with the county, Department of Ecology and others on resolution of water rights disputes and agricultural land mitigation strategies. The results of growth monitoring, comprehensive plan updates and UGA reviews will allow the county ample jnformation to determine_whether_and_to _what_extent the______ Lynden UGA should be expanded before any shortage in developable land occurs. The urban growth reserve west of the city can be planned for by the city, so that when the UGA needs to be expanded consistent with the comprehensive plan and agricultural land mitigation policies, the area will be available. 199. -rhe proposed 12 acre (approx) addition in the southeast part of the city is within the 100 year flood plain of the Nooksack River. However, its addition to the UGA complies with the exceptions to the new restrictions on expansions of UGAs into floodplains in that its addition will be conditioned on the extinguishment of all development rights on the property and its uses restricted to those consistent with the GMA exemption in 36.70A.110(8)(b). Nooksack >" 200. The City of Nooksack submitted a proposal for maintaining Zts existing UGA `: in June 2009. The city proposed a growth allocation of 1,137 additional population and 290 additional employees during the planning period. 35 Deleted: time Deleted: ¶ Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: their Formatted: Position: Horizontal: I Center, Relative to: Margin .M 201. The County Executive proposed a reduction in the UGA by removing lands south of Breckenridge Creek and east of the Sumas River from the UGA. The lands proposed to be removed were placed into agricultural resource lands. The Executive proposed a lower allocation of population and employment than requested to be consistent with historic growth patterns and overall county -wide growth projections. 202. The city responded (9-17-09) to the County Executive proposal by requesting the area proposed for removal be put back into a designated UGA Reserve due to future employment and residential growth needs. The city noted that part of the lands removed from the UGA include areas the city had designated for future industrial growth. The allocation of employment to Nooksack was reduced because the UGA did not have the ability to accommodate that employment. 203. The city's expressed vision is to maintain safe and friendly family living in a small town rural setting, while protecting and enjoying the natural environment and agricultural lands of the surrounding area, and promoting development of new jobs and businesses. 204. All Draft EIS alternatives show the existing GUA boundaries would result in a surplus land capacity for population and employment, except for Action Alternative Y which generally shows a balance of employment capacity with demand. 205. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Nooksack to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 4.4 units per net residential acre (4.3 within the city and 4.9 in the unincorporated portion of the UGA). 206. Areas east of the Sumas River and south of Breckenridge Creek are, prone to flooding, and some areas of the Sumas River floodplain, both inside and outside of the city, have been surveyed to be affected by sediment from the Swift Creek landslide, carrying chrysotile asbestos fibers. 207. The area being removed from the UGA is currently being used for agricultural purposes and is currently zoned Agricultural. Land proposed for removal is composed of prime agricultural soils, as determined by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (Map #18, Prime Agricultural Soils - Designated Agricultural Lands, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, 2008) and has long-term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products. Urban facilities, particularly water or sewer service, are not located in the area proposed for removal. Parcels in the area proposed for removal are large lots conducive to agricultural practices. 208. The City of Sumas provides the source of supply to the Nooksack water system. The City of Sumas has indicated a willingness to supply an 36 Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 450 increased quantity of water to the City of Nooksack if necessary to support growth, and the City of Sumas has stated that they believe they have adequate water rights to be able to provide such an increased supply. Additional analysis of water storage will be necessary.. 209. The City of Nooksack maintains a system of collection and transmission pipes and four sewer lift stations that direct sewage to the Everson sewage treatment plant. Expansion of the Everson sewage treatment plant will be necessary to accommodate some of the growth that will occur outside of current Nooksack city limits. 210. Based on the proposed population allocation, and a proposed UGA reduction in flood prone areas, the land capacity analysis shows a minor surplus of residential acres, essentially in balance. 211. Based on the proposed employment allocation, and the proposed UGA boundaries, the land capacity analysis shows a balance between employment land supply and land demand. 212. The ooksack UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected --.--- Deleted: findings indicate that -_ ------------------------------------------------------------ - --------� growth, densities allowed are urban in nature, and adequate public facilities the and services can be provided. The1-eduction-will achieve a_greater balance ;-.--- Deleted: rationale for the between supply and demand for urban land, removal of lands subject to Deleted: includes bringing flooding from the UGA, and protection of adjacent resource lands from incompatible development. 213. An area east of the Sumas River and south of Breckenridge Creek may be ----- --{ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering suitable for future inclusion in the UGA. The area includes lands currently used for agricultural purposes, and jncludes lands that may be flooded and Formatted: Font: (pefault>yerdana exposed to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) from a natural landslide adiacent to Swift Creek. Holding this area in an Urban Growth Area Reserve will allow the op poMr L-ity for Whatcom County and the City of Nooksack to work on strategies and plans to ensure protection of at least 100,000 acres of agricultural land in Whatcom County, and for the city and county to review studies to determine the proper land use controls necessary to protect public health from IVOA. Sumas 214. The City of Sumas submitted a proposal for maintaining t_ existing_ UGA in { Deleted: their June 2009. The city proposed a growth allocation of 793 additional {Formatted: Bulletsand Numbering population and 391 additional employees during the planning period. 215. The County Executive modified the city's proposal by reducing the. size of the UGA and proposed placement of those lands within an Urban Growth Area Reserve for potential urban growth beyond the current planning horizon. The County Executive supported the growth allocation requests of the city. 37 Formatted: Position: Horizontal: l Center, Relative to: Margin i 451 216. The city responded (9-17-09) to the County Executive proposal by requesting some areas proposed to be placed into UGA Reserve be placed back into UGA, retaining other areas as UGA Reserve, and consideration of additional c, cres west_of_the_Sumas_Industrial_district as_UGA_ _Reserve___________________ Deleted: areas 217. The community's vision for the City is to take advantage of its location and function as an international border crossing to capitalize on commercial and retail economic opportunities presented by border traffic. The City has also expressed an interest in becoming a regional industrial center. 218. All Draft EIS alternatives show the current urban growth area provides_ Deleted:a surplus land capacity for population and employment. 219. The City expressed concerns related to the baseline employment figures which appear to have underestimated the potential demand for employment land. In growth forecast information finalized as of February 2009, Berk & Associates used available information based on State Employment Security Department figures. which addressed covered employment and did not fully allocate employment geographically. 220. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan encourages Sumas to establish new residential developments at densities averaging four units per net residential acre. The assumption used in the land capacity analysis was 5.6 units per. net residential acre. 221. Areas south of the city are identified as floodplain according to FEMA flood boundary maps. 222. The area removed from the UGA is currently being used for agricultural purposes and is currently zoned Agricultural. Land proposed for removal is composed of prime agricultural soils, as determined by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (Map #18, Prime Agricultural Soils - Designated Agricultural Lands, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, 2008) and has long-term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products. Urban facilities, particularly water or sewer service, are not located in the area proposed for removal. Parcels in the area proposed for removal are large lots conducive to agricultural practices. 223. Based on the proposed population allocation, the land capacity analysis shows that the city can accommodate projected residential growth within city limits. 224. Based on the proposed employment allocation and the proposed UGA ---- Deleted: allocation, boundaries, the land capacity analysis prepared shows a surplus of employment land supply. 225. Based on past and ongoing analyses, the Sumas well fields and water rights provide a source of supply well in excess of the future needs of the city's retail and wholesale customers through the planning period. 226. The City of Sumas owns and maintains a sewage collection and transmission system that includes gravity sewer lines and a small number 38 Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin li 452 - of sewer lift stations. The Sumas system directs sewage to a discharge into the City of Abbottsford system in British Columbia, Canada. Sumas has sufficient sewer service capacity to meet its needs through the planning period. 227. The iSUaa§ VGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate_ projected growth, _____- Deleted: findings indicate that densities allowed are urban in nature, and adequate public facilities and services can be provided. Thereduction_'n UGA size will bringa greater______ - - Deleted: rationale for the balance between supply and demand for urban land, ,remove_ lands subject Deleted: includes bringing ------- ----- to flooding from the UGA, and protect,edjacent resource lands from Deleted: removal incompatible development. Deleted: of Conclusions 1. As set forth in the above findings, the �Whatcom County _Council _conc_ludes__ that the proposed amendments conform to the requirements of the Growth Management Act regarding the designation and review of urban growth areas. a. The proposed amendments are consistent with Whatcom County County -wide Planning Policies, including the designation and review of urban growth areas. b. The comprehensive plans of the county and each city accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county in the succeeding twenty year period. c. The comprehensive plan and development regulations include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period. d. The growth management population projection made for the county of 244,892 is based on the projection made by the Washington State Office of Financial Management, which provides a range from 216,300 to 318,832 in the year 2029 for Whatcom County. e. Whatcom County attempted to reach agreement with each city on the location of an urban growth area through extensive consultation and direct meetings. f. The urban growth areas include those areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development or are within areas that will be Deleted: ion Deleted: of Deleted: of Law Deleted: Planning Commission served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and servjces. g. The determination of the location of urban growth areas j)asxaken into Deleted: have consideration actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that Deleted: considered pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound, by carefully limiting the extent of urban development within sensitive watersheds. 39 Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 453 TT here is_ev_idence that_th_e proposed UGAs_can be_proyided with________________ adequate public facilities and services. However, theCouncil also _______ concludes that there are public facility and service gaps that have been found during this review. The ouncil concludes_that_the_purpose_of______------ this UGA review is based on RCW 36.70A.130(3) that specifies the requirement for the plan designating urban growth areas, and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas to be revised. GMA Deleted: The Planning Commission concludes that there Deleted: Planning Commiss Deleted: Planning Commission requires each city and the county to review and revise comprehensive plans and development regulations by December 1, 2011, which vi_I_I Deleted: would include review of capital facility, transportation and utility elements. The proposed policy which allows reconciliation of the capital facility and service gaps as part of the 7-year review process provides additional time in which to document the anticipated ability to provide adequate services and public facilities. The ouncil concludes that _the__a_mendme_ nts to the comprehensive plan_____________ Deleted: Planning commission and development regulations harmonize the to planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020. a. The Louncil concludes that_the_publie participation_goals_of the_Growth - Deleted: Planning Commission Management Act have been met through the Public Involvement Plan prepared. and implemented through Whatcom 2031, including early and continuous public involvement, formal opportunities through public hearings and public notices as legally required by state and county laws and regulations. The proposed amendments protect resource lands of long-term commercial significance from urban development not warranted based on the record before the Planning Commission and Council. The ouncil further concludes that the ro osed expansion of UGAs for_______ -- Deleted: Planning Commissi Everson, Ferndale and Lynden do not include measures to ensure adequate buffers from adjoining agricultural resource lands. c. TheCouncil concludes that_pa the proposed amendments are consistent_ - Deleted: Planning commission ---------------------------------------- with the housing planning goal of the GMA, as the review and designation of adequately sized urban growth areas, combined with the variety of planned residential densities within the cities and the unincorporated areas of the county promotes a variety of residential densities and promotes the affordability of homes by providing adequate lands supply within urban growth areas for development of a variety of housing types. d. The Council concludes that the proposed amendments do not take any Deleted: Planning commission private property for public use. e. The Council concludes that the proposed amendments do not impair ........ Deleted: Planning Commission the retention fQ open spaces within and between the urban growth I Deleted: of open I areas of the county which have been identified consistent with ( Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 40 454 36.70A.160 on Map 10 — Open Space Corridors — within the comprehensive plan, and that the amendments are consistent with the open space goal of the GMA, which encourages retention of open spaces. f. The gouncil considered the -effect- of -its pnopqseO_decision on the______________ __ Deleted: Planning commission availability of lands for employment and economic development purposes and concludes that by providing adequate land supply within urban growth areas where businesses can develop and expand, the proposed amendments are consistent with the economic development goal of the GMA. g. The transportation impacts of various alternative urban growth strategies were examined in the DEIS, and the ouncil Concludes that Deleted: Planning Commission the proposed amendments, which encourage urban growth in urban areas, also encourage the development of efficient multimodal transportation systems by encouraging population growth into areas where transportation by means other than automobile may be more easily developed, consistent with the transportation planning goal of the GMA. 3. The gouncil concludes that _the -proposed amendments to_th_e----------------------------- Deleted: Planning commission comprehensive plan are consistent with the criteria for amendment of the comprehensive plan. a. The ouncil concludes that the -studies and _record-made_or-accepted -- _by___ ,_ -A Deleted: Planning Commission the department of planning and development services, include but are not limited to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (May 8, 2009), review of densities permitted within urban growth areas, as well as rural growth (Appendix A, August 14, 2009), land capacity and demand results (Appendix B, August 14, 2009), land monitoring proposed methods (Appendix C, August 14, 2009), public participation strategy and results (Appendix D, August 14, 2009) and assessment of existing Whatcom County countywide population and employment growth projections (February 9, 2009). These studies indicate changed conditions that show the need for the amendments proposed. The,Council concludes that the public interest will be served by___ Deleted: Planning Commission ---------------------------------------- - - - ------------ ---- approving the amendment. i. The rate or distribution of growth and development has been well studied as part of the review process as demonstrated in the Draft EIS and other documents provided as part of the record. ii. The effect on county and other service providers is documented in Appendix E, 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan, and within the Draft EIS. iii. Consideration was made regarding the anticipated impact upon Deleted: Planning commission designated resource lands. The gouncilfurther concludes tha__t_____ Formatted: Position: Horizontal: center, Relative to: Margin 41 455 the proposed expansion of UGAs into agricultural lands is not warranted at the current time. The qouncil aIso concludes that Deleted: Planning Commissir the proposed reduction of UGAs and where applicable, re - designation as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance, is consistent with the Whatcom-County Comprehensive Plan. c. The Council concludes that the_ amend ment_does not include or_______________"-"- Deleted: Planning commission facilitate spot zoning. d. The Louncil concludes that the cities of Everson, Ferndale_ and Ly_nden Deleted: Planning commission - - - - - -------------------------------------- that proposed expansion of their respective UGAs did not include proposals or studies to determine whether the expansion is appropriate for designation as a transfer of development right receiving areas as set forth in WCC 2.160.080(A)(5). 4. The ouncil concludes that the ro posed amend ments to the ZoningCode____..-- Deleted: Planning Commission are consistent with the Growth Management Act,.County-wide Planning Policies, Comprehensive Plan, and criteria for amendment of the Zoning Code. a. The development regulations are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan as required in the Growth Management Act. b. The development_.regulations encourage urban growth within the urban growth areas and prohibit urban development without adequate public facilities and services by limiting the density allowed for development without extension of water and sewer, while also requiring concurrency for public facilities. c. The development regulations prohibit urban growth outside urban l growth areas.- The Planning Commission, by separate action on October 8, 2009, forwarded a recommendation to the Whatcom County Council that limits areas of more intensive development in rural areas as set forth in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) and as ordered by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (#05-2-0013). d. The Council concludes that the special_proyisions of WCC 20.90.060 do .-- Deleted: Planning Commission not apply as the amendments are not defined as site specific rezones. 5. The ouncil considered the potential effects_of this proposal on_the_______-_ ----------------------- ----- - --------' Deleted: Planning Commission environment by review of the impacts analyzed in the DEIS and FEIS, as well as considering whether certain areas were more environmentally suitable for urban develo Pment than others. The ouncil Concludes that ._ Deleted: Planning Commission the proposed amendments are consistent with the environment planning goal of the GMA, encouraging the protection of the environment in land use decisions, and consistent with the procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. 6. The Whatcom County Council concludes that no action is proposed that would take property for public use or unduly burden a property owner by rFormatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 42 Mel leaving him or her without a reasonable use of his or her property, or otherwise deprive him or her of legally recognized rights. This is consistent with Whatcom County Charter Section 1.11, which states, "The rights of the individual citizen shall be guaranteed under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Washington. No regulation or ordinance shall be drafted and adopted without consideration of and provisions for compensation to those unduly burdened." . - I Deleted: ¶ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Whatcom County Official Zoning Code is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit B. Section 3. The Whatcom County Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit C. Section 4. 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 ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED as to form: Civil Deputy Prosecutor 2009. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 43 Seth Fleetwood, Chairman ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Pete Kremen, Executive Date: Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Center, Relative to: Margin 457 m Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction EXHIBIT A HOW THE PLAN WAS CREATED Chapter One INTRODUCTION Whatcom County's Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide growth in unincorporated areas for the next 20 years in coordination with the new plans of its cities. The fundamental purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish a framework of goals, policies and action items for the more detailed growth planning and implementation actions which will occur in the near future in designated urban growth areas and in the county's rural areas. The plan identifies urban growth area (UGA) boundaries and contains a future land use map. The majority of the county's growth will be located within the UGA's. Several factors influenced the development of the adopted goals and polices contained in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. First, this plan has been reviewed for consistency with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA), the thirteen (13) goals of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.020), mandatory plan elements (RCW 36.70A.070), and the current County -Wide Planning Policies. Second, through inter jurisdictional cooperation, Whatcom County has coordinated planning and decision making with all levels of government to ensure compatibility of goals and desires, and has made this plan consistent with local plans. Third, extensive citizen participation was facilitated through educational forums, surveys/questionnaires, video --presentations, public hearings, and written comments made throughout this process. The Planning Commission and County Council quickly learned that for every group or individual that sought a benefit, another's rights were potentially impacted. This Plan will probably not satisfy any one particular group of citizens with strongly held views. It does, however, provide common ground on the most sensitive issues that all sides can stand on, if somewhat uneasily, in the interest of what is best for the County as a whole. County -Wide Planning Policies The Whatcom County Council in conjunction with all local cities previously adopted a set of County-Wwide Planning Policies. The framework provided by the adopted County -Wide Planning Policies ensures that local planning efforts will be consistent with one another and supportive of regional goals. Whatcom County: The Next Generations In April 1993, the County Executive appointed a committee of individuals representing a broad cross-section of county residents. Their charge was to produce a graphic and written description of what the people of Whatcom County wanted the county to be in 2010 and beyond. They designed an extensive public input process to define this vision for the County. The committee's work was supported and facilitated by Planning staff. Staff also provided the committee with information about GMA requirements and existing conditions in the county. Information included Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1-1 459 Council Introduction Draft. November 10. 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction land use facilities, population, environment, resources, and existing plans and zoning designations. The committee helped staff a booth at the Northwest Washington Fair in August 1993. Over 1,500 people visited the booth where they perused displays and maps, completed questionnaires, and read newsletters. In June, August, and September, the Visioning Committee hosted sixteen town hall meetings throughout the county that were attended by over 500 people. Committee members also met with various community groups to explain the Visioning Process. To encourage public input, over 12,000 surveys were distributed, and by October 1, over 1,000 had been returned. A countywide statistically valid phone survey was conducted which added another 410 people's opinions to the Visioning Process. The telephone survey and questionnaire data were then analyzed, and the results tabulated and summarized by professional survey consultants. By February 1994, the committee had thoroughly reviewed the data and generated a set of Visioning Community Value Statements. These statements are included in Appendix C of this plan. They were distributed to all committees working on components of the plan. The committee then developed four land use alternatives in order to explore and test different ways of expressing the value statements. T4ie-&--fGur-alter4atives--are4he—,�-ernatives--used The four land use alternatives were presented around the county in another series of town hall meetings. Finally, in June 1994, the committee produced a recommended land use alternative expressed through written value statements and a conceptual land use map. The Visioning Community Value Statements and written recommendations were the basis from which individual committees and Planning staff developed land use issues, goals, policies, and action plans as presented to the Planning Commission in the November 1994 Draft Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Whatcom 2031 Whatcom 2031 is the County's work program for the period 2008 to 2011 to prepare for the next 20 years of growth and update its Comprehensive Plan consistent with GMA. Phase I focused on the required 10-Year UGA Review and included developing population and employment forecasts and reviewing land capacity and UGA boundaries. An EIS addressing four regional growth alternatives was prepared addressing urban and rural growth patterns to the year 2031. Phase II will address the required 7-Year Review which is anticipated to involve a broader review of the Comprehensive Plan elements in relation to GMA amendments and other required topics. Other Growth Management Committees Citizen committees were used extensively to develop this plan in the 1990s. Almost all of the elements of the plan were generated using input from appointed citizen committees. Each committee was given the results of surveys and town hall meetings from the Whatcom County: The Next Generations. Each committee spent countless hours reviewing background material, identifying issues, generating goals and policies, and, in some cases, action plans. Committees and committee members are listed in the front of this document. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1-2 M Council Introduction Draft, November 10 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction For the purposes of updating the Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) in 2009, and as Phase I of the Whatcom 2031 comprehensive plan update process, the Growth Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) was formed in 2008. This committee was composed of elected officials from all the affected iurisdictions including one representative from each of the small cities, two from Bellingham, and three from Whatcom County. Planning staff from each of these municipalities met with county staff on a regular basis to review methodologies, data, and policies and provide guidance to the GMCC on these issues. At its last meeting for the UGA update process on July 1, 2009, the GMCC approved a document showing their recommendations for the Urban Growth Area review. This document was presented to the county planning commission and county council to provide perspective to their decision -making process. The Whatcom 2031 process will be on -going through 2011 and the comprehensive plan will be revised and updated as part of that process. The final step in developing the -1 as to bring together represeRtatives from All the r0ernm4ees to-r-emew-each-ether's-p-rodUcts-in-carder-to-identify-Genfaasts-and-iecensmtenGies— omm+ttees-then attempted-to-respend-to-an"or-rest-conflicts. With-t-he-developrner-it-of-the-draft-pi,aR-COr-�apleted�fae-Geu.nty- Council -aged Aaww-ing-Gem.missieR held feu-r-jeint-pubWG-heari.ngs4e-4eceiv(-pablie-input F-eltowing-t4ese ".e: .gs—the-PlannIi g no - and ed;41;ng eaGh „fthe �le,��roh�.pters-of tl�edraft plan. On June 26,4496, the-P-lanning W-hatcmr-xe-Gmunty-Gouncil— x-he-Gmuwcid-thew--conducted stx-final-pubaic-hearings-nd-nurne-re - s wer-k-sessions-e their•-ow�,-a-nd-produced-the-final-ver-sign-contained-hefeina The-astual-dmfting-and-produciior--of-th"lan-was-oc)mpieted-by the-:-Ila-nm- ng-Divasien­staff­.T-®-a substantoWeg%e, ft -plmn&-a-r-E&nement-e�-the-Geunty's-existRg-&6tba-Fea-plans: The-subar-ea pianni-ng-r,ecogniz-ed-the-diversit-y-of-cor-nmun-ities-,-life-styles--and--interests-ire-Whatcoraa-C—o my-14 in the I -afk-ula. This eotcorfee-would seem tervalidate -bath-# b dom of oU-r_-s and -the r-met-an"ontent-Gf-th i-s-new-Plan. -T-his--plan; -and-its--attendant-..goals--and--poilcies-and- optiax-al-land--.use--patterns,-r-epresents--a seprey , warks-hops,,-hearingsewvrote,4ezt-err--fGT4 e-record-. The -goals, policies,--and-4 mx ple m entation-st-rategies-.developed--through -the- region al-visio ning and planning-process-were-intended-to-be-cansisten-t-.with-the-goals-of-the GMA These-will--pr-evide-Ahe foundation --for- polivies--.irat,ended--to---assist-4n--the---im- pde.mentation--of t-he-- GMA-.by--fe-nmi.ng --a shho -vie-eras-pfedused- pA-r-oduGmg-the-plan-to-the-cenwnu W hiis-�wdee-w ie in-loval--libraries,-to-!Goal-groups,-and AG -individuals -who wished-to-cheGkAt out -from the -Planning Office:--Citizens-were-asic-ed-to--ret-urn-a quesbonnaire-,after viewhg-the-uideo, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1-3 461 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction Original Adoption and Amendments The County Council adopted the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan in May of 1997. Since then, amendments have been made on an annual basis. Additionally, the periodic review of the comprehensive plan for consistency with the GMA; required by RCW 36.70A.130, is occurring over a three-year period from 24042008-2011 and is called Whatcom 2031. GMA GOALS, COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES, AND VISIONING COMMUNITY VALUE STATEMENTS Every chapter in this plan was reviewed for consistency with the GMA Planning Goals, the County -Wide Planning Policies, and the Visioning Community Value Statements generated by the Visioning Process. Each individual chapter describes how consistency was achieved. The connections between this plan's goals and policies, and the goals, policies, and value statements of the other documents are evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement for this plan. For the complete text of the GMA Planning Goals, the County -Wide Planning Policies, and the Visioning Community Value Statements, see Appendix C of this plan. INTRODUCING WHATCOM COUNTY Whatcom County lies in the northwest corner of both the State of Washington and the coterminous United States. It is bounded on the north by the Canadian border, on the east by Okanogan County, on the south by Skagit County, and on the west by the Strait of Georgia and Bellingham Bay. These borders enclose large parts of the Mount Baker National Forest and the North Cascades National Park, which take up about two-thirds of Whatcom County's total area. All but a few residents live in the western third of the county. Bellingham, with an estimated 20028 population of 69-,2-&975,750 (89,284 with unincorporated UGA), is Whatcom County's largest city. Other cities include Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, and Sumas, and there are several smaller unincorporated communities. Two Indian reservations and associated trust lands are located within Whatcom County's borders. The Lummi Nation reservation is on the Lummi Peninsula and Portage Island on the western side of the county; the Nooksack Tribe reservation and trust lands comprise several parcels along the Nooksack River in the west -central area of the county. Population Population growth in Whatcom County since the arrival of the first Euro-American immigrants in the 1850s has been driven largely by in -migration of people from other sections of the state and country. Table 1 displays the growth of population in Whatcom County from 1910 to 2000, and Table 2 shows the growth figures for each year of the current decade. These tables indicate a steady increase in population over time, with varying rates of growth often driven by factors external to Whatcom County such as international events or changes in technology and transportation. Approximately 73% of the population growth between 1960 and 2000 was due to in -migration of people from outside the area seeking jobs, life styles, and amenities found in Whatcom County. It should be noted that the first decade of planning under the Growth Management Act (1990- 2000) accompanied the reversal of a 30-year trend from 1960-1990 where unincorporated areas grew faster than cities. From 1990 to 2000, cities grew at a more rapid rate than unincorporated areas for the first time since the 1950's. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1-4 462 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, Chapter 1 - Introduction Table 1. Population Growth in Whatcom County, 1910-2000 UNINCORPORATED ANAiUAU POPULATION ANNkiAL ,--YEAR e—'----POPULATION. _- RATE OF POPULATION RATE OF OF,CITIES* RATOF ,, GROWTH GROWTH. I` I . ........... 1990 9 49,511 20,183 29,328 1920 50,600 0.2% 19,621 -0.3% 30,979 0.5% 1 100 59,128 1.6% 23,112 1.7% 36,016 1.5% 11946k.;��, 60,355 0.2% 25,860 1.1% 34,495 -0.4% 1050, 66,733 1.0% 26,462 0.2% 40,271 1.6% 1960 70,317 0.5% 25,990 -0.2% 44,327 1.0% -1970 81,983 1.5% 34,004 2.7% 47,979 0.8% 106,701 2.7% 48,622 3.6% 58,079 ...19.50 127,780 1.8% 59,187 2.0% 68,593 1.7% 2000, 166,814 2.7% 74,231 2.3% 92,583 3.0% Source: US Census *Cities include Bellingham, Blaine, Everson (since 1930), Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack (since 1920), and Sumas. I Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1-5 463 I Council Introduction Draft, November 10 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction 'Cities include Bellingham, Blaine, Everson, Femdale, Lynden, Nooksack, and Sumas. 1^ +„rthe-IeT­�Between 1997 and 2007, the total population of Whatcom County had grown at an average annual rate of 2251.83% per year, with the incorporated cities growing at an annual rate of 1.86% and the unincorporated areas (including the urban areas of Birch Bay and Columbia Valley) growth at 1.50% per year (source: OFM-1IA2-2002 . The total 2007 estimated population was 188,300 and the 20082 estimated population of Whatcom County is 472,200191,000, ° _ More than half of all Whatcom County residents live in cities. Map 1 displays the 2000 population density for Whatcom County. The highest densities are in and around cities, though there are other small centers of medium to high population density such as the ones at Sudden Valley, Birch Bay, Paradise Lakes near Kendall, and along the Guide Meridian. The 2000 Census data showed 92,583 people, or about 55.5% of the county's total population, living inside the city limits of Whatcom County's seven incorporated cities. Another 13,920 people were living near the cities in city urban growth areas (derived from Whatcom County Population and Economic Forecasts, ECONorthwest, May 2003, Table 3-2 and Census counts). Counting these neighborhoods, the urban population was about 64% of the county total. Population Projections Projections of future population size are an essential component of land use planning. As required by RCW 36.70A.110, in 20072, the Washington State Office of Financial Management developed a 20-year population projection for Whatcom County. Meanwk�ile, �eld4h�^, �^ beer-dir-ea#i��ui#�--Whatee�-Geur�tyhar�d--t6�e-etf�er-s+tie�®ratrae#c� ..-�-,r.Yt",- �--pr+va#e--ser�suttawg-fir-� (E-CONorthwest)-ta-develop-population proje6#+ons for--the-next 2-0-years-The €CONorthwest-OFM and OFM-projections for 2029-are provided in Table 3 below: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1-6 . ei Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction Employment Extrapolations and Scenarios. Memo, Berk and Associates. February 9. 2009 Note: The OFM population e6tk ate-e"",'90-people�sen 2008 _was utilized as a starting point for calculating the average annual growth rates and average annual population growth figures in this table. Source. -State Office of Financial Management -Population-Projections- (Jan -2002). The Growth Management Act requires that the County plan for a 20-year population growth that is based upon the growth management population projection by the office of financial management anrffd-k the-Fange pt--®josted-by JOFM). The county and each city must include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur for the succeeding twenty-year period.-ueless-the-Ceui4ty-ha-s--st-tdie&49 -prove that-a-dWerentfigte-&4s-jestafie[d�— The-eurr�eM i�1 J-fr-t?rr. +., o I o , -,-;e_ tien -re 205.9-91 people -to-a The County's 2022 .2029 population projection of ' 4-,44-7-244,892 is within OFM's range and therefore requires no further justification. The rationale for using this figure, which is close to -C4Ahwest's-OFM's medium projection, include: an overall slowing trend for growth in Washington State and Whatcom County, raQnsi&tee^s"'+" ^st-grewth tre ���",--^� ^ll„ty-of-:if9- aPA-ensuring an adequate land supply to accommodate this -growth, the need to plan for growth and the need to protect the quality of life and natural resources in Whatcom County. This population projection is selected for planning purposes only and does not obligate the County to encourage growth. Given past population trends and the requirements of GMA, planning for population growth, whether it occurs or not, is critical for the quality of life, protection of natural resources and economic health of Whatcom County. Table 45 shows how the total projected 2022 2029 population would be distributed assuming: 1) that all of the UGAs have been annexed into existing cities; and---2) that each city -urban area receives a share of the county's overall growth; and 3) that the portion of growth to urban areas is approximately 85% of county -wide growth, with the balance to rural areas. -apportioned -according tc�-east-i-6ity's-sergprelao^��., �1.,^ gr�awtta-prejectie+�s. ITJI-V1 Whatcom County County Comprehensive Plan 1-7 465 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction Table 45. Whatcom County Population Projections and Distribution W. tj{z ',IY N. z; t�VQi4ffp u�at�on,:� f--,v, P�ole�' k1�iL0 ;.;,, �� � � �� 6Fty�eFF��ts) unmcorporatedFFtc __ Pop�fatwn��°' Net,Gr�ou�uth�'` �,.� _ ,�,,,,`":-'a ,$f •s. �K' q ;, : �,; , y. ",-...: 4 • - --yam. 2 ..<3b. 89,284 111,761 22,477 NE llm. ham ;:.,s;< 67� 040 � 13,055 35,4E5 Blrch BaY wM ar;' 5,290 8,529 3,239 4,667 8,916 4,249 3�---79 4 7-7-9 a 942 163 Columbia Valli.:;: a 3,924 5 000 1,076 ye.R.R r. ':: ,y•: - 2,395 3.623 1,228 Everson ° ; 2-,035 -2-,2-56 3,94-2 4,656, 12,019 20,140 8,121 Ferndale 8,758 "34 a�2-2 �88 11,613 15,078 3,465 L nden.,. ;:..'...: 9828 9604 449W 7-,2-96 N 1,137 2.081 944 Nooksack 854 895 884 999 1,279 2,072 793 S.uimas a7-9 995 4,gW 674 131,608 177,200 45,592 Subtotal 92,Z83 1-06 503 -42 69 4' 561-7-8 Unincorporated Rural ;.. 59,392 67,692 8,300 Whatcom Coun :.1 6A;3I1 ",�36 I a 1;92a Total Whatcom ,;' ":. ': . :., 191;000 241;892 '" ' 53,8W-:. County -_.- �:..... :::....:.. .�:::. -�668a�4.. a-66;8-1'4 �4;9-1� , 68�-93: Source: Whawem-Gedr+tyd €conomis FoFesat4E-GOWFthwest-May-2002�Washington Office of Financial Management (July 28; 2002Aprill, 2009) and -County-Council-(January2004); t is ans®-p the y�..,r--e rea rn II Inn..{o {h'n in 4c-- i I{ 'c nrn ion{nrt {ho{ n{h -tl irvz.Ztr'�.-u.t-v'rcv i'n'7'n-�-a,�rrr��rp�ir¢�d -FtCPtl7V9-FII-It=�-r'c--, �r `✓rv�cv cu c� c��u'�citr�e� ninoorporated -a'r-eas-'(-ruraI agriculture; -etc,) will-have--55;874-people. �-c��esdi-4gl�te�-fag-ur�a�-la'rfd c::NNI;, �"e-seu��+ �s-+�sjr�g-a-p'r-e�eetaea-e#�34; � #a c�a;-��rag-p'u�peses Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan HE M Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction Emplovment Forecasts and Distribution The Growth Management Act requires that comprehensive plans and/or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their iurisdictions to accommodate employment growth. In 2009, the Act was amended to ensure that the employment growth accommodated medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial and industrial facilities. Whatcom County contracted with ICF Jones & Stokes and Berk and Associates, to develop Countywide Population and Employment Extrapolations and Scenarios, and then to provide allocation scenarios to the various urban and rural areas. These employment scenarios were reviewed with cities, the Growth Management Coordinating Council, and their report was first published on September 23, 2008, and later edited and re -published on February 9, 2009 prior to the scopinq process for the Environmental Impact Statement on the Urban Growth Area review. The employment forecasts considered the various sectors of the labor force in Whatcom County, including construction, finance, government, manufacturing, retail, services, transportation, and wholesale trade. The forecasts also considered the labor participation rate as the proportion of labor to the total population of all apes. For the purpose of Urban Growth Areas, non-agricultural labor force was considered in the forecasts. After the county -wide employment forecasts were complete, the allocation of that employment to the various urban areas was also developed in a report by Berk and Associates, published on January 13, 2009. These allocation scenarios considered allocation based on current pattern of Mob distribution and an alternative approach to allocatinq job growth distinguishing between regional and local employment growth. Variations on these scenarios were tested in an EIS prepared in 2009. The common theme recommended by the Growth Management Coordinating Council was a labor participation rate of 49%. In some urban areas, this rate is either high (Bellingham) or low (Columbia Valley and Birch Bay). City requests for allocation of employment, and the sizing of the Urban Growth Area, were based largely on the local request recognizing the incentives that cities have for larger employment areas (sales tax, property tax). Due to the challenge in designating lands for commercial or industrial development, the allocation of employment allowed for these optimistic scenarios if they did not result in expansion of Urban Growth Areas. If expansion of an Urban Growth Area would be considered for employment purposes, greater justification for the need for employment lands should be required. Table 5 shows the allocation of total non- aaricultural emplovment to the various Urban Growth Areas. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan WO 467 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction Table 5: Whatcom County Employment Projections and Distribution Study Area 2008 Employment Growth Allocation 2029 Total Employment Bellingham UGA 51,153 : 18,829 am Birch Bay UGA 436 489 925 Blaine UGA 2,971 ; 1,903 4,874 Chevy Point UGA 1,182 i 760 1,942 Columbia Valley UGA 90 359 449 Everson UGA 638 ; 602 1,240 Ferndale UGA 5,534 i 4,335 9,869 Lynden UGA 4,832 3,115 7,947 Nooksack UGA 206 ; 130 336 SumasUGA 254 ......... .............._.._._...__.�. _...._..._........._..._...._....�,�, current estimate of non -agriculture wage and salary employment for the County as a whole (84,850) likely due to jobs for which ESD was unable to assign a specific location. Demographics The culturally diverse demographic makeup of the county's population has an effect on land use patterns. For example, Whatcom County residents with children may choose different kinds of transportation and recreation than retired people. Single -parent families and large extended families need different kinds of housing. And levels of service requirements will vary according to cultural and individual abilities. Another influence on county demographics is the cyclical influx of seasonal residents, primarily from Canada, who maintain recreational homes in parts of the county. Areas most influenced by seasonal residency include Point Roberts, Birch Bay, and the Foothills SubareaP-ar-ad+se-L-akes/P-eacefu4-Valley-area-near--�R. In the period between 1990 and 2000, the age composition of Whatcom County's population changed appreciably, and some of the changes were different from what was happening state- wide and nation-wide. These changes were partly due to in -migration. For instance, the number of people at or nearing retirement age (50-69 years) increased in Whatcom County faster than simple aging could account for, and at a much greater rate than the state average (Whatcom County Population and Economic Forecast, ECONorthwest, May 2002, pp. 2-7 & 2-8). In 2000, there were 19,400 people age 65 and older in Whatcom County (11.6% of the total population). Over 4,900 of the 65+ group had self -care or mobility limitations. Approximately 1,560 (8%) had incomes below the poverty level. By comparison, approximately 15% of Whatcom County residents under age 65 lived in poverty. Census age groups containing the traditional ages of college students (15-19 and 20-24) have significantly larger counts than the pre -college -age and post -college -age groups. In 2000, Whatcom County residents between the ages of 15 and 64 numbered 114,185. There were 33,229 children under 15. The county's racial composition also changed between 1990 and 2000. Although in 2000 88% of all county residents were white, there has nevertheless been an increase in populations of Native Americans, African Americans, Asian -Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. The Hispanic population Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan i6B] ; Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction is the most difficult to assess accurately because of its mobility. It is the primary component of a large contingent of migrant farm workers. The Washington State Employment Security Department estimates that of the approximately 3,600 farm workers employed annually in the county (not including agricultural support services such as processing and trucking), 2,300 are seasonal or migrant workers. Land Use History When Euro-American immigrants first arrived on Bellingham Bay in the 1850s, the landscape of Whatcom County was comprised of mature conifer forests, winding streams and rivers, numerous lakes and wetlands, and small natural meadows. Lummi and Nooksack people inhabited villages near the coast and along the rivers and lakes at strategic fishing locations. The Nooksack Indian people cultivated root crops they had developed along the Nooksack Valley where sub -irrigated meadows were ideal sites for such plants as camas and "Indian carrot." They emphasized the use of root crops, perhaps much more than other native peoples along the Pacific Coast. The abundance of high -quality timber and easy accessibility to water for milling and transport were the principal reasons Euro-American immigrants first came to Whatcom County in the 1850s. Small communities grew along Bellingham Bay and the Nooksack River as more immigrants arrived in Whatcom County. They began clearing the forests and draining the wetland areas for farmsteads. Between 1890 and 1925, 130,000 acres of lowland Nooksack Valleyforests were cleared for farms. In addition, logging companies sold logged -over land to their employees and to immigrants from the East Coast for small farmsteads. As a result of the sale of small parcels of logged -over lands, the average farm size in Whatcom County is relatively small --about 84 acres --compared to the statewide average of 523 acres (1997 Census of Agriculture Profiles, USDA). Many lumber and shake mills and other industrial plants were built in Bellingham, on Lake Whatcom, and in other areas of the county, while new commercial and residential buildings were being developed in all communities. Coal mining was taking place at several locations in Whatcom County at this time, and major fish processing plants were constructed on Bellingham Bay. Whatcom County's population in 1910 was 49,511. Between 1925 and 1950, there was little change in the land use patterns that had been developed during the previous fifty years. Some land, which had been cleared for agriculture was abandoned and naturally regenerated into second -growth forests. Most areas that were harvested for timber had reseeded and were growing mixed forests of conifers and deciduous trees. Residential and industrial development continued to grow, but at a slower pace than during the previous fifty years. Commercial centers remained within the core of the major cities. By 1950, Whatcom County's total population had grown to 66,733, with the majority of the growth occurring in the cities. Between 1950 and 2000, the amount of land devoted to commercial activity gradually increased in response to population growth. Expanded use of the automobile encouraged commercial activities and residential development outside city centers. Coal mining ceased, but sand and gravel mining grew in importance. Farming became increasingly competitive, and the economic pressure tended to concentrate agricultural resources on the most productive soils. The trend toward abandonment or conversion of farmland to other uses continued. Some lands in the Nooksack Valley, which were formerly cleared for agriculture reverted back to native forest cover. Residential, commercial, and industrial uses continued to expand into agricultural areas. These Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan W 0 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction changes picked up speed during the 1960s and 1970s as Whatcom County experienced a population boom. The total population for Whatcom County in 2000 had grown to 166,814, an increase of approximately 137% in 40 years. Current Land Use Whatcom County covers 1,377,645 acres, or approximately 2,152 square miles. Of that total area, about 1,107,453 acres, or 80%, is either covered with forest or is managed for forest resources. This total includes virtually all federal lands and all state and private forest lands in unincorporated Whatcom County. A significant portion of this total (877,000 acres) is under federal management by either the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service or the US Interior Department, North Cascades National Park. Cities cover 29-06330,647 acres. Land use ... #effw „ nen4ede a por-ated-VVha#66t�i-G®unty-(4W-0,7A�r�v--'� &)-Gan be--sus►��,armed-b�s-leerie^y-�,�"re-dast�utiooa-of-#kae-Saar-ious-�ascv�T-able-6-r�faeets-fie-laud-use the�vPe�footh[Ms—whic-i--were—ini€i,all)e--I ae�ted—between-4-90e—and—l-N0--now---suPF— se�iat4ya^ds of t�t�es. Semi-a,ees-ef oriad-f�est-stit�r� la-nd 4n-WhaWc)m�eunt-y—large-tr-asts-of-u aanaged-forest-are-feund-pr-+meraly on-feder-aNands Table--6—Land-Use-D ism bu bore-on-Nose-l= edera l-Lased s ;Land -Use T®tai Aeses ". Jxercent of :. CGUnty -: _Total" 23.1..,352 49.-2 A rica lture '. a-16; I-24 24T FtesidanYiat 537008 -14-3 �Iasapat . 29, '12� 6 2 Mining,-RshingA Related: 2,47-7 0� Uses Public-&-IJi fies j 49,729 lk1ENy�:tF13�8e-1ViaHi�#3 ... Gemmer-Gial-&-seFi+ices 87856 4-9 i=i,rnrai�Gn Fpbst-L-ands I 7;100 Pro pedy-with-ne-Assesser's Lard-use-.Gde-(-F�eads, !lands.. a4e"e4JeeksaGk-River etG:. 8,589 1,8 TOTAL-S 47-"41-Acres Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1-12 470 Council Introduction Draft. November 10. 2009 Chanter 1 - Introduction Resource land uses, which include agriculture, forestry, and minerals, are the largest category of land use in Whatcom County. Map 2 displays the distribution of agriculture and forestry land uses based on County Assessor's data within Whatcom County. From the map it is evident that agricultural land use predominates throughout the western lowlands of the county and in the South Fork Nooksack Valley. Forest land use is concentrated on the uplands of the county. (See Chapter 8, "Resource Lands," for more detailed information on each of these land uses.) Map 3 displays the distribution of commercial and industrial land uses in Whatcom County. The majority of commercial land uses occur next to major transportation routes, such as the Guide Meridian, or within the boundaries of cities. There are also concentrations of commercial uses in the Birch Bay UGA and Point Roberts. The majority of industrial parcels are also located in the cities, their UGAs or at the Cherry Point industrial area. There-e e a total of 14,222 aG;es 9 itada st iaN a d-7,,045 aores-in-#*-GlaerpyL-P-ei dustra-l-area.-The locational pattern shown by Map 3 indicates the importance of transportation connections to these land uses. (See Chapter 6, "Transportation," and Chapter 7, "Economics.") Vacant lands are scattered throughout the county. Map 4 depicts the general distribution of vacant lands, as defined by the latest Whatcom County Assessor's records. Vacant lands 'are land which at the time of the assessor's survey appear to be undeveloped, or if previously developed, are presently vacant and unused. They are usually lands being held for future development. Vacant lands are particularly concentrated in and around urban areas of the county. Map 5 graphically portrays the distribution of all single-family residential parcels in unincorporated Whatcom County, as interpreted from the Whatcom County Assessor's property information database. The majority of single-family residents are concentrated in the cities and the major urban and intensely developed rural portions of the county such as Sudden Valley, Paradise Lakes, Glacier, Lake Samish, Lake Whatcom (north end), Cain Lake, Birch Bay, Sandy Point, and Lummi Island. A fairly even, but lower, density distribution of single-family residences is scattered throughout the central rural portion of the county between Bellingham and Lynden, Ferndale and Everson/Nooksack. Another even but lower density distribution of single-family residences occurs between Ferndale and Blaine. As may be expected, single-family homes are also located along the valley floors of the three forks of the Nooksack. The Cherry Point industrial area, the agriculturally dominated area north of Lynden and the forested foothills in the eastern part of the county have very low to zero residential density. A prominent characteristic of Whatcom County housing is the high number of vacation, resort, and second -home units found throughout the county. In 2000 approximately 2/3 of the "vacant" units were actually occupied part of the year for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. Multi -family residential land use is displayed on Map 6. The majority of multi -family residential units are located in the urban areas of the county, primarily in and around Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, and Blaine. Within the unincorporated area of Whatcom County, multi -family housing units are found near Birch Bay, Sudden Valley, Glacier, Point Roberts and in the area between Bellingham and Lynden. According to the 2000 Census, there were 34,421 housing units within the unincorporated portions of Whatcom County. This figure equates to a residential housing density of 0.127 dwelling units per acre of land, or one residence per eight acres, on land currently zoned to permit residences (Rural, Urban, Rural Residential, Agricultural, certain commercial zones, the Point Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1-13 471 Council Introduction Draft, November 10. 2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction Roberts Transitional zone, Eliza Island and Rural Forestry). The deRSi+„ Under the direction of the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County is required to develop transportation plans for future population growth. Part of the analysis for transportation planning includes defining the density of population by transportation analysis zones. Map 7 presents the housing density per acre for Whatcom County in 2000, displayed by Census Block. (See Chapter 3, "Housing," and the Housing Background Document for more information.) M.+iiro 1 �r�r! 1I— mlw��,T. W1 • •.. p.��. ..� -... .�..W, _..��...w.w. -. W1.1- �. �.. • a.� . a .. �. .,. . ate. liasm dMIREMERMOM "a. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 1-14 472 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Chapter Two LAND USE INTRODUCTION The fundamental precept of this chapter and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is to implement the Vision for Whatcom County as defined through the Matsem GounV. The-Ne�T Whatcom 2031 visioning process. Chapter Organization The Land Use chapter and map include a set of adopted land use designations which combine the predicted needs of future populations with the availability of land and the desires, of residents. These needs and desires are expressed through the goals,. policies, and actions. included below as well as through implementation of the land use map. This chapter is divided into sections that address: • Overall Land Use • Urban Growth Areas • Rural Lands • Open Space • Essential Public Facilities; and • Adult Businesses Process Each subsection of this chapter describes the process used in creating that section. GMA Goals, County -Wide Planning Policies, and Community Value Statements The Land Use chapter supports many of the GMA goals. The land use plan is based on a vision of Whatcom County that concentrates growth in urban areas but recognizes the need for economic diversity in�,, a; ef4heacross the county. This chapter has been coordinated with all other chapters in the plan. Natural resource industries are encouraged and property rights and the permitting process are addressed. . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-1 473 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) are supported throughout the Land Use chapter in goals, policies, and actions and in land use designations. I The "Urban Versus Rural Distinctions" and "Urban Growth Areas" sections of the CWPP are addressed by discouraging urban levels of development outside urban growth areas, allowing small cities adequately sized UGAs, accommodating the projected population and calculating needed land area, defining rural areas and drawing distinct boundaries between rural and urban areas, and minimizing impacts on resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas. The "Contiguous, Orderly Development and Planning in Urban Growth Areas" section of the CWPP is addressed through the urban growth area analysis and identification of areas where timely and adequate services can be provided. The "Open Space/Greenbelt Corridors" section of the CWPP is addressed and supported in .goals and polices in the Open Space section of this chapter and in the designation of Open. Space Corridors. Goal 6 of the Growth Management Act, regarding Property Rights and the "Private .Propey Rights" section in the CWPP and Visioning Community Value Statements have been addressed by the emphasis on incentives including transfer of development. rights rather than downzoning. The Fiscal Impact section of the CWPP has been addressed by providing urban growth areas. in the county, providing for economic development opportunities in the eastern portion of the county, and addressing fiscal impact in intedocal agreements with cities. The Citizen Participation goals of both the Growth Management Act and the County -Wide Planning Policies have been addressed in the development of this chapter through .Whatcom County. The Next Generations Visioning Process (see Appendix C), the Whatcom 2031 visioning process, citizen committee participation, and public hearings. Also, specific goals and. actions give direction for property owner notification and the establishment of on -going citizen committee input. The Land Use chapter also incidentally addresses and is coordinated with many others of the County -Wide Planning Policies. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-2 474 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use OVERALL LAND USE - INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this section is to provide a broad, general direction for land use policy in Whatcom County. It is the foundation upon which all of the subsections of the Land Use chapter are based. It sets direction for the subsections and provides a mechanism of measurement for consistency for readers. Process The Land Use chapter was developed to address future land use in Whatcom County in accordance with Section 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act. It represents the county's policy plan for growth over the next twenty years. The Land Use chapter implements many of the goals and objectives in the other plan chapters through adopted land use designations and other action recommendations. The Land Use chapter was also developed in accordance with the County -Wide Planning Policies and the Whatcom County., The Next Generations and Whatcom 2031 Visioning recommendat16i §' and community value statements, and was integrated with the other plan chapters to ensure consistency throughout the comprehensive plan. The Land Use chapter considers the general distribution and location of land uses, the appropriate intensity and density of land uses Igiven current development trends, and the provision of public services. The root of the Land Use chapter is the Whatcom County. The Next Generations Visioning. Recommended Land Use Alternative. An appointed group of citizens designed and implemented a public process to give people the opportunity to express their views, criticisms, and concerns. Through an extensive series of surveys and town hall meetings, a set of value statements for Whatcom County were drafted. These statements and the overall county vision are being re- evaluated as part of the Whatcom 2031 visioning workshops that occurred in the fait of 2008 and subsequent comprehensive plan update. The-serittee +�,e;; �; re-taed use patterns repFesenting Fesidents, „isi& is and .,. WeE; The final ReGOFnFnend Preferred Land Use Altemative—based on citizen input on the ';;nd-ate, -tax ; athered throughout the Whatcom 2031 process during Phase I -as ;; s ze^-i+ €re► the first reund effareys-aed fneethW, was a conceptual depiction of the community vision which guided the development of the Land Use chapter. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-3 475 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use GMA Requirements Section 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act requires that the comprehensive plan of a county include a land use element which designates proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses. It is required to include population densities, building intensities, and projections of future population growth. Building intensity can be described in terms of such variables as lot coverage, building height, and the spacing between buildings and property lines and between buildings and other structures. BACKGROUND SUMMARY Almost 740%Most of the non-federal land in unincorporated Whatcom County is dedicated to forestry and agricultural uses. The next largest category of land use is residentia , ° of +March,=e-a. Much smaller areas of the county are dedicated to industrial, commercial, and other uses. The goal of growth management is to provide sufficient land area with adequate facilities and utilities either presently available or economically feasible to accommodate future growth. This means having an adequate distribution of land to provide housing, services, jobs, and resource land for the expected population. Whatcom County has almost 790 square miles of area outside of National Park and National Forest, which will accommodate the expected increase of ;-1a4 53,892 people over the 20-year planning period #rem 2000 to 2022 in Whatcom County. However, this growth must be accommodated in ways that achievedesired land use goals. An adequate supply of serviced industrial and commercial land must also be provided. It is expected that an increase of approximately 33,188 new non-agricultural related jobs will be created in the next twenty years fens- aP Maaeting-A44a/ysis-{-k4 Gke_ltPXei,nrn °ssesiate�;-�^ Fkindicates—that Of the ''--.;;5 ites-ef i+nerl r.r .J„Jiyr`c'.rie�-i%�rl�,o+r:.-,I I.,nr! : •�imf�'6rporn _A sarne Gl: this land is subbstanti-ally develeped or in etheF usses that I.Amuld prohibit industdal deveienmen+ A.1hen those faGtOFs are nensidered there .ire ohe„+ 4,220 e+ ^nres-of-iF1 tQt uav�.-�vPmo-,T�� ��c��T�ra�a�-�—avvoz�zzv-ncc--uv, lan4.—VA-<<m4hls---a ppea r s--more-than-adequate-4e-,,,eat-the-pr-9jested-demarid-f-o�apprex4mately e ysR 2001 an 2022, the eeaveilabi;Tt'-er-i�e;.�^+,�seec�s wi"nJJfban-6rewth-Areas-(including-cities)-aver-the-20-year--planning-period: A key need for meeting land demands to generate family wage employment is land that is "ready to go" for industrial development. Most potential industrial employers seeking to locate in Whatcom County require large tracts of land where the infrastructure and site improvements are already in place. This is a major missing element of the industrial land supply. It is important to assess the demand and supply of land planned and zoned for various types of uses to meet the economic needs of the county, as well as utilize this information to guide policy decisions regarding land use. The multiplicity of values reflected in the vision statements must all be considered, in addition to the competing goals and policies in other chapters of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-4 476 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land tie comprehensive plan. Having adequate residential lands must include adequate provision of services, and it means densities that meet the mandates of the Growth Management Act to prevent urban sprawl as well as reflecting the desires of Whatcom County residents. Industrial lands should be provided in areas that have access to transportation routes and adequate infrastructure and can meet the demands of market trends. Commercial areas should also be located so as to provide the kinds of goods and services that meet the needs of local residents with consideration given to market -driven forces. Sufficient urban land must be provided to accommodate growth. Rural areas with a range of densities must also be available. All of this needs to be done in light of those aspects of the county which, are most valued: water quality, productive agricultural land, economic development in rural areas, distinct boundaries between rural and urban areas, and predictability in land use plans. ISSUES, GOALS, AND POLICIES Issues for this section were drawn -from those identified in the Whatcom County: Next Generations Visioning Process and reinforced during the Whatcom 2031 visioning process. Numerous meetings, surveys/questionnaires and other methods were used to identify what W67s important to people in Whatcom County. Accommodating Growth Community Value Statements encourage concentrating growth into urban areas. This allows for efficient provision of sqrvices 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. 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-2: Where existing development does not already prohibit it, draw a distinct boundary between urban and rural uses. Policy 2A-3: Provide a range of land uses which considers locational and market factors as well as required quantities of land. Policy 2A-4: Designate land uses that reflect the best use of the land. Policy 2A-5: Provide predictability to property owners in land use designation. Policy 2A-6: Allow appropriate development in existing small self-contained communities through the use of the "Small Town" land use designation. Policy 2A-7: Provide- sufficient and appropriately located residential, commercial, and industrial lands. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-5 477 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2A-8: Include business/industry. parks, tourist/resort areas and allowance for existing crossroads commercial areas in commercial lands designations. Policy 2A-9: Retain existing rural and heavy industrial areas in the northwestern region of the county. Policy 2A-10: Recognize the importance of tourism and its influence on the need for land for various types of development. Policy 2A-11: Ensure that the development potential of contiguous lands in common ownership is not compromised when urban growth boundaries are designated. This should be accomplished without expanding UGA boundaries beyond that ownership and without bridging natural divisions of urban/rural land uses such as roads, rivers, and other natural features. Policy 2A-12: Adoption of residential, industrial and commercial comprehensive plan or zoning designations in rural areas must comply with the criteria for "limited areas of more intense rural development" in the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070(5)). Resort Communities and Master Planned Resorts The County's resort areas are important to tourism and provide numerous and varied recreational opportunities for county residents and visitors. Historically important resort areas include Birch Bay, Point Roberts, the ,sonemiahmoo arid -West RenilahffvGe--areas, and. the Mount Baker winter recreational area. New developments, '-Gount+cy-Sti�b have expanded the role of the resort communities in providing recreational and employment opportunities for residents. GOAL 26: Encourage the continued viability.of existing resort communities and allow the development of new Master Planned Resorts in the future. Policy 26-1: Support the economic viability of the County's tourist industry by permitting master planned resorts within urban growth areas through the planned unit development process. Policy 26-2: New resort. development in rural, areas outside of UGAs and outside established . resort areas, should only be permitted as Master Planned Resorts and only when substantially in compliance with these policies. Policy 26-3: Work with property owners in the resort communities to develop an understanding of the unique needs of these areas and evaluate land_ use regulations for their responsiveness to these needs. Policy 26-4: New resort development and Master Planned Resorts should be developed consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas. Policy 213-5: No ,new urban or suburban land uses should. be allowed in the vicinity of Master Planned Resorts, except in areas otherwise designated fenas urban growth areas under the Comprehensive Plan. . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-6 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 213-6: Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm water, . security, fire suppression, and emergency medical, provided on -site shall be limited - to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and services may be provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers, . including municipalities and special purpose districts, provided that all costs associated with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master planned resort are fully borne by the resort. A master planned resort and service providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, provided that such facilities and utilities serve only the master planned resort or urban growth areas. Policy 213-7: Master Planned Resorts should only include other residential uses within its boundaries if residential uses are integrated into and support the on -site recreational nature of the resort. The density of such residential uses should be consistent with density requirements of the planned unit development regulations. Policy 213-8: Master Planned Resorts should only be approved when it can be demonstrated that on -site and off -site impacts to public services and infrastructure have been fully considered and mitigated. Policy 213=9: Master Planned Resorts should not be located on designated agricultural lands. Master Planned Resorts should not be located on forestry resource lands designated under the Comprehensive Plan. Capital Facilities There should be a relationship between provision of services and land use designations.. Levels of service need to be set that will assure adequate services within realistic financing capabilities. This needs to be balanced against the amount of funding which taxpayers are willing to. support. GOAL 2C: Channel growth to areas where adequate services can be provided. Policy 2C-1: Coordinate capital facilities and land use planning. Policy2C-2: Support the comprehensive plan with capital facility plans -that facilitate urban growth in UGAs at acceptable urban levels of service. Policy 2C-3: Preclude urban development within a UGA until public services and facilities are available. Policy 2C-4: Prior to modifying growth allocations or UGA boundaries, ensure that capital facility plans address the following elements: a. Provide a 20-year facility plan to serve urban growth within the UGA boundaries. b. Provide financial plans addressing at least a 6-year period with funding sources. c. Address existina un-served areas as well as new .UGA expansion areas. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-7 479 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2C-5: Where public facility and service plans are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, allow for reconciliation of the public facility and service paps as part of the 7-Year Review scheduled for completion in 2011. Reconciliation steps will include: a. Consistencv Analvsis. The Countv and cities will review capital facilit plans for consistency with the results of the most recent 10-Year UGA Review process and current comprehensive plans. Capital facility plan consistency means demonstrating the ability to serve the proposed growth levels, growth boundaries, and land use patterns established in the, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. b. Government and Special District Coordination. The County will coordinate with city, special district, and other service providers to ensure amendments to capital facility plans support the Comprehensive Plan. c. Public Participation. The County Comprehensive Plan update process will be based on a public participation program that addresses citizen i66id on the key issues associated. with the update. d. Amendment. Only those portions of capital facility plans in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan are required to be amended. Local issues of concern or changed conditions maybe. addressed. e. Refined Growth Levels and Boundaries. Where the olannina process results in refined recommendations for growth levels, growth boundaries, land uses or other essential features, corresponding capital facility plan amendments will be considered in coniunction with the 7-Year Review process. Regulations It is very important to Whatcom County citizens to maintain local control over land use decisions. At. the same time some people want to see regulations streamlined and reduced. Regulations should, be clear, concise, and predictable with enough flexibility to allow for reasonable and efficient decision -making. Regulations should be enforced. People would like to see an incentive program to encourage land to be used in ways that meet community goals. GOAL 2D: Refine the regulatory system to ensure accomplishment of desired land use goals in a fair and equitable manner. Policy 213-1: Eliminate unnecessary regulations. Policy 2D-2: Eliminate regulations that could be more effectively achieved through incentive or education programs. Policy 213-3: Streamline development regulations to eliminate unnecessary time delays.. Policy 213-4: Coordinate permitting requirements among jurisdictions to minimize duplication and. delays. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan W.* .0 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2D-5: Provide enforcement of regulations. Policy 213-6: Review and update the Whatcom County Shoreline Management Program eflse-as the State issues new guidelines. Uwe -updates should improve the integration of the Shoreline Program with Growth Management in order to provide predictability and consistency in regulation, and eliminate regulatory redundancy. Policy 2D-7: Incompatible uses will be discouraged adjacent to public use airports. to preserve the safety and efficient use of these airports. Incompatible uses are land uses that: • Could be impacted by airplane noise; • Could create or be impacted by airplane accidents; or • Create height hazards that could adversely impact aircraft that are . taking off or landing. Policy 2D-8: Require disclosure of potential airport noise impacts to people who Ere buying or obtaining a permit on property within one mile of a public. use airport. Policy 2D-9: Land uses that are incompatible with the operation of the Bellingham International Airport; r Lynden Airport should be, discouraged when Whatcom County evaluates conditional use permits and rezones. Specifically, Whatcom County. should follow the process set forth below when considering whether proposed conditional use permits and rezones would allow incompatible land uses: • Notify the applicable airport representative of the proposed conditional use permit or rezone. Consider. comments submitted by the airport representative relating to compatibility of the proposed land use with the operation of the airport; and Determine whether the proposed conditional use or rezone is within zone 1 (runway protection zone), zone 2 (inner approachideparture zone), zone 3 (inner turning zone), zone 4 (outer approach/departure zone), zone 5 (sideline zone), or zone 6 (traffic pattern zone) as shown on. the Safety Compatibility Zone Examples from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Shutt Moen Associates, January 2002, p. 9-38). Safety compatibility zone "example 1" will be -applied to the 9Wne-Muflisipaa-Aifper-t-aed Lynden Airport and safety compatibility zone "example 3" will be applied by the'Bellingham International'Airport; and • Compare any proposed or potential land uses within zones 1 through 6.with the Basic Safety Compatibility Qualities and the Safety Compatibility Criteria Guidelines in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Shutt Moen Associates, January 2002, pp. 9-44, 9-45 and 9-47) and identify incompatible land uses. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-9 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use • The above provisions of Policy 2D-9 do not apply to property owned by the airport. However, airport owners should assess the compatibility of land uses proposed on airport property with operation of the airport. Policy 2D-10: Discourage tall structures around public use airports that hamper the efficient and safe use of navigable airspace. Specifically, discourage structures from exceeding the height of the imaginary surfaces defined in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 around airports that have mapped such imaginary surfaces (airports that have mapped Part 77 imaginary surfaces are shown in Appendix I of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan). GOAL 2E: Encourage and support individual responsibility to achieve community values._ Policy 2E-1: Provide education on the assets of the community and offer incentives for individual citizens to take responsibility to protect those assets. GOAL 2F: Give a high priority to the use of a comprehensive incentive program to encourage achievement of land use goals. Policy 2F-1: Develop a.. set of incentives, including economic, which encourages property. owners to achieveland use goals. Policy 2F-2: Base incentive programs_ on suggestions from citizens, government officials, and experts in the field. Policy 2F-3: Revise regulations to include incentive programs. Policy 2F-4: Review and adopt, where. appropriate, incentive programs such as cluster density bonuses in urban growth areas, purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights and tax deferrals. Policy 2F-5: Monetary compensation as an economic incentive shall be based only on market value at the time of compensation,. not on "possible" future value of the land. Policy 2F-6: Monitor incentive programs on a five-year basis to ensure the comprehensive plan -goals are being achieved. Develop an alternate approach if necessary. Policy 2F-7: Establish a transferrable development rights (TDR) sending area in the Drayton Harbor Watershed. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-10 SM November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Public Participation in Decision -Making People in Whatcom County want to be involved in government decision -making. They want government to be responsive; they want to be personally notified of changes; they want their input considered. People also want to see more issues subject to a vote. GOAL 2G: Encourage citizen participation in the decision -making process. Policy 2G-1: Examine and improve methods to notify affected property owners of proposed land use changes. Policy 2G-2: Ensure early and continuous public involvement in planning decisions through development and implementation of public participation plans for large-scale, long-range planning activities. Property Rights Property rights are -an important issue in Whatcom County. People want to use their land as they wish as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others. It is not necessary for the preservatf0b of property rights and protection of the environment and resources to conflict with one another. People are looking for ways to achieve all of these things. They understand that it is important to protect the community's general interest. GOAL 2H: Preserve private property rights while recognizing the importance of the rights of the community, including protecting the . natural environment and conserving resources. Policy 2H-1: Review and retain regulations that serve to protect the public welfare, health, and. safety. Policy 2H-2: Establish programs such as cluster density bonuses in urban growth areas, purchase of development rights and transfers of development rights, where appropriate, to compensate property owners when rights are unduly infringed upon. Policy 2H-3: Provide information to the public as to government's role and responsibility in relation to property rights. Diverse Cultural Composition It is recognized that Whatcom County is becoming more diverse and people understand that accepting this diversity is important. GOAL 2J: Encourage individuals to accept cultural diversity in our community. Policy 2J-1: Encourage the preservation of cultural resources. Policy 2J-2: Ensure that land use policies are not discriminatory. Policy 2J-3: Cooperate with Tribal governments to ensure local traditions are respected in all land -use decisions. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-11 .• November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2J-4: Protect culturally and spiritually significant places from non -essential development that is viewed as incompatible by the affected community. Flooding Flooding of rivers and streams in Whatcom County is a natural event due to the combination of climate, geology, and topography present in the region. Two major floods occurred in 1989 and 1990 along the Nooksack River, with damage estimates running over $20 million for 1990 alone. The cities of Nooksack, Everson, Sumas, and Ferndale are often flooded by the Nooksack. A major study and plan for managing flood hazards on the lower Nooksack, entitled the Lower Nooksack River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, was completed in October 1999. Flood damage can also occur along smaller streams in Whatcom County, especially on those streams associated with alluvial. fans. The majority of the Nooksack River floodplain is currently used for agricultural purposes. Residential density within the floodplain is low; however, several major transportation routes cross the floodplain and have been temporarily closed during periods of flooding.. Increased building development within the floodplain, and especially within the floodway where flood water velocity can be great enough to sweep away structures, could heighten the existing level of flood hazards along the Nooksack. Development on alluvial fans can also increase flood hazards. Chapter 11 Environment, contains more detailed discussion of flood issues, as well as goals and policies for managing flood hazards in Whatcom County. 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. Policy 2K-2: Use the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan as a basis to balance land use and flooding. Policy 2K-3: DTsGedrage Prohibit expansion of urban growth areas into flood- pr-eneplainsafeas, except where allowed under the GMA, and consider danger to individuals related to flooding when designating land use in other areas. Policy 2K-4: Encourage multi -purpose problem solving relative to flooding, aquifer recharge, improved water quality, water for human consumption, .and fish habitat. Consider the purchase of land along the Nooksack River for flood water storage that .could be utilized by cities and water providers., Policy 2K-5: Development in flood prone areas must comply with adopted regulations to mitigate identified flood hazards. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-12 .;. November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Regions of Whatcom County Whatcom County is a large and diverse county. People living in different parts of the county have different priorities and understanding of what constitutes rural and urban lifestyles. It is important to citizens to emphasize these regional differences. GOAL 2L: Recognize the important regional differences within Whatcom County. Policy 2L-1: Use the subarea planning process to identify and support distinctions among different areas of the county. Policy 2L-2: Retain and periodically update the adopted Subarea Plans (Lummi Island, Cherry Point-Femdale, Lake Whatcom, Urban Fringe, Lynden-Nooksack Valley, Chuckanut-Lake Samish, Birch Bay -Blaine, Foothills, Point Roberts, South Fork Valley, and Eliza Island). Subarea Plans represent a long history of plan development in Whatcom County and provided the foundation for the county's first Growth Management comprehensive plan adopted in 1997. �T�e e)dant that they a consistent with +ho Wha tG" spe.-AG area a. Utilize a process which ensures consistency between the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and subarea plans. The subarea plan update process should include the following steps: 1) Consistency Analysis. The County should review subarea plans based on the priority order in subsection "b" for gaps,,overlaps, oc inconsistencies. Topics include, but are not limited to, plan boundaries, growth forecasts, land uses, capital facilities and services, horizon year, and other appropriate issues. 2) Regional and Local Govemment Coordination. The County should consult and coordinate with cities where city -associated UGAs are included in subarea plan boundaries. 3) Public Participation. Each subarea plan update process will be based on a public participation program that addresses citizen input on the key issues associated with the subarea plan update. 4) Subarea Plan Amendment. Only those portions of existing subarea plans in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan are required to be amended. Local issues of concern or changed conditions may be addressed. 5) Comprehensive Plan Revisions. Where the subarea plan process recommends growth levels, growth boundaries, or other essential features, Comprehensive Plan amendments will be considered in conjunction with the subarea plan update process. Land capacity analysis may also be updated if appropriate. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-13 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use b. Prioritize update of subarea plans. Subarea plans should be updated in. the following order. 1) Post-GMA Subarea Plans addressing UGAs. These subarea plans should be amended during Whatcom County's 7-Year Review scheduled for completion in 2011. Subarea plans addressing UGAs associated with a city should be coordinated with the city's comprehensive plan update process. 2) Post-GMA Subarea Plans addressing Rural ' Areas. These subarea plans should subject to a consistency review. If significant inconsistencies are found, these should be considered for potential update during Whatcom County's 7-Year Review scheduled for completion in 2011. Minor updates may be considered through the County's docket process in subsequent years. 3) Pre-GMA Subarea Plans. These should be updated in accordance with County department work programs or the docketing process. Priority criteria may be used to determine .th6 order of update. Example criteria include: a) whether update is needed for health, safety, or welfare concerns: b) whether there is a city -associated UGA included in the. subarea plan. boundaries — in which case, the subarea plan update could be timed to be developed in association with or following city comprehensive plan update process: c) whether the subarea plan would benefit from broader Policy concepts .to be completed in advance or in tandem: such as agriculturafland protection measures; d) whether a significant policy objective would be met by amending the plan. In the event .there is an inconsistency between a Subarea Plan and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, the Whatcom County . Comprehensive Plan shall prevail. Policy 2L-3: Emphasize forestry uses. with some provision for rural and agricultural uses in the south and southeastern regions of the county. Policy 2L-4: Expand the rural economic base.by supporting natural resource, cottage, and light industries, forestry, fishing, and agriculture, as well as allowing for some Small Towns in appropriate. regions of the county. Policy 2L-5: Emphasize agriculture in the north central regions of the county. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-14 M November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Fish and Wildlife Whatcom County has historically enjoyed abundant and diverse fish and wildlife populations. However, the combined effects of habitat reduction or degradation, fish harvest, hydropower development, hatchery management practices, and variations in natural conditions are now causing the decline of some of these populations. Maintaining healthy fish and wildlife populations is a vital goal in maintaining the quality of life in Whatcom County. Chapter 11: Environment, contains additional discussion of fish and wildlife issues, as well as goals and policies regarding fish and wildlife habitat protection and management. GOAL 2M: Protect and encourage restoration of habitat for fish and wildlife populations. Policy 2M-1: Ensure that new land uses do not degrade habitat of threatened and endangered species. Policy 21VI-2: Ensure that existing land uses do not cause further degradation of habitat for threatened and endangered species. Policy 21VI-3: Develop educational tools and incentives to encourage existing land uses to restore degraded habitat to properly functioning conditions, especially for threatened and endangered species. Policy 21VI-4: Place a note on all permits issued by the County for clearing or development activity within '/ mile of the documented habitat of threatened or endangered species, as shown on the county fish Distribution Map, alerting the property owner to the presence of these species. Policy 2M-5: Require subdivisions and short plats to be designated in a manner to protect fish habitat and water quality when a fish bearing stream or river passes through the site. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-15 487 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use URBAN GROWTH AREAS - INTRODUCTION This section presents policies, map designations and rationale for the urban growth areas for Bellingham, Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, Sumas, Birch Bay, Columbia Valley, and Cherry Point-,arad-6u-ster. Map 8 shows designated urban growth areas. Purpose The Growth Management Act requires the designation of urban -growth areas (RCW 36.70A.110). These areas are to include cities and other areas characterized by urban growth or adjacent to such areas, and are to be designed to accommodate the projected population growth for twenty years. Any growth that occurs outside the areas cannot be urban in nature. The Act further specifies that urban growth should, first, be located in areas that already have adequate existing public facilities and seivice capacity and, second, in areas where such services if not already available, can be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and serves services and any additional public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources. The purpose of this section is to establish areas within the County where growth will be directb�d. The boundaries, as defined, are an attempt to concentrate .growth and. provide urban areas in accordance with expected growth needs while ensuring the county's identified values to preserve private property rights and reduce unnecessary regulations. Process Gunty D4.A.R e�oepme-R Coniinr+s staff d this "c9—' .-�-,r--v�-r�oc.-o=.nc—c,Trs boundar+esfGr G9unty—yniFi-G4Grfxwated urban growth areas. Planning staff worked with representatives from . each city through the Growth Management Oversight Gemmi#eeCoordinating Council to develop the methodologies, policies, forecasts and allocations for each urban area. Each city was asked to submit a proposed Urban. Growth Area, along with growth allocation requests, for the County to consider. Following receipt of those requests, the County Council held a public hearing before developing a response to city proposals and final Rou r age o f„r+her refined through publin action. oA;,�.a,,�s �oa�re<,or<,T,-,-,�n„� eAdat;ear, fFe+�-fie-shies: GMA-Requite-ertlts The GlHwthh aTani .gager en+ AGt re ,iFes the -de ijnatio- of These as-arcs-to-inGtude-cities- Rd--of-her areea6-sharaeteri-zed-by--ur-ba4--grewth-er-adjac-ent-te st+Gh arEas,and a +^ a des; ned-to-assernmedate4he--prejes#ed p�latie"rewth-fe ty y tia#-es+�rs eot�idv— ".a areas ca�►ne� fie-e►#an-ire-nat>r The,. t- further speGifies that urban growth should, fiFst, be loGated in areas that already have publiG facilities and Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-16 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use URBAN GROWTH AREAS - BACKGROUND SUMMARY Each city provided information in their comprehensive plans, in work sessions with planning staff, and at public hearings and work sessions before the County Council to provide the data and assumptions used as a guide in setting Urban Growth Boundaries. The comprehensive plans for each city and the written and oral input provided by them at the public hearings and work sessions serve as background for establishing UGAs. E^^h Gity utilized different meth„delegi„� to de+zeF-rmi ne their present lawl PapaGity and-land use„eels—rTheiF analyses i„ a porated many -n,a faG +ores, o^m^ of 14hirh are unique +^ ind-i„i,+„^l Gi+ieS The cities worked with Whatcom County staff to develop a single methodology for analysis of the urban land capacity within the County_ Such variables as-serAse-capability, average population per household, occupancy, residential and employment densities, infrastructure requirements and non residential land needs, natural systems and critical areas constraints, ownership and development trends, and appropriate market factors to assure adequate supply and affordable housing were considered. URBAN GROWTH AREAS - ISSUES, GOALS, AND POLICIES Overall The Growth Management Act assigns the responsibility of designating urban growth areas to counties. Growth is to be encouraged within urban growth areas and discouraged outside them. Urban Growth Boundades-Areas are set in accordance with. the policies established in Chapter 36.70A RCW and applicable regulations. Specific consideration is given to approved comprehensive plans for the municipalities and .their supporting justification. Modifications have been incorporated into this plan during the 10 year UGA review based upon several criteria: • The need to assure logical service boundaries, • The need to avoid isolated pockets or abnormally irregular boundaries, • Consideration of land needs and capacity analysis of residential, commercialand and industrial needs within urban areas, and • 'Identification of special needs with respect to unique non -city. industrial sites (such as Cherry Point), and County areas for which the County will actively support incorporation as appropriate (such as Birclt Bay, or Columbia Valley). County -Wide Planning Policies set guidelines for designating city urban growth areas including:. • Small, cities' UGAs. shall be of an adequate size to allow them to become viable economic centers. • The size of cities' .UGAs shall be consistent with their ability to provide services. • UGAs shall include contiguous areas with urban characteristics and zoning. • Sufficient land shall be provided within .UGAs to accommodate the 20-year urban growth projection, plus a reasonable land supply. market factor. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-17 ,;• November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use • Setting of UGAs shall minimize impacts on agricultural land, forestry, mineral resources, watersheds, water resources, and critical areas. Cities should absorb additional population at appropriate urban densities before expanding into areas where growth would adversely impact critical areas or resource lands. • Short Term Planning Areas (STPA's) are used as a tool for facilitating provision of urban levels of services and to prevent sprawl within the Urban Growth Area (UGA). �'; isally,STPA's-inaalude 88- perceRt-- ,ere- ef- the -UFA s aed-previde few urban -levels -of serviee. Areas within the STPA's have provided the minimum level of urban facilities and services, including sanitary sewer, water service, police protection, fire protection and emergency medical services, parks and recreation programs, solid waste management, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities and public schools, to support urban levels of development. A full range of services would add urban public transit, natural gas, storm drainage facilities, street lighting, libraries, local parks, local recreation facilities and services, and health services. Alse, areas within the STPA's have. 1) identified the ROGessary Gapital faGility fundi*Hj-sGufGe-s ne^vessa Fy to implement + program-andiAat-p�egfa�;-4)-decesierhas b provide water, sew rd other- e-s-se r'Q','^ 5) i-oth{-&st}e�r ",avohccn nt�ia!-se aes; and aler-retated- typiGally Feselved. The Short Term Planning Area (STPA) is designed to promote urban levels of density: and 'cost- effective provision of services and avoid sprawl. The STPA will be adopted as a zoning overlay and can. be reviewed and changed anytime during the year. It would not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. St Ft Term Planning IA--s u,=e-6ffewn-en4Vlaps-2�---24"ppe I- of the plan LGRg Term Planning AFeas (LTRA's) iRGIude areas that have unre6eived issues Within the eflt fn'.-,- O `y-ear- �p,� ITIy'I �.���^�,Idde-4-"efGeHt-Gr=less-Gf4heJ-tGXs-and--h&ve Rot S ueStions-4etating to uFba „- level-s-of<se AGe- -Areas-Av4hin-the-LTP-Xs e oACAME y r�^I++rlinn co RitaFsewer, e ,mr-ater r serViGes, parks and reGreation pFE)gFarns, solid waste FnaRagement, e!eGtgG sep'4Ge, land t/��s�e s'e'fl#^relsGFoa � un+sataar� faeR ties -and p�+bliis*sic.,heap-tie^s+E pp..oe�#--u�rf -n4evels-ef-develeprnent- A- #-mnge-of- ices Fray f1Atbe-a rti�+ pted-ttQwoulA urban-pEit74G4m s", atural--gas,, t libraries, seFViGe&,—and health seFV;GeS. Also, areas within the LTRA's may net have identified OF Gleady geats-and--pelidies--21-arieexatien-agreements--w4h-jar-io s-(-ities; as-appliGable,-3)4iming-of utilities and;;frastrusture—,ithin--a capital--��eRt grogram —and/or transportation imprevem nt - --am; 4) who will provide water, sewe-,-and -ther essential seew"Ges; and 5) h a4herrrt.r .-.aRte d�asi t�-svTli-oe-r-es�tl. In deciding appropriate ways to manage land within urban growth areas, there are some overriding guidelines suggested. in the Growth Management Act and, County -Wide Planning Policies, GMA requires counties toL include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period. Urban growth should be first located in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facility and Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-18 M November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use service capacity to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources. County -Wide Planning Policies require establishment of interlocal agreements between the county and cities to manage development within urban growth areas until annexation takes place. Factors to be addressed in these agreements include a mechanism to compensate jurisdictions that suffer revenue losses without attendant reductions in service delivery demands, and mitigation for activities related to development. It should be assured that utilities can be delivered at urban levels of service within city urban growth areas. Timing of required improvements and who pays for these improvements within urban growth areas are issues to be addressed between the county and cities. This is particularly difficult when costly transportation improvements are required within an urban growth area prior to annexation by a city. Transportation planning for Whatcom County has Rot GORsider-ed ents-w4hi.14 city -urban -Growth areas on -the-a-ssurr:tio►a- assumes that costs and installation of the improvements would be -completed by the city associated with the urban growth area. In the case of Bellingham where some growth will continue to occur prior to annexation, this may need to be negotiated. Areas within designated urban growth areas which are not yet ready for urban levels of density can become a problem if they are allowed to develop at low densities because a suburban land use pattern can become established that will disrupt later in -filling at urban densities. On the ethef i�01'-r���G _ i 1 - dull- Miibh4s-pre en"nedprrro�rnrn-atop- {nd-Rurat Residential (DI N, sere -of vswNGh is -already-develope aped-at-subufbaR densities- Other areas have environmental constraints such as flood plains and sensitive watersheds which would dictate using lower-, verall densities. County -Wide Planning Policies call for the county to become a government of rural areas that encourages growth to occur primarily within cities and designated Urban Growth Areas. Outside urban growth areas, the presence of urban levels of services such-a� :per and can put financial pressure on rural areas to develop more densely than desired. County -Wide Planning Policies restrict cities from delivering urban levels of water and, sewer service for urban uses outside urban growth areas. WhatGGrn Glr G'C pie. Thisishased-on 0 • r the.-6eTh e -i>?--a-pre jedi. �Aii-er-/-L�,HC-16 ^`nrn peopio . rye rnr rn#ri rlr rrinn +h�_N Ye4 plat wing-period-{-1-95-281 ��T-he-Prepe#y-Gopnselors-repos-that-was-or+ginally-used-ass basis #er---PrejeGt4wj-Goon ter +h 191- . S-mlefehensive--Rlan projected-PePt�la#ion range o9c- of annual grrrvu"-�gv th-rates from 1.38 pe FGeRt to-24by the Oversight Ge.m.-i-ee was ve-, 6�ASEtA-PF9pE#iRSe •. uR.-^-prA jEGt18f Wh;6h aseaa-nf6Vth rate of z.(0,% -am . The Growth Management Act requires that the County plan for a 20-year population growth that is within the range projected by OFM unless the County has studies to prove that a different figure is justified. The current 284-6-2029 OFM projection for Whatcom County ranges from to a Low projection of 193,667.216,300 people to a Medium projection of 208z,242258,448 people and a High projection of 224;904318,832 people. The County's figure of 220,400 244,892 is within Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-19 491 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use OFM's range and therefore requires no further justification. Due to the imprecise nature of growth forecasts, and due to the fact that Whatcom County will be required within two years (by 2011) to review and update the comprehensive plan, the growth allocations are expected to remain the same for the 2029 to 2031 planning horizon years. Goal 2N: Establish Urban Growth Boundaries outside present city limits, within which the County will maintain jurisdiction until annexation or incorporation of the property. During this interim period the following policies shall be in place to assure ,that the purposes of this plan and growth management are in fact accomplished. Policy 2N-1: Establish urban growth areas for cities, first, by determining the capacity of the existing city limits to accommodate growth in the 20 year planning period. If it is determined that additional land is needed to accommodate the proiected allocated growth, or to meet other goals of the GMA, then include insladia contiguous areas which have urban characteristics; seGORd, byJRGlUding areas WhiGh presently have urban ing; and, finally, by including other suitable areas that demonstrate the ability to provide adequate public facilities and services at urban levels:,of service to accommodate growth. Policy.2N-2: Re-evaluate UGA boundaries when significant changes in city land uses are proposed. Policy 2N-3: Consider cities and Short Term Planning Areas as receiving areas for development rights transferred from sending areas. Policy 2N-4: Ensure that cities or other service providersdo not extend sewer or urban levels of water service to serve new areas of urban densities outside urban growth areas unless emergency or health hazards exist. Policy 2N-5: Protect resource lands by controlling or buffering adiacent uses and encouraging lincreased densities .within existing city boundaries before expanding into county resource lands, and prot9Gt FeseurGe.lands by eontrOHin"r-buffadRg-ad ja^^ Policy 2N-6: Encourage provision of serviced. industrial sites by cities. Policy 2N-7: , vent Encourage---exatiOTfr until the County has -a r-interlocal agreements to be in place prior to annexation to address ' ^ -art-issues such as timing, logical service areas, and. economic balance between commercial, industrial, residential and other lands within the UGA. POiiGy2-N 6: The CouRty-wil;(aweF�#-attemay-to-aflfle-x-W- he-apphGable jaFlsdiGtieR (andieFsuppeFt 9T �FGh-Bay, uddeR 'N-�, Columbia Valley) as a n^niiiti A ni rie GpmeYft-Qppie TTJ� AGeases-the square fe,e Cage of pCvN8 y-4 ii� thin the IJ A. The shall Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-20 492 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use use 4 powers nronted to ,n h'ov' aac-chi-�vv a �.c.,-.n--v-c�'�s$Fst-.,r-avrri�crFR�h Goal 2P: Encourage Bellingham to establish new residential developments at densities averaging six to twenty four twelve units per net residential acre; encourage Ferndale to establish new residential developments at densities averaging six --five to eight -ten units per net residential acre; encourage Lynden to establish new residential developments at densities averaging five to eight -ten units per net residential acre; and encourage remaining smaller cities and Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Areas, not associated with a City, to establish new residential development at average densities of four units per net residential . acre, while respecting unique characteristics associated with each city. Policy 2P-1: Ensure that cities have adopted mechanisms which will encourage densities at desired levels. Policy 2P-2: Consider natural limitations on the development capacity of land, such-'a's critical aquifer recharge areas or floodplains, and other characteristics unique to each city, such as seasonal population or adjacent county urban zoning, in designating urban growth areas.and densities. Policy 2P-3: Encourage in -filling to occur in existing areas with urban characteristics in a manner which is more harmonious with existing neighborhood character. Policy 2P-4: Encourage housing to develop with the greatest possible mix of household incomes by utilizing such techniques as lot clustering, varied lot sizes, small scale multi family dwellings, . and responsible reductions . in infrastructure requirements for subdivisions. GOAL 2P1: Ensure that development in Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Areas not associated with a City is of an urban level and proceeds in a logical and efficient manner. Policy 2P1-1: Establish urban standards for development within Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Areas. Policy 2P1-2: Ensure that service providers do not extend sewer or urban levels of water service to serve new areas of urban densities outside urban growth areas unless emergency or health hazards exist. Policy 2P1-3: Establish interlocal agreements with each urban service provider located within' Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Areas with include provisions that address coordination and timing of service extensions. Policy 2P1-4: Provide planning assistance to Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Areas for the purpose of developing and implementing Comprehensive Community Plans to further define future uses and facilitate orderly urban development. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-21 493 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2P1-5: Encourage the establishment of an advisory committee for each Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Area to provide a mechanism to interface with the County regarding their respective community development issues. Policy 2P1-6: Encourage and assist Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Areas with incorporation requirements when appropriate. GOAL 2Q: Establish an interlocal agreement with each city which sets out .general guidelines to address revenue sharing, the provision of services, management of growth, annexation, delivery of services, protection of critical areas, and designation of open space within urban growth areas. Policy 2Q-1: Include in interlocal agreements, a clear, predictable, and fair formula for revenue sharing agreements which compensates jurisdictions that suffer revenue loss without attendant reduction in service demands as a result,'Of annexation. Policy 2Q-2: 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. Policy 2Q-3: Responsibility for construction of capital facilities, including transportation facilities to accommodate urban levelsof growth, generally, should be assigned to cities. In some cases, timing may require installation of these improvements prior to annexation. In these cases, interlocal agreements should address allocations of costs and revenues between cities and the county. Policy 2Q-4: Limit development within urban growth areas with. no municipal sewer and water service through zoning at a density no greater thante one unit per five -ten acres. Policy 2Q-5: Ensure that cities have done an adequate job of planning for development within urban growth areas and. have_ coordinated this planning with the county including timing of. annexations, service extensions and linkage of greenbelts and open space. Policy 2QR-6: Encourage the . use. and coordination of the existing geographical information system by cities and the county to provide a consistent and economical data base for making land use decisions. GOAL 2R: Ensure adequate land supply is provided to accommodate twenty years of growth within -urban areas. Policy 2R-1: Review all urban_ growth areas t least every 6e en ten years or in accordance with adopted policies in city comprehensive plans. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-22 . •. November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Coordinate with cities to determine the population and employment growth proiected to occur within the urban growth areas, and revise the urban growth area boundaries, if necessary, to ensure they are appropriately sized to accommodate the projected growth within the planning period. Policy 2R-2 Ensure that land use plans provide for development at urban densities within the 20-year planning period. Policy 2R-3 Facilitate phasing of development within urban growth areas as follows: • Require at least ten acre minimum lot sizes within unincorporated portions of urban growth areas until public facilities and services are provided to serve such development at urban levels of service. • Recognizing that UGAs are sized to accommodate urban growth over a 20 year period and that all land within UGAs will not be required to meet urban land needs immediately, allow Agriculture and Rural Forestry zoning designations, on an interim basis, within UGAs. These zones.,.-. function as holding districts that will allow continued resource land uses in the near term while protecting these areas from suburban sprawl. It is anticipated that they will be rezoned to allow phased urban development within the 20-year planning period when public facilities and services can be provided at urban levels of service. Policy 2R-4: Coordinate with cities to maintain a land capacity analysis methodology that is consistently applied to all urban growth areas, including a common definition of net developable land, upon which planned net densities are based. When determining urban land needs, assume that urban densities will be developed within UGAs over the 20-year planning period. Policy 2R-5: Annually monitor land capacity by compiling annual reports from the cities on development activity, and comparing that data with adopted growth proiections for the urban growth areas. Coordinate with the cities to amend growth proiections, or amend urban growth area densities or boundaries if, over several years, the data indicate that growth is occurring at a significantly different rate than adopted projections. GOAL 2S: Establish Short Term Planning Areas within which annexations and urban levels of development can occur and outside of which -urban levels of development will not occur. This is intended to be a. sprawl preventing measure where a need exists to promote phased development from the urban core outward, where final plans for urban services are not yet in place, and where joint planning at the developmentregulation level is appropriate. This will assure both conformance and consistency for future plans and developments. Policy 2S-1: A Short Term Planning Area is a zoning. overlay designation and is. modified through the rezoning process as provided in Title 20. Initial Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-23 495 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use designation or subsequent modification of Short Term Planning Area boundaries may be made when the following criteria have been satisfied: • The County and the City have agreed on a joint plan or are working toward agreement upon a city/county interlocal agreement for land use and development standards; and • The County and the water and/or sewer service provider, if an Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Area, have entered into an interlocal agreement; and • The land to be included within the revised Short Term Planning Area has planned facilities available or facilities capable of being made available in time to serve development within the new Short Term Planning Area at the time development occurs; and • The City and County have agreed on annexation issues identified in Policy 2N7, Goal 2Q, Policy 2Q-1, Policy 2Q-3, and Policy 2Q-5 above; and • The Short Term Planning Area adjacent to the vicinity proposed for inclusion is meeting UGA density objectives and there, , is a demonstrated need for additional land in the local area; and • The City has annexed to the STPA,. or the Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Area has infilled up to the LTPA and extension of the boundary is necessary to accommodate provision of urban services; or 1. The planning area extension is otherwise consistent with the policies of this. Comprehensive Plan; and 2. The City, or the primary utility service providers(s) in the case of Unincorporated .Residential/Recreation Urban Growth Areas, has corrected the deficiency which created the need for the Short Term Planning Area; and • In any event, that adequate capacity in public facilities exists or is projected within ten years to serve the new area; and Short Term Planning Areas would be moved by zoning action consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-24 M November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use 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 €fve-ten acres. All residential land divisions will be developed as cluster subdivisions. All 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. Policy 2S-3: Land which exhibits severe environmental constraints for on -site septic systems may be included within a Short Term Planning Area, to allow. for the provision of sewer to reduce or eliminate on -site sewage system related environmental impacts, if all of the following conditions exist; The land area is contiguous to existing city limits The underlying zoning is urban and the land is located in an Urban Growth Area Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-25 497 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use • The land has been designated as an area of special concern pursuant to WCC 24.05.230 due to extenuating environmental constraints and/or failing on -site septic systems have been identified as a significant source of non -point pollution as part of the development of a Closure Response Strategy Report for a Shellfish Protection District • Continued reliance on on -site sewage systems for existing development density and future low density development, within the subject area, would not provide adequate protection of adjacent critical areas from significant environmental impacts from on -site sewage systems • Where a Local Improvement District for necessary urban levels of service has been established • Where interlocal agreements have been established between the County and the water and/or service provider Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-26 M November 10. 2009 Council Introduction Bellingham Two - Land Use Bellingham's GurreRt Urban Growth Area (UGA) was first established in 1997 as a result of a lengthy public involvement process. Three geographical areas comprise the City's UGA: and includes Bellingham's Northern UGA, the Geneva/Watershed Resource Protection UGA, and the Yew Street UGA. Together, these areas make up approximately 7,180- 5,595 acres. Background In 1984, Whatcom County developed the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan (UFS Plan) applicable to approximately 20,000 acres located immediately north, west and east of Bellingham's city limits. Slater and Smith roads are generally this area's northern boundary. Mission Road is the eastern boundary and the Lummi Indian Reservation forms the western boundary. Recognizing that uncoordinated and unplanned growth pose a threat to the local environment and sustainable economic development, Bellingham and Whatcom County began a process in early 1990 to update the land use section of the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan. In September 1997, the Whatcom County Council adopted an the --updated plan. This Plan was subsequently amended in 1999, 2004, 2008 and.2009 and now includes the entire Bellingham UGA. S+ ,Ready doubled te Fe&;-the�epulation-has nary deubled--ta-ev entsi- she -annual year.population grovAh has more than doubled, te about 1,900 people per: Between 2000.990 and 2008 2000, Whatcom County grew by 24,174 39,OW people, or 14.5% 3"1 During that same period .of time, the City and its UGA grew by 11,345 or 14.5% onn �z7°� Bellingham and its UGA received 47% 49 5% of the county's total growth during this time period. Theoaf populatie" h feresastt ;699-additieflal-redden+�-f^ ell+ng#�am aradIh- lmlGA-t1Ath"eaf 2022. Urban Fringe Subarea Plan The UFS Plan provides the policy framework for addressing the impacts and opportunities of growth in Bellingham's UGA. It addresses establisbes-County zoning designations, comparable City zoning upon annexation, land uses, development standards and Transfer of Development Rights from the Lake Whatcom Watershed to receiving areas in the UGA. The Plan addresses a number of important objectives .related to plan development, public participation, land use, housing; density, the natural environment; open space, parks, recreational opportunities, transportation, utilities and other public services. Plan updates will be made in the context of the Growth Management Act planning goals, the Countywide Planning Policies, the UGA goals and policies of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan. 2011 Update Bellingham is, and will continue to be, the primary population and employment center for Whatcom County. In order to avoid tightening the land supply around this population center and putting additional pressure on rural development, the City of Bellingham is requested to return as part of their required comprehensive plan and development regulation update in 2011 with a . proposal for how they would accommodate a total of approximately 116,200 people, either through infill, changes in densities within the city and Urban Growth Area, or expansion. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-27 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use ... GOAL 2T: Evaluate every ten seven years or as necessary Bellingham's Urban Growth Area to determine if the UGA is sufficient in size to accommodate twenty year growth, provide an adequate supply of affordable housing, industrial, commercial and recreational development and recognize historical development patterns and commitments for service. Policy 2T-1: Establish and periodically update procedures for joint city/county review of development proposals in the UGA prior to annexation. Policy 2T-2: Work with Bellingham to identify and establish a system of neighborhood parks, greenbelts and open space to serve the urban growth area as it develops. Policy 2T-3: Establish an agreement with Bellingham to share costs of and revenues from improvements. within the UGA. Policy 2T-4: Review land supply analysis and consider appropriate urban growth area boundaries consistent with the Growth Management Act, lin„ham GGmpr,-_hensive---P r-ehensiv 4� , and County -wide Planning Policies eSubarea Plan. Policy 2T-5: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Bellingham, as needed, to provide for: • timing and provision of utility services and other urban services • timing of annexations • revenue sharing formulas prior to and after annexation • development standards and regulations • joint City/County review of development proposals in the UGA • affordable housing . • transfer of development rights within the City of Bellingham Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-28 500 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2T-6: Whatcom County and Bellingham should continue to coordinate protection and development within the Lake Whatcom WatershedProteGtion Area UGA. - Policy 2T-7: Whatcom County and Bellingham should designate receiving areas within the City of Bellingham and its UGA for Transfer of Development Rights from the Lake Whatcom Watershed, Policy 2T-8: The City and Whatcom County should designate appropriate zoning and residential densities in Bellingham's UGA consistent with Whatcom County's Comprehensive Plan and Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan as amended. Policy 2T-9.: Joint planning in Bellingham's UGA should include joint review of development proposals. City design and development regulations should be required in Bellingham's UGA. Policy 2T-10: Annexation should be considered prior to or concurrently with the extension of City sewer and water and prior to urban development. Annexations should be a logical extension of the city boundaries and not create unincorporated islands. -11 : t ne ueneva ana huisame a Bellingham to annex these areas. The City has a lone -term interest in .the water quality of Lake Whatcom because the City is responsible for providing Bellingham with safe drinking water from the Lake. Whatcom: County and the community also have long-term interestsJn the watershed based upon the special environmental sensitivity of the Lake .Whatcom Watershed as a drinking water source and the Total Maximum Daily;load. (TMDL) findings reauirina a reduction of DhosDhorus inputs into the lake. Urban Growth Area within the watershed. The City of Bellingham ..has expressed interest in exploring the possibility of annexing those areas. To . allow sufficient time for those exploratory discussions to occur and for Bellingham to pursue annexation of the areas under ail annexation processes available to it, the watershed UGAs will remain in the Bellingham UGA until December 2012, or until the City of Bellingham formally notifies the County that they do not intend to annex the areas, whichever is sooner. Policy 2T-12: In the 2011 comprehensive plan update, evaluate the feasibility of changing. zoning from General Commercial to Light Impact Industrial in the Bellingham Urban Growth Area in the vicinity of Interstate 5, north of the Bellingham International Airport. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-29 501 Map UGA-1 - Bellingham Urban Growth Area CoWhatcomCoPnty mprehensive Plan - November 10, 2009 Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve USE OF WHATCOM COUNTY'%CIS DATA MPLIES THE USER'S AGREEMENT WON THE FOLLO:CIX6 STATEMENT: WFelcem Caedq dxl.an aaq .areal, d nsaeheala6Nitq ar rarmmq d fifneaa sl fain map W sr# Bpalcslar path.., cYhae eapepsa ae ImpliW. P.a mproacn6 Nth ae.—AV is W. wntt. the near gey, tartest,, wmpletawo prgWity al des daplelad 0llUa map. My seer of this map aasumas ul IasparutdlNy faraaaf t—al, sea 1Brtaer agrees Ie k1d What_ Cpusil harmless fmm and agaiasl my damage- hsa. of UahlXr nwna I mm A.W Von d tak mw. Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 a1C W{ QRMAgT P�cil 2009 Gti'<� i r ' 4 a LU 2- ca d�FPELOP�F.•- 502 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Blaine Blaine is the northwestern -most city in Whatcom County and is home to 4,667 people. The city is divided by Drayton Harbor into two parts: central Blaine and the Semiahmoo area to the west. These two areas are distinctly different areas of Blaine. The central area is a traditional northwestern city with a vibrant downtown surrounded by neighborhoods of single family houses. The central area includes an extension of largely undeveloped, incorporated land about 3 miles out H Street. The Resort at Semiahmoo is located in west Blaine. The unincorporated UGA around Blaine was originally designated in 1997. It was larger then but all that remains today was there originally. The 1997 plan states that the area to the south along Drayton Harbor connecting the two sides of Blaine was included in the UGA: "...because of its location sandwiched between the western and eastern expanses of the Blaine city limits which, at this time, is only connected by water. It is also included because of the urban level of zoning historically assigned by the county {(R4)... Blaine seeks control of this area to coordinate transportation planning and ensure water quality protection and coordinated shoreline management." Other areas included in the UGA were largely due to the area's• adiacencv to the existing citv limits or for ease of provision of services. The concerns that Blaine expressed in 1997 about protecting Drayton Harbor remain as studies show that fecal coliform levels in the harbor are harmful to the shellfish populations causing a decline in quality and closing of the harbor to shellfish harvesting in 1999. In 2007, the county adopted the update to the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Recovery Plan. This plan reflects the success of re -opening some areas for shellfish harvesting in 2004 and outlines future Public facilities issues in the UGA are primarily concerned with the provision of an urban level .of fire and emergency medical services. Fire District 21 does not indicate in their Capital Facilities Plan a set of response times for the Birch Bay UGA or the Blaine UGA separately. It does indicate the response time trends in "urban areas of its service area" in Exhibit 11. This table shows that the district is only meeting their 8-minute standard for Urban response 65% of the time in 2008. The district indicates that 90% of the time for their urban areas thev reach the scene of a priority one incident in a little over 11 minutes. extension. Finallv. the Blaine School District does not have an adopted capital facilities plan for their service area which includes both Blaine and Birch Bay. As their enrollment is declining, they are frequently modifying remodeling and construction plans to correspond to projections and needs. They were unable to pass their most recent bond attempt,causing the school board to halt any efforts toward new construction in at least the next 2 years. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-31 503 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use County goa4s-enGOUrage Blaine to develop residentially zoned areas at average net—densUies of folUr i-inits per net developable aGFe. AlthGugh future densities -;;r,-- LAAA r than thesesoughtby seunty als, them ism wr4h-/l;�a. !�-�"�Ild-be paffi arly noted that the City Of Bl--;Re has Gempleted a detailed wetland iRV8RtGPJ f9f­-�� c mnn,i wetlands nc thJ--�-National W_re and Invon+nn, �.,hinh ,� used by, the nn,,nt ry cy Blaine is a un* WhatGorn County. The Gentral part of Blaine h - developed n , v4r' h d ed � c v-a�re�� rrivrr-ram-Tr �..-or--a�crcx- S4y­4-,-,.Sk[il}tiai tered around a golf GeUrse, are zoned residential, blud Gontain large open spaGeS whiGh rnn+rib, to to the nr In,n, a.o e. no density f.,r +h 1, ni+v issues -Rent.-- - - inn the e Urban. f'_rr,,.,+h Area ad , •ty fid�elNeK District, .end an urban abund� of zeninn adiaGen+ to the existing Gity lirni+c v AGGOFdiRg to the Blaine GemprehensA�e Ran, well ever 0 of the building pe"its issued sinGe 1989 have been in the Semiahrnoo area with an average value of $240,000. Of the 365 single family residential In+s sold -atSemiahmee be eels 1987 and 1994, only 124-,ha e=beer} developed. At the same ti-Fne, only 0 of people employed within Blaine live vVithin the Gity l;rn;tci— A-^Rmm of In. v+r r7r^rZ+rhie 2fe pUfGik}ca Af-Fe6fYacitdOl ki9FH ei ,-0i kl l f$ developnaen"s-retirel;ent-fesideflees.. Most of the jobs -in-Blaiine-are . restaurants,. bars, gas stations, retail sales, es, and f above stat;stOE;s p int a PiGture of a. Gomrnunity with a sh--,,4---Ie- ef housing in the lower h_r_;;r__kP_ts. The urban growth area for R-1-aimb, as inteRded to be of GUfAGieRt size and 1GGatlon to pfevid. a grate-1aeusia- oly lew-an raodefate-inre Jlewr- of master planned-reset#-4-sidentlaa-sslmaanitles U �'r.A I--- lef rn development. The -city -of -Blaine -Rases; -draft 20-year-wate-r�atan4hat4-s-Gurfeett"nder-rev4ew4ay=me-" GeaRsia. Tfae cityowns-and opera! ater syst esUs; nter Blaine. The systern also provides surplus water on a wholesale GontFaGt basqs to R-irg-h Bay Water and Sewer DiStFiGt and the Bell Bay jaGkson Water AsseGiafion-. The cn„roe supply ffor-tlae-olt�--denv z—s` ,;.Ie4 rron #or_�neifrre s t� -in1 the ed Wate F rights to with.dFaw up to 2770 i�D�`fl''A�ofi�,��`i'_f' — -Iies from•, the aquifers�`M� `'as pl-I.-A.fI a drilling of �tS Sjf6t +-cv^ eergrn�y�hT� �Qirements Ba-S � n-.an--inaieSfigatid n-aqd-anr` lys:,-GP-he-aquifers the -city -said -adequate y-.;,eet its 6llfrentmar _ njevted-heeds Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-32 504 Novdmber 10. 2009 Council Introduction Two - Land Use -e_ - .e. - e MIN �.WE F-1073-293MIS ZMV ' ■ Th�edater issue i -aR crirnrcn. "r--�vvmp�ri have not et beens-i d-c�iF9liild-BI^. aGhieved. it may be-apprep4ate—+e ro___ I .�xpapAing4he-boundaries--ef-th, U; Dan -brow Arp-, when olutiops 4— waater_s„p ly h-,Ye,e h�R -hie,ina_ Gvi- -. n r. ! /rhos / r+ye-c. cT� z'v'--c rni- Maine is surrounded--by--areas-of-Ge-1 roe # r1 rnhihi. #c�#h�eF - i+�f v won $ewer-S(?'lih'v^�c^rrv-ti ..on^c�£? R#fl6Hlft ef�lel�tS-�� M Friplernentationteoltew ;eV_-'__-FovA1h Mana-gernent goals. Thus, wherever Blaine has requested #%o 'nnl„sipn of land 7n pelt I IC7 '# bashe�n 'nrh,rlerl iri #h es h ,e e r eater tick 1 d UlR it has vo�r,T�v de - h_th Lea$ r, .,vv...�.-rev. c tT �-p®teiit��i_S�,c�nr on,ino�fti�h,� #ho R'rnh R�A,�c/1�u4or ��` - ,or Elio#rir#��®�,�,���tpinn ilt@f86iligFeBflenrs becv.r,een --R�rvh Bay Water and Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA-2) As of the 2009 UGA Update, portions of the Blaine UGA were removed to place Blaine's land supply in closer proximity to its projected population growth. The unincorporated UGA was reduced from 3,315 acres to 476 acres. Only the eastern portion of the unincorporated UGA remains in the UGA. The rest of the UGA has reverted to a Rural designation. €mot T4e—urea--qrek44h—area —for —Blaine--iprWdes-land designated ter-- d+am tG -h g"eesity. as a E}rewth-area-for Blaine and has been deutvv'r"vnhrlvliv'rn:r�Dc irinn+i^1 r h.,e non pi_ Se►-iee-s-cfe-easily-previded-and4t-is-afl-a ppropr-iate-area-te-include-and-it-pre�A des-an-eppoftunRy f8r-�+R vlcrc4m6crr,-...—oaffl.,-Fs- the -only ,7 ' Goun yMher-e-the-aesaber-e#-peep{e- mpleyed-&x�s-the-pepalat+c -lt appears that -t„er& i-s-net problem. oyl:�o,ite ,moo rkers.,.I.nrtnGIUSinn of INS shoLild help to resolve this A� South - - Th(- nand-afea--so+4tii-of-Boor-,"aT;?eep AnGWded-besat�s�t ;;osatien,-sandwiched t�etw , at th,"is time, is only eenneeted by water ley asslgr�ed by the no„nty ( R4) Blaine `toes of propose t # e Rirrh Ray vy-�}ap,� �jrwo„cy��, c-�7—v,a,,,�ovc�-irr✓c-p,�pvac-c8 $ery��e/�]tpl�irl����'t�+rea Wlch-l=ltllltryl,e$.�.♦ ���/����- icvrr1^vyc��p atef UtV-. and s-ewe-Y�1',�'.��-1YtureTTe development oGGufs�'i�i,7e. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-33 505 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use .:: .::- eam TIT=■ 011-1 3 TIAT - - . ■ GOAL 2U: Provide a sufficient Urban Growth Area for Blaine to ensure an adequate housing supply and meet Caen Growth Management AO and county land use goals. Policy 2U •1 No annexati^n f ('-+nneFy Hill or West Serniahmee i�pe ."! � -T rvrl��arr. i-rrrrvv-r" r' rr�rccuv:-an-rci ofthei_�e ��vo�r and .meter purveyOF in. that area is es^I�e� hi rletermina#inn of +h_e-�nennv with iurisrlirti�+ nn r by agreement h^fiwnnn the Baynd�a�w�^i-vivii •ter •J the Gity f Maine The_Gonditions Ai AR Policy 2U-12-: wife -Work cooperatively with Blaine to increase critical area protection and water quality controls sufficient to protect shellfish harvesting and marine resources in Drayton Harbor. Policy 2U-23: Ensure that Blaine adopts measures to implement in -fill policies in the proposed Blaine Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2U-34: Readjust the She t_Te�an_nring—AfeasUrban Growth Area as urban services are made available and need is demonstrated. Policy_ 2U-45: Ensure that adequate capital facilities can be provided.to the Blaine Urban Growth Area. Policy 2U-56: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Blaine, as needed, to provide for: a project review process for development within Blaine's UGA that ensures consistency with Blaine's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and standards. County adoption and maintenance of :10-acrestew density- rural zoning for the UGA which would allow urban densities to develop only in conjunction with annexation or a commitment to annex within a very specific timeline and under very specific conditions. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-34 506 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for. • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2=35 507 ► I 1 I rI A n - Blaine Urban Growth Area WhatcomCoPnty Comprehensive Plan November 10, 2009 Urban Growth Area RMCOG''sy HSE OFMATCOM COUNTY'S CIS DATA IMPLIES THE NSEX'S ¢o-4�'(G�M AfiflEEMENT Yf1T1!iNE FIXLO:BIXG STATEMENT. .Z.p 2��9 Va.,—Cepnfy dlsslsim eeywuraalyN N—hae Wiftyorwuramy of ldnew ollAla mapfor arypedkelarpotpcOe. cHAarprymta or Q0� - hopped. Xp repnmea!aSmrurarrardy!amarie runeamlep!hnaaar �, �aAa , ,, � a�;1�, p1 , ary, curtency, cpmpbiecasa or uaitty EI Qa!a Qeplaled on Lela map. Aay oaarel Nlamap eaacmea d�reefwnsiMllp iaruae fAoraol.and . 9 ���`��� �#i � Z-rg_ funhuaereaeW held lVhalcam Cpaoi7 tramrkas !mm and apa!nd airy damaeo.!ass. pr llaalift aMM from mi uea of lhk ma. ti �, ..,;' _ Miles aOEVELOPW�a , l 02 QC 0.6 12 1.6 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Everson LC_,yeeFson i a pity Whinh must a s a number of r.h Gal senstr&ints. The GAY is bisected- by the WooksaGk River, WhiGh Beds and inundates mush of dewntewn EVcrseH�Trhrc dveF has An n-vP-rflA-W Ghannel which flows thp tern edge Of Gity. This oveFflow is a la Fge flood y that runs Rorth—e dung to e--Sa dwAR hArder and pFovide grisultufat fe&GufGe4an atsom County. T-he-fMeeksa k44ver400dwa-y-sen^p�,ates-E-v from the City of NoeksaGk and some of its own area to the east. South of Everson are seveFal n14 ev'ct nrimorily �r. n� the wect refenrtheca aenrrarnrs. Everson urban growth area is located in western Whatcom County, northeast of Bellingham. The City and its UGA serve the surrounding area as a commercial, retail and industrial center.. The entire UGA is accessible by two major state highways, SR 544 and SR 9 that connects the city to the Canadian border and to points further south. The UGA is also accessible by Burlington Northern railway. Flood prone areas, preservation of agricultural resource land, appropriate Use or re -use of adiacent mineral resource lands and provision of adequate urban level services, are among the factors considered in determining the City of Everson Urban Growth Area boundary. The City is bisected by the Nooksack River, which periodically floods and inundates parts of downtown Everson. Lying to the south of Everson are mineral resource lands and several active gravel mines. Everson UGA is also adiacent to agricultural lands. County goals include working cooperatively with the City of Everson to enhance or maintain the county's agricultural land base. The Citv of Everson provides public sewer. water. stormwater, and police services, while public schools for the area are operated and maintained by the Nooksack Valley School District. Fire protection services are provided by Fire District # 1. The City of Everson has an approved 2005 Water System Plan indicating that the city has adequate water to meet water system demands through 2022. With conservation and re -distribution measures, the Cily Planner has indicated that water supply and storage capacity is sufficient to meet demand for the next 20 years. The Citv of Everson is challenged by a number of urban service issues that must be considered when establishing geographic boundaries to accommodate future urban growth. The City does not have a Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and City of.Everson 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facility Element indicates that the City will exceed sewage treatment capacity in 2014. However, recent analysis shows that the capacity may be adequate for a period of 8-12 years. Expansion of the treatment plant will be necessary in the future to meet the needs of proiected growth for the 20-year planning period. City of Everson and City of Nooksack share costs in operating the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-37 509 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Everson Sewage Treatment Plant, and have plans to begin a cooperative effort to develop a comprehensive sewer plan that will address future needs at least through the 20-year planning period. Fire District #1 does not currently have a capital facilities plan. Although the Nooksack School District serving Everson, Nooksack and Sumas does not have a Capital Facilities Plan, capacity analysis indicates that the District is able to provide sufficient capacity for the 20-year planning period. The urban growth area for Everson is intended to provide sufficient land area to accommodate future urban growth with adequate public services, while minimizing impacts to resource lands and critical areas. County goals encourage Everson to develop residentially zoned areas at average net densities of four units per net developable acre. Net developable acreage is calculated by subtracting areas with. development limitations such as steep slopes,. flood areas, and other critical areas. and land needed for rights-of-way. utilities, infrastructure and open space. Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA-3) East This area,, is . ppi:eximateiy 120aGFOG in size aR4 s located east and south of the existing city limits, .s4rstraddles State Route 9 and adjacent rail access, and drops below the southern boundary of City of Nooksack: It is IOGat„d outside the fl plainand4s--The proposed uses for this area are industrial to the east and residential useto the west, North E�efsen-proposes a-2,5-asrti-Vase;--adWen4 4.� e4he-eAsbng-gelf-Go ile EveFsen intends this land to be used feF futuFe gelf Geur-s 9F other rer.Feati enal, use, th _�pese ..nrir� dfi ,r�l ng allows ngle family said tial !i ell., Tne,l!r ar�u J, eii ca�T(S=v"r' c-ur'ea-Ts-. c7 WithiR the fieodplaq6 And- would be best used if GGA6tFaintS_ ensured that inteaRse development would-not-0GGuF.-An-additio-naJ 1-0-aore-parsel4eGated-north-o#-the-Gify-tir:►its4ias enAesi jnated in4he Gity plan for futuFe--residential-devek�r An area northwest of Everson is included in the UGA to allow expansion of the existing Everson Riverside Park. West The most likely place for future development to-essuF is in the upland areas located west of the city limits, adjacent to existing residential development, and with .a public school in close roximi are-designated-in4hisr-afea—Proposed future zoning for this area includes a A mix of uses is pi,eposed-including industrial, commercial, and residential -and -agricultural: Current agricultural zoning in portions of the UGA serve as holding districts until rezoned for urban uses in the future. South 1 Another -large r� esid y iCl l-C7rea- is4ndude J Y'{te 11 }� T .�.�t4' ^} o tiTi&t4ig-4ciah t�� his is another o Oevelepment.-An area to the south of the existing city limits is in the UGA. This land is outside of the floodplain and adjacent to existing residential and industrial uses. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-38 510 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use 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. Policy 2V-2: Recognize adjacent mineral resource lands as potential urban development areas and work with Everson and land owners to develop an environmentally safe plan to facilitate this conversion. Policy 2V-3: Avoid new land uses that are an identified threat to groundwater quality within the delineated wellhead protection area of the Everson wellfield. Policy 2V-4: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Everson, as need, to provide for: • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for • timing and procedures to be used for review of adequate land supply • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan • cooperation regarding conversion of mineral resource lands • resegeitiefl efrecognize opportunities for future growth to the west of the existing city • limitation of development on floodplain on parcel adjacent the former golf course • long term measures to assure. compatibility with resource lands Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-39 511 Whatcom County - Everson Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan - November 10, 2009 Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve USE OF WHATCOM COIINTPS CIS DATA PAPLAES THE USER'S AGREEMENT MN THE F(H.L(MING STATEMENT Whalmm C..ty dude'. aay..—iy al marehaetahlllty..—My of ifineee pl IAIa mep ipr mrly peRlcalar pwpaae, d;tar aaprass a Implied. ad represe=L time arwmraofY'sm Je waeardap the aawr aq, wraaryt4h, wmpklaaeaa yr 4aa-Ity ei dais 6eplded pa Ihle map. Aaypearpy tmap Wimtea allrpdyhaimi limme Ihempl, i damarsprees Id held Whfficam P.t.. hxrtpleaa IN. and agaiaal ear damaw. het ar ila!!iRr arkiaa ham s;y nee C Uk map. Feet 0 495 970 1.4W Y910 7.840 2009 y'<3 sOEVELO PW`�� 512 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Ferndale County goals encourage Ferndale to develop residentially zoned areas at average net densities of si*-five to eigtat-ten units per net developable acre. Net developable acreage is calculated by subtracting areas with development limitations such as steep slope, flood areas, and other critical areas, and land needed for rights -of -way, utilities, infrastructure, and open space. Issues in defining the Ferndale Urban Growth Area include protection of wetlands, provision of serviced industrial land, inclusion of adjacent land with services and urban levels of development or urban zoning, and overlapping jurisdiction with Bellingham. Griti r the r`,+" -f �nrnrlolo � I e :n offor+ by the end of the year 2oflo4_n r this GrdinaRGe will provide The Grandview Industrial Park is included in the urban growth area. This inclusion supports the policies in the Economics chapter of this plan to provide a sufficient supply of serviced industrip_I land. However, small sewage treatment deficits are anticipated within the 20-year planning period under this growth allocation until the city updates its wastewater treatment plan. The City of Ferndale 2006 Water System Plan indicates that the city has adequate water rights and contracts to meet water system demands to the end of its 2026 planning period. The Ferndale School District has a capital facilities plan, which has been adopted by Whatcom Count Fire District 7 serves the City of Ferndale. The Fire District does not have a capital facilities plan .T--he--G4y-+S-Ga41-sider+Rg--a n4preh„ ps+ve-Ptan-ame-ndn;en tG ex the Urban Growth Area north "M the inteFseGtion of Portal-w& --A Doad a quarter mile north of. Genefa4y-, tfhe W A-for-F-er-ndate-#etiGws-the-goal-24o-inGtude-areas-whjG"rese-ntly-have--urban z-GRfR2-a�jaGeR t-t@-Fefldat'ez'-.nprLsenhave Urban have been ;nGhided. r.1cernr+i:u.,,1zornni enGouraging-growth-wAip-he-Gities;maintaining-4ow-defrsity-mml-areas-0utsi d recogmz4ng4he-deSifes-4-WhafGem-County-res+dents: Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA-4) North Afe s-G4he—nodh- 4GWde_-at; -the4aF presently-zemd iaWse-andsome--R5 area. Whil sorne of this land is !R aGtive dairy1farm use, its iFIGIUS;--- -R attempt to FeGognize 1-t d e property. if left an the GO area -Gould -net remain ning 1w Is and be Gens-'--ent with GOURty goals for s_ Atsecte is- 4fie-Grandview--lndustfiat-afea- The Urban Growth Area extends north to include the commercial / industrial area around the Grandview Road / I-5 interchanae. Much of the area Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-41 513 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use between the Grandview commercial 1 industrial area and the Ferndale city center has been removed from the Urban Growth area, but is zoned for 10 acre lots to accommodate future urban development, as the area may be a logical extension of the Urban Growth Area in the future. West -The area west of the ridge that divides the Terrell Creek and Nooksack River watersheds is generally not a logical extension of the city as urban facilities can not be extended in an efficient manner. Urbanpotential growth area for Ferndale for a number of years and thus has a County Residential zv;n�dre ai--,gRaTirv.n East There are only limited areas to the east that are included within the Urban Growth Area. Existing large lot development patterns to the east make the extension of efficient public facilities and services to this area more difficult. The city has proposed removal of most areas, toy the ♦.„�, �heeas�tt.. Areas �-a-&m_A1 a fi f 1 Ir�rbai Qcirsi` entrcnti�ioni g. This was-det tt to be neGessary to meet the grewth needs of Ferridale and rViGed with water and sewer by the City off-emdale-. South Very little land area to the south has been included in the urban growth area. south Gf Slater Road has been inGluded for its viability as part of the urban gFowth area -.the area GOAL 2W: Provide a sufficient Urban Growth Area for Ferndale to retain existing character -and attain Growth Management Act and county land. use goals. ,PGIiGy 2VV 1: Require F=emdale to iRGrease-cr+tisaI area pfetestien te-le„els SUffi ,on+ +e mainta;- the kinGtions of valuable Wetlands and develop Fegulations who eaeedfage--Blustering-of-deveiGprner4t--outside-oritisa!-areas: Policy 2W-1-2: Support City of Ferndale planning efforts for in -fill development within the existing city limits and development of its UGA �"�"Ioo,,,Gh will result ;n average Policy 2W-23: Ensure that adequate capital facilities can be provided to the Grandview Industrial area within a timely fashion to accommodate development of the area. Policy 2W-34: Establish a revenue sharing agreement which fairly compensates the county if a loss of revenue from the Grandview Industrial Area exceeds reduction in associated costs. Policy 2W-54: Encourage Ferndale to revise its development FegUlatiGR65 W-eAGGUfage c4uster+ng-of-devedc3pment-outside--ef-sritasal-areas-and-to-work towards development of a "wetland bank". to mitigate impacts of development on scattered wetland areas within the city. Policy 2W-56: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Ferndale, as needed, to provide for: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-42 k 514 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use • policies regarding utility service outside the ch„Ft Term Planning Areas 44he-UGA. • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for. • zoning designations and density within the UGA. • coordination with the county of greenbelts and open space. • timing and procedures to be used for review of adequate land supply. • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-43 515 Whatcom County - an Ferndale Urban Growth Area Comprehensive 09 November 70, 2009 Urban Growth Area aK, 1LdFORMq trO USE OF WHATCOM CD09TY`S CL4 DATA tM7L1ES THE USERS AGREEMEHTYArif THE FDLLORIOG STA'.EMERT: eU'aP '% WAa1e.mrAWYdlut0lm a a, a.'" 01 mamF,eemNliry Br warmmp ET Z009 at filneee el W. map fir a07 p.Hluuter pump..', clfr ..Ames m Implied. "a" m varra.lY to mmh 8'aace¢Inp 160 nd . m 80Y.CItrfa3cp,c.alpl0larom NGuaAY [�!oi depltle!an lHU map. Arty user.(IAia mep .seem.. all reeA.acSN!Iry ler use igera.t. and y� - feNrer apm08la twtd WA#axa Pram U.2.1. tmm and a9atnsl damas0. 1580.aIIaNIHr .Hain0 fmm a.v nee atMk ma.. Miles OFVELOP1t'Ea 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 . „. 516 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Lynden County goals encourage Lynden to develop residentially zoned areas at average net densities of five to eijht--ten units per net developable acre. Net developable acreage is calculated by subtracting areas with development limitations such as step slopes, flood areas, and other critical areas, and land needed for rights -of -way, utilities, infrastructure, and open space. Issues in defining the Lynden Urban Growth Area include preservation of agricultural resource lands and uses allowed within county zoning designations. Lynden is surrounded by agricultural resource lands. The Growth Management Act requires cities to protect adjacent resource lands through the adoption of buffers or the regulation of uses. Lynden provides most of the urban governmental services, except for schools. The city has a General Sewer Plan completed in 2007 that will meet the needs of growth over the 20 year period. The City of Lynden 2008 Water System Plan indicates that the city has adequate water to meet water system demands to the end of its 2026 planning period. However, the City of Lynden and the Washington State Department of Ecolociv have an existing dispute over the city's water rights. The city has entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Ecology to address long-standing water right issues. The Lynden School District has a capital facilities plan, whi'eh" has been adopted by Whatcom County. Fire protection facilities are provided by the City of Lynden and are included in their Capital Facilities Plan. AnrA-hor issue in the „ininity of Lynden a the imno�nt Of eXe r�r�vc�-ru-i-rsuo�--mzr'ru County zoning's Ilion iFnpaGtc l vnrlo 's ability to ottrort aggro„Itl,ral related- hcicr.�rrteT.au�=ty seuld-pr-edude4egisa"utufe-urban-g.e- +k-area-ex sion der-Fesid.eAU rd elepmeet-. � ges �Ping . -The Lynden Urban Growth Area has been designated to provide a sufficient land supply for Lynden and minimize impact on adjacent agricultural .resource land. Areas included in UGA - (Map UGA-5) East A large area of land presently ZORed fGF UFbaR levels of deveIGPMeRt has beeR inGlUded. This lead-adjaGent�y ;deaa-whist�Gt-desigoated--as-fesourGe-laed aed-supp."eR:taad +s-land. North A small -tract of land twin the northwest area of Lynden has been included in the UGA . While this is prime agricultural land, it is logically located for service provision and is necessary to adequately accommodate Lynden's growth needs through-2445 the 20-year planning period. Double Ditch Creek and Benson creek, which flow through drainage ditches in this area, have been identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as anadromous creeks. If this area develops in the future, the City and County should work with the State to address drainage and flooding issues and protector restore fish habitat.in these creeks.. West A large amount of land located west of Lynden is included to facilitate industrial and commercial growth for the City of Lynden. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-45 517 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Goal2X: Designate an Urban Growth Area for Lynden of sufficient size to provide for future growth, protect the existing character of Lynden, and minimize impact on county resource lands. Policy 2X-1: Review county zoning regulations to ensure that conditional uses in the agricultural zone do not discourage the development of such uses within the City of Lynden. Policy 2X-2: Require Lynden to propose long term measures to assure compatibility of adjacent uses to mineral and agricultural resource lands. Policy 2X-3: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Lynden, as needed, to provide for: • restriction of -extension of urban levels of service to ur-han-uses outside the ct eFt Ter-Fn Planning Areas of the urban growth areas • identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for zoning designations and density within the UGA • timing and procedures to be used for review of adequate land supply • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan. and demonstration of sufficient water rights for current and projected needs. Policy 2X-4: Land uses that are incompatible with the operation of the Lynden Airport should be discouraged when rezoning land in the Urban Growth Area west of Benson Rd. and south of Badger Rd. Specifically, Whatcom County should follow the process set forth below when considering whether a proposed rezone discourages incompatible land uses: • Determine whether any land in the proposed rezone is within zone 1 (runway protection zone), zone 2 (inner approach/departure zone),. or zone 3 (inner turning zone) as shown on Safety Compatibility Zone Example 1 from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Shutt Moen Associates, January 2002, p. 9-38). Compare .the land uses allowed by the proposed zoning with the Basic Safety Compatibility Qualities for zones 1, 2, and 3 and the Safety Compatibility Criteria Guidelines for zones 1, 2, and 3 in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Shutt Moen Associates, January 2002, pp. 9-44 and 9-47) and identify incompatible land uses. • Determine whether land in zone 1, 2 or 3 is proposed for a zoning district that allows residential land uses, schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, or above ground bulk fuel storage. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-46 518 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Unless no alternatives are feasible, require residential land uses, schools, day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes to be clustered or otherwise located outside of zones 1, 2 and 3 and require above ground bulk fuel storage to be located outside of zones 1, 2 and 3. The intent is to preserve as much open space as possible in zones 1, 2 and 3. Policy 2X-5: Land uses that are incompatible with the operation of the Lynden Airport should be discouraged if expansion of the Urban Growth Area west of Benson Rd. and south of Badger Rd. is considered. Specifically, the Lynden Urban Growth Area should not be expanded in this area unless it can be demonstrated that: • Residential land uses, schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and above ground bulk fuel storage would be clustered or otherwise located outside zone 2 (inner approach/departure zone), zone 3 (inner turning zone), and zone 4 (outer approach/departure zone).as shown on Safety Compatibility Zone Example 1 from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Shutt Moen Associates, January 2002, p. 9-38). 2X-5 The parcel added to the Lynden UGA in the 200910 UGA and subsequent uses are subiect to the restrictions of RCW 36.70A.110(8). Its addition to the UGA is conditioned upon and subject to the extinguishment of all development rights on the property, and it may not be annexed by the City of Lynden until those rights have been extinguished. Further, the uses of the property must remain consistent with the exemptions in RCW 36.70A.110(8), excepting property from the general prohibitionagainst additions to UGAs in floodplains.. . Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-47 519 A I 1 l ♦ — - Lynden Urban Growth Area mprehemCoPnty Comprehensive Plan November 10, 2009 Urban Growth Area Reserve U"roRdfq�,�0 UAE OF WHATCOM CDUSMS GIS DATA PA ES THE USERS ,,c, �pQ ,�GOM AGREEMEW WtfH IRE FOiIA'"G STA'EMERY: �Y O� Z009 WhafccnGaud dlatimras aaY o..MydarertF aaDlliryarwarranty �;,N of idnepe of lhic na0 far arhrpaHleataz parpe¢e. eHlercaAtesm hopped. Ro repre3ealMha a wetrardY s Wade coace¢Inp tho scar- ary, wrreDcy, mmplpleaees m 9uailtY al dale deplgetl on Ihb map. : a �, 7' � H � r .�:,.Kz'S;��. : �'� ' ".._, w Myaser atih;a oap aaeumep c9 wsppnsF81!Rp krmathpraah ap0 fL.ft Dmec W hold Whatc-t-,*h—l—l.. a0..".4 xg dam.o.ixa- or QVIRv vWmIran s;r uca a! thk neo. Z _ M.5 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 OfVEEOPM�eI 520 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Nooksack The Nooksack urban growth area is located in western Whatcom County, northeast of Bellingham. The UGA is located immediately to the east and northeast of the City of Everson, and is served by a major state highway, SR 9 that connects the City with City of Sumas, extending north to the Canadian border. From points south, Burlington Northern railway passes through the town center, on the way to Canada. The Community's expressed vision is to maintain an atmosphere of safe and friendly family living in a small town rural setting, while protecting and enioying the natural environment and agricultural lands of the surrounding area, and promoting development of new jobs and businesses (City of Nooksack, Comprehensive Plan, 2004). Flood prone areas, preservation of agricultural resource land, appropriate use or re -use of adiacent mineral resource lands, and provision of adequate urban level services, are among the factors considered in designating the City of Nooksack Urban Growth Area boundary. The Nooksack UGA is located entirely within the Sumas River watershed, with portions of the City's eastern boundary. following the Sumas River as it flows north toward Sumas and British Columbia, Canada: Nooksack is surrounded on all sides by physical constraints that present challenges to development. West of the city limits is the Nooksack River floodplain with a history of recurrent flooding, and east of the city are the Sumas River, Breckenridge Creek, and Swift Creek, all of which are prone to flooding. Mineral resource designated lands with active _mining operations are located northeast of the city limits. The Nooksack UGA has also been identified as an area with high aquifer recharge susceptibility, protected by City and County critical areas regulations. ricu Iooksack to enhance or maintain the county's agricultural land base. The City of Nooksack is challenged by a number of urban level service issues that must be considered when establishing geographic boundaries to accommodate future urban growth. The City of Nooksack collects and transmits wastewater to City of Everson's Sewage Treatment Plant for treatment. Both cities provide funding for operation and maintenance of Everson's sewer treatment facility. The City of Everson's treatment facility is not planned to accommodate the projected growth of both cities at this time, although it is expected to have sufficient capacity for the next 13 to 15 years. Neither city has a Comprehensive Sewer Plan adopted, but efforts are beginning to have a plan that will meet future needs through the 20-year planning period. The City of Nooksack has:a Water System Plan approved by DOH on February 22, 2006. The (NVWA). Sumas has water rights to provide City of Nooksack with adequate supply necessary to support projected growth. Fire District 1 serves Everson and Nooksack. The Fire District does not have a Capital Facilities Ip an• Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-49 521 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use The Nooksack Valley School District serves Everson, Nooksack and Sumas. The School District does not have a Capital Facilities Plan, although capacity analysis indicates that the District is able to provide sufficient capacity for the 20-year planning period. The urban growth area for Nooksack is intended to provide sufficient land area to accommodate future urban growth with adequate public services, while minimizing impacts to resource lands and critical areas. County goals encourage Nooksack to develop residentially zoned areas at average net densities of four units per net developable acre. Net developable acreage is calculated by subtracting areas with development limitations such as steep slopes, flood areas, and other critical areas, and land needed for rights -of -way, utilities, infrastructure and open space. ON RIM WIN. oil -e °- e - - 0 INN e — t' n to 1 of the pity limit th �-SId@S--%y-,n,-Ita�, 5--�-��/@.6p>?-�eRt. 1NeSt S=ice,-ti NIP-r-)kl.qaGk River floodplain with a- y of reGUrFing flooding. The, north Of the Gip� +pslt�deS Sl�fne AOAEipIa+F� Af ##� y S#� FS d�Slgr�ated-a-�gr�6u4ttsr- !aa,^d-E—ast of the ri c� the Silma� Rive � -aGtv�c-a-grisuliGtQYiGnd, -snit ap active gravel rni-ne-c.�ttt�tL,e-btty-�6 Y of Everson and rnere agFiGUltUral 'a Thus, a -will-impadt one of these SJcrr$-iti uZ vF reseurGe a eas e geaf ire establfsNngt-he--beafidaft#et-Nook&aek--ha-s-been- te-providd-wit#-a. rei ' nd-#losd-prene-areas: Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA-6) East immediately -Land east of the existing city limits and north of Breckenridge Creek; 224 aGres of land have has been included in the Urban Growth Area. This land is mostly located outside floodplains, and upon annexation Nooksack has indicated a willingness to provide urban services. This area currently contains the Nooksack Elementary School and an adjacent cemetery, both of which are considered public uses. The majority of the remaining area is planned for residential development, with 37aGFes ;dentif;ed fr,r flutuireeindustrial developmen . GOAL 2Y: Set an Urban Growth Boundary for Nooksack which accommodates future growth needs and recognizes constraints imposed by Nooksack and Sumas River flooding, agricultural uses, and mineral resource mining issues. Policy 2Y-1: Work with Nooksack to adopt measures to limit development in floodplains. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-50 522 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2Y-2: Encourage Nooksack to review land use proposals for available agricultural and flood prone lands for designation in open space type uses. Policy 2Y-3: Encourage Nooksack to pursue multi -family development and toadopt measures to develop within the existing city limits at increased densities. Policy 2Y-4: Ensure Nooksack can provide adequate urban services to accommodate projected population growth within the urban growth area. Policy 2Y-5: Review and update the interlocal agreement with Nooksack, as needed, to provide for: • identification of needed capital facility improvements and establishmen of how the,,, vAll ke paid fe adequate sources of funding • timing and procedures to be used for review of adequacy of land supply • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan • periodic reexamination of the commerdall earth of 8euth RRead, flood prone and agricultural areas • measures for protection of adjacent resource lands through control of incompatible uses and/or buffers +— long term measures to assure. compatibility with resource lands Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-51 523 A I y 1� - Nooksack Urban Growth Area WhatcomCounty Comprehensive Plan - November 10, 2009 Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve RMCTIpH USE OE WHATUM EOUNT'1'S Gt30ATA IMPLIES ME USER'S 4�`c OM AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: WANc4m Caaaty aleelnlcta Mi aerrary ar memkeaasWli(y ar weneMy (? 2009 •��'A+ W ranee al lAla®ap mr eny partitatar Outatea. eFltay eaDream hnpl!ed. NO r4pe4y44aNwrarvaRaalTis mad4 :� ; w4taroinatee mp. ary,taRB3ty, rA61pIClYtaa9 n[rpw.Ify aI data d4plc14d to thl6 map. Airy azer 4f Cia map a6acrtee dl reapmrcfNlR7faraa4 thamd,aM 4u �� hrthar a0heesla Mld Wdaltem Gtael7lurseleat them ami against any Z damage. fats 4r llaNlN+erl�4a Frain �vtlea 4!IP,k hn4a. M'as 0 0.05 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.4 B 4 OfVELOPAA�� . . 524 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Sumas The Sumas urban growth area is located in north central Whatcom County along the USA - Canada international border, with the communities of Everson and Nooksack to the southwest. The UGA is served by state highway (SR 9) connecting the City to the Canadian border and extending to points further south. The Community's vision for the UGA is to take advantage of its location and function as an international border crossing to capitalize on commercial and retail economic opportunities presented by border traffic, and the City has also expressed an interest in becoming a regional industrial center. The UGA is served by Burlington Northern railway. Flood prone areas, preservation of agricultural resource land, and provision of adequate urban services, are among many factors considered in designating the City of Sumas Urban Growth Area boundary. The UGA and surrounding area consists of gently sloping terrain, tributa! r streams and creeks draining into the meandering northward flowing Sumas River. The UGA is also surrounded by agricultural land with agricultural protection soils on all sides. County goals include working cooperatively with the City of Sumas to enhance or maintain the county's agricultural land base. year planning period. State law requires municipal systems to update WSP's every 6 years. and City of Sumas is currently in the process of updating its Plan. The City of Sumas owns and operates seven wells in two major well fields that provide a significant quantity of water within recognized water rights. City of Sumas supplies wholesale water to the Sumas Rural Water Association (SRWA) the Nooksack Valley Water Association and. the City of Nooksack. Although not covered in the 2000 Plan, preliminary analysis indicates that the combined storage of .1,000,000 gallons is sufficient to meet the need of the combined systems for the 20-year planning period. City of Sumas collects and transports wastewater across the USA -Canada border for treatment in the City of Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, on a contractual basis. This agreement extends' through the year 2028. Although the City of Sumas does not have a Comprehensive Sewer Plan, it appears that the City has sufficient capacity to meet the growth allocated within the 20-year planning period. indicated that it currently can provide urban level of service to Sumas. The urban growth area for Sumas is intended to provide sufficient land area to accommodate future urban growth with adequate public services, while minimizing impacts to resource lands and critical areas. County goals encourage Sumas to develop residentially zoned areas at averaqe net densities of four units per net developable acre. Net developable acreage is -calculated by subtracting areas with development limitations such as steep slopes, flood areas, and other critical areas, and land needed for rights -of --way, utilities, infrastructure and open space. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-53 525 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use A--G944&idLratJo,T.^ # f�-Gf�VVt%A�@a-iiaS bEeFFtile�� .t�z-; ;,b2 9f Pr@j3e y owners vth area. A smaller area -weuld have resulted in two or three p rope � ��nin rc ^ntrelling most f the land �h ���• �i�_.or�.a#i r+���n�desirable I.' "'-cy-"r,r„e,�-�,--�,-.�— arm-�;�,-.e— , , ITIGROPO"StiG situation. Areas included in the UGA - (Map UGA-7) The urban growth area boundary is the Sumas city limits. Sow the south of Sumas. This area is lGGated outside the fle-edplain and Minatel„ ' riGuitur-al use. It '--o-v^r Sumas with any upland area to aGGGFnFnedate futuFe Fesidentwal'grevAh. GOAL 2Z: Set an Urban Growth Boundary for Sumas which accommodates future growth needs and recognizes the unique constraints imposed by flooding of the Sumas River and the Nooksack River. Policy 2Z-1: Ensure Sumas can provide adequate urban services within the urban growth area. Policy 2Z-2: Work with Sumas to adopt measures to limit development in filoodplains. Policy 2Z-3: Encourage Sumas to increase densities for areas located outside the floodplain. Policy 2Z-4: Avoid new land uses that are an identified threat to groundwater quality within the delineated wellhead protection area of the Sumas City wellfield and May Road wellfield. Policy 2Z-5: Negotiate and adopt an interlocal agreement which provides for. • restriction of extension of urban levels. of service to use utside the SheFt Tern,P-le„T ing Areas e-urban growth areas identificaflon of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be paid for • . timing and procedures to be used for review of adequate of land supply. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-54 526 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan • protection of groundwater quality within the wellhead protection areas of the Sumas wellfields • re-examination of the densities outside the floodplain to see if they can be increased • Long term measures to assure compatibility with resource lands Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2.55 527 I e— A - Su mas Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan November 10, 2009 There is no Urban Growth Area outside of city limits proposed for Sumas. 0R14ygT�o USE OF WHATCOM COUNTV'S Gig DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S AGREEMENT V" THE FDUOWUIG STATEMENT: "'%! 11,19 .�G4M -.cOG sf .yT. ,L,P �Q�Q �• V Whalcom Cooly di;clahac an o-m:-dT a.I.rcL actagliliTwwartamy of IS— al lgla .;P to, aiH'r a hor nP—o or C1Q � gedicalor RV—. ImpHad. Ne regreseaWo al r—*3 aide.P Mnii Il;oaaar� n N 'T'"'�2�:, W. aq,curteacy, mmpblsaaea ar �waAM dMa ftltlad an ILln map. Arcya6a dth""...V.S UflaPa =Willy w—I[.—I. wd J tRdhar agrees to Mid WILV= Cady Rtr 1— Im. and agaiosl Any ,Z dalamo.hu. ar OaHINr;Aalaa from aev m of lglc.eo. 0 0.1 02 Oo 0,6 O.a heo �EL'ELOEW'� 528 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Areas and Recreational Subdivisions Birch Bay, Sudden Valley, and the Columbia Valley/Kendall area are unincorporated areas with sizable populations and substantial amounts of existing, residential/recreational development. These areas are characterized by a mix of permanent residents, recreational units and/or second home use, which reflects both the population growth that has occurred in the unincorporated areas of Whatcom County and the resort/recreational nature of these areas. Birch Bay Birch Bay is a resort community which has the hir.heo+ r,r.,,.+h r,te and the most ne Tflai_ -OF development of any un*RGE) _pe.ated area in the n my The area has historically been a second - home resort area with a trend toward permanent, often retirement homes. A high proportion are still second homes. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, approximately 51 % of the housing units in the Birch Bay Census Designated Place are vacant or seasonally occupied. The community, however, feels that trend is shifting to more permanent residents as the cost of housing in other areas of the county increases. The 2000 census counted 5,094 housing units in the Birch Bay Census Designated Place, including recreational units and RV sites. The an -es 2,3531 acres-at-ande��ekimrl esidentia" d- in the Rirnh 13 r� a,c—aY,-em+..o��z;o r�.�,� �-r.. alp 4nnrn��l��i f +h a rnres nnc+rnined by wetlands and n+har n r�PP.v-vr--cr-.uo�.-uvr.�-a,�-�vrr -r � rItFEQi 0 , fl ..-.y residential or -�-rc.ur--r feerea#ieaal ue9ts witk�+r� tkie Birsb-Bad Gfe OL Caalike reereatio ioe4-units would -have 2."-re ;a ;;t sires unitS GE)uld house aR additional 4,019 f .1 . e residential and previde as many as 1,725 sea----, hr usil — . s or RV sites During the 2009 UGA update, land was removed from the Birch Bay UGA. The land removed from the UGA was put into a Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and re -zoned from urban densities to Rural one dwelling/ten acres. Water and sewer are provided by Birch Bay Sewer and Water District which has a network of water lines throughout most of the district-ineAt ng4#e-Bir-sh-Pbi-nt-area-which-was-r��,aued- fFeM the uFban-r : Birch Bay Water and Sewer District has the capability of providing sewer service to the entire urban growth area, but the present system covers a much smaller geographic area than the water distribution. The sewer service area also includes land which was removed from the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area or is included in the Blaine Urban Growth Area; tut -there is no sev er-se A-Ge-outside-ef-tie-ur-baa-grewt#-arm. The district purchases water under a contractual agreement from the City of Blaine. In April 2002, the District entered into a 30 year contract with the City of Blaine to purchase water adequate to serve the Districts projected need for water through 2022. The District continues to work closely with Blaine as need for water changes given updates to population projections. The District also has a pending application for groundwater rights to a well drilled by the District, and an application to transfer water from the Nooksack River, by means of a contract with Whatcom County PUD 1, to supply the longer term needs of the community. ORe Of t — issues w c whethe a portion of the-Ghe , I7ne-inG4Yded Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan T '� �. � 2-57 529 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use ., _eM.M.• In 2002, a citizen group completed a Community Plan for the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area and surrounding rural area. The Birch Bay Community Plan, as revised, was adopted as a Subarea of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan in 2004 and provides more detailed background information and policy direction regarding growth and development within Birch Bay. Where there are conflicts between the Birch Bay Community Plan and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, The County Comprehensive Plan shall prevail. In 1992. an attempt was made to incomorate Birch Bav: however. it was defeated by the voters. In 2008, the county completed an incorporation feasibility study for the Birch Bay UGA which identified the issues with and benefits of incorporating. It concluded that Birch Bay incorporation was financially feasible given the community's tax base and service needs. The community has not made another attempt to incorporate as of 2009. Columbia ValleyXe-rtdatt Located in the northeast region of the developed portion of the county, the Columbia ValleyXendatl UGA is the most populous area in the eastern part of Whatcom County. The Columbia Valley area, like many other areas in Whatcom County, was originally developed to cater to a seasonal population, primarily Canadians who are allowed to spend up to six months per year in the United States. 2000 U.S. Census data indicates that approximately 32% 52°� of the existing housing was is -either seasonal or vacant. However, portion -of this area, rP iGU!ar',y Paradise Lakes, have has become attractive for permanent residents and has transitioned to a higher percentage of year-round residents , With this trend „xpe-,ted t„ innr„ago t„ 60 in the 20 year planning „e4ed. The lots are affordable and the current and projected development will provide an available work force for economic development. Columbia Valley includes refe#sAe-two large subdivisions, Paradise .Lakes and Peaceful Valley, which are located along both sides of Kendall Road (SR547). These aewelopments include ate :f The UGA also includes several lakes, a an4 wetland complex along Kendall Creek, and some undeveloped land. The Columbia Valley was originally designated as an urban growth area in 1999. Between 2000 and 2008, the population of the UGA has increased by more than 50%. Additionally, the population increases in the summer because of the recreational units in the UGA. , URits con " ernes; --;A- permanent Feside, Ges. Sinee designs#�orr of #fie Cetr+n ia-araltey/KendatUGA-+n 19997_--crvet ng-4Nts-4iavti 4-nGreased by apprex#iegfor-some-bu+ldeute#-tindeveleped-laad�ta...... t+rare-paRtrlatie�s e eiithin the 7r1 ,io �ri�on r-c"Id reach spl yeaf-plaer+ing-h rize . Paradise Lakes has public roads and continues to utilize septic systems for sewage disposal. The Evergreen Water -Sewer District provides public water service (formerly provided by the Paradise Lakes Country Club) to residential and camper lots within the Paradise Lakes divisions. Peaceful Valley has private roads and a water. and sewer system managed by Water District 13 wh;Gh has ample GapaGity. The distdGt has gone thr„„oh bankr„ntGy because of the Reed two earry the ra„ital debt_ and q +ti„n r octs of a c„ctem that is „RdeF-, h0i-ed Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-58 530 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Public transit service is provided to the Columbia Valley/Kendall area by the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA). Local east -county law enforcement is provided by a full time resident Sheriffs Deputy that is based out of Kendall. The small town of Kendall, located outside of the UGA, has a commercial district, fire station, and an elementary school. Sudden Valley Recreational Subdivision Sudden Valley was established in the early 1970s as a recreation/resort area located in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. But over the last thirty years it has developed into an Urban Residential area. Sudden Valley has private paved roads, all underground utilities (electricity, gas, cable and telephone), and a public water and sewer system provided by Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. Fire District #2, strategically located in Sudden Valley, provides fire and ambulance service. Sudden Valley's 1,724 total acres originally included 4,648 platted single-family lots/condominiums, a limited commercial area, community facilities, a marina, and a golf course. Of the 1,545 acres, 835 acres of open space and 140 acres of golf course (63%) are community association owned. The remaining 749 acres (43%) are private property. 2000 US Census data indicates that approximately 26% of the existing housing in Sudden Valley is either seasonal or Vacant. Sudden Valley contributes to a .high volume of vehicle trips on Lake Whatcom Boulevard, and Lake Louise Road. Right=of-way and alignment studies have been proposed for the 6-year TIP to study alternatives, cost and location relative to addressing the growing volume of vehicular,,trips on Lake Whatcom Boulevard and Lake Louise Road. Public transportation services are provided by the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA). Sudden Valley lies within the Lake Whatcom Watershed where limiting development has been identified as desirable. The Sudden Valley Community Association (SVCA) has a Board of Directors mandated lot consolidation program with a targeted density reduction of 1,400 lots, reducing the total lots for development from 4,648 to 3,248. To date approximately 75% (1,047 lots) have been placed into density reduction of which 452 are voluntary private lot consolidation. SVCA funding has been set aside to purchase additional lots for density reduction. In accordance with the 2000 Lake Whatcom Management Program, the County and lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District have also assisted Sudden Valley with their density reduction program through several joint agreements and exchanges of property and restrictive covenants. To date, the SVCA, County, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District have acquired 115 undeveloped lots in Sudden Valley at annual tax foreclosure auctions. The Lot Consolidation Covenant to Bind process has, also, increased voluntary private lot consolidation. The County Council has exempted Sudden Valley from the Lake Whatcom Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program because Sudden Valley's density reduction plan meets the intent of the TDR program.. Since 1985, Sudden Valley has mandated the use of appropriate stormwater best management practices through standards for individual stormwater detention for all new construction. Any new building permits on existing lots must be able to demonstrate that stormwater detention is included on the plan as a precondition to issuance of a permit. Sudden Valley is also subject to additional regulatory protections that apply to the Lake Whatcom watershed under the Water Resource Protection Overlay District, Stormwater Special District, and Water Resource Special Management Area requirements. Under the provisions of these special districts, potential impacts from impervious surfaces, stormwater runoff, and clearing activities are required to be addressed on -site. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-59 531 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction . Chapter Two - Land Use Sudden Valley has implemented a 10-year Forest And Wildlife Stewardship (FAWS) plan with the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This plan provides environmental education and guidance to the Sudden Valley community, on a continuing basis, to assure sound environmental health and safety for plants, animals, and residents with an emphasis on properly managing flora and fauna indigenous to the region. GOAL 2AA: Recognize Birch Bay and the Columbia ValleyiKendaN area as county urban growth areas, not associated with existing cities. Policy 2AA-1: Work with the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District to amend the District service area boundaries to be consistent with the revised Urban Growth Area and establish policies for provision of water service to portions of the District that were removed from the UGA. Policy 2AA-2: Work with Birch Bay Water and Sewer District and the City of Blaine to resolve tl:ie-anv issues of jurisdiction. Semiahmea-d pr�ent. As �—sta�#+�-premise, assume the area behyeen 1 innnln Read a I rlrw#r`.+ 4lorhnr #� ultimately be port of Blaine b h m.fith water -and sev.fer se FViGe fmm the iiiStFin4. Policy 2AA-3 Recognize the resort nature of Birch Bay -and -Gel , including the significant second home factor when analyzing land supply for urban growth area boundaries. Recognize the recreational nature" of a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA when analyzing land supply_ for urban growth area boundaries. Policy 2AA-4: Encourage incorporation of Birch Bay when financial viability can . be achieved without including the Cherry Point Industrial. Area within .proposed city boundaries. Policy 2AA-5: Recognize the irppacts of tourist development on local residents in the Birch Bay, Sudden Valley, and Columbia Valley and provide for mitigation of those impacts._ Policy 2AA-6: Work with all parties to resolve infrastructure and public service issues so that the Columbia. Valle yall-ar-ea UGA can develop to its full potential. Capital facility plans should provide the information required by RCW 36.70A.070(3). Policy 2AA-7: Study the Columbia ValleyAendag UGA to identify the factors necessary to create an economically viable city, the implications of such development within the County overall, and make recommendations.. as to how.and when incorporation should be initiated. Policy 2AA-8: Require unplatted areas in the Columbia ValleyXendalt UGA to obtain "ability to serve" letters from schools, fire districts, and water and sewer service providers and demonstrate adequate road capacity in order to receive county approval for new subdivisions. Policy 2AA-9: For new subdivisions, encourage the use of clustering with adequate setbacks along Kendall Creek, Kendall and Sprague lakes, and wetlands to Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-60 532 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use avoid environmental degradation of surface waters, to enhance/restore fish habitat relative to complying with listings under the Endangered Species Act, where they might apply, and to protect the aquifer underlying the Columbia Valley. Policy 2AA-10: For existing lots in the Columbia Valley enaaH UGA, encourage the use of appropriate stormwater best management practices and connection to public sewer to protect surface waters and the aquifer. Any new building permits on existing lots must be able to demonstrate that the water service is available to provide adequate water as a precondition to the issuance of a permit. Policy 2AA-11: Encourage use of low impact development (LID) standards in the Columbia Valley UGA. undevaleped traets in Columbia Valley/KeRdall to develop Fegiofla4 eG4i ste ti, 4--of-­new vu�ra isio,=.�7: Policy 2AA-12: Recognize the need for light impact industrial land uses within the Columbia ValleyXendald Urban Growth Area. Consider establishing a Light impact industrial zone i+the long term rea located on: the. north side of Limestone Road. Retain the existing zoning within this long term planning --area until a master plan has been completed to identify traffic impacts and infrastructure/utility/service needs, and appropriate mitigation measures. Policy 2AA-13: Recognize the Columbia Valley UGA as a developing urban community with potential to establish a viable town center, which includes commercial uses, a variety of residential housing types, and institutional uses. Pdude aElditiE) `JGE)MmeFGiaIZGRiRg within the Urban growth area n+il the Small Town cznrn nrn;-I rlie+rir.+ in Kendall iisfully rlovc�lri an-rl o rl land c, �nnhr Study dP.fn4CaStfa+oc needfr)r �'iAition-' co eF6lal land. Policy 2AA-14: Facilitate meeting the unique needs of Sudden Valley due to its location within the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Policy 2AA-15: Recognize the existing parcelization and the commitment for development of the remaining multi -family parcels in Sudden Valley. Policy 2AA-16: Work with the Community Association towards achievement of the density reduction target of 1,400 lots within Sudden Valley. Policy 2AA-17: If the county acquires lots through tax foreclosure, consider selling them as non -buildable lots. Policy 2AA-18: Support Lake, Whatcom Water and Sewer District's effort to maintain adequate sewer capacity and control stormwater run-off in keeping with appropriate environmental controls and the Sudden Valley Community Association's density reduction goal. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-61 533 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Policy 2AA-19: Explore alternatives for traffic impact mitigation including: enhanced bus service to Sudden Valley • consideration of some additional commercial and limited light industrial development within' existing Neighborhood Commercial and Resort Commercial zones to create a fuller service community to limit shopping and journey to work trips Policy 2AA-20: Recognize Sudden Valley as a "Recreational Subdivision". Policy 2AA-21: Work with all parties to maintain, and appropriately plan for infrastructure, public services, and stormwater retention so that Sudden Valley can develop to its appropriate potential. ■ . . . si�i � :ET�TSl. :'7:�:l�� I�iT:�1. ■ Z. ■. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-62 534 I 1� A /l - Birch Bay Urban Growth Area Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - November 10, 2009 E Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve 1FORATglb 4�OM C' b USE OFMATCOM CGUNTY'S GIS DATA NdptIES THE USEN'S FEEMEN'W7TN 7HE FOLLOWING GTA'EvENT: AG 44 .�G . OG mf . � Z004 �'p+ no.. Chanty dlalabzi avy aunmy at malche,mNlYY ar warnmy w In. ag 01 Ihis map I. dW partkaim pan"O. cY.W rapldcam if ImpU6A. Ng mprcseNaH�arwaramY!5matk cgrrGarclnpffiedcan :y-. �.yl dt'1', currvgcy, wmpbtuxcs or gaaltY el"�d daplGtea mr tins map. . y: _n �`�V. Nna eN {ge7.wrblNlity lGr YI616aregi dad �, s., . kddaaaA tvb.,6g, iGIh16{dQlCa6!a held 4YImICam G­JT 2'rmiOGa Tram bad tpdia:l an dammd. UGs or IUL;INYaMiraha.. �uuca d!IAk neo ? Z Z-�-_. �Q Miles ca ty �fVELop. 0 0,125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 _ 535 Map UGA-9 - Columbia Valle Urban Growth Areaunty Whaber10,tcom 009 Y Comprehensive Plan - November 10, 2009 Urban Growth Area Urban Growth Area Reserve Q�1C IKFORATIgt� USE OF WHATCOM COOHTV'S CIS DATA IMPLIES THE USER'S AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLO\WNG STATEMENT; Q¢ SCOM COG d}, �? P @ 2009 .yr� What— Coady dl=124M sap Yarraaly al mem.Be blliq ner or arady pl fitnew al IBIS map tm any pmNcalm ompcae. eHAcr cap= W 3 d hnpll¢d. NpmpreseclaOan at YemrNYla made caacaminp lheuar v aey, c M.q. mMpIdwas or gaailty al dale deplded an Ihle nmp. Any eaerp(Wh map aea¢be all raymnplMllp farlme dasrapl, and .� w fWhor......W held WhA m CacmT harmless lmm and a.alaad any dame...Me. or IladlBr"falne Imm my pee Of thlc men. C,,' Miles V. 0 0.1 0.2 0-4 0.6 0.8 LOPM�aS 536 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Major Industrial Urban Growth Area / Port Industrial Cherry Point The Cherry Point Urban Growth Area (UGA) contains approximately 7,000 acres of industrial land. The land has long been planned and designated by Whatcom County for industrial development and is currently the site of three major industrial facilities including two oil refineries and an aluminum smelter. Together, the existing industrial developments occupy about 4,100 acres of the total Cherry Point industrial lands. In addition to existing industry, the planning and permitting for a new 1,100 acre bulk commodities shipping pork in the Cherry Point UGA is nearly complete. The four major industrial areas (three existing and one proposed) together would consume about 5,200 acres of the heavy industrial land in the Cherry Point UGA or about 74 percent of the heavy industrial area. Land consumption at Cherry Point has been about. 1,000 acres per facility on the average which includes sufficient land to avoid wetlands and provide buffer areas. Based on this consumption figure, there is only sufficient remaining land in the Cherry Point industrial area to support two additional industrial complexes of the character of those presently located there. Because of the special characteristics of Cherry Point, this area has regional significance for thb siting of large industrial or related facilities. Because of the large acreage demands of the types of industries likely to locate there, the remaining undeveloped acreage at Cherry Point will likely be absorbed during the 20 year planning period. The Cherry Point shoreline also has great importance to the fisheries and ecology of Northern Puget Sound because it provides essential spawning habitat for the largest herring stock in Washington State. This herring stock has supported important commercial fisheries and provides forage for salmonids and other important marine species. In September, 2003, the DNR accepted, the recommendation that Cherry Point be further evaluated for Aquatic Reserve status. A supplemental EIS is currently being prepared for the proposed reserve. It is expected that the final supplemental EIS will be published in spring of 2005.. The proposed reserve extends from the'southern boundary of Birch Bay State Park to the northern border of the Lummi Indian `Nation Reservation. The site excludes three existing leases (BP, Intalco, ConocoPhillips shipping piers) and one proposed lease (Gateway Pacific Terminal site). The County and industrial users have long recognized that the Cherry Point area exhibits a unique set of characteristics that makes land there not only locally but regionally important for the siting of major industrial developments especially where deep water access for shipping is a critical locational factor. These characteristics were articulated in the Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) for Whatcom County adopted by the Whatcom County Council of Governments in May, 1993 and in the 1997 Property Counselors Report on supply and demand for industrial land in Whatcom County and at Cherry Point, the 2002 Greater Whatcom Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, and the 2003 Whatcom County Industrial Land Study. The characteristics that make Cherry Point unique as a site for major industrial development include the following: Port Access - The marine Waters off Cherry Point provide deep water access for "shipping. Deep water access for shipping was a major siting consideration for the three major industries currently located at Cherry Point and for the two industrial/shipping facilities currently being proposed. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-65 537 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Rail Access - Cherry Point is served by a branch line of the Burlington Northern mainline serving western Washington from Blaine to Portland. Rail service is considered to be vital to statewide as well as local interests for the competitive movement :of freight. Rail service is particularly important in relation to water borne commerce. The Cherry Point area has the rail access to support marine terminals and industrial users in the area. The BP refinery at Cherry Point uses the .railroad to ship calcined coke to U.S. markets and to other port facilities for transshipment to foreign markets. Proximity to Canada, Alaska and Foreign Ports - Cherry Point occupies a unique location for the siting of industry because of its close proximity to Canada and because of its shorter travel distance than other regional port facilities for shipping to Alaska and to other Pacific Rim locations. The Cherry Point industrial area benefits from proximity to Canada, as trade between the U.S. and Canada grows in response to the lifting of trade barriers under the Free Trade Agreement of 1989..Canadian exports to the U.S. are expected to increase and Canadian firms exporting to the U.S. are expected to seek locations in the U.S. as a way of improving access to U.S. markets. The City of Sumas is already experiencing an influx of Canadian industries seeking to. improve access to U:S. markets. Additionally, just as other port facilities in Washington are constrained by lack of extensive upland areas to support major industrial development, Canadian port facilities are likewise constrained. There are limited expansion sites available at Roberts Banks and in the Vancouver Harbor, and development sites further up the Fraser River are constrained by limitations on vessel draft. Marine terminals at Cherry Point could serve a portion of the potential growth in Canadian marine cargo. Presence of Necessary Utilities and Infrastructure Cherry Point has been a major industrial area in Whatcom County since the 1960's. The BP oil refinery, ConocoPhillips Oil Refinery and the Alcoa Aluminum Plant have all been operating at Cherry.Point for more than thirty years. The infrastructure to support these industries and future industrial users at Cherry Point is in place and includes the following: .Electric Power: Electric Power is available from three providers in the Cherry Point area: Puget Sound Energy, Public Utility District #1, and Bonneville Power Administration. One of these providers, Puget Sound Energy, has a combustion turbine generating facility located in the Cherry Point industrial area. An additional cogeneration facility is proposed at the BP Refinery. The high cost of. electrical power has been a problem for Cherry Point industrial users over.the past few years.. The proposed cogeneration. facility could help stabilize the supply of electricity.. Water: Whatcom County Public Utility. District #1 currently provides process water to. all major industrial facilities at Cherry Point and has contracts .in place to provide process water to two major undeveloped parcels and provides potable water to the BP refinery Praxair. The other industries.. operate their own water treatment facilities and treat process water to provide potable water for their facilities. Sewer: Sewer service is not typically required for large industrial developments. Most of the existing industrial. users provide their own on -site sewage treatment and waste water treatment. Sewer service for domestic wastewater is provided to the BP Refinery. by the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. If and when sewer service should become necessary for other industries, service could be .provided on a contractual basis with the Birch Bay Water and. Sewer District, which borders the Cherry Point industrial area on the north. Natural Gas: Natural gas is currently available at Cherry Point. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan • 2-66 538 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use All-weather Roads: Grandview Road, the major east -west connector between Cherry Point and Interstate-5 provides all-weather road access to Cherry Point. The industries currently located at Cherry Point are a substantial part of the economic base of Whatcom County and the region and the economic welfare of the county is strongly tied to the health of these industries and their ability to flourish and expand as opportunities present themselves. These industries need to be protected from the inappropriate encroachment of incompatible uses; particularly residential uses that could affect their ability to expand. The best means for protecting these industries from incompatible adjoining uses and to assure their continued regulatory conformity is to maintain the industrial land use designation of these lands and adjoining properties currently designated for industrial development. The Cherry Point industrial lands have been designated for industrial development foF eveF 25 years and as a direct result of the industrial designation, incompatible and inappropriate residential development has been curtailed. GOAL 2BB: Maintain Cherry Point as an unincorporated urban growth area based on. its unique location and characteristics and its significant . contribution to the overall industrial land supply and Whatcom County's tax base. Policy 2 BB-1: Designate Cherry. Point as a major industrial Urban Growth Area to accommodate major users that need to be located away from concentrated urban residential areas. Policy 2BB-2: Assure that Cherry Point's unique features of large parcelization, port access, and transportation availability are maintained and protected from incompatible development.. Policy: 2BB-3: Require the master planning of each large parcel in advance of any 'development or subdivision at Cherry Point. Policy: 2BB-4: Require the designation and site plan for a major user (generally 40 acres or more) before the development of accessory or supporting uses to assure that accessory or supporting uses are compatible with and will not interfere with the major industrial user. Policy: 2BB-5: Specify 160 acres as a minimum area for planning, prior to the commitment of a parcel for a major user (40 acres or more, singularly or as a .cluster or group). Policy: 2BB-6: Permit support activities, warehousing, shipping, machine repair and service, educational services, food service and conveniences, to locate on a parcel only after the completion of a master plan, and the identification and site plan approval for the major user. Policy 2BB-7: Resist inclusion of Cherry Point as part of any future incorporation of Birch Bay • to protect interests of the property owner in terms of taxation and urban regulations; Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-67 539 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use to preclude urbanism near "smokestack" industries; to preserve county government tax base. Policy 21313-8: Continue to work with service providers that serve Cherry Point to ensure the delivery of services and to allow it to develop to its fullest potential. Policy 2BB-9: It is the policy of Whatcom County to limit the number of piers at Cherry Point by establishing a development moratorium. Notwithstanding the above, this moratorium shall not affect, no otherwise apply to, any proposed pier that Whatcom County approved under its Shoreline Management Program prior to adoption of the moratorium. Policy 2BB-10: RCW 36.70A.365 requires the implementation of Traffic Demand Management (TDM) programs for the designating of a Maior Industrial Urban Growth Area. Any employer in the Cherry Point Urban Growth Area that employs one hundred or more full-time employees at a single worksite who begin their regular work day between 6:00 am and 9:00 am on weekdays for at least twelve continuous months during the year are required to meet the TDM requirements of WCC 16.24. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-68 540 ln�—5 Z A� 4 cherry Pt Map UGA-10 MOUNTA 12 — Cherry Point Urban Growth Area Whatcom Count Comprehensive Plan - November 10, 2009 ,7 WO!",-6 Urban Growth Area �Of.ORA!A% IJAE OFWHATCOM COUNTY'S Gig DATAIMPLIES THE USER'S AGREEMENTYANTHE FOUDWINGSTATEMENT: r,(?.m . 200q DUO" map. d *.L. A,(" f thm -p MI -I .111. and If IV— to h.,Id WhIj_ C. d..M., lom . flit-110V .1.1I. I.. M U.. .1 au ..I %11--.E,, Miles 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 541 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use NOTE: There are no changes to the Rural section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the- 10-Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 (which will be amended in the Rural element update) has not been included in this document. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-70 542 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Urban Growth Area Reserves Two - Land Use The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map includes the designation of Urban Growth Area Reserves. Urban Growth Area Reserves means a land use designation that may be applied to those areas which are adjacent and contiguous to either incorporated or unincorporated Urban Growth Areas which appear to be suitable for future inclusion in the respective Urban Growth Area. The purpose of the Urban Growth Area Reserve varies by urban area. Expansion of urban growth into the Reserve area may occur if criteria are met. Upon establishing an Urban Growth Area Reserve, Whatcom County will establish land use controls intended to reserve the area for future urban densities and development by limiting the potential of the properties to be developed with incompatible uses, densities, or public facilities which would interfere with the likely expansion of urban development in the future. Properties in these areas should generally have land use designations of no more than one unit per ten acres, and uses such as agriculture, forestry, conservation, and low density residential development, may be encouraged provided that the continuation of such uses may not be a basis for preventing future expansion of the Urban Growth Area to the Urban Growth Area Reserve. General criteria for transferring properties from the Urban Growth Area Reserve to the Urban Growth Area are set forth below: 1. Need for Land Capacity. The need for additional land is necessary due to growth forecasts higher than allocated to the urban area or less land capacity than analyzed. A transfer from Urban Growth Area Reserve to Urban Growth Area will not be allowed which would provide capacity to accommodate substantially more than 20 years of urban growth. Additional consideration can be made regarding the mix of housing and employment opportunities that are required to serve the Urban Growth Area which could be accommodated in the Urban Growth Area Reserve and which cannot be accommodated within the Urban Growth Area. 2. Adequate Public Facilities and Services. There are plans and capacity to serve the areas with urban governmental services as set forth in the Growth Management Act. There is no requirement to extend these services prior to transferring the area from Urban Growth Area Reserve to Urban Growth Area, but the Capital Facility Plans must document the capacity and plans to serve at urban levels of service within the 20-year planning period. 3. Land Use Plans. The respective city, or county for unincorporated Urban Growth Areas, have comprehensive plans and land use regulations in place to allow for the transition from Urban Growth Area Reserve to Urban Growth Area. The respective jurisdiction will. also have in place development regulations that ensure urban densities are achieved " within the existing Urban Growth Area. Urban Growth Area Reserves should be iointly planned between Whatcom County and the respective city, 4. Natural Resource Lands. Expansion into the Urban Growth Area Reserve will not allow uses that are incompatible with adjoining natural resource lands unless mitigated through buffers, increased. setbacks or other measures as necessary to maintain the productivity of the adjacent resource lands. If the expansion is into lands zoned Agricultural, the city and county shall have an interlocal agreement or regulations in place that implement a program that outlines the respective roles in protecting at least 100,000 acres of agricultural land in Whatcom County. 5. Environment. Land use regulations are in place to ensure protection of the environment and sensitive watersheds. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-71 543 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use 6. Open Space Corridors. Continued provisions are made for open space corridors within and between Urban Growth Areas where not otherwise precluded by previous development patterns. Below are issues, established by urban area that must be addressed in order to authorize areas to be redesignated from Urban Growth Area Reserve to Urban Growth Area. Bellingham Urban Area Lake Padden is considered a sensitive water body because it is designated as impaired by pollution under Clean Water Act standards i303(d) Category 5 Watersl. This area has also not demonstrated the ability to provide adequate public facilities and services within the twenty.year planning period. The portion of the. Lake Padden Watershed that was previously designated as an Urban Growth Area is designated as an Urban Growth Area Reserve. The Urban Growth Area Reserve should be jointly planned with the city and county in coniunction with Urban Growth Area Ip ans. Birch Bay Urban Area The Birch Bay Community Plan adopted in 2004 used a high growth forecast that does not appear to be warranted over the new twentyyear planning period. The community is currently::; .. working on a planning process (Birch Bay Watershed Characterization) to identify areas most suitable for development. A portion of the Urban Growth Area along Blaine Road not needed for the growth allocation but within a logical urban boundary is designated as an Urban Growth Area Reserve. Blaine Urban Area There are no areas proposed for Urban Growth Area Reserve adjacent to the Blaine Urban Growth Area. Cherry Point Urban Area There are no areas proposed for Urban Growth Area Reserve adjacent to the Cherry Point Industrial Urban Growth Area. Columbia Valley Urban Area An area on the west side of the UGA has been placed into an Urban Growth Area Reserve. This area is within lands designated as geologically hazardous, and suitability for urban development has not vet been demonstrated. Everson Urban Area Land to the north of Everson along Trap Line Road is designated as Urban Growth Area Reserves. This area was designated as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. The Everson UGA has been reduced in other areas and those lands were put into agricultural . lands of long-term commercial significance, thus not causing a reduction in the resource land designations in the Everson area. Holding this area in an Urban Growth Area Reserve through the year 2012 will allow the opportunity for Whatcom County and the City of Everson to work on strategies and plans to ensure protection of at least 100,000 acres of agricultural land. in Whatcom County, including acguisition. of development rights consistent with WCC 2.160.080(5). The Urban Growth Area Reserve should be iointly planned with the city and county in coniunction with Urban Growth Area plans. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-72 544 November 10,, 2009. Council Introduction Cha ter Two - Land Use Ferndale Urban Area There .are no areas proposed for Urban Growth Area Reserve adjacent to the Ferndale Urban Growth Area. Lyndon: urban Area Growth of Lynden is constrained byy agricultural lands. 1n.2003. Whatcom County designated moderate amount of growth, and has implemented,significantly higher densities in their land use plans-. Capital facility plans have been developed and implemented based on the assumption of a modest growth level. A.portion of the lands east of Double pitch Rvad haye_beon designated as an Urban'Growth Area Reserve, instead of Urban Growth Area as requested by the City. Holding this area in an Urban Growth Amp Reserve through the year 2012 will a#low the,opportunity for W.hatcom County and; Nooksack.Urban Area allow the opportunity for Whatcom County and thel City of Nooksack to work on strategies and .plans to ensure protection of at least 100,000 acres of agricultural land in Whatcom County.. This area will be kept in reserve status until the County has determined that development will not expose future residents and employees to unacceptable risk from naturals occurring. asbestos. The Urban Growth Area Reserve_ should be jointly planned with the city and county in conjunction with .Urban Growth Area plans. Sumas Urban Area There are no areas proposed for Urban Growth Area. Reserve adjacent to the Sumas Urban Growth Area. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-73 545 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use Special Study Areas Lake Whatcom Lake Whatcom is the drinking water source for approximately half of Whatcom County. Recent studies on Lake Whatcom indicate water qualityin the lake has declined. Oxygen levels in Lake Whatcom are declining to lower levels, and are declining faster than in the past. In 1997, the Washington State Department of Ecology listed Lake Whatcom as an impaired water body and place Lake Whatcom on the Federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list because of low oxygen levels. 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. The TMDL goals will require a variety of planning, pollution prevention, pollution reduction and technical approaches. Meeting the TMDL goals will be required in order to stabilize.water quality in Lake Whatcom. The primary. cause of declining oxygen levels had been from residential development in- the watershed. Past development permitted by the City of Bellingham and Whatcoml County has led to increased phosphorus loading into .the lake, which in turn has led to lower oxygen levels in the lake. Poorly. managed forest practices .can also lead. to significant increases in phosphor us. loading .to the lake. In November/December 1992, a. joint resolution. was passed by. the Bellingham City Council, Whatcom County Council, :and.. Water District 10Commissioners, which reaffirmed this position. with. six general.goal`statements.and a set of specific goal statements in various categories. The specific goal statements for urbanization were the following: • Prevent. water quality degradation associated with development within the watershed. • Review and recommend changes in ,zoning and development potential. that are compatible with a drinking -water reservoir environment. • In addition to zoning identify and promote other actions to minimize potential for increased development in the watershed (i.e. land trust, development rights, cost incentives, etc.). • Develop specific standards which reduce the impacts of urbanization, such as minimal lot clearing; clustered development to reduce infrastructure; collection and treatment of stoimwater before entering the lake. • Develop appropriate interlocal agreements with governing agencies to prohibit the potential for additional development once an .agreed upon level is set. The joint resolution included goals for watershed management that extended beyond urbanization. Goals- were included. for stormwater management, on -site waste systems, conservation, forest management, spill response, hazardous materials transport and handling, data/information management; education/public involvement, and other topics. A joint strategy . was agreed to for developing specific plans to meet the adopted goals. Eight high priority goals. were selected first and plans have been completed and jointly adopted for each of the goals. In 1998, the City, County, and District 10 formalized their joint commitment to protect and manage the lake through the joint adoption of an interlocal agreement and allocation of funding toward Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-74 546 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use protection and management efforts in the watershed. A five-year program plan was developed for ten program areas. Specific priority was placed on activities related to watershed ownership, stormwater management, and urbanization/land development. The watershed contains four developed a areas: the City of Bellingham, which straddles the upper portion of the northern -most basin of the lake; Geneva, which is immediately south and east of Bellingham's city limits and is part of the city's urban growth area; Hillsdale, which is immediately north and east of Bellingham's city limits and is also part of the city's urban growth areas; and the --.Sudden Valley provisiGllal urban grewth area. In addition, it includes a variety of other zones, including resource, rural, and suburban zones. Over 75% of the watershed is in Forestry zoning and more than 73% of the current land use is forestry. In 2003, there were approximately 2,730 existing dwelling units in the Lake Whatcom watershed located outside of the Bellingham UGA. Under the zoning adopted in January 2004, the .gross potential build -out in this area is about 6,507 total dwelling units. Therefore, even under the more restrictive zoning adopted in January of 2004, there could be a significant amount of new development in the watershed. Water and sewer service are provided by. Water District 10. Capacity problems in the district's' sewer line, which serves Geneva and Sudden Valley, have caused overflows into the lake in the past. An aggressive program to preclude stormwater infiltration has eliminated the overflow problems to a large extent. In addition, the district has a contractually limited flow capacity to Bellingham. The Lake Louise Road sewage interceptor was constructed in January 2003 to cant' wastewater from Sudden Valley and Geneva and serves as a complement, to the Lake Whatcom Boulevard trunk line. The interceptor was designed to service full build -out of Sudden Valley and IGeneva. P eperties.,;+..,J�e.,+,.,Rk if qui e ti,,,-,:,,+. „- yeat&­efserepletien of the prejest: There are several pending subdivisions in the area which are being proposed at less than full density but which .will increase the. overall development level outside of urban areas to a significant degree. In 2004, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Board on Natural Resources adopted. the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan. This plan provides; additional protections on state managed lands within the Lake Whatcom watershed. The plan provides additional protections on streams and potentially unstable slopes on normally included in forest practices in Washington State. If the DN.R exchanges land from the watershed the protections provided by the plan would not be applicable to the new owner. In 2006 the Whatcom County Council approved funding to study reconveyance of DNR managed County Forest Board Lands. Chapter 11: Environment, contains more discussion of Lake .Whatcom issues and includes additional goals and policies related to watershed management, stormwater, and water quality.. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan .2-75 547 A November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use GOAL 2PP: Prioritize the Lake Whatcom area as an area to minimize development, repair existing storm water problems, specifically for phosphorus, and ensure forestry practices do not negatively impact water quality. Provide sufficient funding and support to be successful. Policy 2PP-1: Work with property owners to find acceptable development solutions at lower overall densities than the present zoning allows. Policy 2PP-2: Develop a storm drainage utility district or other funding mechanism to deal with the unique problems of development in a drinking water watershed. Policy 2PP-3: Recognize that all users of Lake Whatcom Water have an interest in the resource and should share in the cost of its protection. Policy 2PP-4: Work cooperatively with the City and Water District 10 to identify, review, and, as appropriate, recommend changes to existing monitoring programs that will address the needs of the various jurisdictions. Place a particular focus on the. information needed to evaluate the impacts of additional development in the watershed. Include an analysis of the diversion from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack. Coordinate effort with the Lake Whatcom Management Committee process. Policy 2PP-5: Evaluate and pursue, as appropriate, the use of incentives to encoUrage voluntary lot consolidation, transfer or. purchase of development rights, current use taxation, and participation in open space conservation programs. Policy 2PP-6: Do not allow density bonuses within the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Policy 2PP-7: Work cooperatively with the City and Water District 10 to develop benchmarks to determine the effectiveness of management options; when goals have been achieved; or when additional actions are necessary. Policy 2PP-8: Continue to develop and refine structural and "non-structural best management practices (BMPs), both voluntary and required, to minimize development impacts within the Lake Whatcom watershed. Policy 2PP-9: Work to keep Whatcom County Forest Board and Forest Purchase lands within the Lake Whatcom watershed in public ownership, and support managing forestry on said lands in a manner that minimizes sediment and phosphorus yields from streams. NOTE. There are no changes to the "Private Parcels Surrounded by National Park or. National Forest" section of.. Chapter 2 proposed as part of the .10-Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 has not been included in this document. NOTE. There are no changes to the "Subdivisions on the Lummi Reservation" section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the 10-Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 has not been included in this document. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-76 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS MAP The Comprehensive Plan designations map (Map 8) is intended to provide direction for future land use decisions in Whatcom County. It is officially adopted as part of this document. Because of the scale of the map, specific boundaries are identified on maps in the County Planning and Development Services office. Comprehensive Plan Designation Descriptors These descriptors are. intended to be general in nature. More specific criteria and explanation will be incorporated into subarea plans. Title: Urban Growth Areas Purpose: Tadenote where future urban growth may occur. Definition: Areas characterized by urban growth that have existing public facility and service capacities; areas characterized by urban growth, that may be served with urban services in the future; and lands adjacent to, areas characterized by urban growth. Locational First urban growth may be located on lands characterized by urban Criteria: growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities; next urban growth may be located on lands characterized by urban growth that n4ay-can be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional public facilities and services that are provided. by either public or private sourceswith urban seWiGes, ; the, future; and finally urban growth may be located on lands adjacent to areas characterized by urban growth. Title: Major Industrial Area I Port Industrial - Urban Growth Areas Purpose: To reserve appropriate areas to attract heavy industrial manufacturing uses and provide employment opportunities while minimizing land use conflicts and off -site impacts. Definition: Land area for large-scale heavy industry that has a high impact on the surrounding neighborhood and environment. Locational Industry should be located in areas adequate for its use away from Criteria: residential centers, but within reasonable commuting distance; near transportation facilities and services. NOTE. There are no changes to the other Comprehensive Plan Designation Descriptors proposed as part of. the 10-Year UGA review. Therefore, these other descriptors have not been included in this document. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-77 549 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use NOTE: There are no changes to the Open Space section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the 10-Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 has not been included in this document. NOTE: There are no changes to the Essential Public Facilities section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the 10-Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 has not been included in this document. NOTE: There are no changes to the Adult Businesses section of Chapter 2 proposed as part of the 10-Year UGA review. Therefore, this section of Chapter 2 has not been included in this document. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-78 550 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use LAND USE - ACTION PLAN Regulatory Changes Overall Land Use 1. Refer to a technical advisory committee to review the following: • Redundant regulations • Unnecessary regulations • Regulations that could be replaced by incentive programs • Regulations that could be replaced by education programs • Regulations which serve to protect the public welfare, health, and safety • Regulations that prohibit fair, timely and well publicized review 2. Draft and propose regulatory changes to implement the recommendations from this plan and give serious consideration to recommendations from advisory committees appointed by the County Executive or County Council. 3. Propose zoning ordinance changes to designate and develop guidelines and policies and appropriate regulatory amendments to accompany Business/Industry Parks and Crossroads Commercial designations. 4. Design, present, and adopt a creative land use regulatory program which utilizes such innovative techniques as cluster development, purchase of development rights, transfer. of development rights and mitigation banking. 5. Revise the zoning ordinance to: • Include a new zone designation(s) for business/industrial parks possibly as a supplement to the existing LI I zone • Incorporate Master Planned Resort Guidelines and develop specific locational criteria for Master Planned Resorts • include development standards for the Guide Meridian Corridor 6. Undertake a limited planning. process for exclave, parcels and incorporate the results along with the Newhalem-Diablo area plans in the Foothills and South Fork Subarea Plans.. Education 7. Design and produce presentations, written materials and other programs to educate citizens: on the value of preserving the assets of the community and. each -individual's responsibility to preserve those assets. Incentives 8. Establish a committee comprised of citizens, local officials, including one or more Planning Commissioners, and land development experts to design a set of economic incentives for property owners to voluntarily: reduce density on their property, and to encourage protection of valuable open.space identified on the Open Space Map.. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-79 551 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use 9. Undertake complete and programmatic environmental review for identified growth areas to facilitate urban and industrial development. 10. Monitor the results of incentive programs on an annual basis to ensure desired results are achieved and produce a report outlining results of the programs. Subarea Plans 11. Revise county subarea plans to incorporate urban growth area boundaries as identified in this plan, ensure consistency with this. plan, and eliminate any redundancy in policy. Continue to implement existing subarea plan action items that are consistent with this plan. 12. Examine alternatives for meeting the transportation and utility needs for Sudden Valley. 13. Update the Blaine -Birch Bay Subarea Plan to re-evaluate the amount and location of area designated as resort commercial .and multiple family, and the total amount of land dedicated to urban land use in light of available water and sewer supplies. 14. Continue the industrial land supply study, identify appropriate additional industrial land. in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and update subarea plans accordingly. 15. When completed, review the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan to ensure consistency with land use plans and regulations. Citizen Involvement 16. Establish Council appointed subarea citizens' committees to participate in the updating and review of subarea plans. 17. - Improve methods of notification to affected property owners of land use decisions. Timing/Review 18. Using the Growth Management Oversight Committee, establish a methodology for land supply and urban growth area boundary review. Urban Growth Areas 19. Using the Growth Management Oversight Committee, develop a cooperative approach to Geographic Information System use with all 'the cities and interested special districts which may include regular user meetings, cooperative funding, and data needs. 20. Work with the City of Blaine to establish a project review process for development within Blaine's UGA that ensures consistency with Blaine's Comprehensive Plan and development: regulations and standards. 21. Adopt and maintain County low deRSity F ual zoning for the Blaine UGA which would allow urban densities to develop only in conjunction with annexation or a commitment to annex within a very specific timeline and under very specific conditions. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 552 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction , Chapter Two - Land Use Develop a time frarne and proGess tO Fe FniRe the Blaine UGA boundaFieS when water • supply and sewer issues have been plea ly resolved 23. Work with the City of Blaine to develop an appropriate level of regulation to adequately protect the Drayton Harbor watershed. Cooperate with the City in enforcing these regulations. 24. Work with all cities to ensure limitation of development in floodplains within their UGAs. 25. Establish a time frame and process to work with the City of Everson and land owners to develop an environmentally safe plan to facilitate conversion of mineral resource lands adjacent to Everson to urban or rural land uses. 26. Work with cities R�lai; ^, E1e^m^^ ' ynde^ ^'^^Lc^^'- ;and Sumac to develop regulations that assure compatibility of uses adjacent to resource lands. 27.. Develop a,time frame and process to work with cities to make the appropriate changes.,to urban growth area boundaries and zoning designations when necessary. 28. Review and update interlocal agreements with each city, as necessary, to address: • levels of service within and outside the UGAs identification of needed improvements and establishment of how they will be funded • development standards within the UGA and review procedures, including wetland and floodplain protection, for development proposals • coordination with the county on greenbelt and open space designations • timing and procedures for review of adequate land supply • consistency with the Coordinated Water System Plan • actions specific to each city and identified in the goals and policies for that city. • extension of water and sewer services within UGAs. • specific development density requirements within annexation proposals. . • cities should show evidence of meeting their infill goals as identified in their comprehensive plans. • mitigation agreements for conversion of lands designated on the County Comprehensive Plan map as Resource Lands, with the exception of depleted_ Mineral Resource Lands. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-81 553 November 10, 2009 Council Introduction Chapter Two - Land Use 29. Adopt interlocal agreements with water and sewer districts by June 1, 2011 to assure service to county unincorporated urban rowth areas and limit urban levels of service outside Short Term Planning Areas. 30. Work with the Sudden Valley Community Association to implement the density reduction program. 31. Establish on -going communications link with Whatcom County Water District 13, Evergreen Water and Sewer District 19. and Paradise 6aases and Pease#ul ;�J Community Associations to work towards mutually beneficial infrastructure solutions including combined services in the Columbia Valley UGA. 32. Develop a mechanism for addressing neighborhood parks in Bellingham's Urban Growth Area when development occurs prior to annexation. Use the Urban Fringe planning process and the city/county development review process to address neighborhood park needs in Bellingham's UGA if development occurs prior to annexation. 33. Continue to work with Bellingham. and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District WateF -to protect and manage the Lake Whatcom watershed in accordance with th6 1998 jointly adopted interlocal agreement. Focus on continued implementation of the 2999 5-Year Work Plans of the y�Lake Whatcom �e,��Management Program; and eCi V-d-J raft Septi6' .i'l'�"flit , �v-C��"�.i lan and prepe6 stermwater examination of the Urh.,. zat;en RaR In addition, work with the affected jurisdictions and secure funding for programs. 34. Review and modify (as needed) the current development review process for projects in the Lake Whatcom Watershed to ensure coordination with other jurisdictions. 35. Establish a provision that prevents density increases from occurring as a result of provision of sewer in the Rural zone in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Open Space 35. Review Whatcom County land use and taxation policies to ensure that there are incentives for landowners to pursue agriculture and forestry open space designations that implement the Open Space section of this plan. 36. Develop strategies to encourage utilization of open space designations in order to protect natural resources, open space, and critical areas. 37. Develop a strategy to implement the Open Space Corridor map included in this chapter. 38. Working with landowners, develop a list of priority sites for acquisition or other form of open space preservation based on criteria from Preserving a Way of Life: A Natural Heritage Plan for Whatcom County and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan. 39. Continue to acquire priority sites utilizing the Conservation Futures Levy and other funding sources. Work with Whatcom County Land Trust and others to facilitate protection of these designated sites. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 2-82 554 000* n " 3 m s m3F _I r =d�C. 0 0 o o d o � o CL a D w D d obi' y r � 3 N 4) D N INO ; n N z 3 O N N 0 o0i O O N ID n 0 T O 0 3 3 m m c o v a V a NODE A D d cr C b p C O 7 N m 0 < O N i N a O 1 3 0 Q 3 0 0 d m c O O J Wr y N N 0 O v 3 CO) to = 7 2i 7 O y .{ :3 y CO) 7 CO W v A—�p , , �ot FlI deAdlen 9 . 9 I I nngan Rd, o s r S � a'..:' All 555 556 0 Y� n 'Onn:� m O O S c 'a4� � 3 m � o mpg � my CD F co CD A T Z T C m m m � T W GI D o T o m' n o m m n N N m m N C � Q N O N G 7 .P 0 N N N N m =r =r =r x 0 0 0 K m m m m CD m E v EL m m 41 o d (D o 0 aCo m m 0- 0. a� �=gRsa 3 v3 Qa$0.2 a $FSfi' 8 93:y Rinse; e'a_ll n all i LIA 557 558 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing Chapter Three HOUSING INTRODUCTION Housing is not only a basic human need; it is a fundamental building block in the development of strong communities. The quality, price and availability of housing have far reaching effects. Housing is an issue of equity, and a healthy community strives to provide housing affordable to households at all income levels. Every community and neighborhood needs a healthy mix of housing sizes, types and prices, affordable at the wages of the jobs nearby. A balanced mix will have housing costs in sync with wages and incomes. Purpose The purpose of this housing element is to consider future needs for housing in Whatcom County by examining existing housing patterns, projected population growth, and most -likely growth scenarios, and to suggest realistic ways to provide for those housing needs within the wishes of county citizens, sound public policy, and within the mandates of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). First, the number, type, and condition of housing units in place today must be compared with current housing needs. Second, future housing needs must be proposed based on expected needs of identifiable social and economic groups. Third, future housing needs must be addressed through a package of incentives, local requirements, and regulations that encourage development of housing that matches the incomes of citizens throughout the county. Process In 2004 and 2009, the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan has been updated, adding new information and updated data to the chapter produced in the mid-1990s. The earlier chapter was produced through the efforts of the Residents' Housing Advisory Committee (RHAC). The committee was formed and appointed by, the Whatcom County Executive, in September 1993. Members included representatives of the building industry, of special needs groups, of Christian, AIDS and other advocate groups, and an attorney. The RHAC met every month, and frequently more than once per month. The focus on identification of key issues, development of goals and policies, and careful framing of action plans. Two members were delegated by the committee to sit on the GMA Coordinating Committee to review all comprehensive plan chapters for consistency. When the RHAC completed its tasks in June 1994, those two members continued making valuable contributions to the work of the Coordinating Committee. The RHAC sent the final version of the chapter to Planning Commission for review. GMA Goals, County -Wide Planning Policies, and Visioning Community Value Statements Realization of all the thirteen Growth Management Act goals is fostered by the goals, policies, and action plans in this chapter. Those directly relating to housing will be met with successful adoption of this comprehensive plan chapter. This chapter has been written to satisfy those goals while also meeting the intent of the County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) and general guidelines of Visioning Community Value Statements. CWPP's direct the county and its cities to ensure a balance of housing and economic growth consistent with diverse income levels and allowing for a range of housing types and costs. Further, the county and cities can employ innovative Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-1 559 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing techniques providing for a variety of housing types: single -family -detached, multifamily building for both ownership and rental, accessory dwelling units (Ado's), manufactured and modular homes, manufactured and mobile home parks, along with mixed use and increased densities as affordable housing alternatives. Visioning Community Value Statements identify the importance of affordable housing and encourage even distribution of housing affordability and a mix of housing types throughout the county. Growth Management goals, Visioning Community Value Statements, and County -Wide Planning Policies will be served by adoption and implementation of this chapter. GMA Requirements The Growth Management Act mandates that counties required to plan under the act adopt comprehensive plans that "encourage the availability of affordable housing to all segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock." (RCW 36.70A.020 (4)) BACKGROUND SUMMARY Comprehensive plans have been developed for Whatcom County and each of the cities that .lie within its boundaries. Each of these plans contains a housing element that addresses the housing needs of each jurisdiction and offers suggestions for changes that could occur to help meet these needs. This chapter will overlap many of the ideas put forth in those plans —the problems perceived in each community, their changing demographics, and the directions the communities seem willing to go to improve the overall situation. It also incorporates other recent studies of Whatcom County, such as Community Counts: Whatcom County Health Indicator Report 2002 and the Whatcom Real Estate Research Report. Demographic Overview Whatcom County's population is growing steadily. Between 449�-2000 and 2008 it rose 14.5%-39��. An estimated 75% of that increase is attributable to in -migration as opposed to birth rate. In addition to increasing the number of people living in the county, in -migration is resulting in changes to its demographic makeup. Increased minority, retirement -age, and single - parent household populations characterize demographic changes resulting from in -migration. Single -parent households are proportionally more sensitive than two -parent households to factors contributing to poverty and sub -standard living conditions such as housing costs, health care costs, and other increases in the cost of living. The number of such households is increasing at a faster rate than households with two parents. Shifts in proportions of various groups comprising county population also shift the need for various types and sizes of housing. Some families require larger homes to accommodate larger extended families. Some groups, such as single - parent households, require smaller and more efficient housing. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-2 560 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Figure 1 Population Change 1990 - 2008 Bellingham Balance of Whatcom Whatcom County Washington County Delete Figure 1 Below Figure 1 Population Change 1980 - 2000 Bellingham Balance of Whatcom Whatcom County Washington County Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-3 561 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing Income Distribution ln--FNO---"1 0f+ k,- fr�-.v �n+�rry�� evir -,csA - e[y-�Ivvi-� i efy-4ow-aad-4ow- U1 WIN on Heusi'. Fifty-one Fffty4hfee percent of Whatcom County Re', renters put more than 30% of their income towards housing costs in 2007, compared to 45% of renters state-wide. The 1999-In 2007, median income in Whatcom County as more than 16% 99°/® below Washington State's median income, while median gross rent was just over 9% 7-Ok lower. This d+sp -city RRe of me iGh4s ,-Akibuted-to-I*gh Family incomes are slightly higher than household incomes, but still lower than the State numbers.-eudetin-Sixteen percent of Whatcom County's population fell below the federal poverty level in 20074-9-9-9, a percentage significantly higher than Washington State's 11 %. UneFnploy-ment which-is-ex-petted-to-a-verage-6°/d-through-2-02-0-despite-an-ax-pelted-2-°/®-annuaI growth -rate -in laboT--fe-r6e-, 4s a-Ise-a-fast®i:72 ' U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey G®ra�rai#� Gouts GAF#atc-®rn Surat} F�ealt#� Indicator Report-2-002 2-ECSNorthwest..Whatcom ...County ...Population ...and ...Economic...Forecasts; .May 2002 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan KM 562 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing Table 2 Population Living in Poverty Population Living in -. County Washington 16% 11.4% Total Population 20."0 4440-k 40-."0 15.5% 10.3% Individuals 18 plus 24-9 406 44.4,04 94% 12.7% 7.9% Individuals 65 plus 9 0% &9% TZ% 8.7% 7.8% Families living in poverty 4A% :7�� Tn3% 44.2% 34% Females with related children under 18 3678R/O 31-19k 30.89/m 79.6% 42.1 % Females with related children under 5 61.9% 50 0% 45-.69/6 Statistics have shown that as housing prices increased at a faster rate than household incomes, so decreased the ability of Low- to Moderate -Income (LMI) populations to obtain decent housing in Whatcom County. • Between 1999 and 2007 1-989-a c!4999 the median household income grew 16% 41% while housing costs grew 103% -VB% over the same period.23 • In each year 1999-2007 44998--20W the average wage in Whatcom County was not enough to afford a two -bedroom rental unit.34 • There are about 20,000 mere than 7,500 very low-income households in Whatcom Count BedNnghar ,-�4%-of-whioh-r-epor-t--hav+rag-herasing-prebta-rrs.45 Asepxdi;g-te-the-May-20(�2 �!`r1Nnr+h,�ioc+ omnln,imon+ c �i the PeFGentag t Z�vr,ry rrvvcr�—i''Trh-rvY-'�� �'�-�c' Vic'-T"P�'rm''�c�-"3" c' employed- R4-h&--retail commercial--and--in-dustaiai--sectors--ir-a--eaoh-Whatoerr1-G49unty--GGm- xaunfty will vary -ever-the next--twenty--years.- - Average annual- wage--data.-from-1-999 --- shows that many erloyees-�vt ages belen t�;e area- raeose ef-$40;905 per-yea-r As-4r-,erF--and-m,ar-e--h®osehol4s-rely-o,-iseomes-fror 4h,,,-retail-ar-"ervice-sector; hOblBFrig-,9eed�eG®�i—ii ios=cv�vrii9�y�ire. 2 WA Center for Real Estate Research; U.S. Census Bureau 3-Go► n4unity-Counts-W-hatc-orn-Goun-ty Health--irndicater Deport-2002 3 National Low Income Housing Colition 4 C mun,,ty=Coun ts�^�I}a+^ o.r^ ,T'Y_ueal+tInT;Gater Rem 2002 4 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey 5 Bellingham Consolidated -Plan Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-5 563 Council Introduction Draft, November 10. 2009 Chapter Three - Housing .. - .. .. ... - - �. .: •. !.Woe,G . HIM ZIP Tlell=f WOUIRM IN �G Rew $43 944 34.4% 30---50 S o;Ges $28,7-69 51.9°k LOW 59---89 GGve-m >aent $26,888 67-.2-P/c, Love 50----80 aAthoaesale-T4ade $291667 7A-1-Ok LOW 50---80 €4panoe $30;445 7-64% LOW 5C —80 �ansperta#+ea $38 849 774Ok SLOW 50---80 Construction $32;480 81-:2% Moderate 80 — 95 AAa n u#aet-u4ng $34 ; 7- } 86,E°4 AAedeFate 80---95 edo rnn er##west�lU#�atsoa� So�aty P�p�latiowand €Gen9Fnis-FGreGasEs,-2-G02 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-6 564 Council Introduction Draft, November 10. 2009 Chapter Three - Housing 1999-Whatcom-County-Incotree Data-Used-in-ForeGasting-Ir GGM- a Trends Ref ng kham-b6R 3779% 27.3% 69$°/m c3.8°% 24.O-Ok 67i% 20.3% 74-8% 7:9-% 49.6-% 73.2% 7-� -Bda6 ie 1-9.6%o- 46-.0% 34.34o- 4 4.13% 48.0% 32-.-7-0/c, Coli imbia-Valley-UGA 59.2% 36 9% 3.9% 59.8°� 37 4% 3-4 % 13.8% 5:-9 80-.&% 43-9°10 6 % 74-.T% 8 v r-sen-U GA 90:9Oo- 90.5% 32-.1% 32.5% 35.3% 34-. 344-0/o 34.9% F-er dah-, WGA 4-7-% 1.5Z3% 90709/0, 4-8% 1-6 -O --78:" 33:3% 41-60 2-50% 3243-Ok 43-."0 23.80 L--n n-UGA - - 88.7-% 8-a-7-°irr 63-5% Poi bents 55.3% 25.2% 4976-% 554% 2Z-. &% 4 -% Sur s 11-:0% 9-'I % 79.6-% -14-:4% 14:0% 7$9-% 9.4% 1-7:3% 7-3:3% 1 1 9:6% 1 4&."0 74.9-O 39:8% 35.2% Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-7 565 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing 3 M 30:6-°� 65:5°k 3 M 324-ok 64.45 Bir h-Ba -UGA -1-9:0% 74.29/c, 6 8% 18 4% -75..0°!o- 6.5% glane 49.4°lo- 49:6-ok 343-°,4 48�� 5140k 30-."0 Bla ne-UCA 7-376°6?9�0 Columbia Valley UGA 69:�°6 37-.4-Ok 2:6°6 60 -ok 37.1% 214� son 144 3-°% &Tpk 7-94 °1a 1'4:6-/° o- -7-.0% ,7-8z`Z!o- Fe dale 34-.7% 35759/0 327% 31-6% 36$°/a 31-WO, 4 1q-.4-°k 77-. "0 4�8% 1-8.3°% 76." erg 32-.4% 44:8% 22$/6 32-14 46-1% 21-9°% en-U GA 86� 86.6-% 63;3°10 635- P Ober-ts 54:4% 2-7-&% I—T !% 54.3% 2$:C010 47-3°% 1 -.4°�0 14:60k 8�°� 44-. 0 44 4-Ok 77:1-°k Ott rJJninG-Areas 9772/6 4-9.5-% 76-7% 9:8°% 207% 6$-5% TOW 24:8°� 4-1-" 33" 247°,6 42:8°k &?-."0 3ear-ce=E-CC)Nog- hwest-whatcerr-i-County-PepulaWn-and-€ceeer-ais-F-oresasts -2-000 —*indisate-suppressed-data ed ment-rra-at:ivGafi D2t2-af£--Skippr8..o kWer--Gomp seaR ernployeFSrsvrrrmed@R-6f-1CiQr}3p:(3�FFRts 0 ��fl �o d e 1 �1 .. T�Alrc�a-nL.' 1 ..�vivf� C I yme �6F-��o-OFRiari. �HRiria.. c�nP'oYr"�.� vsP� rr9cv'-��T'FvJ'•'..rlt-&e$Hfityr@R�fdeFgi&4ly43YM'3- NEEDS With current inadequacies in federal funding, innovative housing solutions are needed to provide enough housing units to accommodate all of the County's growing housing needs. By 20-2-2 the end of the 20-year planning period, Whatcom County will have experienced substantial growth. Assuming -the--County's-'income--distribution.-remains--the-sarme, there -will- be- more that-41..;000 h^ era:rvirh-in the Ge my ,ith nGomes loss than 30 -of-tho u-rcoa-v-moci'unA'f4Gee-. While there are many programs that address affordable housing issues in Whatcom County, a growing number of households are in need of assistance, causing increased competition for existing resources. Many of these resources are not available to somejurisdictions that do not meet all of the necessary criteria or cannot produce the required matching funds to participate in certain programs56. s6 Bellingham Comprehensive Plan Housing Element part IV Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan M 566 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing Between 1990 and 2000, Bellingham's multi -family housing experienced a 65% increasenew dt-is es ed that-h., �nfl-gln 2009, multi -family housing w4l_-comprised 50%�°e of the housing in the City. Concern that an increase in rental units may pose a challenge to community development has been expressed in Bellingham's Consolidated Plan, as rental tenants move frequently_&4�7 Accommodating our future housing need will require substantial effort and planning. There is an increasing need for all forms of affordable housing including multi -family housing and smaller single-family houses constructed on smaller lots. Unaffordable Housing The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines unaffordable housing as that which places a cost burden of greater than 30% on a household's income. CRe4kW-Forty-two percent -of Whatcom County households put more than 30% of their income towards housing costs in the year 20072000. This cost burden is most detrimental for those in the lower income categories, but its negative effects are felt well into the middle -income range. Households with incomes at less than 30% of the area median income are the hardest hit-61 % of them putting more than 50% of their income toward housing costs. As seen in Figure 2, the next two income categories also experience significant housing affordability problems with 62% and 42% experiencing cost burdens. �7 Bellingham Consolidated Plan Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-9 567 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three -Housing 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 2 Housing Cost Burden by Income Catagory in Whatcom County, 2000 72% ®% Cost Burden >30% to `=50% only ij 62% ®% Cost Burden >50% only ■ ■% Cost Burden >30% 34% 28 % 31% 42% 2% Less than 30% 30% to 50% 50% to 80% More than 80% Housing Mismatch Part of the problem is the disparity that exists between the number of lower -income households in the county and the number of housing units that are affordable to these households. HUD calls this the "housing mismatch" and derives a functional data set of this mismatched data from each U.S. Census. Rs--&1 own-In-Figu e- the -The number of housing units affordable to each income group does not properly match the number of households. There were ar�more housing units available in the 50% to 80% income category in 2000 than there were are -households, implying that households in lower and higher income categories must be occupying a significant portion of these units. Whatcom County currently needs 7,14 housing units for households in the lowest income category,-but-falls-Sher-t of t-his-nu ber-by 4-iggg--units, assording-te-availabt"ata. In-astuality-, FRO a UR4 ,ifew`eeded-#ep4h+s4pGeme-gr-Gup-as-sbowR-in--F-ig-ure-3—The-dispar+t-y-ls-illustmted-wa## the--7-?-1/o--or-5657-households-ice the-less-than-30°!o-of--,area--a eedian-media-grGup--wide-n -ee A Julv 2008 Countvwide Housina Action Plan extrapolated to 2025 the number of households with extreme housing burden - those paying more than 50% of their income for housing, and earning - under 80% of the area median income - putting the number at 14,193, which is a 62% increase above 2000. This is an increase at a rate faster than population growth if present trends continue - meaning the housing crisis will get worse over time.' 7 Countywide Housing Action Plan submitted by the Countywide Housing Affordability Task Force July 18, 2008 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-10 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing Delete Figure 3 Below Figure 3 Whatcom County Housing Mismatch 60000 L7Affordable housing units available in 2000 50000 ®Total Households 2000 ■ Projected 2022 Total Households 40000 30000 21854 20000 16279 53324 10000 7556 10641 11004 8854 13T 9 Ib(iU 7814 iso � 2925' 0 Less than 30% 30% to 50% 50% to 80% More than 80% Thirty-six Twenty4x-pereent-of Whatcom County homeowners put more than 30% of their income into their housing costs in 2007 1-999 (up from 15% in 1989 and 26% in 1999)8 and it has been estimated that renters spend 55% of their income on housing. 8 U.S. Census Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-11 569 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing _30% or more of 35.8% 33.4% income plus 23 2 0 25°� Selected renter costs or more of 51 % 44.8% _30% income plus 53:0-°4 Median value owner- 300 800 305 500 occupied � $156-,7-99 $4-6 Median owner costs 1 532 $1,675 _With mortgage $4-,133 $1-,445 $4-,268 439 453 _Not mortgaged $323 $327 $839 739 816 Median gross rent $643 $62-2 $663 Source: Bellingham 2003 2007 GensGkdated-Phan Notes numbers-ba-sedan-20WUS Census 2007 American Communi Surve The median value of an owner occupied house in Whatcom County Bellingham --increased 95% 7 % between 4-98-9-and-2000 and 2007. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-12 570 Council Introduction Draft, November 10. 2009 Chapter Three - Housing Year 1980 Median.. Median Price $49,700 in Whatcorn 9•i Year Median Price 1990 $86,350 County Year 2000 Median Price $146,500 $a-44; 506 1981 n.a. 1991 $98,250 2001 152 600 V 51 850 1982 $56,000 1992 $112,000 2002 $159,100 $1-59LOO 1983 $54,000 1993 $120,000 2003 $176,700 1984 $54,441 1994 $125,800 2004 $216,800 1985 $52,600 1995 $127,000 2005 $265,000 1986 $54,000 1996 $131,800 $�00 2006 $282,300 1987 $55,500 1997 $133,700 $-I-32-000 2007 $290,000 1988 $59,500 1998 $138,900 $4W,599 1989 $67,450 1999 $143,100 $440,000 Source: Whatcom County Real Estate Research Report Currently Available Low -Income Affordable Housing Various subsidized housing exists in all of the cities in the County. Small-scale affordable housing projects are located in each city. The Whatcom/Skagit Homes program funded by USDA Rural Development is available in rural parts of the County. Habitat for Humanity of Whatcom County builds single family homes affordable to very low income homebuyers. Kulshan Community Land Trust provides affordable homeownership opportunities that remain affordable for each successive owner of the CLT homes. Mobile and manufactured homes are allowed in designated areas (usually mobile home parks) throughout the County and often provide housing to low-income populations. The Bellingham/Whatcom Housing Authorities owns and/or manages 1,712 1642 subsidized units that house families, the elderly, and disabled people. They also have 1.891 4,693 Shelter Plus Care and Section 8 rental assistance vouchers to --distributed throughout the County. Although the Bellingham/Whatcom Housing Authorities facilitates the provision of a total of 3,603 3 335 subsidized housing units, they do not receive enough funding to provide housing assistance to all of the families in need in the County. Most of the funding they do receive cannot be recaptured. In addition to this, the City of Bellingham's housing programs, using federal funds, include rehabilitation of existing housing units, acquisition of housing units or land for housing, new Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-13 571 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing construction, assistance to homebuyers, rental assistance to tenants and assistance to homeless households and those at risk of becoming homeless. Several other organizations, including the Archdiocesan Housing Authority and Intercommunity Mercy Housing, own and manage nonprofit rental housing affordable to low-income households. The Whatcom County Health Department conducted a detailed inventory of affordable housing resources in August 2007 and determined the total number of public and nonprofit affordable housinq units included 4,901 housing units equal to 9,877 bedrooms. Other Subsidized Housing The federal government expends billions of dollars each year in tax breaks and mortgage interest deductions —all government subsidies on housing that disproportionately serve high income populations. in the year 2000, nearly 0 yea rly-ieGmes-over-$-75-,000--I#-has-been-estir-rated-that-Ira-2003 the--federal-govern meet -spent $69--bitlion--on-mordyage-interest-ded-UGtiGRS-$2-2-fai Hen-on-6osal--property-tax--dedu,G ions,-$-1-4 billion on apital-gains-ta*ex mf-_1A;19R­­8--_- Sale-_ The federal government spends more on these subsidies each year than it allocates to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Federal benefits to renters - including low income housing tax credits and HUD direct expenditures to fund subsidized housing throughout the country - totaled under $50 billion. Hi D's entire .,eady budget for 2nn31 was '$3-11 billion to fund s s,Qi .T�� ^9 thre+agheat theme egr-ams'. ISSUES, GOALS, AND POLICIES In order to offer appropriate and affordable housing for everyone in the County, programs and policies designed to meet a variety of housing needs can be implemented. With the right mix of policy decisions and local programs, we can increase the supply of affordable housing and offer a variety of housing choices, thereby strengthening our communities. Thousands of Whatcom County households do not live in affordable housing. Looking ahead, the incomes of working people in Whatcom County will make affordability one of the County's biggest challenges. Both public and private investments can be directed into housing that ensures that low- to moderate - income people will be able to continue to live near where they work in the community. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-14 572 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing Adopting an Ambitious but Achievable Affordable Housing Goal Whatcom County and its cities might consider adopting a HOUSING GOAL that sets the bar at a high but achievable level: By the year 2020, every community and neighborhood has a healthy mix of housing sizes, types and prices, affordable at the wages of the jobs nearby. A balanced mix of housing will have housing costs in sync with wages and incomes in the community. To achieve this overarching goal, the following goals, policies and actions are adopted: Permitting Process Efficiency Building codes and zoning ordinances, in part, influence costs of development and construction of housing. The permitting processes require time (raising finance costs), fees, and the personal time investment of parties involved. Building plan reviews increase cost and time. Local plans checking of non-commercial development by county officials could save time and money. A budget that allows adequate staff is necessary to minimize processing time. Also, to the extent possible, regulatory predictability and certainty in the processes required of the private sector will contribute to its willingness to contribute to housing affordability. GOAL 3A: Minimize the time required for processing housing -related development and construction permits in the interest of overall :cost reduction. Policy 3A-1: Streamline and simplify existing and proposed permitting processes. Policy 3A-2: Educate interested parties in the permitting process using easy to understand publications such as brochures or handouts readily available to the public. Policy 3A-3: Consistently apply the International Building Codes and do not increase requirements. Mixed Land Uses with Appropriate Buffering and Siting Criteria Where feasible, mixed land uses should be encouraged. The concept of encouraging housing near employment and siting employment near the work force is well -accepted and logical. Housing, transportation, and employment -base needs are well -served by this proximity; it is desirable from public, employer, employee, and public service perspectives. Incompatible uses such as heavy, noisy, or noxious industrial facilities adjacent to residential uses should continue to be discouraged. Some non-polluting, low -impact types of light industrial uses such as textile manufacturing, which could be large-scale but not environmentally or aesthetically offensive, could, with some buffering, be perfectly acceptable and probably desirable near residential development. Design standards and funding sources will be needed to fully explore the potential for mixed use since, in some instances; lenders are reluctant participants in mixed -use projects. County -Wide Planning Policies, Visioning Community Value Statements and—;TetirFed ake, ;tt�ves ( s), preservation of agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive areas, the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations generally prescribe preferred locations for housing a growing population of county residents. Various levels of affordability and types of housing are needed and must be somehow blended into locational constraints. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-15 573 Council Introduction Draft, November 10. 2009 Chapter Three - Housing Subsidized housing, homeless housing, transient, emergency, and special needs housing are all part of the affordability riddle, and in some instances a major part. Citizens currently possessing safe and decent housing may not fully understand the scope of the housing problem and they may tend not to want housing for less advantaged households near them. In that regard, the location of affordable housing can be as difficult an issue as funding. GOAL 3B: Support residential housing near employment opportunities and transit. Policy 313-1: Enable and support housing development opportunities integral with, and near, compatible industrial and commercial activities and transit. Policy 313-2: Establish commercial zoning regulations that accommodate residential uses at a density higher than surrounding residential or rural zoning provided adequate transportation access and services are available. Policy 313-3: Establish industrial zoning regulations that accommodate temporary residential uses at a density higher than surrounding residential or rural zoning provided adequate transportation access is available. Policy 313-4: Residential development adjacent to major transportation routes may require buffering. GOAL 3C: Create opportunity for a broad range of housing types and encourage mixed affordability. Policy 3C-1: Support lot clustering, varied lot sizes, small-scale multi -family dwellings, accessory housing and reductions in infrastructure requirements for subdivisions as incentives for development of housing obtainable by purchasers with the greatest possible mix of household incomes. Policy 3C-2: Support programs in which citizens participate in the construction of their own home. Policy 3C-3: Support development of manufactured and mobile home parks and establish design criteria that will enable them to fit into the surrounding community. Policy 3C-4: Develop zoning criteria in order to appropriately site group homes and accessory dwelling units within county residential urban growth areas. Access to Housing Changing demographics demand flexibility in siting, regulating, and designing future housing stocks. Family size, household size, proximity to employment and services, living space requirements due to cultural preferences, immigration patterns, and other_ factors contribute to changes in the type, number, and location of housing opportunities required for the future. The demographic makeup of Whatcom County's population can logically be expected to change over time through the 20-year Growth Management Act planning period. Availability of housing for seniors, young adults, single parents, and groups is frequently overlooked by both the private development sector and the public sector. In addition, many Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-16 574 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing migrant farm workers entering the county each season face substandard housing and homelessness. While the upper ends of the housing scale are normally well -served by the developers of housing projects, other housing needs are frequently overlooked or neglected. Making housing affordable and accessible in all residential areas will help integrate these groups of people into the larger community. Housing appropriate for those with temporary, transitional, emergency, and special needs is available only on an exceptional basis. Population growth will directly affect the number of people seeking such shelter. A portion of the agricultural workers have difficulty in obtaining adequate housing. Prior to adoption of the comprehensive plan, Whatcom County considered ordinance amendments allowing for easier and better provision of migrant worker housing. Difficult issues associated with the amendments such as water, sewer, and other health concerns caused them to be tabled while an accessory housing ordinance allowing development of detached second dwelling units was adopted. Nevertheless, those farm worker housing amendments must proceed to provide some relief for this important housing need. GOAL 3D: Encourage provision of housing at every income level. Policy 3D-1: Participate with other agencies to provide housing options for all income levels by donating land, providing expertise, expediting permits, and other appropriate mechanisms. Policy 3D-2: Enable the ability of the farmer to provide housing for all agricultural workers. Policy 3D-3: Support programs which assist agricultural workers seeking affordable housing opportunities. GOAL 3E: Provide for future housing needs by responding to changing household demographics. Policy 3E-1: Review and revise existing regulations to identify inhibitions to housing for the varying preferences of those needing housing. Focus on population segments with particular needs such as temporary, transitional, or emergency housing. Policy 3E-2: Evaluate all new regulations or codes developed at the county level to ensure they accommodate housing preferences and needs existing at that time. Policy 3E-3: Encourage financial institutions to participate in creative housing solutions which respond to changing demographics and needs. Policy 3E-4: Support the development of housing specifically for young adults, seniors, groups, and single parents. Incentives for Affordability Profit generally drives the production of most housing. Some types of housing, particularly some of the more affordable types, are less profitable to build. If the private sector is expected to play a Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-17 575 Council Introduction Draft, November 10. 0009 Chapter Three - Housing part in the provision of affordable, obtainable housing, there must be incentives encouraging them to do so. GOAL 3F: Provide incentives to create affordable housing. Policy 3F-1: Include density or inclusionary bonus provisions in land use regulations, where appropriate, to offset the reduced profit inherent in more affordable types of housing. These bonuses may be transferred to other locations. Policy 3F-2: Review accessory housing ordinances for effectiveness and appropriateness and revise when necessary. Policy 3F-3: Support innovative housing ideas including co -housing (essentially a micro - community with some centralized facilities), elder cottages (temporary housing units for healthy but aging family members), and shared living residences or group quarters. Regulatory Controls Many forces act to inhibit the availability of affordable housing. Among these are regulatory controls, including zoning, subdivision regulations, development standards, and critical areas requirements. In addition, growth management itself implies some restrictions to affordable housing, by excluding land from development by focusing growth in urban areas, avoiding environmentally sensitive areas, and other ways. Mechanisms are needed to balance these inhibitions to affordability, such as design variety promoted through covenants, conditions, and restrictions, relaxed infrastructure requirements, and zoning. GOAL 3G: Identify and remove impediments to affordable housing. Policy 3G-1: Create opportunities to provide more affordability by relaxing or eliminating some infrastructure requirements or impact fees where it is clearly demonstrated that such action does not create a safety hazard and is not contrary to the interests of the health and well-being of county residents. Policy 3G-2: Review and revise existing and proposed regulations for consistency with other housing goals. Policy 3G-3: Educate the public on equal opportunity laws specifically related to housing and housing conditions including options available to anyone discriminated against. Policy 3G-4: Allow development of smaller lots and creative options. Preservation of Existing Housing Stocks Destruction of existing housing units due to redevelopment may be counterproductive for housing affordability. Instead, redevelopment should be taken as an opportunity to increase affordable housing. GOAL 3H: Facilitate maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-18 576 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing Policy 31-1-1: Wherever there is potential for destruction of existing structures, provide for preserving existing housing or creating new housing, whether by incorporation into the new project, moving, or recycling. Policy 31-1-2: Support creation of one or more additional housing units, within permitted density, when existing housing is remodeled or commercial or light industrial facilities are redeveloped. Policy 31-1-3: Identify and implement incentives to preserve and sensitively rehabilitate historic properties. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-19 577 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing ** Action Plan HOUSING -ACTION PLAN Zoning 1. Amend regulations and establish criteria for appropriate development standards to allow an appropriate mix of manufactured and mobile home parks in certain Urban Residential (UR) zones. 2. Amend zoning regulations to more broadly allow child and senior day care facilities with traffic and buffers adequately addressed. 3. Allow innovative housing ideas including co -housing, elder cottages, and shared living residences or group quarters. Permitting 4. Allow conditional occupancy by the owner of a residence under construction, yet not ready for permanent occupancy, where health, liability, and legal concerns have been addressed. Such occupancy would be conditioned on identified criteria. Regulatory Review and Reform 5. Review any changes to county regulations affecting the provision of housing for negative influence on direct costs and on the indirect costs of permit processing time. 6. Review any new changes to regulations affecting the provision of housing for population and housing preferences and needs prevailing at that time. 7. Establish a regular periodic review schedule of policies and procedures, including accessory housing ordinance, by Planning Commission, panel, task force, executive review, or other methods. 8. Adopt land use regulations and development standards which allow lot clustering, varied lot sizes, small scale multi -family dwellings and reductions to infrastructure requirements for subdivisions to encourage development of housing obtainable by purchasers with the greatest mix of household incomes. 9. Adopt land use regulations and development standards which allow innovative housing ideas including co -housing, elder cottages, and shared living residences or group quarters. Review Committees 10. Form a special task force consisting of farmers, workers, lenders, public housing providers, and elected officials to initiate regulations designed to encourage and enable farmers to provide housing for farm workers. 11. Establish a broad -based citizen committee consisting of interested and affected parties to: Review existing regulations for consistency with the goals contained in this plan and review proposed regulations for their affect on housing affordability and availability. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan RIM 578 Council Introduction Draft. November 10. 2009 Chapter Three - Housina 'Action Plan 2. Evaluate local legislative actions for opportunities to enhance availability of affordable housing to all residents of the county and enforcement of laws pertaining to tenant rights. Staffing 12. In general budget review, allow for adequate staff to provide timely review of land use proposals. Building Standards 13. Encourage private groups to inventory sets of pre -approved residential building plans that can be offered to the public free of charge. 14. Investigate and enable creative options to reduce or eliminate infrastructure requirements such as road width, sidewalks, curbs and gutters where it is clearly demonstrated that such action does not create a safety hazard and is not contrary to the interests of the health and well-being of county residents. Lot Size/Shape 15. Adopt land use regulations and development standards that allow innovative lot designs (Z lots, zero lot lines, small lot districts) in the interest of reducing the serviced -lot portion of overall housing development costs. 16. Eliminate lot consolidation criteria when it is in the interest of serving housing affordability. 17. Where appropriate, and through density adjustments, decrease minimum lot sizes. Mixed Use 18. Adopt development regulations that provide for adequate buffering requirements (trees, other vegetation, and fences) and sound insulation between uses to minimize drawbacks of mixed use such as noise, odors, and cluttered views. 19. Review and revise land use regulations and adopt "adaptive re -use" to allow the conversion of single-family dwellings, commercial/light industrial facilities and other non- residential structures to a variety of housing types where water and sewage treatment can be provided. Developer Incentives 20. Review potential for offering density bonuses, reduced lot size, and other incentives for including specified proportions of housing targeted for low- and moderate -income households. 21. . Through adoption of a set of incentives, use some form of inclusionary zoning that encourages provision of housing targeted for low- and moderate -income households. 22. Make a series or menu of incentives, including but not limited to density bonuses, transfer of development rights, and/or infrastructure concessions available to project developers wherever special needs populations are specifically served. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-21 579 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Three - Housing "Action Plan 23. Require impact and mitigation fees, if any, to be paid at the time the occupancy permit is issued by Whatcom County. 24. Provide additional bonus housing density for inclusion of affordable housing in a Planned Unit Development. Buyer Assistance 25. Establish a housing development fund, accessible to individuals qualified for affordable housing assistance who are legal residents of the county, administered by an agency such as Bellingham-Whatcom County Housing Authority or the Whatcom County Opportunity Council, and funded by contributions from developers wishing to utilize affordable housing incentives and bonuses, but not wishing to include affordable housing in their own projects. 26. Support existing agencies which provide for, or provide assistance in obtaining, low- or no - interest loans for first-time home buyers and others needing assistance to purchase homes. Education 27. Prepare an easily -understood guide or set of guides, readily available to the public, describing in a step-by-step fashion the processes required for land use actions. 28. Educate the public about permitting processes, and the availability of existing house plans by providing easy access to information through media such as videotapes, workshops, the Internet and others. 29. Educate the public about innovative housing ideas including co -housing, elder cottages, and shared living residences or group quarters. 30. Coordinate with local, state, and federal housing agencies, organizations and jurisdictions to further Whatcom County's goals and polices relating to housing. 31. Work with local, state and federal agencies to coordinate programs and secure grants or other funds available for housing programs. Housing Affordability Distribution and Targeting 32. Allocate to each UGA and city a "fair share allocation" that specifies the number of affordable housing units that are needed to accommodate each economic segment of the population in each area. Policy Priority in Favor of Permanent Community Benefit 33. Seek perpetual affordability achievable through nonprofit -owned rental housing and certain forms of homeownership including community land trusts, limited equity condominiums, and deed restricted homeownership. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3-22 Council Introduction Draft, November 10. 2009 Chapter Three - Housing ** Action Plan Inclusionary Zoning 34. Develop inclusionary zoning incentives and requirements that integrate affordable housing into new market -rate developments. 35. Develop a system for inclusionary zoning payments made in lieu of providing inclusionary units in some developments. Financial Incentives to Encourage Affordability 36. Explore legislative authority to use "current use taxation policies" to benefit affordable housing by applying the tax -abatement policy now available for farmland, timberland and other open spaces. 37. Explore other financial incentives such as tax credits for low-income households who opt into a nonspeculative housing market. 38. Encourage "employer -assisted housing" as a recruitment/retention strategy using down payment assistance, interest rate buy -downs, second mortgages, etc. Funding Strategies 39. Create a "housing trust fund" to provide dedicated funding for housing priorities set by,the jurisdictions involved. 40. Consider using the "Housing and Conservation Trust" used in Vermont to fund affordable housing inside urban areas that takes pressure off farmland, open space and rural lands. 41. Consider a ballot measure for a "housing levy" that funds affordable housing development. 42. Consider a housing levy that adapts the Vermont model by proposing a combination of open space/farmland/salmon protection along with support for permanently affordable housing at the right location. 43. Consider using a "real estate excise tax" or a "real estate transfer tax" a County -wide tax or levy to provide a revenue stream for the local housing trust fund for affordable housing. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan RMOA 581 582 Council Introduction Draft, November 10. 2009 Chapter Four - Capital Facilities Chapter Four CAPITAL FACILITIES INTRODUCTION Capital facilities as defined here, and for purposes of the plan, include facilities owned by Whatcom County and other public entities. Capital facilities typically have long useful lives, significant costs, and are not mobile. Whatcom County capital facilities include buildings, land, parks, and roads. Capital facilities provided by other public entities may be included in this plan by reference. Those capital facility plans that may be adopted by reference include plans for water, sewer, fire protection, storm water, schools, parks and recreation facilities. Purpose This chapter contains policies to guide Whatcom County in providing adequate public services within the county's financial capability, and provides a unifying framework for facilities planning....lt also establishes levels of service for county -owned and operated capital facilities. The cities and other public owners of capital facilities are encouraged to use the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as a guide in preparing their own plans and capital improvement programs, particularly with respect to designated urban growth areas (UGAs). Process In 1991, the firm of Henderson, Young and Company (HYCo) was hired to obtain the necessary expertise in capital facilities planning to assist the county in preparing this chapter. Unlike most other chapters of this plan, Capital Facilities did not involve a citizen's committee or a technical advisory committee per se. The functions assumed by committees for other chapters were not required for completion of this chapter. Methodology, however, was needed to bring together technical expertise concerning all county organizational divisions that manage the capital facilities of the county. HYCo provided that methodology. Department and division administrators have been called upon repeatedly to provide detailed information on existing facilities, levels of service, funding, projected improvements, and revenue sources. Through that process, they participated in the plan as an ad hoc technical committee. Because of the complexity of this topic, the County Council went through an exercise to establish preliminary levels of service after receiving recommendations from department heads. After review and input by the public, these preliminary levels of service were finalized. HYCo was responsible for organizing the effort toward completion of this chapter in the original 1997 Comprehensive Plan, with much of the actual work performed by the Whatcom County Planning Division. This chapter was updated in 2004 as part of the seven-year review required under the Growth Management Act and in 2009. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4-1 583 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Four - Capital Facilities GMA Goals, County -Wide Planning Policies, and Visioning Community Value Statements The goals, policies, and action plans in this chapter contribute to achievement of several of the GMA planning goals, including those considering urban growth, open space and recreation, and public facilities and services. The chapter has been written to satisfy those goals while also meeting the intent and requirements of the County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP), and general guidelines of the Visioning Community Value Statements. Although CWPPs do not separately address capital facilities, as defined in this chapter, they are addressed within a number of the policies. Policies requiring fiscal and physical ability to provide adequate public facilities, services, and infrastructure are satisfied in this chapter. The interlocal agreements specified in the policies must address reasonable criteria for annexation and ensure adequate public services including transportation, parks, administrative services and corrections facilities. In relation to capital facilities, the Visioning Community Value Statements emphasize the importance of law enforcement, crime prevention, and other social services, as well as encourage retention and development of recreational opportunities. Growth Management Goals, County -Wide Planning Policies, and Visioning Community Value Statements will be served by adoption of this chapter and implementation of its goals, policies, and action plans. GMA Requirements The Growth Management Act mandates that counties required to plan under the Act adopt comprehensive plans including an inventory of facilities, a forecast of future needs for such facilities, the proposed location and the capacities of expanded or new facilities, minimum levels of service of facility capacity, a six -year plan for financing those facilities with indication of sources for that funding, and a requirement to re -assess the Land Use chapter of this plan if there are funding shortfalls. The Land Use element must be consistent and coordinated with the capital facilities plan with respect to adopted minimum levels of service and adequacy of facilities to serve development. These Growth Management Act requirements are addressed in this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Appendix E) and in the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (Appendix F). BACKGROUND SUMMARY Once a level of service standard is established for a particular facility, then a cost can be assigned to achieve the desired level of service. The next step is to develop funding mechanisms to pay for the desired levels of service. Levels of service for different facilities are defined differently. In this chapter, the level of service for most facilities is defined as a unit per population; for example, a fraction of a square foot of office space per capita or a number of jail beds or park acres per 1,000 population. The major exception is roads, for which level of service is measured as volume over capacity ratios, i.e. how many cars are anticipated to use a particular section of road (volume) divided by how many cars the road can theoretically accommodate over a specific period of time (capacity). Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4-2 Council Introduction Draft. November 10. 2009 Chapter Four - Capital Facilities One of the major issues confronting Whatcom County in relation to capital facilities is the question of availability of revenue versus ability to provide services. While it is generally desirable to provide high levels of service for roads, law enforcement, and other essential services, costs for those services continue to rise and, generally, new or additional taxes are undesirable. Whatcom County has kept additions to its capital facilities to a minimum over the past ten years (1999-2009 499 moo^) in order to contain the cost of government operations. Whatcom County has relied on a pay -as -you go approach for funding capital expenditures under one million dollars. Large capital acquisitions have been financed with general obligation debt. The 2009 2004 budget for debt service is $1,893,618 $2;487;N9, or one tw -per cent of 2009 2004 budgeted revenues of $188,439,728 $444-,635,7-N. The GMA expressly authorizes cities and counties to impose impact fees on new development to help finance the capital facilities required to serve new development. This authorization applies only to capital facilities owned or operated by government entities: (a) public streets and roads; (b) publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; (c) school facilities; and (d) fire protection facilities in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district. Certain background information that must be included in a capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan in order to collect transportation impact fees is included in Appendix G. If the desired level of service cannot be achieved without acquiring major debt, raising taxes beyond acceptable levels or establishing unacceptable impact fees, then the level of service standard must be adjusted, facility costs must be reduced, or growth must be curtailed until a balance is achieved. Adjusting land use t-G-meet-the-ability-to achieve desirable levels of service is one means of attaining concurrency. Concurrency, as required by the GMA, means that adequate facilities as defined by adopted levels of service are available at the time that the impacts of development occur or within a specified time thereafter. The GMA, at minimum, requires concurrency for transportation facilities. Concurrency is obviously desirable for all other capital facilities as well if the overall goal is to provide for new development while maintaining a quality of life that people desire. Mope—detailed--infor tion—is-�vaidabte—in the- ogowing Management and Capital FaGWity- Requirements 199- With regard to fire protection, Whatcom County has not adopted level of service standards (NFPA 1720 or any other response -time based level of service) for most urban or rural areas. The County should define an urban level of service for fire protection during the required 7-year comprehensive plan review and update process. The 7-year plan review and update process should demonstrate that the urban growth areas have adequate existing fire protection facilities and service capacities to meet the urban level of service and any additional needed fire facilities and services. If the level of service standard adopted by the County can not be provided over the 20-year planning period, then re -designation of UGAs to rural designations should be considered. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4-3 585 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Four - Capital Facilities ISSUES, GOALS, AND POLICIES Adopted levels of service are incorporated within the following goals, policies, and action plans. GOAL 4A: Within the county's financial capacity, adopt a carefully planned program of county services and facilities. Policy 4A-1: Establish appropriate level of service standards for county facilities commensurate with the ability of the county to fund them. Policy 4A-2: Extend County facilities and services in a manner that supports future urban growth in urban growth areas (UGAs). Policy 4A-3: Evaluate all types of facilities to determine whether they should be provided at county -wide, or strictly unincorporated levels of service. Transportation facility levels of service should be evaluated for appropriateness as to adopted urban or rural levels of service. Policy 4A-4: The land use element of the comprehensive plan must be reassessed to ensure that land use is coordinated and consistent with the financing plan within the capital facilities element and to ensure probable funding does not fall short of meeting existing needs. GOAL 4B: Develop a six -year financing program for capital facilities that meets the requirements of the GMA, achieves the county's levels -of -service, and is within financial capability as determined by projected financial resources. Policy 413-1: Maintain and update, on at least a biennial basis, a six -year capital improvement program (CIP) that identifies projects, outlines a schedule, and designates realistic funding sources for all county capital projects based on a review of population and revenue conditions existing at that time. GOAL 4C: Locate county facilities which require urban infrastructure, serve primarily urban populations, and are urban in character within identified urban growth areas (UGAs). Policy 4C-1: Evaluate all new capital facilities requiring a new site for urban characteristics and limit selection of sites for urban projects to designated UGAs. GOAL 4D: Develop and implement a coordinated program of facility expansion for the departments and agencies which together carry out the county's law enforcement and corrections functions. Policy 4D-1: Complete those capital improvement projects necessary to eliminate existing -any space deficiencies in law enforcement facilities. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4-4 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Four - Capital Facilities GOAL 4E: Develop and carry out a realistic long-range program of facility expansion or improvement to accommodate the county's projected staffing requirements for departments and agencies. Policy 4E-1: Include in the capital facilities master plan, a program of building and space improvements to efficiently provide quality work space for projected staffing levels through the 20-year planning periodye . Policy 4E-2: Investigate alternatives to Capital Facility construction through the private sector, and pursue technologically feasible alternatives. GOAL 4F: Achieve level of service targets for park and recreational facilities identified in this chapter and which support objectives and priorities identified in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan, in the Natural Heritage Plan, and in this plan. Policy 4F-1: Seek non -capital opportunities to acquire, enhance and maintain park lands, trails, and other recreational facilities. Policy 4F-2: Include acquisition and development costs in the six -year CIP for future trails projects. Policy 4F-3: Develop a recreational facilities program that achieves and maintains the level of service for athletic fields and courts, trails, and support facilities for shoreline access, picnicking, and camping without adding to capital costs. Policy 4F-4: Place a high priority on improvements to existing county recreational sites and facilities and using them to their full potential, including those outlined in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan, before investing capital in the acquisition and development of new facilities. Policy 4F-5: Continue to provide centers for use by senior citizens and others. GOAL 4G: Establish levels of service for roads, parks, corrections, and administrative services. Policy 4G-1: For purposes of transportation management systems, adopt level of service standards (LOS) for transportation facilities as listed in Chapter 6, Transportation, Policy 6A-3. Policy 4G-2: Adopt the following level of service standards for park facilities: developed parks ............................................... 9.6 acres per 1,000 population trails................................................0.60 0.76 of a mile per 1,000 population activity centers .................................... five six -centers .per 100,000 population Policy 4G-3: Adopt the following level of service for correction facilities: jails ..................... juvenile detention Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan ..............1.42 beds per 1,000 population . 0.125 0465 beds per 1,000 population 4-5 587 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Four - Capital Facilities Policy 4G-4: Adopt the following levels of service for administrative facilities: office space (unincorporated)...........................................0.51 sq. ft. per capita maintenance & operations (unincorporated) ....................0.41 sq. ft. per capita sheriffs office (unincorporated)........................................0.26 sq. ft. per capita office space (county-wide)........................................0.63 0-.71 sq. ft. per capita sheriff emergency ops (county-wide)..............................0.011 sq. ft. per capita GOAL 4H: Coordinate with non -county facility providers such as cities and special purpose districts to support the future land use pattern promoted by this plan. Policy 4H-1: Establish interagency planning mechanisms and interlocal agreements to assure coordinated and mutually supportive capital facility plans from special districts, cities, and other major non -county facility providers which are consistent with this and other chapters of the comprehensive plan. Policy 4H-2: In consultation and coordination with special districts, cities, and other major non -county facility providers, review and update as appropriate capital facility plans supporting UGAs in conjunction with GMA 7-Year Review and 10-Year UGA Review. Policy 4H-3 Whatcom County should define an urban level of service for fire protection by December 1, 2011. The 7-year comprehensive plan review and update process should demonstrate that the urban growth areas are served by urban levels of fire protection facilities and service. If the level of service standard adopted by the County can not be provided over the 20-year planning period, then re -designation of UGAs to rural designations should be considered. GOAL 4J: Maintain effective concurrency measures and procedures for all facilities and services necessary for development. Policy 4J-1: Based on established levels of service for all road segments under control of the county, administer a concurrency management program that provides for consistent and predictable evaluation of the impacts of future proposed development. GOAL 4K: Consider alternative funding sources to assure levels of service adopted in the plan. Policy 4K-1: After all other financing options have been exhausted, consider the use of bonded indebtedness to finance major capital investments in infrastructure con-sistems-wit4"-he---discus-sion--in--the----Capital--l-aeil4es----Iran--support d­GGUnae / r'i+c:--Fii-rc'nc^�Ge--P j'e6ti�ll-S—f �E'r}t l��Pter_"4. Policy 4K-2: Identify and promote public private partnerships to provide and enhance the provision of necessary services. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan MV Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Four -Capital Facilities GOAL 4L: Ensure that capital facilities provide protection for threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species. Policy 4L-1: Fish and wildlife habitat should be carefully considered when selecting projects for the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program. Policy 4L-2: Projects selected for the Six -Year. Capital Improvement Program shall not degrade habitat for threatened and endangered species. Policy 4L-3: Projects selected for the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program should strive to restore degraded habitat for threatened and endangered species, when the projects are in direct contact with such habitat. The County Council will determine when such restoration is financially feasible through adoption of the six -year capital improvement program and the County budget. GOAL 4M: Enable school districts to receive impact fees to fund a proportionate share of system improvements reasonably related to new development by adopting into this plan their capital facilities plans and establishing interlocal agreements with the districts to collect and transfer funds. Policy 4M-1: The capital facilities plan for the Bellingham School District, adopted. by the district on July 16, 2009Mamh-2,5,-004, is adopted into the comprehensive plan by reference. Policy 4M-2: The capital facilities plan for the Ferndale School District, adopted by the district on December 23, 2005, is adopted into the comprehensive plan by reference. Policy 4M-3: The capital facilities plan for the Lynden School District, adopted by the district on June 29, 2006, is adopted into the comprehensive plan by reference. Policy 4M-4: The capital facilities plan for the Meridian School District, adopted by the district on June 30, 2009, is adopted into the comprehensive plan by reference_ Goal4N: Adopt special district and County capital facility plans for unincorporated UGAs into this plan by reference when consistent with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Policy 4N-1: The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Water System Plan, dated March 2009, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. Policy 4N-2: The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Sewer System Plan, dated May 2009, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive Ian. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4-7 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Four - Capital Facilities Policy 4N-3: The Birch Bay Comprehensive Stormwater Plan, dated July 2006, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. Policy 4N-4 The North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan, dated August 2009, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. Policy 4N-5: The Public Utility District No. 1 Comprehensive Water System Plan, dated October 2004, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive Plan. Policy 4N-6: "fhe Evergreen Water -Sewer District Comprehensive Water System Plan, dated June 2004, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. This water system serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. Policy 4N-7: The Water District No. 13 Water System Plan, dated February 2005, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. This water system serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. Policy 4N-8: The public stormwater facilities sections relating to the Columbia Valley UGA in the Water Quantity and Quality Report Foothills Subarea (Aspect Consulting, July 18, 2008, pp. 2-3, 36-39, and 55-56) are adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 4-8 590 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 CAPITAL FACILITIES - ACTION PLAN 1. Adopt a county six -year CIP to meet the GMA specifications including concurrency and all other capital needs for the six -year financing program component of the capital facilities element. 2. Identify appropriate levels of long-term bonded debt to finance major capital investments in infrastructure. 3. Explore alternative funding sources as authorized under the GMA to help fund the cost of infrastructure expansions required to serve new development. 4. Maintain Establish a concurrency management or monitoring process for transportation and adequacy reviews of new development as an integral part of land use and building permit review. 5. Explore alternative funding techniques for law and justice facilities and operations, including contracts for service with other agencies, private providers, and joint use of facilities. 6. Analyze probable future staffing and space requirements in conjunction with the budget process and updating of the capital facilities plan. 7. Pursue acquisition strategies for resource conservancy and linear parks (trails) on an other than fee simple basis to reduce cost without significant reduction in public use/benefit potential. 8. Pursue joint ventures with cities, school districts, and other potential partners in developing regional athletic parks as recommended in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan. 9. Work with special districts, cities, and other major non -county facility providers including water and sewer districts, fire districts, public utility districts and others as appropriate to establish levels of service for urban growth areas. "this must be done in order to assure facilities adequate to provide for anticipated population growth and development consistent with land use plan designations and zoning. 10. Explore alternative technology to create cost savings for capital facility needs. 11. Establish public/private partnership alternatives to capital financing. 12. Capital facility plans for water, sewer, stormwater, fire and schools that serve unincorporated UGAs will be incorporated by reference when consistent with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Me 591 592 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 Chapter Five - Utilities Chapter Five UTILITIES Whatcom County strongly encourages utilities to develop in a safe and rational manner based on the demand requirements of development consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. The 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Appendix E) provides additional information relating to water systems, sewer systems, and solid waste management. Policy 5Q-3: Review Urban Growth Areas at-lea&t-seas-to ensure appropriate actions have occurred to provide adequate water supplies. 27. Review urban growth areas even}-s n-yea, to ensure adequate water supplies are available and revise boundaries accordingly. NOTE: There are no changes to portions of Chapter Five preceding or following the above text. 593 594 Chapter Six TRANSPORTATION No Text Amendments Proposed (See attached map amendment) 595 Chapter Six TRANSPORTATION No Text Amendments Proposed (See attached map amendment) 596 597 C C 06 O. V/ N O a m � � 3 23 a � i o 0 0 ao 0 3 S N m000 o IA o m z 0 m � 7 z g3g C m m w MW °.x+ f � "'�'� - ?.�3R '�+�, 4�.,v�9 n..3a"T��R di � Y•�� �.. Y 5 a � H - wy - � �_-T 3 "'F -.. iR Y 3 %'` sucia�.� �S.drae9'�•' - .i� wcnvu jZjj � ����r,. • '?�' sky r. �f-Lae'.. � 0 5 m c ..+` wuE.w n 311tg. � fP.ktl° L�� Q � I SUNRIB R '� D ENTERPR I � ti3F'�121� ✓ �; d� � 1, :i� £ E £ � 1 WEIUMMIP R°, i a f- Z I <' - 4 N -T. S '. �� 'e ♦ � T � O _ NNE°PN RD, A may cl Z I ..OY SIPERR°. I �/ I N° r I I I 6i 1 I 1 a 4 '\ Ig µ,_ 4�� • oy�°sod` i . 1 'off I z OH Ni y3�119 •.. I a I I � 3ic�igS ��� isaaoe �vNouvN I 1 I I _ Y2[ $i neL EOREsl Eou,NonRr Zj ?e�?4-' 'x21i ilz mzl' R Ec ' � eo 6JJ�. -s Iz I 1= I 8 9geo;a �i I I i 35�a'3 I I I I 599 Chapter Eight RESOURCE LANDS No Text Amendments Proposed (See attached map amendments) WE 601 _U00g 270 0 SC 0 m 3 y m; 1m s m a n • s � � m 7 A. o o � v m a m w v d 0 .d. 0 E 3 3 � m m F f m m y > > � � v a � o m m M a a A � a n 3 °o o a 3 � 0 a W v d� Q a `° U2 C �cjC rt r— w CO) CL in 0 00 f i . t NN � n -•�\,c S ��°� �`�,E• a r� 9ri►,".� s 602 603 605 Council Introduction Draft, November 10. 2009 Appendix A - Glossary Appendix A GLOSSARY Short-TerWLonq-Term Planning Area Boundaries: Short Term Planning Areas boundaries -are used as a tool for facilitating provision of urban levels of services and preventing sprawl. The Long T-8Frn boundary iRdudes the sh ..-,4--, as well as areas that have unresolved Ily i�ccioc�ii4hin the irlon#ifioiJ 7(1 year I Irban GroyAh RG �no_a_n Urban Fringe Subarea Plan: A plan pertaining to the Bellingham Urban Growth Area and a portion of Whatcom County surrounding Bellingham—ardd—eonta+n Rg rneet—Gf--BellinghaWs saberbafl growth. It is a plan designating the interface between urban and rural land uses. Some pa -Ft -Part of the Urban Fringe Area will -be is included in an Urban Growth Area. Some of the area already lies within Bellingham's Urban Service Area. Urban growth area (UGA): An area designated, within which urban growth will be encouraged and outside of which growth can only occur if it is not urban in nature. (GWP42)--Urban growth areas around cities are designated by the county in consultation with the cities; urban growth areas not associated with cities are designated by the county. NOTE. There are no changes to portions of Appendix A preceding or following the above text. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan A-1 .1. Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009 ,Appeg4x E - chart in a,e--6 Map-#2-8-E; l=y-ndee-Ufbap,GfGv t# Area PROPOSAL: Repeal "Appendix E Short Term Planning Area Maps" entirely, because Short Term Planning Areas are zoning designations not comprehensive plan designations. Therefore, they are shown on the zoning maps rather than on comprehensive plan maps. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan E-1 607 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan —Appendix E ■ November WIFFAMM- ICFJones & Stokes an ICF International Company •1• Whatcom County 20-Year Capital FacilitiesPI Prepared for: Whatcom County Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, WA 98225 Prepared by: ICF'& Sotnoekses an ICF International Company 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 Contact: Lisa Grueter 206/801-2800 Berk & Associates Suite 200120 Lakeside Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 Contact: Erica Natali 206/324-8760 In consultation with: Henderson, Young & Company 8060 -165th Ave. NE, Suite 220 Redmond, WA 98052-3935 Contact: Randy Young 425/869-1786 November 2009 610 � : > y � z . IN � z : . « �»: V b: « This document should be dk as: ICFJones &Bolas. mm.Capital F Facilities neU/ae!—m Year UGA Review. November. (lCF ]& m2$mjSal### 6* Prepared for WaGlomCounty me. 611 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................. Yii.1 � .Y i •.• t Contents of the Plan .......................................... `- :................ .,1 Growth Assumptions ....................................... ............. 1: Public Facility Costs ....................................... .............1 Public Facility Financing ................................ ..............2 CFP Level of Services Consequences ........... ... :..............2 Public Buildings Sheriff's Office and Juvenile Detention (County) .................................... ::....2 Parks and Recreation ....................................... ................... :................................ ....... -.3 Sanitary Sewer..............................................:::.`.........:.....::;.. .....................:` .....3 Water Systems Schools......................................................:...:. ..........4 SolidWaste ...............................................................................................................5 Stormwater..................................................................................................................5 Transportation ........................ :...................................... ....................... ............ 5 Transit...............................:..,:.......................................::::::.........................................5 FireProtection...............................................................................................................5 CFP Source. Documents.........:........................................................ 6 Introduction...................................................................................7 Capital Facilities Plan Purpose..........................................................7 Growth Management Act................................................................... 7 Capital Facilities..............................................................................8 Land Use Projections........................................................................ 8 Assumptions...................................................................................... 8 Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis...................................................9 Introduction....................................................................................................................9 Assumptions................................................................................................................10 Dedicated Capital Revenues.......................................................................................10 General Capital Revenues...........................................................................................16 Impact of Reduced Levels of Annexation........................................19 November 2009 612 Potential Policy Options.................................................................. 19 Six -Year Funding Balance.............................................................. 20 Other Service Providers ...................... ... ....... 21 ...................... n Economic Development Planning ............................. 2:1 Public Buildings County Overview............................................................................. r :...................,..: ...2 Inventory of Current Facilities .................................................. � ..... ............ 22 Level of Service Capacity Analysis 23 Capital Projects and Funding......................................................... 26 Sheriff's Office and Juvenile Detention (County)..... .... .:,.. 28 Overview............................................................................................................,,: ;28 Inventory of Current Facilities....................................:...:................................:....... 28 Level of Service Capacity Analysis........................:.:.::...,.,::.,................................,.:3.0 Capital Projects and Funding .........................::...............:.. ................... .... :: 33 Parks and Recreation (County and Special Districts=serving=UGAs)36 Overview .......................................... ........... :.............. ::........................ ...................... 36 Inventory of Current Facilities...:::......::.................................................................... 36 Level of Service Capacity Analysis..:.:....................::.;:.:,,...,,..:.::............................. 40 Capital Projects and Funding.........................................:..:;..::..:::.:................................43 Existing Structures::...:;...:.... SanitarySewer............................................................................... 51 Overview ......... Inventory of Current Facilities.................................................................................... 51 Level of Service Capacity Analysis............................................................................. 56 Capital Projects and Funding...................................................................................... 58 WaterSystems............................................................................... 78 Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan(CWSP)....................................... 78 Urban Water Systems (within UGAs).......................................................................... 79 Schools......................................................................................... 113 Overview............................. :..................................................................................... 113 Inventory of Current Facilities...................................................................................113 Level of Service Capacity Analysis...........................................................................120 Capital Projects and Funding....................................................................................122 Solid Waste (County).................................................................... 129 Overview...................................................................................................................129 Inventory of Current Facilities...................................................................................129 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review ii 613 Level of Service Capacity Analysis............................................................................131 Capital Projects and Funding.....................................................................................132 Stormwater (County).....................................................................133 Overview....................................................................................................................133 Inventory of Current Facilities..................................................... 133 Level of Service Capacity Analysis .................................. Capital Projects and Funding ........................................... ................ 135 Transportation (Countywide) ....... ...:.:.......... ............. 137 Overview.......................................................................... 137 Inventory of Current Facilities..................................................:......:.': ................137 Level of Service Capacity Analysis ........................................ .............:,.......:':............ 137 Capital Projects and Funding................................................................. ....144 Transit.......................................................... ...................... 154, Overview .......................... ................................................. .:.................................. :....154 Inventory of Current Facilities .................... .:::...............:.;......................:::...154 Level of Service Capacity Analysis.............:::... ....::.........:..............155 Capital Projects and Funding....................::;........................................::,.;................155 Fire Protection.......................................................................156 Overview...................................'..............................:.....:............................................156 Inventory of Current Facilities`::::................................::............................................156 Level of Service Capacity Analysis.............................................................................158 Capital Projects and Funding.....................................................................................161 Capital Facilities Implementation'.., ............................................ 168 References...................................................................................169 Appendix 1 Growth Estimates by Special District ...................175 Appendix 2 Birch Bay Draft Capital Facilities Funding Analysis Effects of Birch Bay's Potential Incorporation ..........................180 Introduction.................................................................................181 Dedicated Capital Revenues......................................................181 Transportation...............................................................................181 RoadLevy.................................................................................................................181 State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax....................................................................................182 Transportation Grants....................................................................183 r—� °1 November 2009 614 State Transportation Grants......................................................................................183 Federal Transportation Grants..................................................................................183 General Capital Revenues .................................................... Real Estate Excise Tax .......................................... ............. Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax .....................• :.................. .;r. Total General Capital Revenues >: rY < Surrima 1. Appendix 3 Whatcom County Rural Water Rural Area Water Systems .............................................. Appendix4 Maps.................................................................... 85 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review ry 615 Tables Table 1. Regional Growth Population and Employment Assumptions ................................ 8 Table 2. Projected Future Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 201Q-2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects)......................................................... 11 Table 3. Projected Future Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel'Tax Revenues 2010 2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) ........................... 13:>, Table 4. Projected Future Whatcom County State Transportatiion'Grant Revenues 2010 2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) ..`......................14 Table 5. Projected Future Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues 2010-2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) .................. ;.:..............15 Table 6. Projected Total Transportation Revenues 2010-2029 (Allocated for Capi6l , Projects) ................................................. ........................................ 1.6 Table 7. Projected Future Whatcom County Real. Estate:;Excise Tax Revenues 2010 202917 Table 8. Projected Future Whatcom County Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax . Revenues 2010-2029 (Available for Capital Projects):.......................................18 Table 9. Projected Total General Capital Revenues .:....................:.. ............................18 Table 10. Projected Total Capital Revenues .............................19 Table 11. County -Wide Administrative Office Space ......................................... 22 Table 12. Administrative Office Space Serving Unincorporated Areas ............................... 23 Table 13 Maintenance and Operations Facilities............................................................... 23 Table 14. Administrative Level of Service (LOS) Standards ............................................... 23 Table 15. County -Wide Office Space LOS Requirements Analysis .................................... 24 Table 16. Unincorporated County Office Space LOS Requirements Analysis ................... 24 Table 17. Maintenance and Operation Facilities LOS Requirements Analysis ................... 26 Table 18. Office Space Improvement Projects to Serve County -wide 2010-2015.............. 27 Table 19. Office Space Improvement Projects To Serve Unincorporated Areas 2010-201527 Table 20. Sheriffs Office Facilities..................................................................................... 28 Table 21. Emergency Operations Office Space................................................................. 29 Table 22. Jail Facility Inventory .......................................................................................... 29 Table 23. Juvenile Detention Inventory .............................................................................. 30 Table 24. Law Enforcement Level of Service Standards....................................................30 Table 25. Sheriffs Office (Unincorporated County) Level of Service Requirements Analysis31 v November 2009 616 Table 26. Table 27. Table 28. Table 29. Table 30. Table 31. Table 32. Table 33. Table 34. Table 35. Table 36. Table 37. Table 38. Table 39. Table 40. Table 41. Table 42. Table 43. Table 44. Table 45. Table 46. Emergency Management Level of Service Requirements Analysis....................31 Jails Level of Service Requirements Analysis.....................................................32 Juvenile Detention Level of Service Requirements An Sheriffs Office Space Improvement Projects 2010-20 Emergency Management/EOC Improvement Projects Jail Improvement Projects to Serve County -Wide 201 Current Developed Park Inventory .............................. County Trails Inventory ............................................... County Activity Center Inventory ................................. Parks and Recreation Level of Service (LOS) Standai Developed Parks Level of Service Requirements Ana Trails LOS Requirements Analysis...............................................................::..4Z Activity Centers Level of Service RequirementsAnalysis: ...... ................43 New Developed Park Facilities Park Improvement Projects 2010-2029 ..........45 Trail Improvement Projects 2010-2015............ ..................... .................................46 Activity Center Improvement Projects 2016-2015................................................49 Northwest Parks & Recreation District Projects 2010-2015................................50 Sanitary Sewer Inventory:...................................................................................53 Sewer Level of Service Standards......................................................................56 Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2015...........................................................57 Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2029...........................................................58 Table 47. Population Comparison: Sewer Plans and 2029 Population Projection ..............59 Table48. Sewer Projects....................................................................................................65 Table 49. Water System Inventory (Serving UGAs)............................................................80 Table 50. Water Level of Service (LOS) Standards............................................................82 Table 51. Population Comparison: Water Plans and 2029 Population Projection...............83 Table 52. Urban Area Water Projects.................................................................................92 Table 53. Bellingham School District Current Enrollment Capacity ...................................114 Table 54. Blaine School District Current Enrollment Capacity..........................................115 Table 55. Ferndale School District Current Enrollment Capacity ......................................116 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review v� 617 Table 56. Lynden School District Current Enrollment Capacity........................................117 Table 57. Meridian School District Current Enrollment Capacity ......................................118 Table 58. Mount Baker School District Current Enrollment Capacity...............................119 Table 59. Nooksack Valley District School District Current Enrollment Capacity :........120n Table 60. Whatcom County School District 2015 Level of ServiceArialysis Student Capacity.......................................................................................................121, Table 61. Whatcom County School District 2029 Level of Service Analysis Student Capacity'............................................................ .............122 Table 62. School District Capital Projects ....................................... .,.,....;....................... 125 Table 63. Solid Waste Facility Inventory ..................................... ...........:..,.., ............130 Table 64. Solid Waste LOS Analysis................................................................,...'.:,...131 Table 65. Inventory of Public Stormwater Facilities........:.:.:..................................:.........:1;34 Table 66. Whatcom County Stormwater Projects ............. ....... ................................... ..:..136 Table 67. Inventory of County Roadways by Functional Classification ............................137 Table 68 Roadways with Deficient Segments by 2029...................................................141 Table 69 Projected Roadway Segment Deficiencies by 2029......::.................................144 Table 70. Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program................................................146 Table 71 Whatcom County Transportation Improvement Projects..................................149 Table 72. Whatcom Transportation Authority Park & Ride Facilities................................154 Table 73. Transit Capital Projects'...................................................................................155 Table 74. Fire Facilities Inventory .....................................................................................157 Table 75. Level of Service Standard for Fire Districts: Square Feet per Incident.............159 Table 76. Fire District Level of Service Analysis' ...................... ...................................... 160 Table 77. Fire District/Department Capital Projects'.......................................................162 r� Y0 November 2009 Fiaures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 1988-202%(All"ocated>for Capital Projects)............................................................ ..................... 11 Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 1988-2029,(Al locat6-il', Capital Projects)........................................................................12 Whatcom County State Transportation Grant ReSenues-1992029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) a. "->' ...................................14 w Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues".198.8 2029 (Allocated ..........15for Capital Projects) .............................................................:::.......... Whatcom County Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 2004-2029 -1'7 Whatcom County Rural C (Available for Capital Pro Tax Revenues 2005-2029 ...........................................la Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year U viii 619 Executive Summary The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is one of the elements of the Whatcom County's..comprehensive plan that is required by Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) Capital facilities, generally have very long useful lives, significant costs, and are not lrriobile. The focus of the CFP is the planning and provision of needed public facilities for the County's unincorporated and countywide populations. It is also intended to support theCounty's 10=year',' review of urban growth areas. The County's population base and other demand factors, together with the adopted LOS, are the principal factors considered in the CFP; This Capital Facilities Plan represents the six year period of 2010-2015 of forecasted need for public facilities, along with specific capital projects expenditures and revenues TheCounty's adopted projections for population and employment growth _to 2029 are also considered in,this' CFP. Contents of the Plan The CFP Element of the comprehensive plan is presented iu three sections: I. Introduction Purpose of the CFP, statutory, requirements, and methodology. II. Capital Improvements 'List of proposed capital projects,',including financing plan, and reconciliation of project capacity to level of service standards. III. Implementation Summary of management tools that will be used to implement the CFP. Growth Assumptions For purposes of capital facility planning coordination, Comprehensive Plan population and employment forecasts were created to the year 2029. Geographic Information System (GIS) was utilized to break down the population, household, and employment forecasts by capital facility provider. Capital facility purveyors were provided with these forecasts as a planning tool to assist service providers in understanding implications of growth under each alternative that the County considered in the development of this CFP. Public Facility Costs The cost of capital improvements for 2010-2015 and, when available, for 2016-2029 are provided in the Capital Facilities Plan. November 2009 620 Public Facility Financing The purpose of this financial analysis is to support the financing plan for the CFP that is required by RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d). Revenue estimates have been developed to assist in project planning, and represent realistic, but not exact, estimates of revenue available for the CFP. Forecasts of revenues were prepared for County -provided services. The revenue sources and forecasts for municipal and special district service providers are also, summarized fronilavailable plans and compared to typical revenue sources for those service providers: More d6tail on CFP financing can be found in the Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis section of the CFP:_, CFP Level of Services Consequences The CFP outlines the LOS consequences of growth for the County both t6,20.15, and in a longer - term review to 2029. LOS consequences are as follows for each County`maiitained and owned facility: Public Buildings County -wide Office Space With capacity projects programmed in the next six years; the County will be able to maintain its LOS for County -wide Office space to 2015. The County:. anticipates that it will be able to continue to meet its County -wide Office space needs to 2029 with an LOS standard of 0.63 square feet per capita. Unincorporated Office Space With capacity projects planned for the 2010-2015 time period, the County will be able to maintain current LOS standards. for unincorporated office space through 2015 and 2029. Maintenance and Operations The County will be able to maintain its LOS standards for maintenance and operations facilities for all time.periods through 2029. Sheriff's Office and Juvenile Detention (County) Sheriff's Office The CFP shows that the County will be able to meet LOS standards for Sheriff's Office facilities serving unincorporated Whatcom County in 2015. With capacity projects from the 2010-2015 timeframe, the County will be able to meet LOS standards under this category for 2029 as well. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 621 Emergency Management The CFP shows that the County is expected to maintain its current LOS standard for emergency management facilities when 2010-2015 capacity projects are taken into account in both 2015 and 2029 horizon years. Jails The County is expected to maintain its existing LOS standard for jails when capacity projects for 2010-2015 are included. The County has a reserve in this capital, facility category a both 2015 and 2029. Juvenile Detention With a LOS standard of 0.125 beds per 1,000, the County is proj6deaJo-,maintain adequate juvenile detention space to the 2029 horizon year. The County currently, has, no juvenile detention capacity projects planned. Parks and Recreation Parks When considering capacity projects that.the.County has for the 2010-2015 timeframe, the County will be able to maintain its developed parks LOS standard through the 2029 planning horizon. Trails With a proposed. LOS standard of 0.60 miles of trail per 1,000 population, the County expects to have adequate trails to meet.this standard in 2029 with planned capacity projects. Activity Center The County has plans to construct one additional activity center during the planning period. With this additional center, the County expects to meet its LOS standard of 5 activity centers per 100,000 population by 2029. Sanitary Sewer A review of LOS standards found in individual sewer purveyor's plans in relation to population and employment projections indicate that the City of Bellingham, Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, City of Lynden, City of Sumas, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District have adequate sewage treatment capacity to meet projected demands through 2029. The City of Everson shows a sewage treatment deficit in 2029 and the city's own analysis of sewage treatment capacity indicates that it has available capacity to meet approximately 8 to 12 years of residential growth and that expansion of the sewage treatment plant will be necessary. In addition, the City of Blaine expects to provide an additional 0.7 MGD of sewage treatment capacity when its new wastewater treatment plant starts operation in 2010. With this additional 3 November 2009 622 sewage treatment capacity, the City of Blaine is expected to have a sewage treatment capacity reserve in both 2015 and 2029. The City of Nooksack, which shares a sewage treatment plant with City of Everson, is expected to have a sewage treatment deficit in 13 to 15 years. Expansion of the Everson sewage treatment plant would be needed to accommodate growth in City of Nooksack to 2029. Water District 13, serving the Columbia Valley UGA, has existing capacity of approximately 197 additional connections and Evergreen Water and Sewer District does not provide sewer service at the present time. Additional sewer planning will be,%needed to serve growth in the Columbia Valley UGA. The City of Ferndale is expecting to h6b,sewage treatment deficits in 2029 as well. For those service providers with plans, a variety of short and long-term projects are identified to address deficiencies (see Sanitary Sewer Capital Project and Funding Section). For those service providers without an adoptedplan, the, Capital Facilities Implementation section of this CFP provides options for addressing=any- identified deficiencies in their capital planning process. Water Systems A comparison of the water system plans of urban water°sys"tems in Whatcom County shows that most of the water systems plan for populations greater thanthat projected for their service area as part of the Whatcom County 2029 capital facility planning process., This indicates that these water systems generally plan conservatively for drinking water needs, particularly given the time it takes to seek new water supplies to serve growth. Evergreen Water District, City of Everson, City of Nooksack, City of Sumas, Water District 7, and'Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District all plan for populations lower thanthat found in the Whatcom County 2029 CFP projections, potentially indicating a need to update their, analysis with updated population and employment figures as part of their planning for water, system needs. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District's Plan identified a near -term need for additional water,. -sources, and is actively working with its partner, the City of Blaine',to: obtain new water sources. In addition, when the Ecology water rights calculation for the City of Lynden of 1,110 gpm is considered, instead of the City's source capacity estimates, then the City of Lynden experiences water deficits in the planning period. Other urban area water purveyors identify storage and/or distribution projects that will be needed to continue providing service at adequate levels over the planning period. For those service providers with plans, a variety of short and long-term projects are identified to address deficiencies (see Urban Water Systems Capital Project and Funding Section). Schools School enrollment projections are affected by demographic trends and a variety of alternative educational programs which make projecting traditional public school enrollment more difficult. A review of school district capacity in the County calculated for this analysis through 2029 reveals that the Bellingham, Blaine, and Lynden school districts are expected to have school capacity deficits by 2015. By 2029, the three deficits anticipated in the districts mentioned above are larger. In some cases, the districts may elect to accommodate future capacity through additional long-term projects or the addition of portable classrooms. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review a 623 Solid Waste The County does not have any landfills located within the County. Solid waste is shipped outside of the County through two solid waste transfer facilities. The Solid Waste LOS standard analysis shows that the County can expect an increase from 2008 of 147,070 tons of solid waste generated per year to 188,567 tons of solid waste per year by 2029. Stormwater r y ,k e/e, Although the County does not have a formal and explicit capita facility LOSS andard for stormwater facilities, the County has adopted a stormwater co fiance program I c .ordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Phase II;program. This program F applies to specific areas of the County currently designated as UGA's; `off -urbanized areas'iri br near the cities of Bellingham and Ferndale. Goals of the program, inolude�detection and elimination of illicit discharges to surface waters, controlling runoff from new: -development, redevelopment, and new construction, pollution prevention and operation and maintenance for municipal operations, and public education, stormwater... mgmtoring and report requirements. Transportation As population and employment are projectedtoincrease, the resulting increase in traffic is expected to degrade the LOS on the transportation systein. The Transportation section of this CFP provides a summarized list of the county roads with projected:2029 volume to capacity (V/C) ratios that exceed LOS standards . The Transportation section summarizes the total projected lane -miles expected to be deficient. In addition projects are identified in the Transportation Capital Projects and Fundirigsection of this CFP that will address identified deficiencies. Transit Public transit providers typically provide LOS standards which are difficult to relate to capital facility needs with respect to changes in population over time. For example, Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) provides one capital facility standard of a shelter at each transit stop that has 25 boardings or more. Fire Protection Most fire districts in Whatcom County do not have their own adopted capital facility plans. In some cases, districts have recently been reorganized or consolidated into fire protection authorities. However, the cities of Bellingham and Lynden fire departments both have adopted capital facilities plans, and North Whatcom Fire and Rescue and Fire District 14 have recently adopted CFPs addressing their facility needs. There are multiple methods used to determine LOS for fire districts: square feet per emergency incident and response time are two methods. Since many districts operate using a LOS standard November 2009 624 tied to response time, it is included for discussion within the CFP. Most fire districts base their response time LOS standards on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. However, because square feet per emergency incident can be more closely tied to capital facility needs, it is the focus of the fire protection LOS analysis in this CFP. Using this method of analysis based upon information provided by the County Fire Marshal's Office, all seven fire districts serving urban areas are expecting to have a future deficit in capital facilities by 2029. Most fire districts serving rural areas are also expected to have capital faclity'deficitslhy 2029 based on this analysis. The exceptions are that Fire District 18 and -Fire District Sloth of which show small facility surpluses in 2029.. The County plans to develop a countywidefire level of service in the future. The County may incorporate by reference.fice district.CFPs as fey are adopted. The Capital Facilities Implementation section of this CFP identifies measure that service providers without adopted CFPs can take to address any identified deficiencies CFP Source Documents The source documents used in preparing this CFP are the;cap fa_ improvement plans "prepared routinely as required by the State, and that are necessary for obtaining funding. These individual capital improvement plans define projects and proposed funding for thoseprojects required to rehabilitate existing facilities and to provide.level of service capacity to accommodate new growth in the county. Generally, the proposed new capacity;�replacement, and rehabilitation capital facilities and financing for 2010-2015 reflect the..general planning goals'andpolicies, as well as land use infrastructure .requirements, identifiedin:each provider's long-range planning document. For example, each of the urban water systems has a water system plan that (1) identifies existing facilities, needs for rehabilitation; and new capacity facilities, (2) evaluates methods to meet those needs, and (3) recommends capital facilities, and estimates costs, and funding options. The CEP planning process described above combined with the level of service (LOS) methodology used to identify the requirements for and affordability of future capital facilities constitutes the capital facilities planning process. This process enables the County to make more (1) informed decisions about its investment of public dollars, and (2) timely decisions about maintaining levels of service in accordance with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of this CFP. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 625 Introduction Capital Facilities Plan Purpose In 2009, the County focused on the required 10-Year Urban Growth Area'{UGA) Review in which the County considered: growth forecasts and allocations, urban growth boundaries, and comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The population and employment`"growth to 2029 is a key assumption of this CFP. Capital facilities are the facilities needed to support growth. Theyinclude roads, sewers, parks and recreation, and facilities for drinking water, stormwater, garbage disposal and recycling, and all the government buildings which house public services, including law 60 rcement, fire protection and schools. The purpose of the CFP is to use sound fiscal policies to provide adequate public facilities consistent with the land use element and concurrent with, or prior"to, the impacts of development in order to achieve and maintain adopted standards for levels of service.. Growth Management Act,� The CFP is required by the State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires the CFP to identify specific facilities,,include a realistic financing plan, and make adjustment to the plan if funding is inadequate._ Capital, facilities are important because they support the growth envisioned in the County's Comprehensive Plan. RCW 36.70A.070(3) requires the capital facilities plan to include "a six -year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes." RCW 36.70A.070(3) requires that all capital facilities have "probable funding" to pay for capital facility needs, or else the County must "reassess the land use element." Recent Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board cases indicate a Comprehensive Plan should have a 20-year plan for capital facilities, though only 6 years need to be fully financed; additionally, existing developed areas that are un-sewered should be addressed as well as undeveloped areas in UGAs. (Diel et al. v. Mason County 06-2-0005; Irondale Community Action Neighbors V. Jefferson County 04-2-0022 and 03-2-0010) The cases also appear to favor the County's and cities' current approach of not allowing urban development in UGAs until urban services are available. November 2009 626 Capital Facilities The CFP presents capital improvement projects, and the financing plan to pay for these projects. It also contains the inventory of existing facilities, a list of existing and planned facilities, the LOS (level of service) standards and forecast of future needs, and possible non -capital alternatives to achieving the LOS standard. Each type of public facility is presented in a separate subsection, format. ■ Overview: A narrative summary of the various capital facilities being consideredm-_the CFP. ■ Inventory of Current Facilities: A list of existing capital facilities,, including the name, capacity, and location. ■ Level of Service (LOS) Capacity Analysis: A table outlining the, County or: service provider LO' standards is presented for each type of public facility. This 'section includes the calculation of the amount of facility capacity that is required to achieve and maintain the standard for LOS. ■ Capital Projects and Financing Plan: This section of the_CFP lists capital improvements that will address existing deficiencies, make available facilities forfeiture growth, and repair or replace obsolete or worn our facilities through the end lof the plariivxig period. Amore detailed financing plan is provided for County -provided facilities in the six=.year period (2010-2015), while major projects and general funding" is �identified� for the remainder of the planning period (2016-2029). For non-Countyproviders, capital project: funding is provided along with listing of projects identified in the service providers.' :most recent plans. Land Use Projections Whatcom" County.'s current Comprehensive Plan addresses plans, policies, and growth allocations through the year 2029. This CFP considers regional growth for the County through the period 2009-2029. This CFP is based upon,the County Council's recommendations for growth through the 2029 plan horizon. Table 1 lists the population and "employment growth assumptions used in this CFP countywide. Table 1. Regional Growth Population and Employment Assumptions Population/Jobs Growth Total Population/Jobs 2008-2029 2029 Population 53,892 244,892 Jobs 33,188 118,038 Source: Whatcom County PDS, Berk & Associates Assumptions This Capital Facilities Plan is based on the following sources of information and assumptions: Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review u 627 ■ Adopted and Proposed Capital Facility Plans: The capital plans of each service provider, particularly those serving UGAs, was collected and reviewed including inventories, levels of service, planned facilities, growth forecasts, and potential funding. Growth Forecasts: Forecasts of population and job growth were allocated to each UGA and the rural areas. The current 2008 population and employment as well as the 2029 growth for each capital facility service provider were then estimated by special district boundary; to obtain six -year estimates, a straight-line projection was used. The capital plan assumptions are compared to the County's regional growth forecasts. The assumptions are included in Appendix 1. ■ Revenue Forecasts: Forecasts of revenues were prepared for "County -provided services to the 2029 horizon year. The revenue sources and forecasts for riunicipal and special district service providers are also summarized from available plans and compared to typical req;enue sources for those service providers. x, Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis This section discusses Whatcom County's Capital Facilities Revenue for County=prrovided facilities and services. Each capital facility and service provider:is treated by category prior to reviewing the capital facility inventories, LOS standards, and proposed projects. It assumes that the County continues to be responsible for Birch Bay and Columbia Valley. In the past, the County had conducted an incorporation study for Birch Bay UGA..Analysis of revenue without Birch Bay UGA is included in Appendix 2. Non -County provided capital facility providers (e.g., sewer; water, schools, fire, and transit) are treated separately prior to the capital project.section under each capital facility category. Introduction The purpose of this financial analysis is to support the financing plan for the CFP that is required by RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d). These:revenue estimates have been developed to assist in project prioritization and planning, and represent realistic, but not exact, estimates of revenue available for the CFP.1 Estimated future revenues have been projected for the Plan's 2009-2029 time period, in year of expenditure dollarsZ. These revenues have been grouped according to the following categories: ■ Dedicated Capital Revenues — these revenues are required by law to be used for specific types of capital expenditures. ■ General Capital Revenues — these revenues must be used for capital, but the types of projects are not restricted. 1 The revenue estimates are not intended to be precise forecasts. Exact funding levels are difficult to predict given the uncertainties of funding sources. The estimates discussed in this section are to be used for planning purposes; actual revenues are highly sensitive to local, state, and federal policy decisions; personal choices of residents; and other market forces. 1 Year of expenditure dollars have been inflated to the year in which they are expected to be received. 9 November 2009 ■ Potential Policy Options — these policy options may make additional capital revenues available to the County via policy changes. Some of the funds discussed in this analysis may be used to fund the maintenance and operations of existing capital facilities or to construct new ones. However, if maintenance and operations costs of existing facilities increase faster than inflation, jurisdictions are confronted with difficult decisions regarding whether to fund these costs, at the expense of building new capital, or to adjust LOS standards. Those decisions will be made by the County Council and executive leadership of the County according to the County's needs and Oppes. % Assumptions The revenue projections included in this analysis are based on the assumption that all UGA§ m Whatcom County will be annexed by their respective cities by the end of the study period and that Birch Bay and Columbia Valley will remain unincorporated for the duration. To the extent . that a city's UGA represents land that is needed to accommodate the next20"years of projected growth, and that actual patterns of growth are in line with the patterns envision the" Comprehensive Plan, one would expect that most or all of these areas will be annexed during the study period. Assuming complete annexation also gives this analysis the most conservative estimate of future revenues. A discussion of the implications: of mor& scaled -back levels of%annexation follows the base revenue projections. Dedicated Capital Revenues Transportation Road Levy This Property Tax is collected by Whatcom County specifically for transportation funding and accounts for a large portion of the County's transportation funds. Since the passage of Initiative 747 in 2001, property tax increases are restricted to 1.0% of the previous year's revenues plus new construction. In inflation -adjusted terms, revenues from property tax are actually declining, since the 1.0% allowed increase does not keep pace with inflation (which has averaged about 3.5% since 1980), or population growth. Assumptions: Because real estate is currently appreciating slower than recent historical averages, this analysis assumes a 2.0% growth rate in assessed value for 2009 and 2010, less than the assumed general inflation rate of 3.5%. Beginning in 2011, assessed value is assumed to increase at 4.0% annually, in keeping with historical averages. If a jurisdiction does not adjust the Property Tax levy rate annually to collect the full 1.0% allowed increase in revenues, the difference between the collected value and the legally -allowed 1.0% increase becomes "banked capacity" which may be collected in future years. Currently Whatcom County has banked capacity of approximately $1.0 million. For this portion of the Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 70 629 analysis we have assumed that the County will not increase the levy rate to collect this banked capacity, nor will they collect the allowed 1.0% increase, but will continue to collect funds at a level equal to the previous year's revenues, plus new construction. By not taking the maximum allowed annual revenue, increase, the County's banked capacity will increase each year. Because assessed value is increasing while the property tax revenues increase only with new construction, the levy rate necessarily declines each year. However, because there are assumed incorporations and annexations throughout the study period, there is a counter influence of less assessed value to support the same revenue base, which puts upward pressure on�tiie,levy rate. The result (in most years) is that the levy rate, although decreasuig, does so at a s1luer rate than it would without the incorporations and annexations.`' Xi Road Levy revenues may be used for operations and maintenance as vc ell as capital needs Based;, on current spending practices, 10% of these revenues are assumedAo go'towards capital Figure 1 shows historical Road Tax revenue to the left of the dotted line"'and projected revenues to the right. Figure 1. Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 198820.29 (Allocated fortapital Projects) $ 2.0 M ---------------------------`--------------------------`__------- I I I 1 $1.2M - ...._.._ _.._....._ ...._..._... ..._.._......._. I _........... • I $ 0.8 M --------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- $ $ 0.4 M-------------------------------- '------------------------------------- ---------------- 1 ��- Road Levy Revenues $ 0.0 M 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 2 shows estimated total Road Levy revenues in four summary time periods. The first three summary time periods are six years, and the last is two years. Table 2. Projected Future Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 2010-2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) Estimated Future Revenues $ 9,565,783 $ 9,889,772 $ 10,220,355 $ 3,481,427 $ 33,157,338 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Counties and cities receive a portion of the State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVF) based on a complex reimbursement formula based largely on road miles within the jurisdiction. State MVF Tax rates have seen a series of voter -approved increases in recent years. Most of these additional November 2009 630 funds, however, are earmarked for specific transportation projects throughout the State, and local jurisdictions are not expected to see an increase in average revenues. In addition, after 2008, no increase in the state rate is expected again in the near future. Assumptions: Revenues in this category have been projected using estimated revenues per centerline miles of road in the unincorporated county. There are two counter forces changing miles of road within this area. Road miles increase as the County builds new roads and expands current ones, and road miles decrease in the unincorporated areas through aexation=and 4 ' incorporation. To account for both of these forces, this analysis uses'recent higW 6.1 trends in centerline miles of roads as they relate to population in the unincorporated COun The rate of growth in road miles is about 0.2% annually. Fuel Tax revenues per mile of road are assumed to increase at an annual average rate of 1i7% slower than assumed average inflation of 3.5%. Fuel Tax revenue "increas"es have slowed " statewide in recent years, averaging 2.3% from 2000 to 2006. In general, gas "tax dollars are likely to be under pressure with potentially -increasing fuel prices and the increasing ,emergence of hybrid and alternative -fuel cars. Historically, Whatcom County has used the majority of these dollars for maintenance and operations expenses. The only portion of the MVF Tax the County puts toward capital is the 1 % required by state law that must go toward establishing and maintaining paths and trails for pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists.,: Given the pressures on revenues discussed above, and given continuing increases in the costs `of road operation" and, maintenance, it is unlikely that the County will decide to begin dedicating a portion of its MVF Tax revenues toward transportation capital projects. Based on recent history"and legislation, we have assumed 1.0% of the County's total fuel tax revenue will continue to be used for paths and trails capital expenditures in the future, with the rest being "utilized for maintenance" and operations. Figure 2 shows 1.0% of the historical MVF Tax "revenue to the left of the dotted line, and projected revenues available for paths and trails capital to the right. Figure 2. Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 1988-2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) $ 60,000 $ 50,000 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review �1 631 Table 3 shows anticipated total Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenues available for paths and trails capital in four summary time periods. Table 3. Projected Future Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 2010.2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) Total Total Total Total Estimated Future Revenues $ 244,877 $ 262,322, $ 280 9:$6 <$ „9,$`,'032 $ 886,218 levels. State grants are primarily funded with the state -levied -portion of the MVF=.Tax. There have, in recent years, been increases in the State MVF Tax''ate. However; many of these additional funds were earmarked for specific large projects, although therewas some allocation to local jurisdictions. The Transportation Partnership Act of 2005 provided, some additional funds to the Transportation Improvement Board and the County Road Administration Board, for a total of $80 million to be disbursed to local jurisdictions as grants_ over &46-year period. However, these increases in funds are very small relative to demand, with requests to the Transportation Improvement Board overreaching available funds by 800%. For this analysis, recent, historical grant revenue.trends.were considered. However, because the current grant -funding climate is shifting, future revenues have been estimated to be lower than recent trends. This is due, in part, to other financial forces. One of those forces is the passing of I-747. Because jurisdictions within the State have had their property tax capped at a rate (1.0%)"lower than inflation (3.5%), inflation -adjusted revenues are declining each year. This impacts transportation spending in two ways. First, property tax funds that are collected for transportation spending are therefore able to purchase less each year. Second, property tax funds that are non -restricted and are used for other jurisdictional necessities are also declining. Cities and counties often then must pull from non -restricted funds that were going towards capital projects and put them towards other immediate needs. This creates a second tightening of funds available for capital. In addition, as explained in the MVF Tax discussion, fuel tax revenue is declining in inflation - adjusted terms and able to fund less and less each year. Because jurisdictions are feeling the squeeze these forces are putting on their capital funding programs, they are competing for, and relying more heavily on, grants. As more jurisdictions compete, securing grant funding becomes more difficult. 1s November 2009 -632 Assumptions: These revenues have been estimated on a per capita basis on the assumption that over time a jurisdiction will generally receive its "fair share" of available grant revenues. Since 1988 Whatcom County has averaged $10.60 per capita in grant revenues per year. However, given the forces discussed previously, this number has been lower in recent years averaging $5.74 per capita since 2000. This analysis assumes $5.00 per capita in the future with no annual increase. Total revenues are therefore expected to change on pace with changes in population. For this analysis average annual dollars are assumed in each year. However, to realityahese dollars will vary greatly from year to year since they are awarded on a pioject specific basis. Figure 3 shows historical state grant revenues to the left of the dotted line, ai to the right. Figure 3 $2.5M - $ 2.0 M $ 1.5 M $ 1.0 M $ 0.5 M Whatcom County State Transportation Grant Revenues;1988-2029 (Allocated fo " ' Capital Projects) ------------------------------' --------------"-----' State Transportation t Grant Revenues 1 ---------------------- ,.____. __ _.. _______------------------ L---------------------------------------------------- .--------------------- ---------------------- ,.,._. __.__.- _____ ___ --------------- _---------------------------------------- _...._____._____.___________________ 1 $ 0.0 M iT,T��TT,�. . . . .— . . . 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 4 shows estimated totalstate grant revenues in four summary time periods. Table 4. Projected Future Whatcom County State Transportation Grant Revenues 2010- 2029 (Allocated for: Capital Projects) 2027 Estimated Future Revenues $ 2,567,461 $ 2,509,891 $ 2,450,205 $ 803,074 $ 8,330,631 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Federal Transportation Grants Federal transportation grants are funded through the federal portion of the fuel excise tax. The federal gas tax rate has fluctuated between $0.183 and $0.184 per gallon since 1994. The majority of these funds are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and disbursed to the states through the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts. As with state grants, these funds are distributed in a competitive process making it difficult to determine future grant funding levels. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 14 633 Assumptions: Because of this increase in competition for grant dollars and decrease in available grant funds, grant revenues have been estimated at lower levels than recent historical rates. Since 1988 Whatcom County has received an annual average of $29.10 per capita of federal grant funding. This average has been slightly lower in recent years, averaging $27.86 per capita since 2000. Future average annual per capita federal grant dollars were estimated at $25.00 with no annual increase. As with state grant dollars changes in total revenues are expected to occur at the rate of change in the population. In addition, average annual dollars are assumed in each year while in reality these dollars will vary greatly from year to year since..theyare awarded on a project -specific basis. Federal Grant estimates in this analysis include Federal Forest Title I payments, which have averaged about $830,000 annually since 2000. Historically, Whatcom County has used'. ..Title I payments for operations and maintenance of schools and roads. However, Title I paymentsnay legally be used for capital, and therefore these dollars are included for._ futur„e capital spending if the County so chooses. Figure 4 shows historical federal grant revenues (including all Federal Forest TitI&I payments) to the left of the dotted line, and projected revenues to the right. \_ _- Figure 4. Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues 1988-2029 (Allocated,, for Capital Projects) $ 5.0 M $ 4.0 M $ 3.0 M $2.0M $ 1.0 M $ 0.0 M -------------------------------------------------'-------------� ---------------------------------------- I I _________________________________________________________I-------------- _------------ .________-___ _____-_ � I 1 ---------'---------- ------------------------------- --- -- --- ------ --- ---- --------- I y Federal Transportation I I Grant Revenues 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 5 shows anticipated total federal grant revenues in four summary time periods. Table 5. Projected Future Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues 2010- 2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) Estimated Future Revenues $12,837,306 $12,549,456 $ 12,251,023 $ 4,015,371 $ 41,653,156 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 6 shows total projected dedicated transportation revenues for Whatcom County in four summary time periods. 15 November 2009 634 Table 6. Projected Total Transportation Revenues 2010-2029 (Allocated for Capital Projects) Estimated Future Revenues $ 25,215,427 $ 25,211,442 $ 25,202,569 $ 8,397,905 $ 84,027,343 Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis General Capital Revenues ;\ik Viz; Real Estate Excise Tax Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues are levied in two portions and must be e e o capital projects. Since the REET is based on the total value of real estate, trans act ions in a'g year, the amount of REET revenues a county receives can vary substantially, from year to year based on the normal fluctuations in the real estate market. During years when the real estate market is active, revenues are high, and during softer real estate markets (as we`aze currently seeing), revenues are lower. REET is levied in two sections, REET I (the first-Q,25%), and REET II (the second 0.25%), for a total tax of 0.5% of total assessed value. REET I and REET:II revenuesyntist be spent on capital projects that are listed in a county's current:capital facilities plan. The definition of capital facilities, according to RCW 82.46.010 is: those public works projects of a; local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement'. rehabilitation, or improvement of streets; roads; highways; sidewalks; street and road 'lighting systems; traffic signals; bridges; domestic water systems,' storm and sanitary seiver'"systems; parks; recreational facilities; law enforcement facilities,- fire protection facilities; :,trails; libraries; administrative and judicial facilities... REET II follows the above guidelines, but is more restricted, as it may not be spent on recreational facilities, law enforcement facilities, fire. protection facilities, trails, libraries, or administrative or judicial facilities (RCW 82.46.035). It is up to the discretion of each jurisdiction to choose how to spend REET funds within the above parameters. Whatcom County has traditionally allocated 40% of REET 11 to Parks and 60% to Public Works, including funding 75% of the wages and benefits of the Parks Department Construction Coordinator, who supervises REET parks projects. Since none of these distributions are formal policies; County decision makers may in the future decide to allocate REET funds to whichever capital projects they choose. Assumptions: Because REET dollars are directly related to the sale of real estate, which is in a slow period in 2009, this analysis assumes a slower -than -average annual rate of turn -over of existing property at 2% in 2009, increasing incrementally to 7.0% by 2016, implying an eight - year recovery period from the current economic recession. The exception to this is turn -over in f1 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review �o 635 Birch Bay which is assumed at 8.0% for the entire study period for residential property and 4.0% for commercial. Because REET revenues must be used for capital projects , this analysis assumes all REET revenues are available for the capital projects discussed in this plan. Figure 5 shows historical Real Estate Excise Tax revenue to the left of the dotted line, and projected revenues to the right. Figure 5. Whatcom County Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 2004-2029 ` l $ 14 M ----------------------------a-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $12M............................_....-------..._..!......................------ I $8M.........................................._..........I__.._._:........................_.................................._...-.......... $6M $ 4 M - -------------------i---------•-------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- $.2 M I ------------------------------------------------ - ------------------------ --Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 1 $OM 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Table 7 shows anticipated total Real Estate Excise Tax revenues in four summary time periods. Table 7. Projected Future Whatcom County Real Estate. Excise Tax Revenues 2010.2029 2028 Estimated Future Revenues $ 20,501,239 - $ 40,211,821 $ 52,300,967 $ 20,758,254 $133,772,281 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax Washington State allows rural counties to impose a local sales tax to fund capital projects that have an economic development purpose and finance personnel positions in economic development offices. This tax, which is deposited in the County's Public Utilities Improvement Fund, is not an additional sales tax for residents, but rather is given to the jurisdiction in the form of a tax credit -against the 6.5% state sales tax. This tax, which is deposited in the County's Public Utilities Improvement Fund, is currently levied at 0.09% in Whatcom County and is collected countywide. The definition of a Rural County is any county with a population of less than 100 persons per square mile. Once that level is exceeded, the county may no longer collect this tax. Whatcom County, with a land area of 2,119.5 square miles, is estimated to cross this threshold in 2017. This revenue is assumed to end in the year after the population limit is exceeded. Assumptions: Because this tax is collected on retail sales we have based future projections on an assumed increase of 3.5% in per capita taxable retail sales within the County. The total revenue is �I November 2009 636 therefore expected to increase at the rate of inflation for each person within the County and additional revenue will be received as the population increases countywide. Revenues are assumed to discontinue after the total County population passes 211,950 people. Historically, Whatcom County has chosen to fund 1.5 FTEs and a portion of its economic development services out of Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax revenues. This is a policy option that County decision makers could reconsider in the future if they would like to dedicate more of these funds to capital projects. Figure 6 shows historical Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax revenue to the left of the dotted line, and projected revenues to the right. Figure 6. Whatcom County Rural Counties Public Facilities.Tax Revenues 2005.2029 (Available for Capital Projects) $ 6 M ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------- 1 $ 5 M---------------------t--------------- --------------------------------------- 1 ........... I $ 3 M-------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 $2M 1 1 °Rural Counties Public $1M....................--_.........._..'......_...._..._..............._...._..,._.....--__..,...,.,._.._....--__......_..-......_..._........._...._....._...................... Facilities Tax Revenues 1 $OM 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates:arlaI"' Table 8 shows. antieip'ated:total Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax revenues in four summary time periods:: Table 8. Projected Future-Whatcom County Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax Revenues 2010-2029 (Available for Capital Projects) Estimated Future Revenues $22,564,191 $ 9,044,835 $ - $ - $ 31,609,026 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Total General. Capital Revenues Table 9 summarizes total general capital revenues in four summary time periods. Table 9. Projected Total General Capital Revenues Estimated Future Revenues $ 43,065,430. $ 49,256,656 $ 52,300,967 $ 20,758,254 $165,381,307 Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis � Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review ! 1: � 637 Total Capital Revenues Table 10 summarizes total capital revenues (transportation and general) available in four summary time periods. Table 10. Projected Total Capital Revenues Estimated Future Revenues $ 68,280,857 $ 74,468,098 $ 77.,503535 $-29;156';158 $249,408,649 Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Impact of Reduced Levels of Annexation Based on the structures used for each revenue projection outlined above, af.the UGAs in Whatcom County were not completely annexed by the end of the study period'revenues would increase from the base, 100% annexation assumption. All, else being equal, Whatcom,County would have more assessed value of real property in the unincorporated parts of the'County, leading to higher road levy and BEET revenues; it would have entire road miles, leading to higher state fuel tax distributions; and it would have more population remaining in the unincorporated areas of the County, leading to higher state and federal grant revenues. Potential Policy Options Road Levy Banked Capacity As discussed in the first section of this analysis, if a jurisdiction does not increase the Property Tax levy rate annually to collect the full 1.0% allowed increase in revenues, the difference between -the collected value and the allowed 1.0% increase becomes "banked capacity" which may be collected in future years. Currently Whatcom County has banked capacity of approximately $1.0 million. Going forward, the policy decision to not take the 1.0% increase will lead to increasing banked capacity. If the County chooses not to take this banked capacity, it increases each year. Under this scenario, by the end of the study period (2029), total estimated banked capacity is about $5.2 million. Stormwater Management Revenue A funding mechanism will be necessary to adequately respond to mandated stormwater activities in the Lake Whatcom watershed and the entire National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulated areas. To meet the goals and objectives outlined in the Lake Whatcom Stormwater Management Plan, additional ongoing and stable funding sources will be required. With the creation of a funding mechanism the County aims to enhance its programmatic activities (public education and material support), increase staff presence in the regulated areas �a November2009 and the Lake Whatcom watershed, and will be able to begin constructing more capital projects to deal with existing stormwater and phosphorus related runoff issues. The County is currently evaluating several potential funding mechanisms as possibilities for funding these necessary improvements to the stormwater management system. Transportation Impact Fees Impact fees are a financing tool that requires new development to payportton;of the costs associated with infrastructure improvements that are "reasonably'relatecl" to that development. The GMA allows agencies to develop and implement a transportation impact fee program to help fund some of the costs of transportation facilities needed to accommodate. growth.`State law (Chapter 82.02 RCW) requires that impact fees be related to improvements to serve new 5 developments and not existing deficiencies; assessed proportional,-totheimpacts of new ' developments; allocated for improvements that reasonably benefit new development; and spent on facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Plan. Legally, financing for improvements that will serve the:nevi' development cannotrelysolely on impact fees and must include other sources of public fiinds,'arid:the fees must be structured in a manner that ensures that funds collected do not exceed a proportionate share of`the costs of improvements reasonably related to new development. The County is considering the implementation of a transportation impact fee and has recently completed a study report. If the County.,were to implement this fee., revenues would vary based on the chosen fee rate and the types and .amount of developinent,thit occurs. Park Impact.:Fees' The same state law that Authoi7zes transportation impact fees described above also authorizes the County to adopt impact fees for. parks and recreational facilities. The same rules and conditions for transportation impact fees would apply to park impact fees. Six -Year Funding Balance Estimated revenues from dedicated sources within the six -year time period (2010-2015) have been compared to capital project costs showing a gap of $5.3 million regarding transportation facilities and $82.6 million for general capital facilities. The $5.3 million transportation deficit is the difference between six -year estimated transportation capital expenses, and dedicated transportation capital revenues projections. The County may choose to balance this deficit using general capital funds, other state and federal sources, and unused debt capacity. For example, the County passed its 2010-2015 six -year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in September 2009, where it has balanced its six -year transportation capital revenues and expenses using local, state, and federal funds. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 20 639 Regarding general capital facilities, if the Consolidated Services Building is delayed beyond the six -year planning period, the deficit will be reduced by $24 million to approximately $58.6 million. Also, in 2009, Whatcom County lowered the level of service for trails. Therefore, considering planned trail improvement projects over the six -year planning period, there would be a net reserve of trails by 2015. One option to reduce expenditures in the six -year planning period would be to construct several of the high -cost trail segments later in the 20-year planning period with the assumption that the County's revenue situation will improve in the future. In addition, the County's unused long-term debt capacity, accordm "toAlie Coup ,s1009-10 Final Budget, is about $315 million, which far exceeds the six -year costs presented :above. Therefore, it would be possible to issue bonds to cover the deficits, shown if revenue is increa expenses decreased, or programs reprioritized to make debt servicelpavinents. Other Service Providers For service providers other than Whatcom County we have presented general funding information for each type of service in the appropriate sections below, For review of the specif c'funding sources for each provider we have relied on the most current Comprehensive Plan available for that provider and have supplied specific comments where appropriate. Economic Development Planning In addition to this CFP and the County's Comprehensive Plan Economic Element, the County has also engaged in an: economic develop rncnt strategy through the Economic Development Investment'(EDI) Program. The program plans,, for and funds infrastructure including but not limited to roads, bridges, water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, and storm sewer facilities. Economic development planning efforts also resulted in a report entitled the 2002 Greater Whatcom Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) which identifies goals and strategies for growing the Whatcom County economy without sacrificing its natural assets. The Study identifies and prioritizes actions for achieving its goals. It also identifies projects, including their cost and potential funding sources, that are needed to help the County achieve its economic development goals. The CEDS project list was most recently updated in 2008. November 2009 M Public Buildings (County) Overview Whatcom County public buildings include government administrative offices and maintenance and operations facilities. Since Whatcom County provides some services for the County as a whole, and other services oriented more specifically to unincorporated areas, this category is 3 � broken down into "county -wide" and "unincorporated" categories. Inventory of Current Facilities �sv County -wide Administrative Office Space:k The 2009 inventory of County government administrative office space thi serves the population of the entire County is 153,063 square feet at seven locations. This inventory is shown it Table 11 below. Table 11. County -Wide Administrative Off ice`Space Facility Name Location' Size (Sq. Ft.) County Courthouse 31..1. Grand Avenue 94,378 509 Girard Street Office 509 Girard Street 13,189 Forest Street Annex :': •1000 North Forest Street 5,817 1500 N. State Street, Office (teased) 1500 N. State Street 12,281 3373 Mt., Baker Highway Parks Office 3373 Mt. Baker Highway 2,110 Civic Center Annex 322 North Commercial 14,981 Central Plaza Building 215 N. Commercial 10,307 Total 153,063 Source: Whatcom County Six Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2009-2014 Office Space Serving Unincorporated Area The 2009 inventory of County government office space that serves only unincorporated areas of Whatcom County (i.e., does not serve city residents) is 28,512 square feet at four locations. This inventory is shown in Table 12. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 22 641 Table 12. Administrative Office Space Serving Unincorporated Areas Facility Name Location Size (Sq. Ft.) Northwest Annex 5280 & 5256 Northwest Dr. 21,438 1000 N. Forest St. 1000 N. Forest St. 670 Copper Building 2011 Young Street 6,000 Civic Center Annex ' 322 North Commercial 404. Total 28,51Z 1 Planning and Development Services primarily provides services to the unincorporated population Although several Natural Resources Planning staff members provide services to the County -wide population \ Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014 Maintenance and Operations The 2009 inventory of County operations and maintenance facilities management space is 44,411 square feet. This inventory is shown in Table 14 below. Table 13. Maintenance and Operations Facilities Facility Name Location Size (Sq. Ft.) Central Shop (Maintenance and 901 W. Smith Rd.:':35,773 Operations) 316 Lottie Street (Facilities Management) 316 Lottie Street 4,978 Minimum Security Correction Facility Division Street 3,660 (Facilities Management Storage) Total - 44,411 Source: Whatcom County :Siz Year.CIP2009-2014 Level of Service Capacity Analysis Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes LOS standards for administrative facilities (i.e., government office space), among other things. Whatcom County has adopted LOS standards for its office space serving county -wide population, its office space serving unincorporated population, and its maintenance and operations facilities as shown in Table 14 below. Table 14. Administrative Level of Service (LOS) Standards Category LOS Standard Office Space (County -Wide Population) 0.63 sq ft per capita Office Space (Unincorporated Population) 0.51 sq ft per capita Maintenance and Operations Facilities 0.41 sq ft per capita Source: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, chapter 4. 23 November 2009 642 Office Space Serving the County -Wide Population The LOS standard (Table 15) for office space serving county -wide population is established by policy in the Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With implementation of Whatcom County's six -year plan, the square feet of office space available rises from 153,063 to 164,563. With the planned office space additions, there would be no deficiencies over the 20-year planning period. Table 15. County -Wide Office Space LOS Requirements Time Period Whatcom County Square Feet Needed Square Feet f Net Reserve Population (County- to Meet LOS �_yallable'_: " or Wide) (Deficiency) 2008 191,000 135,610 163,063 17,453 Capacity Projects (to 2015) Central Plaza Building' Consolidated Services Building 2015 1207,402 130,663 164,563 33,900 2029 244,892 154,282 1641563 10,281 1 The Central Plaza Building is being purchased in 2009. Prior to that, it was leased: Therefore, it does not add square footage to the inventory. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Office Space Serving Unincorporated County Population The,existing LOS standard for Office Space serving unincorporated Whatcom County population outlined in Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is 0.51 square feet per capita. The current LOS results in a deficit of 15,880 square feet of office space in 2008. If assuming current UGAs are annexed over the planning period, deficiencies in county office space serving unincorporated areas is expected to decrease by 2015. With one capacity project planned in the 2010-2015 six -year planning period, Whatcom County anticipates expanding county office space serving unincorporated Whatcom County by 51,000 square feet. This provides Whatcom County with a surplus of office space for both 2015 and 2029. Table 16. Unincorporated County Office Space LOS Requirements Analysis Time Period Whatcom County Square Feet Needed ; Square Feet Net Reserve Population to Meet LOS Available or (Unincorporated) (Deficiency) 2008 1 87,044 1 44,392 1 28,512 1 (15,880) Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review C4 643 Time Period Whatcom County Square Feet Needed Square Feet Net Reserve Population to Meet LOS Available or (Unincorporated) (Deficiency) Capacity Projects to 2015 Consolidated Services Building +51,000 2015 71,688 36,561 79,512 42,951 2029 81,221 41,423 79 517 38 089'r Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Maintenance and Operations The existing LOS standard for maintenance and operation facilites`set by the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan is 0.41 square feet per capita c County population. Whatcom County's existing inventory of 44411 squi and operations space is adequate to provide a surplus of maintenance and for both 2015 and 2029. November 2009 AM Table 17. Maintenance and Operation Facilities LOS Requirements Analysis Time Period Whatcom County Square Feet Square Feet Net Reserve Population Needed to Meet Available or (Unincorporated) LOS (Deficiency) 2008 87,044 35,688 44,411 8,723 2015 71,688 29,392 44 411„ 1 ,15,019`=' 2029 81,221 33,301 44,411 1,1,110 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Capital Projects and Funding The following capital projects support anticipated growth in the County (both county -wide and unincorporated) and Maintenance and Operation Office Space Countywide Administrative Office Space'...,—v` One improvement project is proposed to provide additional square footage to meet future needs and to consolidate County services. This project'wpuld add approximately 11,500 square feet of County -owned office space to serve the entire paion of Whatcom County as shown in Table 18 below. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 26 645 Table 18. Office Space Improvement Projects to Serve County -wide 2010-2015 Site No. and Square 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Project Feet 2029 Cost/Revenue (thousands $) #8 11,500 Consolidated 2 Services Building' Cost 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 24,000 Revenue — 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 24,000 Bonds 1 This project may be delayed to the latter part of the six -year planning period, or perhaps beyond the six -year planning period;, because of the current decline in governmental revenue. 2 The overall size of the Consolidated Services Building is planned for approximately�62 500:square feet. However, only"aGbut 11,500 square feet would be utilized for office space that serves County -wide population''. •.; Note: This project is the same building and has the same project costs as in Office Space for Unincorporated population noted below. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014. Office Space That Serves Unincorporated Areas.,, One improvement project, a Consolidated Services Building, is proposed to provide additional square footage to meet anticipated need for office space serving unincorporated areas by 2015. This project would add approximately 51000 square feet of government office space to serve the unincorporated population of Whatcom_County. Table 19. Office Space Improvement Projects To Serve Unincorporated Areas 2010.2015 Site -No. and Project. Sq Ft 2010 2011 " "2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total `Cost/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) #5 Consolidated Services Building' " 51",000 z Cost See 3 1 This project may be delayed to the latter part of the six -year planning period because of the current decline in governmental revenue. 2 The overall size of the Consolidated Services Building is planned for approximately 62,500 square feet. However, only about 51,000 square feet would be utilized for office space that serves Whatcom County's unincorporated population. 3 For costs of this building, please see Table 18. This is the same building. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014. Maintenance and Operations There are no improvement projects identified that would add usable maintenance and operations space within the 2010-2029 planning period. Only maintenance projects are proposed. u November 2009 M• Sheriff's Office and Juvenile Detention (County) Overview County law enforcement facilities include Sheriff's office facilities that principally serve unincorporated areas as well as jails and emergency operations facilities thatserve the -County as a whole. Juvenile Detention is operated by the Juvenile Court Admi�ion Department, but is r included in this category because it is law enforcement -related.: Inventory of Current Facilities Public Safety Building - Sheriff's Facility, ;:,:; . 311 Grand Ave. 15,102 58,183 73,285 Minimum Security Correction Facility, ".'2030 Division Street 6,000 18,000 24,000 Inspector's Office, Civic Center;Building :.322;N. Commercial 500 0 500 Cascade Satellite Office (leased space in 5373 Guide 730 0 730 business park northwest of Smith .Rd/Guide Meridian:; Intersection) Kendall Satellite Office (space utilized at no 121 0 121 charge in the Fire District 14 fire station) Birch Bay Fire Hall 192 0 192 Nugent's Corner Fire Hall 88 0 88 Total 22,733 76,183 98,916 1 The Sheriffs Office also has storage and evidence facilities at various locations in Whatcom County. 2 The County has two mobile homes and an old detention facility in Point Roberts but the County does not provide formal office space for the resident deputies stationed there. The resident deputies operate out of their homes or utilize space at the U.S. Customs office at the border. 3 The Sheriffs Office will vacate the office space at the Public Safety Building, Minimum Security Correction Facility, Inspector's Office at the Civic Center Building, and Cascade Satellite Office by 2015. Additionally, the Sheriffs Office will occupy the 4,500 square foot space at the Laurel Fire Station by 2010 (space that was formerly occupied by Emergency Management). Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 28 647 Emergency Operations The Emergency Management/Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which serves the entire population of the County, presently occupies 2,250 square feet in the Olympic Coordination Center. This inventory is shown in Table 21 below. Table 21. Emergency Operations Office Space Facility Name Location Size (Sq -Ft,) Olympic Coordination Center 3888 Sound Way 2,250 Source: Personal communication: e-mail of 6/23/09, Doug Dahl of Whatcom Couniy Emergency Management;`§_,;;;:;, confirmed that the County Emergency Management would move into the Olympic Coordination Center. in 2009. i� Jail Facilities An inventory of County jail beds is located in Table 22 below. The existing Main County Jail Facility is located in the Public Safety Building next to the County Courthouse -in downtown Bellingham. It was designed for 148 beds, although it currently regularly selves 283,to 300 beds due to double bunking, some internal remodeling, and the use:of.temporary beds, in the general housing areas. None of the ancillary functions (kitchen, medical area, booking area, etc.) have increased in area to accommodate additional offenders. Additionally, the. jail is not in compliance with building code requirements for double bunking; fire exiting, and: seismic events, although a plan is being created to bring the facility`into compliance.: The Minimum Security Work Center,opened in 2006 in a new location on Division Street. This facility has 150 beds for minimum security offenders and the Jails Alternative program, plus office space. for Jails ,Alternative, work release, electronic home monitoring, and other related jail programs. Table 22. Jail Facility Inventory Facility Name Location Beds Public Safety Building Jail 311 Grand Ave. 283 Minimum Security Correction Facility 2030 Division Street 150 Total 433 Note: Correction facilities are considered to be 'lull" when they have reached 95% of their maximum number of beds. Therefore, the Public Safety Building Jail is effectively out of beds once the inmate count has reached 268 beds and the Work Center has reached 143 beds(Note source: email communication from Wendy Jones, Chief of Whatcom County Sheriffs Office, Corrections Bureau (March 4, 2009)). Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2000,2014 and email communication with Wendy Jones, Chief of Whatcom County Sheriffs Office, Corrections Bureau, (March 4 and March 10, 2009). Juvenile Detention Facilities The 2009 inventory of County juvenile detention facilities includes 32 beds serving the countywide population. The juvenile detention facility is located on the sixth floor of the County Courthouse. An inventory of juvenile detention beds is located in Table 23. 29 November 2009 Mi Table 23. Juvenile Detention Inventory Facility Name Location Beds County Courthouse Juvenile Detention Facility 311 Grand Avenue 32 Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014. Level of Service Capacity Analysis Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes level of s ce(LOS) standards for various law enforcement -related facilities, including office space fo> Sheriff's Office serving unincorporated Whatcom County, Emergency lylanagement office Ce serving the County as a whole, and the number of jail and juvenile detenton,beds per 1,000 oul"ation as shown in Table 24 below. 'F Table 24. Law Enforcement Level of Service Standards Category LOS Standard:F`___:; Sheriffs Office (unincorporated) 0.26 sq ft per capita' Emergency Management 0.011 sgIt per capii:a" Jails 1.42 beds per 1,0D0 population Juvenile Detention 0.125 beds per 15,000 population, Source: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, chapter,4.:r Sheriff's Office (Unincorporated County) Level of "Service Capacity Analysis The Whatcorn.County Comprehensive Plan :provides a LOS standard for office space for the Sheriff's Office that serves unincorporated What1com County (Table 25). This LOS standard is 0.26 square feet per capita. There are no deficiencies when this LOS standard is applied to projected Unincorporated County population out to the 2015 6-year planning horizon. The County has plans to add 25,000 square feet of office space serving unincorporated Whatcom County by 2015. However, the Sheriff's Office would also switch other office space by 2015. With the new office and other space changes, there would be a total of 29,900 square feet of office space available by 2015. Applying the established LOS standard to County population projections shows thatmith the additional space, there will be no deficiencies in office space for the Sheriff's Office serving unincorporated areas in 2015 and 2029. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review su AM Table 25. Sheriff's Office (Unincorporated County) Level of Service Requirements Analysis Time Period County Population Square Feet Needed Square Feet Net Reserve (Unincorporated) to Meet LOS Available or standard (Deficiency) 2008 87,044 22,631 22,733 ti: 102 Capacity Projects to 2015 Sheriffs Office at }4000 Law and Justice Center Campus 2015 71,688 18,639 29 900 11,261 2029 81,221 21,117 29;900 ",:'. , .`-I 8,783 1 Although the Sheriffs Office will add a new law and justice center campus that of 25,000 sq ft tFe;Sheriffs Office will also switch other office space by 2015. With the new office and other space changes, there would�be.a;total of 29,900 square feet of office space available by 2015. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. Emergency Management Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes a LOS standard of:0.011 square foot of emergency management space per capita. on a countywide basis. The County has an existing surplus of emergency management space when using 2008 population estimates. The County has one capacity project that will add 3,250 square feet of emergency management space. This would provide a reserve'of emergency management space through both 2015 and 2029 planning horizons ; Table 26. Emergency Management Level of Service Requirements Analysis Time Period County Population Square Feet Needed Square Feet Net Reserve to Meet LOS Available or standard (Deficiency) . 2008 1191,000 12,101 12,250 1149 Capacity Projects to 2015 Sheriff's Office +3,250' Emergency Management space at Law and Justice Center Campus 2015 207,402 2,281 3,250 969 2029 244,892 2,694 3,250 556 1 There would be a total of 3,250 square feet available, because Emergency Management would move from the existing 2,250 square foot space to a new 3,250 square foot space at the new Law and Justice Center Campus. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. all November 2009 650 Jail Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan sets a jail LOS standard of 1.42 beds per 1,000 population. This standard results in a surplus of jail beds in 2015. There are indications, based on a recent master facilities plan compiled as part of new jail planning process, that this number under -represents the current use of the existing adult corrections facilities. A review of the jail population over the past 2 years has shown a significant increase in the offender population, growing from an average daily population (ADP) of 261 in 2006, to,an ADP in„ 2008 0£ 428. This is due primarily to the added capacity resulting from the opening of the:new Munmum Security Work Center. This higher ADP represents utilization of 2.24 be per 1,000 people m the County in 2008. In the short-term, the County will be adding an additional 50 beds to the 1Vluumum Security Work Center on Division Street to address short-term fail, needs.: The County also has plans for construction of a new law and justice center jail facility, tentatively scheduled to`open with 600 beds 3 The new jail would replace both the current mainjail facility and the 150-bed Minimum Security Correction Facility on Division Street, resulting in a net increase of 167 jail beds over existing conditions.Q. The increased number of jail beds means that, by applicatioin.of_the County's adopted LOS standard, the County will have a net reserve of 252jail beds by,>the end of the 2029 planning horizon. Table 27. Jails Level of Service Requirements Analysis New Jail at the Law +167' and Justice Center Campus Minimum Security +502 CorrectionTacility (Division Street) 2015 207,402 295 600 305 2029 244,892 348 600 252 1 Construction of new 600 bed jail facility would allow replacement of existing main jail facility and relocation of the 200 jail beds (150 existing + 50 proposed) from the Minimum Security Correction Facility on Division Street to the new jail. The increase in jail beds is +167 over 2009 levels, as the new jail replaces the other two facilities. 2 The 50 beds shown as an addition to Minimum Security Correction Facility on Division Street are temporary. They are meant to address a short-term need, until the new 600 bed jail facility is constructed. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. 3 Additional projections and analysis indicate there may be a need for more than 600 beds, but these are still under review. The net increase will be 117 new beds once the 50 new beds are added to the Minimum Security Work Center at Division Street. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 32 651 Juvenile Detention Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan sets a LOS standard of 0.125 beds per 1,000 population for juvenile detention in the County. The County meets this LOS standard with the current 2008 population. By 2015, the County will have a surplus of 6 juvenile detention beds based upon future population projections. This surplus is expected to decrease from 6 beds to l ,,bed by 2029. Table 28. Juvenile Detention Level of Service Requirements Inalysis Time Period County Population Beds Needed to Beds Available Net Reserve Meet LOS standard or (Deficiency), 2008 191,000 24 32 8 2015 207,402 26 32 6� 2029 244,892 31 32 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. Capital Projects and Funding: The following capital projects support anticipated growth`in the County for the Sheriff's Office, Emergency Management, and the Jail and Juvenile Detention.facilities. Sheriff's Office Facilities At the current time; one Sheriff's Office improvement project is proposed to locate new facilities in the County. The purpose of this project is to: achieve reduced response times and otherwise upgrade service to the public in a manner of design and function yet to be determined. This project would add approximately 25,000 square feet of space at the campus of the proposed Law and Justice Center. The proposed Sheriff's Office would be proximate to planned new criminal justice facilities. ss November 2009 652 Table 29. Sheriff's Office Space Improvement Projects 2010-2015 Site No. and Project Cost/ Revenue Square 2016- (thousands $) Feet 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Sheriffs Office at 25,0002 Law and Justice Center Campus' ` Cost 500 200 4,000 2,50 �,��h �� 7,200 Revenue 500 200 4,000 2 500 7,200 �y (Cash reserves, General Fund, REET I, and Bonds.) Total 500 200 4,000 2,500 7,200 1 The location of the Sheriff's Office facility has not yet been determined. 2 The Sheriff's Office facility is planned for approximately 28,250 square feet total. About 25,000 square..feet would be utilized for Sheriffs office space and the remainder would be allocated to Emergency Management. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014. Emergency Management Facilities One improvement project to provide space for Emergency Management/Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is proposed to meet anticipated needs by,tl e year 2015 and beyond. This project would allocate 3,250 square feet ofspace in the new Sheriff's Office facility to house Emergency Management/EOC as shown in Table 30. Table 30. Emergency Management/EOC Improvement Projects 2010-2015 Site No. and Square 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Project Feet 2029 Cost/Revenue (thousands $) Sheriffs Office 3,2502 Division of Emergency Management space at the Law and Justice Center Campus' Cost See a 1 The location of the Sheriff's Office facility has not yet been determined. 2 The overall size of the Sheriff's Office facility is planned for approximately 28,250 square feet. Approximately 3,250 square feet would be utilized for Emergency Management on a day to day basis. It is assumed that, in an emergency, other space in the building would be utilized for the EOC. 3 See Table 29 above for costs and revenues of the Law and Justice Center Campus building. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review sn 653 Jail Facilities Whatcom County will be siting and constructing a new law and justice center, tentatively scheduled to open with 600 beds. At the time the new law and justice center is open, the offenders at the minimum -security corrections facility would be relocated to the new center. A location for the new law and justice center has not been selected, but it is anticipated to come on line no later than 2015. An additional 50 work release beds are being proposed at the minimum security facility on an interim basis. Table 31. Jail Improvement Projects to Serve County-Wide``2010-2015 Site No. and Beds 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 f,: 201:6 Total Project , E a° 2029 Project Cost/ *r Revenue (thousands New Jail at 6002 the Law and Justice Center Campus' Cost 4,000 2,000 8000 ' .'10,000 : 17,000 ; .. "` 41,000 Revenue 4,000 2,000 8,000 10,000';, 17,000 41,000 Jail Fund, General Fund, REET and bonds #2 Minimum- 5.0 Security Correction Facility (Division Street) Cost 324 324 Revenue 324 324 Jail Fund Total 4,324 2,000 8,000 1 10,000 T17,000 41,324 The location of the new jail has not yet been determined. Construction of the new jail at the Law and Justice Center Campus would not be completed until approximately 2015. There are indications, based on a recent master facilities plan compiled as part of new jail planning process, that this number under -represents the current use of the existing adult corrections facilities. A review of the jail population over the past 2 years has shown a significant increase in the offender population, growing from an average daily population (ADP) of 261 in 2006, to an ADP in 2008 of 428. This is due primarily to the added capacity resulting from the opening of the new Minimum Security Work Center. This higher ADP represents utilization of 2.24 beds per 1,000 people in the County in 2008. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014. Juvenile Detention Facilities There are no improvement projects currently proposed for juvenile detention facilities that would increase the number of permanent beds in the 2010-2015 six year planning period. sa November 2009 654 Parks and Recreation (County and Special Districts serving UGAs) Overview The County categorizes its Parks and Recreation facilities into parks, trails, and activity centers. The inventory of parks includes developed park acreage. The County also owns a number of undeveloped park facilities that are not counted in the parks inventory: -=Trails are counted in terms of miles of developed trails. In addition, there are two special parks districts in the County that.serve UGAs: Lynd-6h Regional Parks District and the Northwest Parks and Recreation District Thee parks and recreation districts are presented after County facilities. Inventory of Current Facilities Parks The County's 2009 inventory of developed park; facilities is shown in Table 32 below. This inventory shows approximately 1,847 acres of developed,and/or usable parks at various locations throughout the County. The County owns a large amount of undeveloped park properties that serve a variety of passive park needs, such as hiking and wildlife viewing. In some cases, a portion of undeveloped park property"may be converted <to developed parks, reducing the overall cost of park development since the land is already owned by the County. This inventory does not include undevelopedparks that are not readily,useable by the general public. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 36 655 Table 32. Current Developed Park Inventory Park Name Capacity (Acres) Monument Park 6.90 Lighthouse Marine Park 20.50 Semiahmoo Park 17.90 Birch Bay Properties (includes several properties)` Sunset Farm Equestrian Center 69.50 Bay Horizon Park 48.0(; s >. Hovander Homestead Park/Tennant Lake Interpretive Center N. 333'40 Northwest Soccer Park &Northwest Baseball Complex 35.00 Alderwood Property 020 Bayview Marine 140 Teddy Bear Cove 11.19 Chuckanut Mountain Park 140.00 Nugent's Corner River Access 14.00 Lummi Island Stairway (Beach Access) 0.01 Samish Park 30.60 Squires Lake Park 84.20 Ted Edwards Park 3.90 Lake Whatcorn'Property North - 218.00 Park Headquarters 4.50 Silver Lake Park 412.10 Maple Beach Park 0.50 Deming Homestead Eagle Park 33.00 Josh VanderYacht Memorial Park 3.00 Jensen Family Forest Park 22.70 Point Whitehorn Marine Reserve Park 54 Lily Point Marine Reserve Park 276 Sunset Beach (Lummi Island) 6 Total 1,846.77 Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014 and Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (April 2008). Trails As the 2009 inventory shows below, the County currently has approximately 51 miles of trails in various locations throughout the County. 1� sr November 2009 656 Table 33. County Trails Inventory Trail Name Capacity (Miles) Bay Horizon 0.25 Bay Crest 0.21 Bay to Baker Maple Falls -Glacier Canyon Lake Salal Madrona Hemlock Lower Salal Huckleberry Lost Lake Raptor Ridge . . 0.35 0.78 ri. 3 53 107 . 0.40 Chuckanut Ridge 0.36 Deming Homestead Eagle Park - 0.30 Jensen;., 0.61 Hovander Marrietta Coast Millennium Trail 4.90 Interurban 2.80 Lake Samish 1.30 Lake Whatcom Park::,,.>:-;.;>�. 4.02 Lily Point,:,, 4.17 Monument Park 0.18 Ostrom Property 0.66 Pine and Cedar Lakes 3.62 Silver Lake Park 3.10 Soccer Trail 0.30 Squires Lake 2.14 Stimson Reserve 4.04 Teddy Bear Cove 0.33 Semiahmoo East Paved 0.63 Semiahmoo West Footpath 0.45 Halverson 0.31 Sunset 0.57 Total 50.81 Source: Whatcom County CIP 2009-2014 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review su 657 Activity Centers The County operates 12 activity centers that provide a variety of year-round programs for various age groups. Activity centers are facilities that are open for. public use for events and a variety of activities throughout the year. The activity center inventory is shown on Table 34 below. Table 34. County Activity Center Inventory Activity Center Name Plantation Rifle Range Roeder Home Bellingham Senior Activity Center Blaine Community /Senior Center Everson Senior Center 1 � 1, 1 Ferndale Senior Center 1'.`:- Lynden Community Center 1 Point Roberts Community Center 1 Sumas Community Center 1 Welcome Valley Senior Center 1 Bay Horizon 1 Van Zandt Community Hall 1 Total 12 Source: Whatcom County CIP 2009-2014 Other Parks Districts. Lynden Regionai Parks District The Lynden Regional Park and Recreation District (LRPRD) was formed in 1996 with the purpose of maintaining and improving the public parks and recreational facilities within the Lynden School District's borders. The LRPRD is committed to providing public parks and recreation services to residents within the district's boundaries. The LRPRD lists the following parks as included in the District: Bender Fields, Berthusen Park; Centennial Park, and Lynden City Park (LRPRD, May 2009), and all but Berthusen Park lie in the City limits. The LRPRD owns a portion of the Bender Fields Recreation Complex (about 21 acres). Within the District boundaries and outside the city limits, the City of Lynden owns and maintains Berthusen Park. This park facility is approximately 300 acres and is located about 3 miles northwest of Lynden's city limits. Besides providing picnic areas and interpretive trails, Berthusen Park is also the home of the antique tractor showing grounds, the Lynden Shotgun Club, and the Lynden Model Airplane Club. sy1 November 2009 Northwest Parks and Recreation District The Northwest Parks and Recreation District encompasses the City of Blaine and its associated UGA, the Birch Bay UGA, the northern portion of the Cherry Point UGA, and some nearby rural areas. This parks and recreation district has been inactive until 2007, at which time it passed a levy to provide additional parks in the Blaine and Birch Bay areas. However, at this time, the parks and recreation district has no inventory of capital facilities. Level of Service Capacity AnalysisAl �w Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes LOS parks, trails, and activity centers (Table 35). Table 35. Parks and Recreation Level of Service (LOS) Standards',:: Category LOS Standard Developed Parks 9.6 acres per 1,000 population ' Trails 0.60 of a mile per 1000 population Activity Centers 5 centers per 100,000 population Source: Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, chapter 4. Developed Parks Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensi've Plan outlines an LOS standard of 9.6 acres per 1,000 population for developed parks. Compared to the current inventory of 1,846 acres of developed park, there is.a 2008.surplus of 12 acres of developed park land. Accounting for the County's capacity projects in the 2010-2015 timeframe, the County expects to add approximately 730 acres of developed park to the park system by 2015. With this additional capacity, the County is expected to have a net reserve of developed park by 2015 and 2029. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review ! • 01 Table 36. Developed Parks Level of Service Requirements Analysis Time Period County Population Acres needed to Acres Available Net Reserve meet LOS standard or (Deficiency) 2008 191,000 1,834 1,846 12 Capacity Projects to 2015 z� South Fork County +5$2 a `' Park Sunnyside Landing +6.,;..+, Park Dittrich Park Lake +24„ s , 4: , Samish Cherry Point/ Point +35 Whitehorn Industrial Area . . Lake Whatcom 83 County Park (south unit) 2015 207,402 1,991 2,576, ` , 585 Columbia Valley +17.5 Park 2029 244,892 2,351 312,593 242 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Whatcom County ,Trails Level of -Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes a LOS standard of 0.60 mile per 1,000 population for County trails. Using this standard compared to 2008 population estimates, Whatcom County experiences a deficit of 64 miles of trails. However, with County trail capacity projects for the 2010-2015 period accounted for, the County has a net reserve of approximately 33 miles of trail in 2015, and a reserve of approximately 10 miles of trail by 2029. 41 November 2009 M Table 37. Trails LOS Requirements Analysis Miles needed to Net Reservel Time Period County Population meet LOS standard Miles Available (Deficiency) 2008 191,000 115 51 (64) Capacity Projects. to 2015 Bay to Baker Trail +14 Chuckanut Mountain +2.7 Trails y V s.A wA Hertz North Lake Whatcom Trail rE Extension ;: r South Fork County Park Olsen Property Trail +3 Coast Millennium Trail +10 Lake Whatcom County +2 Park South Trail Sunnyside Landing +1.75 Connector Trail Camp 2 — Lake +4: Whatcom to Squires Lake Trail Nooksack River Trail —. " +11.75 Ferndale to Lynden; Nooksack River Trail — +6.5 Lynden to Everson Sumas Mountain Trail +7 Lake Whatcom Trail +39.3 2015 207,402 124 157 33 2029 244,892 147 157 10 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. Activity Center Level of Service Analysis The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establishes an activity center LOS standard of 5 activity centers per 100,000 County population. The County has a net reserve of activity centers in 2008 with this standard applied. Including the County's capacity project of adding the East Whatcom Regional Resource Center in the 2010-2015 timeframe, there will be no deficits for activity centers in either 2015 or 2029. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 42 661 Table 38. Activity Centers Level of Service Requirements Analysis Time Period County Population Centers needed to Centers meet LOS standard Available 2008 191,000 110 12 Capacity Projects to 2015 East Whatcom +1 Regional Resource Center 2015 207,402 10 13 3 2029 244,892 12 13 2 z. 3 Net Reserve or (Deficiency) Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. Other Parks and Recreation District LOS Analysis The Lynden Regional Parks and Recreational District does::riot have established LOS.Standards. The City of Lynden has an established parks and recreatioristandard for parks acid recreation facilities located within the city limits. The city's CFP specifically excludes Berthusen Park from its LOS analysis since the park is located outside.city limits and servesas a regional park (page 229, City of Lynden Capital Facilities Element). As mentioned above,::tlie Northwest Parks and Recreation District has only recently reactivated itself. The Northwest Parks and Recreation District adopted its Parks Master Plan on May 12, 2009 .:sThe District's new Master Plan contains recommended LOS standards for neighborhood, community; and regional parks as well as trails (NW Park & Recreation District 2, Master Plan Document, April 2009, page 7). These LOS standards, are as follows:; . ■ Neighborhood Parks: 1.0 acre per 1,000 population ■: Community Park: 5.2 acres'per 1,000 population ■ Regional/Facility: 7.0 acres per 1,000 population ■ Trail: 0.5 acres per 1,000 population. It should be noted that Northwest Parks & Recreation District LOS standards do not represent County LOS standards for parks and trails. County population projections for the two parks and recreation districts indicates that the Lynden Regional Parks & Recreation District can expect approximately 16,757 people by 2015 and 19,400 by 2029. The Northwest Parks and Recreation District can expect a population of approximately14,404 by 2015; and 19,900 by 2029. Capital Projects and Funding Capital projects and the funding needed to complete them for Whatcom County developed parks, trails, and activity centers in the 2010-2015 time frame are included below. 43 November 2009 662 Developed Parks The following park improvement projects are proposed to provide additional developed and/or usable park space to meet the anticipated future needs. These projects would add 747 acres of developed and/or usable park space to Whatcom County, as shown below. Additionally, improvement projects are proposed on parkland already in the inventory of existing developed park facilities. These projects will add recreational facilities at these parks, but will not add acreage to the inventory. The total cost and funding sources of for the developer Table 39. shown in Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 44 663 Table 39. New Developed Park Facilities — Park Improvement Projects 2010.2029 Site No. and Project Cost/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) Acres 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total #25 South 582 Fork Community Park ::: �':;: -. �' Cost 45 500 545 Revenue 45 500 r 545 Foundation X. Grants, Park Improvement" Fund, and:::. REET II sA t #26 6 Sunnysidea>>s Landing Park w ' Cost 200 50 el 250 Revenue 200 50 xm 250 Grants and REET II #27 Dittrich 24 Park Lake Samish Cost 250- 250 250 351.5 1,101.5 Revenue : , 250 250 250 351.5 1,101.5 Grants and' REET II #28 Cherry 35 Point/ Point W hitehorn Industrial Area Access Cost 157 250 157 564 Revenue 157 250 157 564 Grants #29 Lake 83 Whatcom County Park (south unit) Cost 20 250 250 520 Revenue 20 250 250 520 Grants and REET II Columbia 17.5 Valley UGA 0 as November 2009 Z•V Site No. and Project Costl6venue 2016- (thousands $) Acres 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Cost TBD TBD Revenue TBD TBD Grant, General Fund, Recreation Service Area special taxing district, developer< >. contributions' Total 747.5 200 365 907 750 758:5. ....'_., �Q;980.5 1 Foothills Subarea Plan FSEIS, December 2008, pg. 92-94; and Draft Foothills Subarea Plan, October 2007, p. 43,r, Source: Unless otherwise noted, Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014. Trail Improvements There are 13 trail improvement projects proposed to provide additional trails to meet the anticipated need by the year 2015. These,projects would add 106.7 mules of trails in Whatcom County to meet future needs of County.resdents. Table 40. Trail Improvement Projects 2010-2015 Site No. and Project Cost/Revenue 2016- (thousands $ Miles 2010 2011 2012. 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total #32' Bay to 14' Baker Trail Cost 1,442.9 1,442.9 1,442.9 1,442.9 1,442.9 7,214.6 Revenue 1,442.9 1,442.9 1,442.9 1,442.9 1,442.9 7,214.6 Conservation Futures, Levy and Grants #33 2.7 Chuckanut Mountain Trails Cost 26 25 25 76 Revenue 26 25 25 76 Conservation Futures, Levy and Grants #34 Hertz 1.0 North Lake Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 46 665 Site No. and Project Cost/Revenue 2016- (thousands $ Miles 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total W hatcom Trail Extension Cost 1,500 65 1,565 Revenue 1,500 65 1,565 Grants, Donations ' and REET II #35 South 3_ Fork County Park :..;. Cost 100 200 200 �" .:,: 500 Revenue 100 200 200 500 Grants, REET II, Donation #36 Olsen 3 Property Trail Cost 100 68 68 68 : 68'- :: 372 Revenue 100 68 68 6$,: 68, 372 Grants, REET #37 Coast 10' z Millennium Trail Cost 4,808.4 .188.4 188,4'.: 188.4 188.4 5,562 Revenue 4,808.4 188.4 188.4 188.4 188.4 5,562 #38 Lake 2 W hatcom County Park South Trail Cost 158 158 316 Revenue 158 158 316 Grants and REETII #39 1.75 Sunnyside Landing Connector Trail Cost 73.5 73.5 Revenue 1 73.5 i ; J73.5 Grants and 4/ November 2009 Site No. and Project Cost/Revenue 2016- (thousands $ Miles 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total REETII #40 Camp 2 — 4' Lake Whatcom to Squires Lake , Trail Cost 168 168 Revenue 168 168 Grants and Donation #41 Nooksack 11.75' River Trail — Ferndale to Lynden Cost 5,428.5 615 ;615 615 7,27:3.5 Revenue 5,428.5 615 " 615'` `615 7,273.5 Grants and REET II #42 Nooksack 6.5' River Trail — Lynden to Everson Cost 3,003 343 343 343 4,032 Revenue 3,003 343 343 343 4,032 Grants and REET II ,#43 Sumas 7' Mountain Trail Cost 322 322 Revenue 322 322 Grants and donations #44 Lake 39.31,3 W hatcom Cost 176 176 176 176 704 Revenue 176 176 176 176 704 Grants, REET II, and Donations Total 106.7 7,851 10,498 3,058 3,216 3,555 28,179 1 Trail segments identified are preliminary, and represent preferred trail alignments. Final trail alignments and lengths are pending land acquisition, property easement negotiation and final trail design. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review au 667 2 The overall length of the Millennium Trail will be approximately 45 to 50 miles, developed with other partners from the public and private sectors. Most of this length will consist of existing or new trails on lands that are not owned by the County. The new portion on County lands, including road right-of-way will be 10-12 miles. 3 Trails identified are predicated on pending Department of Natural Resources (DNR) re -conveyance transaction with the Lake Whatcom watershed. Source: Whatcom County Six Year CIP 2009-2014. Activity Centers One activity center improvement project, the East Whatcom Regional the Columbia Valley/Kendall UGA, is proposed within the six -year pl below. Table 4.1. Activity Center Improvement Projects 2010-2015 ,'-''- Site No. and 2010 2011 1 2012 1 2013 2014 201`5? Project CostlRevenue (thousands $) #13 East Whatcom Regional Resource Center Cost 4,000 2,250 Revenue 4,000 2,250 Grants, EDI funds, legislative appropriation, and bond. Source: Whatcom County Six. Year CIP 2009-2014. Other Parks and Recreation Districts, The Northwest Parks & Recreation District approved its first parks master plan in May 2009. This new parks master plan includes a three-year capital improvement program that identifies projects and estimated costs (see Table 42 below). 49 November 2009 ••i Table 42. Northwest Parks & Recreation District Projects 2010-2015 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Cost/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Bay Horizon Park Children's Play Structure Cost 40 Bay Horizon Park Upgrade to Gymnasium Cost 35 Bay Horizon Park Develop Sports Fields Cost 70 70 Trail Connection between Lincoln Rd and Dakota Creek 35 140. Cost 15 15: 30 Acquire Property for Saltwater Access Cost 50 150 Total 75 85 235 395 Source: NW Park & Recreation District 2 Master Plan Document, April 2009 Existing Structures The County also addresses capital projects that make improvement to a variety of existing structures. The County Six Year CIP for 2009-2014 included five projects providing upgrades and improvements to the Division Street Minimum Security Correctional Facility, Civic Center Annex, Jail, Courthouse, and the Point Roberts Sheriff's Facility. The total of the improvements found in the 2000-2014 timeframe accounted for the County Six -Year CIP is $5,718,000. When removing 2009 projects to provide a 2010-2015 project cost, the total project cost for existing structure projects is $3,004,000. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 50 Sanitary Sewer Overview There are a total of 10 wastewater collection systems and seven wastewater treatment facilities that serve UGAs in Whatcom County. Most of the facilities provide gT. , ices within city limits with plans for future service to areas designated as UGAs. However; some systerns iovide service to unincorporated UGAs (Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, Water strict 13, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District). '= , �U Inventory of Current Facilities The following cities and sewer districts (in alphabetical order) providesitary sewer services in the County: ■ City of Bellingham maintains a collection system within its city limits and operates wastewater treatment facilities that are also used by Lake Whatcom;Water, and Sewer District. The city plans future service within its UGA and for connections to,boih undeveloped properties and those that are using septic systems within the city limits. ■ Birch Bay Water & Sewer District owns and operates a collection and treatment system that serves the Birch Bay UGA and portions of the Blaine and Cherry Point UGAs. ■ City of Blaine provides a collection and a wastewater treatment "system for property within the city limits. There is a second.wastewater treatment facility located in Blaine that was constructed in 1986 to treat wastewater from the Port of Bellingham and fish processors that lease from the Port of Bellingham other than T.M. Protein. The city plans to serve portions of its UGA that are not served by Birch Bay, Water and Sewer District. ■ The City of Everson maintains a collection system to serve property within the city limits. The city's sewer system also provides wastewater treatment for the City of Nooksack. Both cities provide funding for operation and maintenance of the treatment facility. The city sewer utility plans future service to areas within its UGA. ■ The City of Ferndale provides a sewer collection and treatment facility for property within the city limits as well as future service to the city's UGA and the area to the east in "North Bellingham." ■ Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly called Water District 10) maintains a sanitary sewer collection system that serves the UGA adjacent to Lake Whatcom, east of the city limits. This special district relies upon the City of Bellingham wastewater system for treatment. ■ The City of Lynden provides sewer collection and treatment facilities for property within the city limits and future collection and treatment to the city's UGA. ■ City of Nooksack constructed a wastewater collection system for property within the city limits in 1989. The city has plans to provide future service to unserved properties within its city limits and to properties within its associated UGA. By agreement with the City of Everson, Nooksack pumps its sewage for treatment at the wastewater treatment plant located in �7 November 2009 670 Everson. Nooksack also provides funding for the operation and maintenance of the Everson wastewater treatment plant. ■ The City of Sumas provides a wastewater collection system for property within the city limits. Since 1999, the city has had wastewater treatment provided at a large regional treatment facility in Abbotsford, BC owned and operated by Fraser Valley Regional District. The city sanitary sewer utility has plans to extend service to UGA property upon annexation. ■ Whatcom County Water District 13 provides wastewater collection and treatment to a portion of the Columbia Valle UGA in unincorporated Whatcom Gount Y jP Y An inventory of existing wastewater facilities located in the County is presented,m he table on the following pages. The table summarizes millions of gallons treated per day, the Wost current existing flow data, and surpluses or deficits for each of the wastewater systems in the t.'Ounty. Existing population served is also noted. Nal' F X�n Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 671 % m C z a La o g = 5cc 0 o 4) N W (O Q lL p to N u U N O 'O co O R<O` C4 co d U) r � •� a (n cc 3 n. E � o ��:.N a) v 0 �a E E LO N v •x 3 LL LL- (D U)N 2U.� U N C O-N N C � O O N C N E 0 w >+ N Ea)-0ocE `�-0 a)>� 4) E �— -O a O =p •X L `t O N a) O coa N p o~U>Oa)o0c NcEai U mcn0OO-U)CLC:-J nca>) E E c N UN ' O ? O cn O O > x -,cu E(no�,a)v)co v,0 W .N 0 C 0 CO D C U > 3 .-. U CO U in c m � � C E NCC) aUi •(a CO N co In O_ 0 N I O C E C E O, 4 a) m EU a) c a) E a) � N o m E v; N -o ?: L N O-0 >, "-' c a`) 0 0��1- > a) E c m;�-a a>i O Q O f-- -O U ,� C O -O a) — p �, co rn ai p, N O in Q p C a) " Q 6 co a) U 0� _0 co a) 3 3 E 0(6 L N U"� a) U O O E O C� 0 N I— M .0 E iq .0 O U C6 (n � N N zo 0 O � N Q -a � N M E a) m ti E ?� c6 L O NZ — Um > O O E 3No 0omaN��0 �>- 3 �TE0 a) a) o v) rn N ti M O O Ln w ri Ln r- O U N 'C O) l N C a) E U C a)c:.-C" co �°�5°o a3�w t5 ,E R O OC w c o (n @ 0 C .J N 3 O_ 4) '=s cc o f > N N O U) JD IL M.0 L(A O O (A — U -O Y O) O_.— a) CDN O)� L 3 E N J 3 c a 0) o '0 ce a) - Eo->moaa))mc dZV)U(6 C (p > N NovN) �ncm cb-0E N •L a) -O -c a) C O -O 0 U co N co 0 Old a) m a) J (n� M N M 0 0 a) a) in 0) 3 C( O E 7 0 0 c E E o 0> waa))c :E`�� �CyNa)0- ,o (p U to N (D Nin- N'au>iN( N mLO0Eo�i U N- U L) U E o 0 3 m mTm a) �u L y C a) (1) ~ (4 F a) c a) E N.co i ) a) Fri f- o rn U) OL O It O c Y •m cJ m 672 U) a) O Z c occ c = _ V 4 Ix S) y W Q Lj p N u U co O o 0 @ a) o N.0 � Q co r-_ Z 0 � M Ln N ce a o CV ..In v c i Q N I W O LL C E O N a) : O cu . m �O N O Co a) cm O 7 0 L O H N O 1 C W in O N ! v O Q- - m U 1 o E-o E cLa) i3 v� E a Q 0 c O 0 0 0 f6 E L E a) f6 n 'C 7 "+�L C N O aEi-o a� m" 0 aE a) -O a) C = I � •C a) •— 7 a) oZj -O i CL O N IT— m N N 0 a)O C m 0) C � MD a) c — -0 N a)V �� N O E N m O) O c c c O c 0 O @ L N mIn E L N m Y C U N oa)� mmm>ma) a) C) O 0:-.'::O N O.M; T..N O >Z.� 7"m W c 0:,N"o O -O ;p c ca 2�= m tN V U L N Q O m o d ���0)w.. c m -0 O w �•0 N o c E X N •m O c a) O_. m -O o E N 7 m c 7 Q Q N 7 CL 0 -0 CL O " O N o Z 0 .N ..-. O L V) C -O in -O 0-0 C U mS E M M N M LO c � Q o m 3. E .a) 7 C Q�.:O`L .. O- 0 O) �: 3 _O. CD.m E Z to O -O �- 7 c •V c C O E(DmO•—w O ` -0 > a U 0 3 N cE����U O U p U N 8-0 N .(D - O 0 m 0 p cm 3 N E N O — 70 N f6 a) N a U a)-O O N C -0-0 d O _O O ` O ,C N L a) a) 7 H NL.L. QQQC a) N (0 N 00 C a) m E O m L a) a) O U 1 O 'O 03-�5c m ?,m 1 >,E m<h1bF Uw CULL C O U O a) — T a) of C) LO C) C) C Ono Q o Z W O Z N a) a) U M O C) a) -O N O-Oa) 0 -O 'er—.—," N 7 V) C N a) O a) p 0 (0 O 3"QU CL `N•@ �� c O V).Q� N O- O .•' N E_ U O_ C a a) a) m _0O) N U N Q U :....c a) � O C (N m a) 0 EaXiE6caa)) a) O U N O -O > L o N 'O a)N C m -0 C c a) C;,a) O N C U U C C U > Z a) .2 O = a) cU N m m N �O r-_ M 0) OD CD m Q A O I ed+ A C a rL N C N E 0 U 673 0 I) I) c a) c) E Z E2 - `oLo v aD�> o"��— W > Il 2 - o c c� N N ` c W Q W c h m co 2 0o @ y C 3 (. N Q N O S1i IL i ca c is , 3 ". �a c� yE 19: £ L .� 13 H c a' c Lu lL N N 0 0 m O U ) 3 O U o a Q c c_ 0) 0) � Na `�U �Loo m Eo°' a) 0 N In o a) o 0 0�QmM c c E�-o z a co N Z N Z O C U N N O c O E m O N tp -- a. >,•- Q C O (� O U w a) U C U 0r m c � U CU axi E a) O O a3 c N O O > & C U � N c a)c� 3 N O.v C a) 2 -O 0. O N a) C• m O x 0 O Z � O E C O -oc=U @Q -0 N y Q (D-0 U O -O 7 m O• a) N.L.- - ">, O E2 p• ••'�+ - "' N N V U O C O m Co (D N" tf OL a) a) y C f6 0 a) (6 O E C E C 0 0 U C m @ U ->EQ2 Co.S 0-0o aa)) 0U) 0 D O O O C) O O 0) LO 17 LO O 0 N ch co N m m N a) 0. a CD o co N j m N N c m II aEi Q N � N N Z E o N O O m N p D. c c a) CD E g > > m n O c m r C m O N W O N c In u) ao) Z` N Z m O coIT 3 n c 2 II y a >^ m m M c° LL H m a) a) m a c c > C)c co c m m OD c a C 3 O o a) C N m _ > , 0) w @ 0 a a 0 > m m E m N N N N N O 7 (v L m C >, co o0 c c o n E E y E ai a) �) m 5 c E a Do m m Q V m a (a m >. m U) CO U E O- - E O uJ a U@ Z, Ca H m rn 0 Z O O. C:)C N N m m cj - E m o =p U c @ U O w n c E E uj. o ,E O m N N 2E m C o c m N U C i+ E c c E c m m, E m If .II E .N p CO a) m O, n a) _ a) - w n n € _ O > m a u) C E o Y .0 i (a N w m O Ca.' ' Q C_ N W LL N c C, E (a O CO m C` 30 ca •> ` N -5 O C I� >, m J m L D. N O o 0 rn m o (D u) E T > N N O C O > 0a) .= C) L M . ca n W "E oo •E N o n LL o N N O (D @ N N N Q E O O L O Oc L 3 _� O U m C n >. m N N a) O) O O a m 8 • m -o a) m m (a c 0 coC O ` p C U N E m oN u m oN in a ma ` a 0)o E- N f J r o D w (n rn 0 0 cm a E m 0 z 674 Level of Service Capacity Analysis The adequacy of existing sewer facilities to meet present and future needs is based on the estimated gpd of wastewater for the current population and the projected future population. This figure represents the LOS standard for sewer service for sewer providers. Most of the 10 sewer service providers have developed their own LOS standard based upon their local geography and service area demographics. Table 44 outlines LOS standards established by each sewer provider. i R/ W Y.; Table 44. Sewer Level of Service Standards Service Provider LOS Standard_:; City of Bellingham 102 gallons/capita/day' „ ` ^<>' `T;>•_ Birch Bay Water and Sewer District 85 gallons/capita/dayvim City of Blaine 300 gallons/household/day City of Everson 300 gallons/household/day City of Ferndale 164 gallons/capita/day, 2 Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer (formerly Water 198 gallons/day/c6nnection3; District 10) City of Lynden 100.7 gallons/capita/day 4- " City of Nooksack 250-275 gallons/household/day 5 City of Sumas 300 gallons/household/day 5 Whatcom County Water District 13.- 217 gallons/household/day 6 1 Section 4.3.2 Per capita flows, page 4-6, City of Bellingham Comprehensive Sewer Plan, August 2008. 2 Ferndale Comprehensive Wastewater Facility Plan, Section 4.2.1, page 4-1, February 1996. 3 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer,District Comprehensive Sewer Plan, page 8, September 2007. 4 City of Lynden General Sewer Plan, page 4-1, December 2007. 5 Personal communication from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, Email July 14, 2009, citing communication with Rollin Harper of Sehome Planning. 6 Source of this LOS is the Whatcom County Foothills Subarea Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, December 19, 2008, page 89. Table 45 identifies how future population and employment for each sewer service provider affects treatment capacity based on existing treatment capacity mentioned in Table 43 above. As can be seen from the analysis in Table 45, only the City of Everson is anticipated to experience a sewage treatment deficit in 2015. The City of Everson's response to the County's CFP growth projections indicate that the city has sufficient capacity to serve the majority of growth anticipated in the 20-year timeframe. In response to the highest growth alternative considered in planning this CFP Everson indicates that the city has available capacity to accommodate approximately 8 to 12 years of residential growth, and that expansion of the treatment plant will be necessary (Memorandum from Rollin Harper of Sehome Planning & Development Services to Matt Aamot, dated April 8, 2009, page 3). See narrative under City of Everson Treatment below for more detailed information. The City of Blaine expects to provide Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 56 675 an additional 0.7 MGD sewage treatment capacity when its new wastewater treatment plant starts operation in 2010. This will increase the 2015 reserve shown for Blaine in Table 45. Table 45. Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2015 Service Provider Current Treatment 2015 Treatment Capacity Capacity (MGD) Surplus (Deficit) expressed in MGD Bellingham 20.00 10.44 Birch Bay Water & Sewer 1.28 0.69 Or Blaine 0.80' 0.06 ' Everson z 0.29 (0.01) z.. Ferndale 3.23 0.67 Lynden 2.18 0.9� Nooksack 3 0.15 0.03 Sumas 0.39 0.22 Lake Whatcom Water & ' 182 Sewer District (formerly Whatcom County Water District 10) 4.60 WC Water District 13 0.13 See 1 City of Blaine anticipates opening a new wastewater treatment plant_in 2010 which,:will increase treatment capacity to 1.5 MGD. With the anticipated additional treatment capacity, the City.expects to have additional reserve available in 2015. [City of Blaine' website: http://www.ci.blaine.wa'us/, accessed April 24, 2009]. 2 Everson's Treatment Plant has a total capacity of 0:44 mgd. However, 213 of capacity, or 0.29 mgd are owned by Everson, while 113 of capacity or approximately. 0.15 mgd is owned by neighboring Nooksack. 3 This analysis uses 275 gallons/household/day as a LOS measure, the upper end of the range provided by the City of Nooksack in communication with Erin Osborn; as communicated in email to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. 4 A more detailed analysis of wastewater utility service to the Columbia Valley UGA was provided in the Foothills Subarea Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) (December 2008, pages 83-89). Please see discussion related to Water District 13 below for more detail on ability to serve the Columbia UGA with sewer service in 2029. Table 46 below provides an LOS analysis for sewer providers to the 2029 planning horizon. The 2029 LOS analysis finds sewage treatment deficits for the cities of Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, and Nooksack, and Water District 13. The City of Everson's expectation of a sewage treatment deficit is consistent with the city's analysis (Sehome Planning & Development Services 2009). The same communication from Sehome Planning & Development Services indicated that the City of Nooksack, sharing the same Everson sewage treatment plant, is expected to have sufficient sewage treatment capacity for the next 13 to 15 years and an expansion of the Everson sewage plant may be needed to accommodate some growth occurring outside the current city limits (Sehome Planning & Development Services 2009). The LOS analysis for City of Nooksack to 2029 in Table 46 confirms this assessment. Although the City of Blaine shows a deficit in Table 46, when accounting for the additional 0.7 mgd of sewage treatment capacity that is expected to be available in 2010, the City is expected to have a net reserve of sewage treatment capacity in 2029. The City of Ferndale also experiences a sewage treatment capacity deficits in 2029. According to the Foothills Subarea Plan Final SEIS (2008), Water District 13, providing service ar November 2009 676 to a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA, has existing capacity for approximately an additional 197 sewer service connections. Total new households projected in the Columbia Valley UGA by 2029 would exceed the 197 sewer connections available within Water District 13's service area. Evergreen Water and Sewer District currently does not provide sewer service to the UGA. Therefore, a sewage service deficit is expected by 2029. Individual jurisdictions and districts have planned projects that may help alleviate some or all of the deficits identified in Table 46. More discussion is provided below by service provider. Table 46. Sewer Level of Service Analysis for 2029 Service Provider Current Treatment Capacity (MGD) 2029 Treatment Capacity Surplus (Deficit) expresses in MGD- Bellingham 20.00 8.86 Birch Bay Water & Sewer 1.28 0.5 Blaine 0.80 (0.29) Everson 2 0.29 (0.09) " Ferndale 3.23 '(0.26) Lynden 2.18 0.66 Nooksack 3 0.15 (0.03) Sumas 0.39 0.16, Al A Lake Whatcom Water & 3.79 Sewer District - - (formerly Whatcom County Water District 10) 4.60 WC Water District 13 0.125 See 1 City of Blaine anticipates opening6,new_wastewater treatment plant in 2010 which will increase treatment capacity to 1.5 MGD. With the anticipated additional treatment capacity, the City will be able to meet the projected sewer flow requirements to 2029. [City of Blaine website: http://www.ci.blaine.wa.us/, accessed April 24, 2009] 2 Everson's Treatment Plan has a total capacity of 0.44 MGD. However, 2/3 of capacity, or 0.29 MGD are owned by Everson, while 1/3 of capacity or approximately 0.15 MGD is owned by neighboring Nooksack. 3 This analysis uses 275 gallons/household/day as a LOS measure, the upper end of the range provided by the City of Nooksack in communication with Erin Osborn, as communicated in email to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. 4 A more detailed analysis of wastewater utility service to the Columbia Valley UGA was provided in the Foothills Subarea Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) (December 2008, pages 83-89). Please see discussion related to Water District 13 above and below for more detail on ability to serve the Columbia UGA with sewer service in 2029. Capital Projects and Funding Population Table 47 below identifies each sewer provider's latest sewer plan's horizon year and population, as well as the populations expected under County's 2029 population projection. This table serves to provide an order of magnitude check with respect to the population that each service provider Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 677 is planning on serving in comparison to the latest population projections for the 2029 Whatcom County CFP. Table 47. Population Comparison: Sewer Plans and 2029 Population Projection Service Provider Horizon year of Capital Plan Capital Plan Population 2029 Population Projection Bellingham 2026 122,007 109,200 „ Birch Bay Water and Sewer 2029 11,307 Blaine 2025 10,871 9,040 !"`. Everson 2024 4,202 3.6,1 0 Ferndale 2015 27,796 Lynden 2024 18,235 15,080' Nooksack 2024 2,039 2,080 Sumas 2024 1,625 2,080 Lake Whatcom Water 2027 13,936 ,- 1,1,1go and Sewer District (formerly Water District 10) W.C. Water District 1;595 13 1 W.C. Water District 13 has not provided' an adopted sewer plan as of date of this CFP. Source: Berk & Associates (2029 population projection); each individual purveyor capital facility plan for horizon year and capital plan population columns. Capital Project Funding Sewer services and capital are funded primarily by the users of the system through service charges and connection fees. These rates are adjusted as needed to fund capital and operational needs. Some grant programs exist for the construction of sewer facilities and upgrades, but, like many grant programs, they are generally very competitive. In addition to this general approach to funding, the following Capital Facilities plans list additional possible funding sources: ■ The City of Ferndale — The City planned to issue a 20-year bond and apply for grants as well as increasing user fees to fund capital improvements. ■ The City of Lynden — The City considered using $4,000,000 in capital reserves as well as a bond or Public Works Trust Fund loan to fund their desired capital improvements. City of Bellingham The City of Bellingham maintains and operates a wastewater collection and treatment system that provides existing service to the city limits as well as sewer service zones within the Bellingham UGA. The existing sewer network is most dense in the central city, and there appear to be portions of the city, particularly in the south that are not yet served by sewer. There are also less as November 2009 extensive sewer networks extending into the city's UGA. The City has established a potential future sewer service area that extends beyond the city limits and encompasses all of the city's UGA not currently served by Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District (formerly Water District 10). The city's current Comprehensive Sewer Plan (Carollo Engineers, 2008) indicates that the city's long-range sewer system plans accounts for sewage treatment capacity for approximately 122,007 people by 2026 (Carollo Engineers, 2008). This is a larger population than the 109,200 projected under this CFP. The city's sewer service area and population forecast excludes Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. The city's sewage treatment plant is designated for a two phasesexpansion to accepti future demand. The phase one facilities plan has just begun and will e:sized to accept future Biologic - Oxygen Demand as required in the city's Ecology permit. A phase two expans i o n is expectied in the 20 year planning period. This expansion will build on the upcoming facilities plan to , adequately size the treatment plant capacity to meet future needs ... Birch Bay Water and Sewer Birch Bay Water and Sewer District adopted a Comprehensive Sewer Plan in 2GQ..%'The district's plan indicates where current sewer service exists and establishes a -future service area that consists of portions of the Birch Bay, Blaine, and Cherry Point UGAs. The plan does not appear to identify future service lines. A review of a GIS layer of existing sewer lines indicates that sewer is concentrated along the coast of the Birch:Bay UGA, though there: are extensive networks of sewer lines inland in the Birch Bay UGA. The sewer district's 2009 plan had higher population projections in the 20291orizon year for the district than the 9,160 anticipated in planning for this CFP. The 2009 Sewer Plan indicates that the district will exceed existing capacity by 2019: However; with the wastewater treatment plant upgrade projects noted in the 2009 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, the District will be able to accommodate the growth anticipated to 2029. (Birch Bay Water.and Sewer District and CHS Engineers 2009, pages 6-6 through 6-7) City of Blaine The 2.004 City of Blaine General Sewer Plan and its 2005 update shows major existing sewer service lines and some future sewer trunk lines. The City of Blaine Comprehensive Plan includes a map showing future sewer service area as portions of the Blaine and Birch Bay UGAs not served by Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. A GIS layer showing existing sewer lines indicates that large areas of the city east of I-5 are not served by sewer or close to sewer trunk lines. Table 46 above indicates that the City of Blaine reaches a sewage treatment deficit by 2029 using existing treatment capacity. However, the City of Blaine 2005 General Sewer Plan and 2006 Comprehensive Plan both indicate that the City has plans to upgrade and expand sewage treatment plant capacity to meet future demands for service, Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, and to replace aging infrastructure. The city plans to complete construction on its new wastewater treatment plant and begin operation in 2010 (City of Blaine 2009). The new wastewater treatment plant's design capacity of 1.5 mgd would accommodate projected wastewater flows to the end of the 2029 CFP planning period. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 60 679 Another major component of the city's capital improvement plan is a program for reduction of inflow and infiltration (I&I). City of Everson The City of Everson does not have a sewer comprehensive plan. The sewer system was addressed in the 2004 update of the Everson Comprehensive Plan. Wilson Engineering also provided an analysis of the sewer system in a memorandum prepared in.early>2007. Collection & Transmission The Everson sewer system includes a collection and transmission. system that serves:: al l;;of the incorporated portions of the city except for a small number of residential customers and oie, industrial customer located on Mission Road. The City operates a system of sewer lift stations . that direct sewage to the Everson sewage treatment plant. Sewage 66m the, city of Nooksack is also transmitted to the Everson treatment plant through a systerif�of lift stations. Treatment The Everson sewage treatment plant has a capacity of 440' 000' gallons per day (gad). Of this total Everson owns two-thirds or 294,800 gpd. According to the 2007 memorandum prepared by Wilson Engineering, at that time the City had 2ERU`capacity`avai 22 s of lable in the treatment plant. Although this amount of capacity is sufficient to serve the majority'of growth anticipated within the existing City limits, it is insufficient to meet the.anticipated demands to 2029 as seen on Table 46. Depending on the rate of growth, the available.capacity is sufficient to accommodate approximately 8 to 12 years of residential growth. Therefore, expansion of the treatment plant will Abe necessary. The City `is beginning work on a sewer comprehensive plan that will address future needsat:least through 2029. This plan will be developed in conjunction with the city of Nooksa&an& will be funded in part through the Community Development Block Grant program. Improvements and Financing All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. The City may participate in constructing a new east -west connector to serve the City's industrial zone and would need to access Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) and Economic Development Initiative (EDI) funding at that time. The City also has planned to extend the sewer system to serve the residential area along Mission Road as part of the Mission Road Phase 3 project. Funding for this project has not yet been identified. It is recognized by the City that expansion of the sewage treatment plant will require the City to secure major sources of funding, primarily low -interest loans. The Everson Comprehensive Plan shows the locations of some but not all of the system extensions necessary to serve new development in the Everson UGA. The City has identified creation of a comprehensive sewer plan as a key project in the City's future plans for sewers (personal email communication, Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009). 11 November 2009 •i� City of Ferndale The City of Ferndale's 1996 Comprehensive Wastewater Plan indicates that the city provides sewer service to the city limits and a sewer service area based on the city's UGA (City of Ferndale 1996). The city appears to also serve a small area outside of its current UGA to the east (North Bellingham). The 1996 Plan also identifies some alternative future sewer line alignments based on varying future growth scenarios (1996 Comprehensive Wastewater Plan, Figures 5-1 and 6-1). Existing sewer lines are concentrated in the central part of hemp with trunk lines also extending in the vicinity of the I-5 corridor. The City of Ferndale does n'ot exerlenee a sewage capacity LOS deficit in the 6-year timeframe ending in 2015. However, the L Sanalysis in Table 46 indicates that the city will experience a sewage treatment deficit by 2029 , Thes�city currently has no plans to expand sewage treatment capacity (City of Ferndale Comprehensive Plan, March 2007, Capital Facilities Element, page 18). However? tl e aty may re-evaluate its need for capacity improvements in light of the long-range deficits::ariticip�ted under this CFP The city does include Phase 3 Wastewater treatment plant upgrades as well asp a series of sewer collection system upgrades in its 6-year CFP for 2007-2012 (City of Ferndale Comprehensive Plan, March 2007, Capital Facilities Element, page 22):, . City of Lynden The City of Lynden General Sewer Plan (BHC Consultants`2007)=indicates that the city provides service to areas within the city limits, andwill provide future service to areas within its UGA. The Sewer Plan indicates future sewer trunk lines to servo'areas of the city and UGA not currently served (BHC Consultants: 2007). The sewer plan provides for a sewer system population of 18,235 people by 2024, which is greater than the 15,060 anticipated by 2029 under this CFP. The .L.OS analysis in Table46 above indicates a small sewage treatment reserve in 2029 with'.existing sewage treatment capacity:.The city's General Sewer Plan anticipates planning for additional sewage treatment capacity in 2019. A series of pump station and force main improvements are planned as part of the city sewer system's capital improvement plans to maintain system capacity within the planning period. City of Nooksack The City of Nooksack does not have a sewer comprehensive plan. The Nooksack sewer system was addressed in the 2004 update of the Nooksack comprehensive plan in the Capital Facilities Element. Wilson Engineering also provided an analysis of the Nooksack sewer system in a memorandum prepared in early 2007. Collection & Transmission The City of Nooksack maintains a system of collection and transmission pipes and four sewer lift stations that direct sewage to the Everson sewage treatment plant. Treatment Capacity The Everson sewage treatment plant has a total capacity of 440,000 gallons per day (gpd). Of this total, Nooksack owns one-third, which equals 145,200 gpd. The 2007 memorandum prepared by Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review °2 Wilson Engineering states that the City of Nooksack had 230 additional ERUs available. The available capacity is insufficient to meet the growth anticipated in this CFP. Available ERUs appear to be sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth over the next 13 to 15 years. Expansion of the Everson sewage treatment plant will be necessary to accommodate some of the growth that will occur outside of current City limits. Improvements and Financing All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be;,provded by dpv„elopers. It is recognized by the City that expansion of the Everson sewage trc to secure major sources of funding, primarily low -interest loans; Plan does not show the locations of system extensions necessar Nooksack UGA. The City has identified creation of a comprehf with the City of Everson comprehensive sewer plan project as a plans for sewers (personal email communication, Erin Osborn t( nt plant u�illlre Nooksack�Ca ;rve new devel sewer plan in the City ensive ht;.in the . in the City's futui, tJuly 14, 2009). City of Sumas The City of Sumas does not have a comprehensive sewer plan. The Sumas sewer system was addressed in the 2004 update of the Sumas Comprehensive,Plan. The Sumas Comprehensive Plan addresses the 20-year period from 2004 through 2024 including a:2024, population of 1,750. Collection & Transmission The City of Sumas owns and maintains a sewage collection and transmission system that includes gravity sewer lines and a small number of sewer lift stations. The Sumas system directs sewage to a discharge into the City of Abbottsford" system in British Columbia, Canada. Treatment T.he City has an ongoing contra ct.with the City of Abbotsford to receive and treat sewage collected in Sumas. This contract provides for the receipt and treatment of a maximum volume of 400,000 gallons per day through December 31, 2028. Discharges from the Sumas system are metered on a daily basis. A review of City records from February 2009 indicates that typical maximum effluent levels are approximately 270,000 gallons per day total. One-third of the City's total maximum daily discharge is generated by a single industrial customer. Using the conversion factor of 300 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU), the total contract amount equates to 1,333 ERUs. The available capacity of 130,000 gallons per day is equivalent to approximately 433 ERUs. Excluding the one large industrial customer, which generates the equivalent of 300 ERUs, leaves an available capacity of 1,033 ERUs for the remainder of the City. This available capacity equals a 72% increase over the current City typical maximum daily volume of 180,000 gallons per day or 600 ERUs (e.g., maximum daily volume without considering the single large industrial use). This CFP assumes a population increase from 1,279 to 2,080 along with a comparable level of employment, representing a 63% increase through 2029. On this basis it appears that Sumas has sufficient sewer service capacity to meet its needs through 2029. 63 November 2009 Improvements and Financing All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. The City has recently completed a sewer lift station that was designed to be deep enough to receive gravity flows from all of the currently designated areas within the Sumas unincorporated UGA5. No additional major City -funded improvements to the sewer system are anticipated at this time. The Sumas Comprehensive Plan shows the locations of sewer main extensions necessary to serve new development in the Sumas UGA. Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District (Formerly Water DIs#rct 10) Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District includes areas within Bellingham' s UGA,,an;:,rur areas surrounding Lake Whatcom within its sewer service area. The> district relies upon tl f of Bellingham's sewer system for treatment capacity. As noted f Tab7es 46 and 47 above; sewer district's contract with City of Bellingham provides adequat64reatrnent capacity through`" both 2015 and 2029._ The district plans .sewer extensions to newly developing: areas on an as -needed bas%s The 2007 Lake Whatcom Sewer Plan identifies several future: service; extensions to serve vested developments, including a handful of vested lots located withinAlie district's boundaries, but outside of the UGA. The 2007 Plan notes a number..of collection, system:unprovements, including upgrades to various district pumping stations. Water District 13 Water District 13, serving the Columbia Valley UGA, is expected to experience a sewage treatment deficit in 2029: based upon' information provided in the Foothills Subarea Plan Final SEIS, December 2008 (pages 83-89). Water District 13 has the existing capacity for approximately an additional,197;sewer service connections. Based upon projected increases in the number of households by 202%. Water District 13 will experience a sewer capacity deficit. The water district is currently updating its Comprehensive Sewer Plan. It is expected that Water District 13 will need to address expected sewage capacity issues based on this CFP's growth projections. Evergreen Water and Sewer District 19, which provides water service to a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA, currently does not provide sewer service. As noted in the Draft Foothills Subarea Plan (October 2007, page 116), in the future Water District 13 may contract with its neighboring water district to provide sewer service to the portion of the Columbia Valley UGA served by Evergreen Water and Sewer District 19. Sewer System Capital Projects and Financing Sewer providers have identified capital projects as noted in Table 48 below, broken down by service provider, to accommodate the future needs of sewer service in the County. Specific revenue sources are not identified for the non -County service providers included in Table 48 5 Refers to the UGA approved by Whatcom County as of the 2004 County Comprehensive Plan. UGA boundaries have decreased with the 2009 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 64 below. Sewer providers obtain their revenue from a variety of sources, including but not limited to service charges, connection fees, and grants, as noted at the beginning of this section. Table 48. Sewer Projects Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase 1 and 2 Improvements; Cost 5,990 3,320 16,340 28,250 16,030 69 0 Priority 1 and 2 Collection System Improvements ' Cost 3,430 23,470 2,340 800 5,020-' 9,780 37,690`.�>^' 82,530 Infiltration & Inflow (I&I) Study Cost 520 2,080 2,600 &I Improvements Cost 1,286 1,624 ;.:' :1 606 1,838 21005 1,974 17,858 28,191 Wastewater Treatment Plant Headworks Cost 2,000 2,000 Wastewater Treatment Plant New Process Water Cost 41 41 Wastewater Treatment Plant - " 2 new oxidation ditches Cost 3,591 3,591 Wastewater Treatment Plant — New Flow Split Structures Cost j 103 103 bJ November 2009 a Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Wastewater Treatment Plant - Upgrade Aerobic Digesters Cost 385 385 Wastewater Treatment Plant' -Convert to Digestion Cost 309 Wastewater Treatment Plant -Gravity Belt Thickener Cost 1,504 1,504 Wastewater Treatment Plant -New Dewatering Cost 3,248 3,248 Wastewater Treatment Plant -Secondary Sedimentation Cost 2,470 2,470 Wastewater Treatment Plant -Demolish Small Secondary Clarifiers Cost 52 52 Wastewater Treatment Plant -Demolish Primary Clarifiers Cost 52 52 Wastewater Treatment Plant -New UV Modules Cost 102 102 Wastewater Treatment Plant -Third New Oxidation Ditch Cost I 1,978 1,978 r, , Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review I Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Continue 16 and 18 inch force mains from Pump Station #3 to Pump Station #4 Cost 1,066 Increase PumpF'' <°z> Station #2 Capacity` Cost 2,850 2 850 .:, Increase Pump Station #3 Capacity Cost 344 =.. 344 Pump Station #6 Upgrade and force main capacity Cost 1,318 1,318 Increase Pump Station #7 capacity and replace force main Cost 341 341 Replace electrical system including standby generator and relocate from vault to building Cost 365 365 Upgrade Pump Station #8 Cost 336 336 Increase Station Capacity (#P-8) Cost 359 359 Modify pump station and 18" force main (#P-9) Cost 1,252 1,252 Increase Pump Station Capacity (#P-10) I of November 2009 •i• Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Cost 1,834 1,834 Construct submersible pump station north of Semiahmoo Drive near Semiahmoo , Dr/Birch Pt Rd (#P-11) Cost 1,750 1;7501; Construct submersible �Id pump station west of Semiahmoo Drive (#P-12) Cost ' 638 638 Construct submersible pump station south of Hall/Blaine Rd. (#P-13) Cost 1,169 1,169 Construct submersible pump station south of. "Lincoln Rd and wet of Harbor"View Rd. (#P-14) Cost- 711 711 Construct . submersible pump station at intersection of Harbor View Rd and Drayton Harbor (#P-15) Cost 1,775 1,775 Continue evaluation of sewer system (Collection-1) Cost 350 350 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review a Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Install parallel gravity sewer between Pump Stations #5 and #4 (Collection-2) Cost 1,305 1,305 Install parallel gravity sewers between pump stations #6 and #5 (Collection-3) Cost 1,272 1,272 Install parallel gravity sewers between pump stations #7 and #6 (Collection-4) Cost 1,336 1,336 Install parallel gravity sewers between pump stations #8 and #7 (Collection 5) Cost 1,583 1,583 Construct 10" parallel sewer between Birch Pt Rd and Selder Rd (Collection-6) Cost 132 132 Construct 21" sewer between Birch Pt Rd and Selder Rd (Collection-7) Cost 1,218 1,218 Construct 10" sewer north of Birch Pt Rd to receive discharge from Pump Station A force main. (Collection- 8) Cost 891 891 69 November 2009 688 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Construct 18" sewer north of intersection of Semiahmoo Dr/Birch Point Rd north along Semiahmoo Dr. ':<• (Collection-9) Cost 1,Q00':y 1,000 Construct 15" sewer from s.=: r , •; Semiahmoo Dr/Birch Pt Rd north along" Semiahmoo Dr. (Collection-10) Cost 1,41f0• ~ :.._1,410 Construct parallel 10" sewer and 8" sewer (Collection-11) Cost 288 288 Construct 24" parallel sewer beginning east of Birch Bay Drive/Alderson Rd east along Alderson Rd. (Collection-12) Cost 649 649 Construct 15" .;,parallel sewer from west of Blaine Rd /Alderson Rd along Alderson Rd. (Collection- 13) Cost 576 ` 576 Construct 10" sewer from Birch Bay Dr/East Golf Course Dr east along East Golf Course Dr. — replace 8" sewer (Collection-14) j Cost ` 367 367 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review •i� Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Construct 18" parallel sewer from Harbor View Rd/Birch Bay Dr north along Harbor View Rd and associated''` construction (Collection-15) Cost 750 750 Construct 12" sewer beginning at Harbor View Rd. (Collection- 16) Cost 442> Construct 12" sewer from Harbor View/Anderson Rds east along Anderson Rd. - (Collection-17)— Cost 1,476 1,476 Construct 15" parallel sewer along Cedar Ave to Anderston Rd and parallel 8" sewer line (Collection-18) Cost 340 340 Construct 21" sewer from Cedar Ave/Anderson Rd north parallel to Cedar Rd. (Collection-19) Cost 525 525 Construct 10" sewer from north of Shintaffer/ Anderson Rds north to Lincoln Rd. (Collection- 20) Cost 545 545 November 2009 690 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- Construct 18" sewer at intersection Drayton View Rds. Construct 12" sewer at Harbor View Rd/Drayton 5 Harbor Rd northward Construct 18" Al sewer from south of Blaine Rd/Birch Bay — Lynden Rd south along Blaine Rd Cost 522 522 Construct 12" sewer from intersection of Blaine RdIArnle Rd, south along.' Blaine Rd Construct 12" sewer beginning south of intersection of Blaine Rd/,Bi,rch Bay-Lyndeh Rd. east (Collection- 25) Construct parallel sewer Construct parallel sewer through Anchor Manor Comprehensive Plan Update - 10 Year UGA Review 691 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Cost 960 960 Construct 10" sewer from Blaine Rd/Loomis Trail Rd north along Blaine Rd A to Drayton< Harbor Rd (Collection-28) Cost 990 -: .990; Construct 8" parallel sewer as noted in detail project description (Collection-29) Cost 72 ' 72 Acute and Chronic Toxicity Testing (0-1) Cost 5 5 Outfall Evaluation (O-2) Cost 15 15 Effluent Mixing Study (0-3) Cost 35 35 Application for NPDES Permit Renewal (0-4) Cost 6 6 Engineering Report Update (O-5) Cost 60 60 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update (0-6) Cost 80 80 Water Reclamation Engineering Report (0-7) 73 November 2009 692 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Cost 60 60 (timing TBD) Construct New Wastewater w Treatment Facility for West ; Blaine or convey to Birch Bay (T-3) Cost 500 4,012 4;512,,,>>>.,.,,,, Proposed New 3 t3' Sewer Sub -Main Extensions (locations unspecified) (P-3 through P-5 & P- 8) Y ` Cost 860 860 Proposed new Sewer Sub -Main Extension along Jerome Street (P- 6) Cost 400 400 Proposed Sewer - Sub -Main Extension along Harvey Road (P- 7) Cost 390 390 Proposed Sewer Sub -Main Extension along Old Mill Road (P- 9) Cost 380 380 Comprehensive Sewer Plan 3 Cost TBD Miscellaneous Capital Projects 1 Cost 18 18 —� Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review ra 693 Pump Station 3 & FMa°F:, Cost 120< ' ..,... 120 Pump Station 9 Cost 30 120 150 Pipe Replacements Cost 100 100 10A 100 ;>;'<::;: 400 Infiltration/ Inflow Study Cost 100, 100 Asset,,',' Management Update Cost: 100 100 200 Fats, Oils, and Grease;(F.OG) Study Cost 20 20 TV Pipe Inspection Cost 10 10 10 10 40 Treatment Outfall Improvements Cost 350 350 Biosolids Dryer Cost 80 160 2,060 2,300 '5 November 2009 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2112 2013 2111 2015 2029 Total Compost Screen Cost 100 100 New Front Loader Cost 150 `150 Everson Treatment Plant' Cost 76 76 : Comprehensive Sewer Plan s Cost TBD No Projects Noted Sewer Collection System I&I Improvements Cost 77 77 77 77 77 77 462 Rehabilitate Sewer Manholes Pilot Project Cost 70 70 Sewer Tightline Project Cost 250 250 Old Lakeway & Euclid Interceptor Pigging Cost 52 52 Boulevard Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257 257 Agate Bay Pump Station Retrofit & Generator Placement Cost 297 I ; 297 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review �b 695 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Strawberry Point Pump Station Retrofit Cost 267 267 Tomb Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257 `.257 Afternoon Beach Pump Station Cost 257 257 Geneva Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257 257' Edgewater Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257, 257 Country Club Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257" 257 Par Lane Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257 257 Dellesta Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257 257 Rocky Ridge Pump Station Retrofit Cost 307 307 Lakewood Pump Station Retrofit Cost 257 257 To Be Determined 5 1 Collection system improvements includes: remote wet weather facility and priority 1, 2, 3 collection system improvements. 2 City of Blaine 2005 Sewer System Plan. Note: Plan only shows projects in individual years from 2005-2010, and in a lumped group 2011-2025. All projects shown in 2011 are projects included in the 2011-2025 timeframe. 3 Source: Personal communication (email) from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. 4 No projects noted per personal communication (email) from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. 5 Water District 13 is in the process of updating its comprehensive sewer plan at time of this plan's development (2009). �� November 2009 Water Systems This section identifies current water supply and transmission inventories within the County. Public water systems are classified into two categories, Group A and Group B systems. Group A water systems serve 15 or more connections or 25 or more people/day for 60, or more days/year. A Group B water system is a public water system that serves less than "15:connections or fewer than 25 people/day for 60 days or more/year. A full description,of groups A ands water systems can be found in WAC 246-290-010. ` << For purposes of this Capital Facilities Plan, water systems are divided mto°those that se-tft- turban growth areas (Urban Water Systems) and those that provide 50 or nio"re"connections located outside of UGAs (Rural Area Water Systems). A summary of the countywide water planning process encompassed in the Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan is presented first followed by inventories of urban water service providers. Information about'rural water.service providers is included in Appendix 3. Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) The CWSP was prepared by the Whatcom County: Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) representing individual water' utilities located throughout:the County. The CWSP was developed to ensure that County water purveyors meet state and federal laws governing potable water supply in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) and State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Whatcom County CWSP (February 2000) presents an assessment of municipal and industrial water supply needs in the County and a program to effectively provide water supply and.service to customers throughout the area. The CWSP represents the continued efforts of the County in managing the County's potable water resources according to all applicable State and County public policy. The current CWSP provides further refinement of process and strategy for existing water utilities to define their role in a program consistent with adopted land use policies and projected growth strategy. The CWSP establishes agreed upon water system service boundaries, and identifies future population growth that waters systems must plan on providing over the long-term. The County is responsible for updating, maintaining, and implementing the CWSP. The February 2000 Whatcom County CWSP identified 186 Group A water systems and 183 Group B water systems that constitute the public drinking water systems currently found within Whatcom County. This Capital Facilities Plan inventories water facilities owned by public and private entities in Whatcom County, including all Group "A" Community Water Systems with 50 or more connections located within the County as identified by the State Department of Health. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 78 697 Urban Water Systems (within UGAs) Overview There are 14 systems that provide primary service to the County's UGAs. Inventory of Current Facilities This section of the CFP inventories each of the major 14 Group A W "ter Systems tha "' vides water service to Whatcom County's UGAs. Table 49 provides an, inventory ofu>ater systems that identifies the name of each water system, the portion of the County population the system serves, and the existing DOH approved connections. The inventory identifes both existmgbonr�ections, as identified by DOH records, as well as an equivalent residential unit (ERU) number of connections. This is helpful to note if a water system has commercialor;industrial connections that use larger amounts of water than atypical residential unit. ., Level of Service Capacity Analysis Water system purveyors provide a LOS standard, generally expressed in water consumption of gallons per capita (or per connection) per day. When apply ing„this°standard to existing and future population, household, and employment estimates, and comparing ta,the water source capacity noted in the inventory table above, a water system provider can obtain a sense for how planned growth will affect water service into the,future. Each water service provider is required to prepare a water system plan (WSP) and a program of capital improvements that address`the-system's anticipated needs within their designated water service area, consistent with local land use plans. When the utility is requested to provide water service, it will identify, that portion of the planned capital facilities as well as other installations which are necessary to provide, the service necessary. As growth occurs, the full level of water service will eventually be provided throughout the service area of the utility in a planned development plan program which meets governmental requirements and minimizes overall costs to the customers. More detail on planned improvements for urban water service providers is provided under Capital Projects and Funding, below. Table 50 identifies both water system plan LOS standards, or in the absence of an LOS standard identified in the individual water system plan, a comparable Countywide standard for urban water systems identified, in the Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan. is November2009 =i 0 R as a O `O (D f= 3 O E N N co W c'. d O) oo Q y"__ U 'x = LU W G7 c O N c iv m o Z N O fn d Co C7 R,- N'V ' a- ctscts 4) x Ci U U Co Q N co U �H v t f1 NN� R T R R Cr "O N a O O Q- iZ a >_ tam = U .N W N E R Z EEi w T L ti L OO L6 °.. cfl N N O O O LO r N r N N r in fn (D c E e N O _N U O f1 W C 7 d In N O N E co L O) c a� m O T LO co co d 6 fD >N 7 ab m 0 m .c N � J fn 0) M O a� a3i c c� cocu r N U a)f6 •cu >d > U O - (06 N m > C U)iq � p p > N LL O Z 7 U) >, O m` m O O r O O O U tii0 wfn 3: U U d U U U LO d N r Q Q In CDaN0 CD a0 L .- M ado Z Z M N M ai .o m O N to > d f(0 r- O co In CO m O N O O CO � Q V d C6 d N M Z Q Z a 0 00. M co � f-- co O � In N N O N O O N O O O CD Ci N N N N C 0 d0 O� 00 . d CD 0) II Cl) OD 0)Lf N ch LON L N � U � N -p 7 N > CCC (a C CD a) � 0 00 r' C2 c co N CO Q m m II 0 E E O CD CD CD In CD CD OD..N" d cLr m 2 Iz N fn In 'Zi .OD N in M '' N T � N e C" d CD r (h lzt � N E 0 LO N N LO CD O N � N N V CV 4 fn co r N m. u O CO W -O N _O fD _O N .D _O _O _0 >. O 0)w U w U U 4= U w 0 w U 4= U C C O E N Q Q N M d CL Q Q Q 4 C3 NCL avi 7 (h 7 z n : 1 7 N r 0 0 0 l C U)m co 0 a w c a Q M M N Nt O O (D Q OD ! d d D .6 S> 45 Nt N cLO r M co .4 Z 0) II 0 fb d I I I _ C3 m I T N I ` (D M c Y I v ! a) w u! rn D M I. V cU) -0 ) R N 0 o -ffi c6 N > L > N 0 0!> c '5 0 m w m i m E U! p; w w Z U) -j Q u a r 0 0 n (5 ! Co U) wp ; U ! L) i ! d c> c> c> 699 C (0 C O Ep -O C_ O o.C7�c 0 0 E m Z c o n O U T N •- L ¢ C C C) C � C B N 0) O L O O- N >,C m 0 C, O O N U 7 N O m � O X O -: �4� ] U) O N y N C _ O ui a) Y U C wma>>� @ ui C Ei 0 a c� a-, Cu o 3 w N, mA cY U) ui a) rn m N U) O) .V Q U T 7 a) E C')C O P C O C N O O U)� COE . 0. -CD � � N N � �cu 7 @ N C O- (13 U O OC" N Q N — N L - U) m a L > m > m.� >- @ EU , m 7 N C 16.0L CD'U) .. m.. g. .-_. C N U.C=c7 w 0'N OT)m Z c c E -ONO c(Drno oCD n- U g` U °) o E Uc) 0>CF w cu O O p� a) U N L O O CU T U) N N U) N a) N a .O L C >O N m C O E a7 > N E N a) ... O a) m T O) j au))O C O L C c CL:. N C 3 T Q N C a) a) N L O) C, O :G N C .2 N -00 °) O >C O O Na) E C > > C C N U TUNa) Up L m E cv w rn N E >m N U) d y N O N y N 3 N '>, jT_> c rn rn` o o c m 0 a2i J 0 aa)) y a 0 ac) L o a E N op o a) o f L E a>@ oy__c m C) w 00 r- 0) a) n C y 0 °) N U E J N O E m `� p .N T N r- O) V O O U L U) w CU C m U) C m W a) T . Y O 'O O N N w �p N fn -O H O L CO (6 .� N j w N N W r U) (aco N a)O. .O E E O C U)m N O d E 0 o N r= 3 a) a 2 i5 � E O N m� O w (p 'C E 7 U) C O 7 O) E N O CD 'C6 O U U) a 2) -C 7 >. Q m c_ p c rn o m p) a) cu N a) t N N O d N 0. .= T j 0) C m .0 0 m m aa)) aa)) E _m p o S- to N 3'N fw a o (n > N O T O >+ N L O E -O E T C V) O C N U C _T (6 U E t` m Y 2 a) m c N T .2 T O N (a o C U) y0 L U l9 U) (n O) f0 E N i.% j T N () > C 0) U c o c�i a3 E C 0 N :cu N 0 CU N L Q O N U) 0 N 3 CL N N o � �` w m a a) C a w o °) a) c '- (a 0� C E C E lV L p J Fu ZL: N 0 U N N m U) N E N O N a) N a) y N > N @ E T cD C a) m a) m a) a) .o m m U) c E a o- J L C L . 7 L N a) N 3 a) p (n d J D U) 0-U) O U)0-0-O J N 00 U N U 7 700 Table 50. Water Level of Service (LOS) Standards Service Provider LOS Standard (Average Daily Demand) City of Bellingham 199 gallons/day/ERU' Water District 2 210 gallons/day/ERU 2 Water District 7 221 gallons/ERU/day Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer (formerly Water District 10) 219 gallons/day/ERU s City of Blaine 300 gallons/household/day Birch Bay Water and Sewer District 140 gallons/capita/day Evergreen Water and Sewer 270 gallons/household/day f Whatcom County Water District 13 270 gallons/household/day " City of Everson 300 gallons/ERU/day City of Ferndale 140 gallons/capita/day PUD 1 140 gallons/caplta/day.° City of Lynden 235 gallons/day/ERU City of Nooksack 250 gallons/day/ERU 5 City of Sumas 225 gallons/day/residential connection 1 City of Bellingham Water System Plan, Tables 2-8 and 2-11 (June 2009), 2 Whatcom County Water District #2, Draft Water System Plan, August 4, 2009, page 2-5. 3 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Water System Comprehensive Plan.(August 2009). Based on water demand forecast for the combined Geneva/Sudden Valley portion of the District (Appendix B of Water System Plan). 4 Where an LOS standard was not specifically identified in a water system plan, the average daily water consumption figure for urban Water systems was taken from the CWSP, Table 3-4, page 3-5 (February 2000). Other LOS standards found in7able 50 are provided in gallons/ERU/day or gallons/household/day rather than gallons/capita/day noted in the Whatcom County CWSP. 5 Personal communication. Email from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. Table 51 provides an overview 'of the planning horizon year and horizon year population for the latest urban water system plans in comparison to Whatcom 2029 population projections. As can be seen by a review of the table, most urban water systems plan conservatively for drinking water needs, particularly given the time it takes to seek new water supplies to serve growth. Evergreen Water District's WSP projected population of 3,000 is lower than the population of 3,584 projected in this CFP for 2029. The City of Everson's WSP projected population of 3,114 is lower than the population of 3,337 projected in this CFP for the 2029 horizon year. Nooksack's WSP projected population is lower than the 2,047 population projected in this CFP's horizon year. Sumas' WSP projected population of 1,625 is lower than the 2,095 anticipated in the city by 2029. Although Lake Whatcom Water District's 2027 horizon year population is lower than that projected for the district by 2029 in this CFP, the district's plan also includes a build -out population which is more conservative than the district's 2029 horizon population considered in this CFP. n Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 701 Table 51 also identifies each urban water system's horizon year average daily demand (ADD) in millions of gallons per day. The table shows that most of the water systems are proactively planning in a long-range and conservative fashion in order to be prepared to obtain future water resources, as needed. As can be seen from a review of individual water system descriptions in the next section, most districts have identified capital improvement projects in both the near -term and long-term planning in order to be prepared for future population growth in their districts. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District's Plan identified a near -term need for: additional ater sources, and is actively working with its partner, the City of Blaine, to obtain new water sources. In addition, if the DOE water rights calculation for the City of Lynden of 1,110 gpm is, considered, instead of the City's source capacity estimates, thei the City i excpected to experience a future water deficit. Capital Projects and Funding,K^$ Capital Project Funding , Water services and capital improvements are funded pr marily:by the users of the system through water rates and general facilities charges. Water rates can be,adjusted to match the funding required for capital and operational needs. Connection fees, are -usually charged to developers when a development necessitates expansion of the district's capacityImprovements and new infrastructure that will benefit the majority of the district�are funded.through water rates, capital improvement fees, revenue bonds, or state or federal programs., These programs include the Public Works Trust Fund, a revolving loan fund designed to help local entities through low - interest loans; and the Drinking WaterState Revolving Fund, which involves low -interest, federally funded, loans Table 51. Population Comparison: Water plans and 2029 Population Projection Service Provider Horizon year of Capital Plan Capital Plan Population Horizon Year ADD (m9d) 2029 Population Projection Birch Bay Water/ Sewer 2035 14,326 2.39 9,616 City of Bellingham 2028 122,672 18.3 107,648 City of Blaine 2027 11,587 3.45 8,647 City of Everson 2022 3,114 0.46' 3,337 City of Ferndale 2026 19,334 1.84 17,550 City of Lynden 2027 20,120 4.0 14,437 City of Nooksack 2022 1,881 N/A 2 2,047 City of Sumas 2018 1,625 N/A 2 2,095 Evergreen Water and Sewer District 2023 3,000 N/A 2 3,584 PUD 1 N/A 3 N/A 3 N/A 3 32 83 November 2009 702 Service Provider Horizon year of Capital Plan Horizon Year ADD 2029 Population Capital Plan Population (mgd) Projection Lake Whatcom Water 2027 10,8554 0.875 11,368 and Sewer (W.C. Water Dist. 10) W.C. Water Dist. 2 2029 N/As 0.25 7 1,646 W.C. Water Dist. 13 2024 N/A s 0.397 1,665 W.C. Water District 7 2027 2,1009 0.2072,79 ., N/A = Not Available f. ' All figures in this table, unless noted below, are population figures. Employment or re"sidential equivalentsare nojconsidered in this table unless specifically noted. 1 Based on system design standard of an ADD of 300 gpd/ERU, and a horizon year estimate of1,540 ERUs 2 Latest WSP does not identify a horizon year ADD. W"; ;. 3 Since PUD1 provides retail water service only to areas characterized by and designatedfpr industrial and comm&cial uses the district's 2004 WSP does not provide population projections or a horizon year PUD" 1 also owns and operates the Grandview potable water supply system — retail (Jilk, Stephan, PUD 1, memorandum io Matt Aamot commenting on Whatcom County 10-Year Urban Growth Area review documents, April 20, 2009). ` 4 Although Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District's 2027 horizon year anticipates a population'of"10;855, the plan indicates a "build -out" population of 15,192. 5 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, Water System Comprehensive' Plan (August 2009). See Appendix B for forecast to 2027. Also, there is a build -out forecast of 1.2 MGD. 6 Water District 2 August 2009 Draft Water System Plan does not identify population;. The plan indicates that the District plan; to serve a total of 1,175 ERUs, or 797 service connections (Whatcom County.Water District 2 Draft,Water System Plan, August 4, 2009, Tables 2-9 and 2-10. Applying the City of Bellingham average household size of 2.5 and occupancy rate of 94.4% to the 797 projected water connections results in a future, population of 1,881 in"2029. 7 Based on analysis of ADD/ERU compared to projected number of ERUs in WSP. 8 Water District 13 does not identify population. It plans to serve a total of 1,338 connections. Applying the Peaceful Valley Census Designated Place average household size of 2.79 and an occupancy rate of 79.8% results in approximately 2,979 people that could be served by the 1,338 connections in 2024. 9 Water District 7 only identifies connections rather than population. The districtplans to serve 888 connections by 2027, Applying the Bellingham average household size of 2.5 and occupancy rate of 94.4% results in approximately 2,100 people served by the 888 connections in 2027. However, Water District 7 is approved to serve up to 1,145 residential service connections (StateDepartment of Health letter from Richard Rodriguez and John Thielmann to James Trowbridge dated January 5, 2009). Therefore the District could serve a population of about 2,700. Any plans involving funding mechanisms not mentioned above are explained below: ■ Birch Bay Water System - The District will institute Latecomer's Agreements to help fund any water main that serves property beyond that owned by the developer financing the project. ■ City of Everson - The City plans to pursue Community Development Block Grants and Community Investment Fund Grants to finance major water system improvements. If these applications are unsuccessful, then the low -interest loans listed above will be used. ■ City of Ferndale - The City may, under certain conditions, construct new infrastructure for specific areas as Utility Local Improvement Districts. ■ City of Lynden - In addition to the funding mechanisms listed above, the City expects to receive between $125,000 and $51,000 annually from interest income through the year 2013. Birch Bay Water and Sewer The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District obtains its water supply from the City of Blaine (well field). The district's Comprehensive Water Plan (2009) indicates that existing water supply is only sufficient through 2011 (page ES-3). The district's plan states that additional water supply, including use of surplus storage, and/or conservation will be necessary to meet the demand beyond that time. The district's 2009 Comprehensive Water Plan includes several new supply 84 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review �' 703 and distribution projects expected to address supply deficiencies. Besides its residential and commercial customers, the district provides water supply to BP Cherry Point Refinery through a wholesale agreement with PUD 1 (see below). The district plan's 2035 population projection of 12,913 is greater than the population projection considered for the district's water service area by 2029 in this CFP. Birch Bay's Comprehensive Water Plan indicates that it will extend future service areas to areas within the district boundaries and provides future connection policies. However, it does not provide a map identifying future major service lines. The District is bounded on the east by the Bell Bay Jackson Water Association which served approximately 231 households in 2008, mostly outside of the UGA. a City of Bellingham The City of Bellingham provides retail water service to the city limits acid portions of the.._`_ Bellingham UGA that are not served and identified as a service area,, y=other water purveyors,__ The city's water service area overlaps with that of other water districts w-irhn the UGA. The WSP does not assume that the city will take over other districts with retailwat r service areas identified in the Whatcom County CWSP. Instead, the, „city, assumes that it will botheretail water purveyor for areas within its UGA that are not served by otherservice providers The City of Bellingham has adequate water rights and water plant capacity; to provide water service to its retail service area under all future growth scenarios listed. The City's 2009 water comprehensive plan, provides for waterstorage and distribution systems'to all of the current city UGAs and has been adequately sized to, serve the projected 2028 population of 122,672. The city anticipates that any additional storage required to accept population greater that the 2028 projection can be addressed in the next planning cycle. Future reservoir projects can be up sized to serve additional population load. The city's WSP identifies future service lines extending into the city's UGA. City of Blaine The City of Blaine's Comprehensive Water System Plan (CHS Engineers 2008) provides a city population projection of 11,587 by 2027, larger than anticipated for the city water service area by 2029 in this CFP. The city provides water to both the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District and the Bell Bay Jackson Water Association. The 2008 WSP notes that the city has adequate supply to meet projected demand through the 2027 planning period considered (City of Blaine Comprehensive Water. System Plan, CHS Engineers, July 2008). The Comprehensive Water Plan shows a series of capital improvements needed in the planning period to 2027 to maintain capacity and provide adequate distribution. The city's WSP does not appear to show water service extensions to areas within the city or UGA that are not currently served. However, the city's future service policies indicate that the city is planning to serve those areas. City of Everson The City of Everson's 2005 WSP addresses anticipated growth through the year 2022, including a city population of 3,114. The Everson water system is also addressed in the Capital Facilities 85 November 2009 704 Element of the Everson Comprehensive Plan, which anticipated growth through 2024, including a projected population of 4,202. Source I Water Rights The City of Everson holds water rights authorizing a maximum instantaneous pumping rate of 800 gallons per minute and a maximum annual withdrawal of 601 acre feet. Given adequate storage, which Everson has developed, the annual withdrawal maximum is the system limiting factor in terms of source of supply. The Everson WSP uses the figure of 300 gallons.per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU) to analyze the system capacity,On thts basis, tbe.Everson source is equivalent to 1,788 ERUs. In 2002 the Everson waterasystem served 1,147 ERUs of which 440 went to serve two large water association customers:and 707 went -to regular City f; customers. Assuming a total increase of 15 ERUs for the water associations from 2002 t;o 2029'' would leave 626 ERUs of capacity to serve new growth within the City service area for a'totalof 1,333 ERUs for the City. For 2008 the City estimates that the Everson water system is serving 1,23&'ERTJ ,:(440 ERUs for the water associations and 798 ERUs in the City). The CFP population projection equates to an 45% increase in population over the 21-year period from 2008 through 2029 Usu g the 2008 City ERU estimate of 798 and applying an 45% increase would result in the need for total of 1,157 ERUs in 2029. This represents an increase of 359 ERUs. This number bf ERUs falls within the non -water association capacity of 1,333..It is important to note that the above analysis includes the City's continuing to supply 455 ERUs'to'the two water associations. In 2004 the City instituted a series of rate increases that are intended to reducewatei consumption by the associations. Under the terms of their supply agreements, the City also has the ability to reduce the total volume of water supplied to the:associations. Given the above factors and considering the fact that the Everson water system plan utilized a relatively conservative 300 gallons per day per ERU, the City concludes that it has adequate.source capacity to accommodate anticipated growth through the 2029 CFP horizon year. Storage In 2006 the City constructed a third water storage reservoir. The system analysis completed in 2007 indicated that total storage is equivalent to 1,900 ERUs. Adding the 455 ERUs noted above for the water associations to the 1,157 ERUs calculated previously as being necessary to supply the City's future needs in 2029 yields a total of 1,612 ERUs. This total is less than the ERUs supported by the storage capacity; therefore, the City concludes that it has more than enough storage to accommodate anticipated growth through 2029. Improvements and Financing In the past few years the city has completed two major capital projects. These include construction of a third water storage reservoir and installation of a manganese treatment facility that allows full use of the city's deep well (and full instantaneous pumping capacity). The new reservoir was paid for out of capital reserves and the manganese plant is being financed through a low -interest loan from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Payment on this loan will be covered by revenue from existing water rates. The city anticipates that all new extensions to serve ss Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 705 new development will be provided by developers. The only exception to this might be the installation of a new trunk line in conjunction with construction of a major east -west connector to serve the city's industrial zone. If the city were to participate in construction of such a facility, it is anticipated that state CERB funding and County EDI funding would be utilized. The Everson Comprehensive Plan shows the locations of some but not all of the system extensions necessary to serve new development in the Everson UGA. The city's WSP indicates that the City will serve areas of the city and its UGA _that ar6 not currently served, though the Plan does not map future service lines into these areas ,at this time. City of Ferndale The City of Ferndale 2006 WSP indicates that the city has adequate,; water rights and 616ntraets,to meet water system demands to the end of its 2026 planning period;,(City4of Ferndale 2006)",As . noted in Table 51 above, the city is planning to serve a retail water serviceR,puopulation greater than the CFP population projection to 2029. The city has identified water storag,6 capacity improvements that will be needed in the 20-year planning. period, as well as"erm. distribution improvements needed to meet fire flow requirements (City of Ferndale 2006). The city has some neighboring small water associations which dr6,9, rrounded by the city water service area on many sides. These include the Central WateiAssoeiation; Ferndale Mobile Village, Northwest Water Association, and. the Mountain View Water'Association among others. These water associations each serves between 50 and 200 households'in 2008. They all experience additional growth through the 2029 planning,horizon because they are located mostly within the Ferndale UGA. There. does not appear to be any plan for the City of Ferndale to take over these smaller water services. City of Lyndon The City of Lynden WSP (Gray_& Osborne, 2008) indicates that the city has adequate water supply to meet the needs of population growth over the 20 year period. However, the City of Lynden and Ecology have an existing dispute over the city water rights. Where the City of Lynden indicates that it has 5.91 million gallons per day (MGD) in water rights, Ecology believes that the city only has approximately 1.599 (MGD) in water rights (Fabiniak and Rodriguez, pers. Comm.). The city has entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Ecology to address long-standing water right issues between the city and Ecology. Resolution of water supply issues for City of Lynden is important for future planning in the city's water service area. Using water rights amounts that Ecology believes the city possesses, it is expected that the city will experience water supply deficits based on the Whatcom 2029 of this CFP. The city's water plan also identifies capital projects needed in the 6-year planning period, as well as some longer term projects. Six -year planning capital projects include construction of a new treatment plant with additional capacity, acquisition of land for a new reservoir, and a variety of distribution improvements to improve fire flow. The city's WSP includes a map showing future water extensions within the city limits, but not extending into the surrounding unincorporated UGA. 87 November 2009 706 The city borders several water associations, including five associations that receive wholesale water from the city: Berthusen Water Association, the Twin Ditch Water Association, the Meadowbrook Water Association, the EDB Service Area, and the Stickney Island Association. The Berthusen Water Association has a service area overlap with Lynden in its western UGA. The city's water system plan addresses service policies in its western UGA, and indicates that many of the five water associations mentioned above may be annexed to the city's water system if they are within the city's retail water service area. F y City of Nooksack The Nooksack water system is addressed in the Nooksack WSP; that was approved,byVthe Washington Department of Health on February 22, 2006. The NOoksack,.WSP addresses`the. 20- year period through 2022. This includes a 2022 population of 1,881 The Nooksack water `system, is also' -addressed in the 2004 update of the Nooksack Comprehensive Plaid. The Nooksack` Comprehensive Plan addresses the 20-year period ending in 2024�'and mcludcs a 2024 population of 2,039. Source The City of Sumas provides the source of supply to'the Nooksack'water system The City of Sumas provides up to 199 acre feet of water annually to Npoksack'per .the terms of a mutual supply agreement between the two cities and the Nooksack Valley Water.Association (NVWA)`. The City of Sumas has indicated a willingness to supply "an increased quantity of water to the City of Nooksack if necessary to support growth, and the City of Sumas has more than adequate water rights to be able to provide such an increased supply. Storage The City bf Nooksack shares storage with the Nooksack Valley Water Association. Combined storage: includes three reservoirs totaling 700,000..gallons. The Nooksack WSP indicates that the City has enough storage capacity, to serve a population of 1,881. The CFP projects a 2029 population allocation of 2,047 for the City of Nooksack. Although the total storage described above is jointly owned, NVWA utilizes more than 70% of the total storage. Additional analysis Will be necessary to determine whether enough additional storage capacity is available or can be made available to accommodate growth under the CFP projections without constructing additional storage capacity. However, if additional storage capacity is needed, the City is prepared to participate in such a project to ensure that new growth under the CFP can be fully accommodated through 2029. Improvements and Financing All system expansions necessary to serve new development will be paid for by developers. The City is currently preparing construction plans for a new booster pump that will increase system pressures to well above State minimum standards throughout the entire system. This improvement will be paid for out of capital reserves. Similarly, if construction of a new 500,000 gallon water storage reservoir is necessary, the City will share the costs with NVWA and will pay ss Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 707 its share out of capital reserves. The Nooksack WSP shows the locations of some but not all of the system extensions necessary to serve new development in the Nooksack UGA. City of Sumas The Sumas water system is addressed in the Sumas WSP that was approved by the Washington Department of Health on December 4, 2000. The Sumas WSP covers the 20-year period from 1998 to 2018 including a 2018 population of 1,625. The City is currently in the process of updating its WSP. In addition to municipal customers, the City of Surnassupphesolesale water to the Sumas Rural Water Association, the Nooksack Valley Water Association and the City of Nooksack. Source / Water Rights h:r The City of Sumas owns and operates seven wells located in two major well fields (Sumas welt field and May Road well field). These wells provide a significant: quarity>:of;water on both an instantaneous and annual basis. The City holds numerous water rights that-allowa total withdrawal of approximately 3,322 acre feet of water annually. Based on past and ongoing analyses, the Sumas well fields and water rights provide a source of supply well,::m'excess of the future needs of the City's retail and wholesale customers through the year 2029-For example, the existing Sumas WSP indicates that in 2018, with conservation included, the Sumas water system would still have over 1,000 acre feet of excess capacity. , Storage The City of Sumas owns a 500,000: gallon storage reservoir that provides storage for both the City and the Sumas Rural Water Association (SRWA). The Suinas' WSP indicates that the Sumas reservoir provided`sufficient capacity to meet the City's needs through 2018. However, the WSP also indicates that'to .serve both the City and the SRWA systems an additional 60,000 gallons of storage"would be needed by 2005 and an additional 160,000 gallons of storage would be needed by 2019. In 2002 the SRWA constructed an additional 500,000 gallon reservoir that provides storage to both SRWA and the City. The City of Sumas is in the process of updating its water system plan. The preliminary storage analysis indicates that the City's 500,000 gallon reservoir is sufficient to meet the City's needs through 2029 and the combined storage of 1,000,000 gallons is sufficient to meet the needs of the combined systems. Improvements and Financing System extensions required to serve new development will be provided by developers. A system of new water mains will be extended into the City's UGA as new developments are approved following annexation. The City does not have any plans for major City -funded water system improvements. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs are covered by existing water rates. Evergreen Water and Sewer District The Evergreen Water and Sewer District's Comprehensive WSP (2004) indicates that the district has sufficient supply to meet the district's water needs to its 2023 planning horizon and beyond so long as unaccounted water loss can be reduced. However, the district's plan only accounts for a 89 November 2009 M future population of 3,000, which is lower than the population projected for the district to 2029 in this CFP. The district's capital projects include water main and pressure zone improvements to help meet growing demand expected within the district's boundaries. The district also has plans to address unaccounted water loss, which should enable the district to apply for additional water service connections needed to meet some of the growth anticipated by 2029. The district's plan does show future water service mains and lines in maps located in the plan appendices. Pursuant to state regulations, it is anticipated that Evergreen Water and Sewer District_.will update its water system plan in 2010. PUD 1 PUD 1 provides water service to both the Grandview industrial/commercial'service Iarea:north of Ferndale, as well the Cherry Point UGA (an industrial area). PUD 17s Comprehensive Water Plan (Donald E. Wright 2004) does not measure water demand to population as most other WSPs do. The majority of the district's water service customers are itdustrial: ,arid commercial customers. The PUD's Comprehensive Water Plan indicates that it has sufficient water supply to meet the district's needs to the end of the district plan's 20=-year planning period (2024). The plan includes a series of capital improvements including the' acquisition of other potable: -water system treatment plants and water distribution and storageimprovements:.-,Although the district's plan does not include maps showing future water service extensions; portions, of the narrative on future water service indicate the district's future water service plans to serve its entire district. Lake Whatcorn Water and Sewer District (Water District 10) The Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Water System Comprehensive Plan (2009) indicates that the district has adequate supply to meet its 20-year planning needs. The district takes water supply and provides service to four separate areas: Sudden Valley, Geneva, North Shore/City, and North Shore/Wells. City of Bellingham water is provided to most of these subareas. The North Shore/City-subarea is served partially by City of Bellingham water and partially by well water, while theNorth Shore/Wells subarea is served exclusively by well water. A review of population projections found in Table 51 indicate that the district is planning for less growth by 2027 than projected in this CFP to 2029. However, the district's build -out plans are for a population of 15,192, which is larger than the CFP 2029 horizon year population projections for the district. The district's plan identifies a number of capital improvement projects for maintaining system reliability and distribution with expected growth. The district does not specifically identify future water service lines within the district. Water District 2 Water District 2's Draft WSP (2009) includes plans to serve approximately 797 connections by 2029. When translating this to population, the district is planning for a population that is slightly larger than that being projected to 2029 for the district in this CFP. The district's plan identifies capital improvements needed by the district over the 20-year period ending in 2029. These improvements include the systematic replacement of the district's water distribution system over �� Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review J� 709 the 20-year period which in many cases will address fire flow issues. Additional projects necessary to provide fire flow in the Bellingham UGA have also been identified and are likely to be paid for by developers. The plan indicates that the district has enough water supply for its planning period. The district's plan does not specifically identify future water service lines within the district. Water District 2 and City of Bellingham have an overlap in service areas south of the Bellingham Airport according to the County's CWSP. Water District 13 =� .V .. Table 51 indicates that Water District 13's WSP (Reichardt & 1be 2005) anticipa, esr=a number of connections similar greater than the district population being cghsidered underlie CND'. 2029 horizon year. The Water District 13 Water System Plan indicateathat it has adequaYi✓�wte, supply to serve its service area by the district's planning horizon year of 2024. The distri'ct's capital improvement plan identifies a variety of projects through 201 1W., re needed to en re ; adequate water service. The district's plan does not show future; service p .er sions within its service area. Pursuant to state regulations, it is anticipated that Water Dist M,14,.Vill update its water system plan in 2011. Water District 7 The Whatcom County Water District 7 WSP (Reichardt & Ebe 2008) indicates that the district has enough water supply to serve its customers in the 20=year period &riding in 2028. However, the District does not plan for as large apopulation as is being projected under the CFP 2029 horizon for population projections. (see Table 51). The district's plan indicates a need'for a riew storage facility in one of the pressure zones to improve water,_pressure, as well as a variety of distribution system improvements in order to maintain: adequate water service in the district's planning period. The district's plan shows future service extensions in figures found within the water system's service area. .Capital Projects and Funding The urban water service providers have identified capital projects as noted in Table 52 below, broken'down by service provider, to accommodate the future needs of urban water service in Whatcom County. Note that specific revenue sources are not identified in Table 52 below. Water district providers obtain their revenue from a variety of sources, including but not limited to connection charges, as noted at the beginning of this section. 97 November 2009 710 Table 52. Urban Area Water Projects Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) New Booster Pump Station - Portal Way at Blaine Connection Cost 446 46 General Facilities 446 :777, 4465 Charge New Source and 19'Transmission Main at Portal Way (SU-4) Cost ,260 - 1,260 General Facilities 1,260 1,260 Charge 16" Transmission Main from Blaine Rd Booster Pump Station along Hall and Dearborn to Drayton Harbor Rd. (SU-5) Cost 791 791 General Facilities 791 791 Charge Local Facilities Charge 14" Transmission Main on Blaine Rd from Double R Ranch to Alderson Rd. (SU Cost 688 688 Booster Pump Station Upgrade at Blaine Rd. (SU- 7) Cost I 526 526 18" Transmission Main on Blaine Rd from Blaine meter to Blaine Rd Booster Pump Station (SU-8) Comprehensive Plan Update - 10 Year UGA Review I 711 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 11178 1,178 Replace Birch Point Reservoir at existing site (ST- 2) Cost 1,400 General Facilities 1,400 F - _ CT •4} 1,400 Charge Rates Kickerville Y Reservoir upgrades at / existing site (ST- 3). Cost `'66fi,:-=:.r;;:> 667 Rates 66Z :- 667 Replacement Semiahmoo Reservoir (ST-4) Cost 1,018 1,018 General Facilities 1,018 1,018 Charge Rates Point Whitehorn Reservoir at.Point Whitehorn (ST-5) Cost 606 606 General Facilities 606 606 Charge Y Distribution Main Replacement along Birch Bay Drive (T-4) Cost 366 366 Rates 366 366 Abandon Distribution Main from Loft Lane to Gemini St. (T-5) Cost 3 3 Rates 3 3 November 2009 712 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Waste Water Treatment Plant Meter Relocations to Pt. Whitehorn Booster Pump Station area (T-6) Cost 45 45 Rates 45 45 Point Whitehorn Booster Pump Station at Pt. Whitehorn (T-7) Cost : 122 122 General Facilities i-1:4, 122 Charge Replace Distribution Main from Pt. Whitehorn Booster Pump Station to Pt. Whitehorn Rd. (T- 8) Cost 137 137 General Facilities 137 137 Charge Birch Point Booster Pump Station at existing site (T-9) Cost 526 526 General Facilities 526 526 Charge 12" Transmission Main from Birch Point Booster Pump Station to replacement Semiahmoo Reservoir (T-10) Cost 785 785 General Facilities 785 785 Charge Semiahmoo Booster Pump j Station (T-11) Cost 395 395 94 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review J' 713 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) General Facilities 395 395 Charge 10" Transmission Main generally at Birch Point along Birch Point Rd In<, x and along ' southeast side of. Cannery Hill (T- 12) Cost :;:,.., 2,566 2566 General Facilities 2,566 2566x ". Charge Local Facilities Charge Main Replacement at multiple locations in District (T-13) Cost x 500 500 Rates -. 500 500 King Mountain Reservoir (ST-2) (1.9 MG) Cost 450 5,890 , : 6,340 Upper Yew Reservoir (1.35 MG) (ST-1) Cost 5,919 5,919 Padden Reservoir 457 South Pressure Zone (ST-3) (2.5 MG) Cost 8,997 8,997 730 Alabama Hill Pressure Zone Reservoir (1.5 MG) (ST-4) Cost I 4,858 4,858 519 Dakin & Yew Pressure Zone i Reservoir (2.2 j MG) (ST-5) Cost 5,937 5,937 95 November 2009 714 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) New 40'h Street Pump Station (PS-1) Cost 2,664 2,664 New Kerney Road Pump Station (PS-2) Cost 300 3,950 4,250 Consolidated Pump Station Upgrade (PS-3) Cost =q. 1,295 1,295 Reveille Street Pump Station Upgrade (PS-4) Cost 1,503 1,503 New 950 Zone Constant Pressure Pump Station located near Upper Yew Reservoir (PS-5) Cost 1,705 1,705 New James Street Pump Station (PS-6) Cost 2,980 2,980 870 Upper Yew Reservoir West Connection (PL-1) Cost 1,702 1,702 870 Upper Yew Reservoir East Connection (PL-2) Cost 1,689 1,689 King Mountain Reservoir West Connection (PL-3) Cost 2,853 2,853 Transmission Main Extension to 950 Rezone Area (located near Upper Yew Reservoir) (PL-4) 96 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 715 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 459 459 Yew Street Transmission Main Extension (PL-5) Cost 2 060 ? 2,060 x. Annual Main;ry`z Replacement (PL- 6) Cost 600 2,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 `z_<_`:_:>: >' 8;OA.0: m:�'•. Mt. Baker ;" N :. Highway Replacement II ' (PL-8) Cost 100 400 400 ;xr;~=' 900 Hydraulic Model 3-year updates (PN-1) Cost 100 100 Metering Program (M-1) (throughout service area) Cost 2,000 2,000. 2,000 3,000 9,000 Nooksack " Diversion Passage (DV-1) Cost., 10,000 10,000 New Source: Prospecting for new wells and water rights (SU- 1) Cost 200 200 New Source: Completion of Well #8.1 (SU-8) Cost 210 210 Telemetry System Upgrades including system for Well #9 (SU-9) j Cost i 20 20 40 �J November 2009 716 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 Replacement of Chlorination Treatment System and associated building (SU-10) Cost 250 <r:f 250 Rehabilitate or reconstruct Well 2 and other wells in well field (SU-11) Cost 50 50 Replace transmission main from Birch Bay Water District north to Hughes Avenue and east to 1-5 (T/D-4) Cost 1,250 1,250 Construction of 630-zone Booster Pump Station (BPS-1) Cost 1,500 1,500 Sweet Road Water Main Upsizing East. toward welf field- PhacP 1 /T/n-ri Cost 1,250 1,250 Sweet Road Water Main Upsizing East toward well field - Phase 2 (T/D-6) Cost 1,250 1,250 Sweet Road Water Main Upsizing East toward well field - Phase 3 (T/D-7) Cost 1,250 1,250 98 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA.Review J� 717 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) E Street Replacement of 6' main with 8" main and associated pipe on E Street between 6v' and 12tt' Streets (T/D- `N, 13) e Cost ':;•14;; 145 11t" Street Pipe Replacement between H Street and B Street (T/D- 14) Cost250 250 Addition of "' w Standby Power Generator at Lincoln Park for Booster Pump Stations #2 and #5 (BPS-3) Cost 115 115 Water Distribution Extension (East Blaine) Local Improvement Districts Cost 1,000 1,000 1,000 1'aw 1,000 1,000 2,000 8,000 Reservoir #1 Replacement (ST- 1) (location to be determined in conjunction with project SU-1) Cost 500 4,000 4,500 Construction of Additional Reservoir for 330 Zone (ST-4) (location to be determined) Cost 500 5,100 5,600 Construction of East Blaine Reservoir for 630 Zone (ST-3) Cost i 2,500 2,500 99 November 2009 718 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Water System Plan Update (P-2) Cost 60 60 Miscellaneous Capital Projects Cost 23.9 24.7 - 48.6 Mission Road Expansion Project G. Cost TBD TBD Upgrade Pipe in Labounty, Sunset a to 1-5 (ref #38) Cost 365 365 Upgrade Pipe in Pacific Place (ref# 39) Cost 85 85 Upgrade the Axton Pressure Zone by Moving Pressure Reduction Valves and Pipe in Deer Creek Drive (ref# 43 & 44) Cost 115 115 Water System Plan Update (no ref #) Cost 100 100 New Tank, Booster Station & Connecting Pipeline North of Smith (ref # 40 & 41) Cost 3,185 3,185 Additional Treatment Plant Upgrade (WS-2) 100 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 719 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 2,000 12,000 7,000 21,000 Site and Construct 1.0 MG Reservoir in northeastern part of service area(ST-1); Cost 250 r = "' 250 Replace 'x undersized water mains along ' Glenning Street wi ;. and 14th Street (D- y: , :# 3) Cost 425 425 Replace undersized water mains along British Columbia Avenue (D-4) Cost 1,Q3 %`. 103 Replace undersized water mains along Garden Drive and Garden Circle (D- 5) Cost 576 576 Replace undersized water mains along Line Road for fire flow (D-6) Cost 83 83 Install water main along 8ch Street between Grover Street and Liberty Street (D-7) Cost 105 105 Replace undersized water mains along ' South Prairie Drive and Park View Drive east of Depot Road (D-8) Cost I 238 238 101 November 2009 720 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Replace undersized water mains along East Badger Road for fire flow (East) (D- 9). Cost 536 , :<=r" 536 Replace f ;, undersized water mains along East Badger Road for;f fire flow (Center) (D-10) Cost 118 118 Replace Al undersized water mains along East Badger Road for fire flow (West) (D-11) Cost 770 770 Replace pipes in Benson Road for improved fire flow (D-12) Cost 160 160 Replace undersized water mains along Cedar Drive and West Park Street to Cedar Court and along West Park Street north of Cedar. Drive (D- 13) Cost 259 259 Install water main connecting Woodcreek Road and Double Ditch Road (D-14) Cost 125 125 Replace undersized water mains along South Meadow Lane and Meadow Lane (D-15) Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 721 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 209 209 Install a water main connecting 19v' Street Court and South Pine Court (D-16) Cost 41 41 Expansion of water system to Northeastern part of service area (M-1) Cost 926 926 New Booster Pump at Gillies Road (south of _ city limits) Cost 2502 Cash Reserves No Projects currently planned 3 Annual Repair and Maintenance Program (WM1) Cost 30 31 32 33 126 Comprehensive Water System Plan Update (M2) Cost 30 30 Annual Small i Tools & Equipment (M4) Cost 6 1 6 6 7 25 KFAIM`k' Cross Connection Control Program (OP-1) Cost 1 2 103 November 2009 722 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Emergency Response Program (OP-6) Cost 7.5 Water Conservation <'> 'r Program (OP-7) Cost ".;• 5 Grandview — Northgate Supply Reliability (IMP-1) Cost Q i 20 Grandview — ,F;> Northgate Chlorination Reliability (IMP-2) Cost 1 Water System Telemetry and Alarms — Phase 2 Cost 70 Meter Testing and Replacement (IMP-4) Cost 2.5 Grandview — Northgate Emergency Power `(IMP — 5) Cost 15 Grandview — Northgate Reservoir Piping (IMP-6) Cost 5 Cherry Point Potable System Acquisition (EXP- 1) Cost 100 Cherry Point Potable Water System Storage (EXPA .- Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 104 723 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 250 Cherry Point Potable Water System Treatment (EXP-1.2) Cost 10 Cherry Point Water System Transmission System Cost Cherry Point Potable Water System Emergency Power (EXP-1.4) Cost 75 Expansion of Water System to Unserved Areas of Grandview — Northgate Distribution System (EXP 2) Cost 1,000 Grandview — Northgate Additional Storage (OP-101) Cost 75 Grandview — - Northgate Ferndale Intertie (IMP-101) Cost 10 Cherry Point Potable Water System Storage (IMP-102) Cost 750 Cherry Point Potable Water System Treatment (IMP-103) Cost 400 105 November 2009 724 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) Grandview - Northgate Water Distribution Expansion (EXP- 101) Cost: ; 500 Cherry Point Potable Water Distribution Expansion (EXP- 102) Cost 500 i Engineering reports benefiting future customers Cost 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 21.6 54 Computers (office server) - Replace hardware, network security, and operating system Cost 5.6 `516 5.6" _" - 11.2 28 Computers (staff workstations) - Replace/Update Hardware, operating system, and software Cost 5.4 5.4' 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 21.6 54 Meter Reading Handheld Data Collectors Cost 10.4 10.4 Computers - Replace Utility Billing Printer Cost 2.0 2.0 2.0 6 Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant - Replace I I Generator Transfer Switch Cost 54 54 106 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 725 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant — Raw Water Pump Emergency Bypass Port Cost 5.4 ' 5.4 Water Service y3`" Rebuilds Cost 50.4 50.4 50.4 �.?.__ 2 .. Replace Pressure Reduction Valves r Cost 14 14 28 Smoke Blower Cost 5.6 �?: 5.6 Trailerable Genset Cost 33.6 33.6 Replace Backhoe Cost 134.6 134.6 Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant — Emergency Generator Upgrade Cost 325 325 Replace Office Staff Vehicle Cost 17.9 17.9 35.8 Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant — Raw Water Pump Motors Cost 29.1 29.1 Blow -off Installations at Dead Ends Cost 1 33.6 33.6 Reservoirs — Inspection and Maintenance 107 November 2009 726 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 24.2 24.2 Replace Camera Equipment Cost 33.6 33.6 Replace Tool Truck Cost 56 56 56'{'':'' `';, 168 Division 22 4e.F..: Reservoir (0.5 MG) Cost 664.7 664.7 Replace Meter Reading Van Cost 22.4 :,' . , , .. :: .:. 22.4 Eagleridge Fire Pump Control Upgrade Cost 56 56 Sudden Valley Replace AC and 2" PVC Water Lines Cost 82.4 82.4 Lowell & Oriental PRVs Cost 185 185 Sudden Valley Water Treatment Plant Clearwell Overflow Drain Cost 80.9 80.9 Agate Heights Water Treatment Plant — Additional Capacity Cost 300 300 Geneva Area Water Main Replacement Cost 158.6 907.9 1,066.5 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 727 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Geneva Street Water Main Replacement Cost 232 232 Sudden Valley' Water Treatment Plant — Transfer and Transmission Pump Cost 425 ,. 425, Replace Sudden Valley Water >� Treatment Plant Filters Cost 17.9 " 17.6: 35.8 Replace Small Dump Truck_F: `. Cost j 75;7 75.7 Replace Mini Excavator Cost 58.2 58.2 Replace Light Truck Cost 28 28 Replace Fire Hydrants Cost 403.5 403.5 Inspection and Maintenance of Reservoirs Cost 24.2 24.2 Replace Dump Truck (used) Cost 53.9 53.9 ��P.A {JS.Str�V` � Yr ��h^¢ � �.�'n•'R �Fi �y �{"rc3� � E r � y � Fort Bellingham Rd, replace 4" pipe with 8" pipe Cost 62 Olympic View Drive, replace 4" with 8" pipe November 2009 728 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 50 50 Howard Street, replace 4" pipe with 8" pipe Cost 32 - K:a" 32 Bancroft RD, •vim a `F replace 4" pipe with 8" pipe Cost 62 62<.. Marine Drive,, `?< replace 8" with 16" ` << pipe$ ; Cost 704 Update Water System Plan Cost 15 15 Well Pump 'J Generator Cost 100 100 Upgrade Britton Road Pump Station Cost 60 60 Install 8" Main on Emerald Lake Way Cost 220 220 Construct Emerald Lake Tank Cost 200 200 Upgrade Roma Road Pump Station Cost 40 40 i Construct Academy Booster j Pump Station Cost 180 180 110 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 729 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) Upgrade the Pumps and Pressure Reducing Valve in the Sapphire Trail Pump Station Cost 65 6 E` 65 Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition System Cost 75 75 Upgrade the Pressure Reducing Valve in Control Vault A to 6„ Cost 15 15 Upgrade the Pressure Reducing Valve in Control Vault B to 6" Cost 15 15 Remove the Woodlake Meadows Pressure Reducing Valves Cost 15 15 Replace Ex. 4" water main on Emerald Lake Way & Swamp Creek Road with 8" Cost 180 180 Replace Ex. 4" Transmission Main on Emerald Lake Way with 8" Cost j 145 145 Replace 6" Main on Hillsdale with 10" Cost 180 180 111 November 2009 730 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2011 2015 2016- Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) Connect Wildhaven Crest with Vineyard Road Cost 125 125 A Install 8" Main along Toad Lake Road & Squalicum Mt. Rd. Construct new pump station. Cost 300 300 1 City of Lynden, City's Water System Plan rolls up years 2014-2027. Projects found in 2014-2027 timeframe are shown in' total column only. 2 City of Nooksack's Water System Plan does not include projects within the timeframe of the Whatcom County CFP. This specific project actually going to bid in 2009. (Personal communication email Erin Osborn email to Matt Aamot;:July 14, 2009.) 3 City of Sumas' Water System Plan does not include projects withinthe kn6frame of the Whatcom County CFP. No projects are currently shown in the City's 6-year or 20-year planning periods (Personal'°communication email Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.) 4 PUD #1 Water System Plan does not include a specific year of improvement for capital projects. Projects are prioritized by near term (2004-2010) and long term (2011-2023) projects (October 2004 Comprehensive Water Plan, Public Utility District #1, Donald C. Wright, Consulting Engineer, Chapter 9). For purposes of this CFP, alf,projects are only listed in the total column. 112 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 731 Schools Overview This section evaluates the seven public school districts that serve Whatcom County. Inventory of Current Facilities Inventories of the school districts' existing facilities located in--Whatcom County are presented in this section. The inventories are summarized below. Each inventory lists -the schools dif alphabetical order for each level of school (i.e., elementary, middle/junior high) and high/semor high school). The inventory also includes the number of students that each -,school can accommodate (i.e., its enrollment capacity). Where detailed information is available, enrollment capacity has been broken down into permanent enrollment capacity and portable enrollment capacity (temporary or moveable facilities). Bellingham School District The Bellingham School District is the largest school district in the County. The current enrollment capacity of the Bellingham School District can be found in Table 53 below. 113 November 2009 732 Table 53. Bellingham School District Current Enrollment Capacity School Current Enrollment Portable Enrollment Total Enrollment Capacity Capacity Capacity � f 4 �y � '§$Y•' ECG? ssr 9,u, '" Alderwood 338 45 383 Birchwood 203 113 315 Carl Cozier 360 0 360 Columbia 225 0:: <M,• 225 •. Geneva 450 `: • " '°.495 Happy Valley 3389U Larrabee 158 68;i" 225 e - Lowell (temporarily closed) 293 `0 293 Northern Heights 405 0 405 Parkview 338 23 360 Roosevelt 405 s'< 0 405 Silver Beach 405 ` ;.0`"::..' 405 Sunnyland 270: • 90a- ..: 5. 360 Wade King 450 0: ; 450 Subtotal 4,635 473 5,108 Fairhaven 650,.: 0 650 Kulshan 650 25 675 Shuksan 525 0 525 Whatcom 450 100 550 Subtotal 2,275 125 2,400 Bellingham 1,050 0 1,050 Sehome 1,000 25 1,025 Squalicum 1,200 25 1,225 Subtotal 3,250 50 3,300 Total K-12 10,160 648 10,808 Source: Bellingham School District No. 501 Capital Facilities Plan 2009-2015 (July 2009) Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 733 Blaine School District The Blaine School District encompasses the City of Blaine and its UGA, as well as the Birch Bay UGA, and outlying Waal areas. The school district inventory of facilities can be found in Table 54 below. Table 54. Blaine School District Current Enrollment Capacity School Permanent Portable Enrollment TotaLEnrollm -nt Enrollment CapacityaRacityV' Ca aci P ty "9 f't+ p " l b�zaaa� Blaine (P-2) 440 0 440 Blaine (3-5) 580 0 580 Pt. Roberts (K-2) 60 0 60 Blaine (6-8) 540 0, ; 540' Blaine (9-12) 740 0 740 Total K-12 2,360U 2,360 Source: City of Blaine Comprehensive Plan,. Capital Facilities Element (September 2006). Ferndale School District The Ferndale School District encompasses fhe ,City of Ferndale, its UGA, and rural areas including the Lummi Reservation,and Lumr ii':Iglarid. The Ferndale School District's current enrollment capacity is listed on Table 55 below." November 2009 734 Table 55. Ferndale School District Current Enrollment Capacity School Permanent Portable Current Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Capacity Capacity Capacity dy Q . � to Beach 60 0 60 Central 254 61 Custer 500 0 500 Eagleridge 300 200 50Q Mountain View 401 99 500 Cascadia 505 0 505 Skyline 500 0Q0 Subtotal 2,520 360 .,;,, q2880NEW E 1 r> Horizon 650 650 Vista 650 0 650 Subtotal 1,30,0 0 1,300 Fl ` Ferndale .1,535 0, 1,535 Windward (leased facility) 300 0 300 Clearview High School. (at: North Bellingham) 0 60' 60 Subtotal 1,835 60 1,895 Total K-12 5,655 420 6,075 1 Clearview High School also has 1 portable used as an office, and 1 portable used for storage. No student capacity assumed for these 2 portables. Source: Ferndale Schools Capital Facility Plan and School Impact Fee Ordinance (December 2005); and email correspondence from Shawn Flaherty of Ferndale School District (February 27, 2009 and March 6, 2009). 16 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 735 Lynden School District The Lynden School District encompasses the City of Lynden and its UGA along with surrounding outlying rural areas. The school district's current enrollment capacity is listed on Table 56 below. Table 56. Lynden School District Current Enrollment Capacity School Current Enrol I rnent::C Bernice Vossbeck Elementary (Grades K-5) k369 :fir Fisher Elementary (Grades K-2) Isom Intermediate (Grades 3-5) 1 39 0 Subtotal Lynden 2 Subtotal Lynden 3 Subtotal Total K-12 550 550 550 2 2.19 Note: Lynden School District also providesJ60tructiorvthrough the Parent Partnership Program (grades K-12). This program is housed in leased facilities and therefore not inc6d&i the District's inventory of permanent facilities. 1 Capacity figure includes 1 portable classroom at : both Fisher and Isom Elementaries. 2 Enrollment capacity includes 4 portable classroorri§.'.'. 3 Enrollment capacity includes 6 portable classrooms, Source: Lynden School District No. 504 Six Year Capital Facilftips'Plan (June 2006) 117 —1 November 2009 736 Meridian School District The Meridian School District is mostly rural with only a portion of its southernmost boundaries contained within a portion of the Bellingham's UGA. The school district's inventory of current enrollment capacity can be found in Table 57 below. Table 57. Meridian School District Current Enrollment Capacity School Permanent Enrollment Portable, Enrollment Total Enrollment Capacity Capacity Capacity Irene Reither Primary (grades K-3) 380 100 480 Ten Mile Creek (Grades 4-5) 164 100 . .;264 Subtotal 544 200 744 Meridian Middle School 494 0'= ;>_; ._:;, 494 Subtotal 494 0 = 494 Meridian High School 460 ,"-' 50 510 Subtotal 460�- :'50 '". 510 Total K-12 1,498" = "250""" 1,748 Source: Meridian School District No. 505 Capital Facilities Plan 2009-2015, Adopted June, 2009, and personal communication Timothy Yeomans, Meridian School District (July 30, 2009). 114 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 737 Mount Baker School District The Mount Baker School District serves the Columbia Valley UGA and rural areas in eastern Whatcom County. The current enrollment capacity and inventory of facilities is shown in Table 58 below. Table 58. Mount Baker School District Current Enrollment Capacity School Permanent Enrollment Portable Enrollment Total Enrollment Capacity f COpacity' Capacity Acme 206 ; 66 ,:;272 Harmony 300 44 344 Kendall 412 1`76 588 Subtotal 918 286 1,204 Mount Baker 275 0 275 Suhtntal 275YF.n F` 275 Mount Baker 1,175 0� 1,175 Subtotal 1,175 0 1,175 Total K-12 29368 286 2,654 Source: Mount Baker School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan (February 2006) and personal communication, Jim Frey email to Gil Cerise (August l3, 2009). . ✓ November 2009 738 Nooksack Valley School District The Nooksack Valley School District encompasses the cities of Everson, Nooksack, Sumas, and their associated UGAs, as well as surrounding rural areas. The school district's most recent inventory and enrollment capacity can be found in Table 59 below. Table 59. School Sumas Nooksack Everson Subtotal Nooksack Valley District School District Current Enrollment Capacity Current Enrollment Capacity F n Nooksack Valley Middle School Subtotal 320 360 300 _; '980 762 762 Nooksack Valley High 96&'-,, Subtotal 960 Total K-12 2,702 Note: Capacity figures based on ratio of 20 students per room (K-3), 25 students per room (4-6), 30 students per room (7-12), and 12 handicapped students per room (K-12). Source: Cities of Everson,, Nooksack; and Sumas Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Level of Service Capacity Analysis An LOS capacity analysis was applied to each County school district based on a student to household ratio that was developed by comparing 2008 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction enrollment numbers to 2008 estimates of households by school district. The results, expressed in the number of students a school is able to accommodate based on the enrollment capacity inventories noted above are shown in Table 60 and 61 below. Where numbers are shown as positive, a school district is projected to have a net reserve of school capacity in terms of the number of students it can accommodate in existing classroom space. Where numbers are shown in the negative, a school district is projected to have a deficit of school capacity in terms of the number of students it can accommodate in existing classroom space. Enrollment projections are affected by demographic trends (i.e., aging population in many areas, or larger college -age populations in others); and changing trends in alternative school methods including but not limited to home schooling, Running Start program, and online schooling. In order to provide a projection extending to the 2029 time frame, Whatcom County has utilized a straight-line method of projecting forward existing student to household ratios which are more 120 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 739 likely to provide larger enrollment projections into the future since they do not take into account the factors mentioned above. For example, the 2015 LOS analysis in Table 60 below is predicated on an assumption of increased enrollment in all school districts shown. However, in comparison, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) six year projections to 2014 indicate that the Bellingham, Ferndale, and Mount Baker school districts should all expect some decrease in enrollment over that time period (OSPI website: http://www.kl2.wa.us/ SchFacilities/Programs/EnrollmentProjections.aspx; accessed on July 29, 2009). The 2015 LOS analysis shows that Bellingham, Blaine and Lynden school district`s experience net capacity deficits within the 2015 timeframe Although Bellingham School District; shows a net student capacity deficit in 2015, it should be noted that OS*rojects Belhngliam's ;student enrollment to actually decline between 2009 and 2014, rather than increase (OSPI website- July 2009). The Blaine School District shows a minor projected deficit in.2015 of three students School Districts can address any deficiencies that they have by providing.additional capacity projects, as noted in the next section, by adding temporary classroom spac:OX g. portable classrooms), or by increasing the number of students accommodated in act (adjusting LOS standards). Table 60. Whatcom County School District 2015 Level of Service Analysis: Student Capacity 1 School District Student/ Household Ratio 2015 School Facility LOS (Students) Bellingham 2 0.263 (134) Blaine3 ,0:372 (3) Ferndale 0.528 181 Lynden 4 0.466 (399) Meridian 5 0.565 515 Mount Baker 0.312 447 Nooksack Valley 0.567 888 1 LOS analysis compares the student capacity of school districts to projected enrollment. Where information is available, it includes portable facilities. 2 The LOS analysis for Bellingham School District accounts for the additional 450 student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6-year capital facilities plan (Bellingham School District, 2009). 3 The LOS analysis for Blaine School District accounts for the addition of 180 student capacity resulting from upgrades to the high school building (personal communication, Jim Kenoyer, Blaine School District, August 5, 2009). 4 The LOS analysis for Lynden School District accounts for the additional 396 student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6-year capital facilities plan (Lynden School District). 5 The LOS analysis for the Meridian School District accounts for the additional 324 permanent student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6-year capital facilities plan (Meridian School District, 2009), as well as 400 student capacity in the form of portables (personal communication, Timothy Yeomans, Meridian School District, July 20, 2009). Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Table 61 below shows school district LOS capacity in 2029. As can be seen by this analysis, deficits are experienced in the same three school districts by 2029, only the deficits are larger. School districts can address deficiencies through additional capacity projects during the planning 121 November 2009 740 period, by adding temporary classroom spaces (e.g. portable classrooms), or by increasing the number of students accommodated in a classroom (adjusting LOS standards). Table 61. Whatcom County School District 2029 Level of Service Analysis: Student Capacity 1 School District Student/ Household Ratio 2029 School Facility LOS (Students) Bellingham 2 0.263 (2,037) , Blaine3 0.372 ... f"282 'x .\���'' Ferndale a 0.528 407 ?. �. Lynden a 0.466 (550? ,a =, Meridian 6 0.565 240' Mount Baker 0.312.252 .,- Nooksack Valley 0.567 434 1 LOS analysis compares the student capacity of school districts to projected enrollment. Where information is available, it includes portable. facilities. 2 The LOS analysis for Bellingham School District accounts for the additional450:student capacity over; existing inventory that are included in the district's 6-year capital facilities plan (Bellingham School District, 2009). 3 The LOS analysis for Blaine School District accounts for the addition of 180 student.capacity resulting from upgrades to the high school building occurring in the six -year planning period; as well as the addition<of'600 more student capacity arising from a new elementary school planned for late in the 2029 planning period (personal'communication, Jim Kenoyer, Blaine School District, August 5, 2009). 4 The LOS analysis for Ferndale School District accounts for the additional 1,750 student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the 7-20 year period in the district's 2005 Capital Facilities Plan (Ferndale School District, 2005). There are no capacity projects identified in the 6-year planning period. 5 The LOS analysis for Lynden School District accounts for the additional 396 student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6-year capital.facilities plan (Lynden School District). 6 The LOS analysis for the Meridian School District accounts for the additional 324 permanent student capacity over existing inventory that are included in the district's 6-year capital facilities plan (Meridian School District, 2009), as well as 400 student capacity in the fo m.of. portables (personal communication„ Timothy Yeomans, Meridian School District, July 20, 2009). Source: ICF Jones & Stokes Capital Projects and Funding Table 62 below outlines the County school district projects planned in the 2010-2015 and the longer term 2016-2029 timeframes. Several of the capital projects below add to individual school district enrollment capacities and are accommodated in the LOS analysis above. However, detail on the capacity increases available, particularly for the latter part of the planning period, is not available from all school districts at this time. Capital Project Funding School Districts in Washington State fund capital improvements with both State and local dollars. Local capital financing is usually achieved through two primary mechanisms. The first is an excess property tax levy, in which residents of the school district vote to finance a capital bond with an increase in property taxes. In this case, the annual bond cost is spread equally over the life of the bond. Therefore, if property values increase over time the levy rate necessarily declines to generate the same annual revenue. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review .� 741 The second financing tool is a school impact fee, which is designed to recover costs from new development for the facility improvements necessary because of that development. This fee is usually charged to new residential development based on the average students generated per household. Additional comments on the School Districts' Comprehensive Plans are discussed below: ■ Meridian School District - The District relies heavily on issuing bonds and receiving state matches to fund capital projects. As of May 2006, the District total debt is,,$3.6,riullion, and it < U has $28.5 million in additional borrowing capacity. ■ Mt. Baker School District - The District relies almost entirely on voted bonds -to fun,)capital improvements. As of January 2005, the District has $32.5 million in additional"vo edAxdebt borrowing capacity, and $2.1 million in non -voted capacity ■ Lynden School District - The District is relying heavily on voted bonds; and corresponding stake matches to fund its capital facilities. ■ Ferndale School District - The school relies on bonds and state matches to`fund,capital improvements; but would like to implement school, impact fees. ■ Bellingham School District - Although the District fitly relies on secured local` funding, it does sometimes rely on voted bonds to supplement local -funding. Bellingham School District According to the Bellingham School District No. 501 2009-2015 Capital Facilities Plan, new growth over the next six years will create the need to complete one new elementary school. The new elementary school is planned<,on Aldrich Road. This new elementary school is expected to add 450 students to the, district's permanent. capacity. A 2006 Bond measure approved by the district's voters provided. funding for the new. elementary school. An extensive review of existing facilities will be conducted as part of any future bond issue. During that process, the district"will reevaluate enrollment projections and identify additional capacity enhancement projects (Bellingham School District CFP, July 2009). In addition, Bellingham School District staff reviewed preliminary population and student generation information developed during the planning process and estimated that the district would need to serve between 13,189 and 14,925 students by 2029. To accommodate the upper end of this student population range, the district estimated that it would need a total of three new elementary schools in addition to the Aldrich Road elementary noted above; two new middle schools, and two new high schools. The District further estimated that these capital improvements would cost the district $175 million in 2009 dollars (Personal communication, Ron Cowan to Matt Aamot, May 15, 2009). The District plans to rely less heavily on portable classrooms than it currently does. Therefore, the additional schools noted in the long-range planning period are expected to accommodate most of additional student capacity, although estimates of the amount of capacity provided by each facility are not currently available. The District will continue to actively monitor enrollment projections and respond by programming additional projects as needed. 123 November 2009 742 Blaine School District The Blaine School District's December 2007 Study and Survey indicates that the city has plans to purchase a school site in the Birch Bay area that will allow for future expansion of K-12 education facilities beyond the single 38-acre campus that the district owns in Blaine (Kenoyer pers. comm.). The December 2007 Study and Survey also includes projects related to the modernization and expansion of the existing high school (expected to add 23 general classrooms), conversion of primary school playsheds to classrooms, elementary school additions, and gym conversion and modernization for the Middle School. The District eXpeets that improvements to the high school will provide additional capacity of up to 720 students in the six yearplanning period (Kenoyer pers. comm., August 5, 2009). In addition, th6' District also,- as longer4erm plans for the construction of a new elementary school in the latter part of"the District's 2q=year planning horizon (Kenoyer pers. comm., August 5, 2009). The Study and Survey identifies projects and costs in the six year planning period. Ferndale School District The Ferndale School District does not have any capacity projects identified within he>6-year planning period. However, with portable capacity,, the district "expects to accommodate its 2015 student population. The Ferndale School District has plans ;to_construct one elementary and one high school during the 7-20 year planning period. These projects are expected add approximately 1,750 classroom capacity spaces and result in the projected enrollment capacity surplus identified in Table 61. Lynden School District The Lynden School, District has plansldconstruct one middle school during the planning period. This project, which'occurs h, the six -year planning period, will add space for approximately 300 students to the district's enrollment capacity. hi addition, the district's Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan (June 2006) identifies an additional capacity of 60 students resulting from the Fisher Elementary modernization project, and an additional 36 students resulting from the Isom Elementary expansion project. Additional capacity for projects outside the six -year planning period are not identified in the district's adopted Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan. However, the district indicates that construction of a middle school to replace the current middle school, and construction of an additional elementary school that could accommodate up to 400 additional students are projects that the district is considering in the long-term (personal communication, Rick Thompson, Lynden School District. July 30, 2009). The district is not planning to rely on portable classroom capacity except for emergencies or to accommodate unexpected growth. The district did note that current student enrollment projections for the district are lower than shown in this Plan. However, the district will continue to monitor growth trends and respond to changes in projections accordingly. Meridian School District The Meridian School District plans to construct additions to two of its schools during the planning period. The district divides its improvements into Phase 1 (completion in 2-7 years), and Phase 2 (completion in 8 to 25 years). Planned additions in Phase 1 include construction of 12a Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 743 instruction space at Meridian High School, and acquisition of land for a new elementary school. Phase 1 also includes upgrades and modernizations to Meridian High School, Irene Reither Primary School, and Ten Mile Creek. Phase 1 improvements are expected to provide additional capacity for 144 elementary students and 180 additional high school students (Meridian School District No. 505 Capital Facilities Plan 2009-2015, Adopted June 2009, page 7). The District also plans to address additional student capacity needs in the six -year period through acquisition of portables that could accommodate up to 400 additional students (personal. Timothy Yeomans, Meridian School District, July 30, 2009). Phase 2. improvements beyond the six -year planning period include a remodel that includes additional classroom'space: at Meridian Middle School, as well as construction of a new elementary school. Phase 2 also ucludes upgrade and modernization projects. However, the district's 2009_=2015 Capital Facihtzes Ian does not identify the amount of capacity expected to be provided by,these longer term projects The District will continue to actively monitor enrollment projections aiiddrespond by programming additional projects as needed. Mount Baker School District The Mount Baker School District Six -Year Capital Facility Plan (February 2006) indicates that due growth potential over the six -year planning period the district may need to construct an additional elementary school. A 2006 Study and,Survey prepared for the district indicates that the district also plans to construct an addition to one of its,:schools during -the planning period. The district is not projected to have an enrollment deficit. in 2015. However, the capacity projects noted above are expected to achieve the enrollment surplus noted;in Table 61. The district may have longer term capacity projects which it has not yet identified during its current planning cycle. Nooksack Valley School District The Nooksack Valley School District is currently in the process of updating its 1998 Capital Facilities Plan. The district has no,plans for new schools or additional facility capacity at this time. The district has not experienced increases in enrollment capacity in recent years, and the district is currently in process of updating its CFP facilities plan for the first time since 1998. The outcome of the current district planning effort may result in new capital projects which would most likely be improvements to existing facilities in the latter part of the district's 6-year planning period. The Whatcom County 2029 CFP projections will help inform the district's future capital facility planning (Silvan pers. comm.). Table 62. School District Capital Projects Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Aldrich Elementary Cost 10,000 4,300 14,300 125 I November 2009 744 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) Revenue 10,000 4,300 14,300 Bonds Portables Cost 300 300 Revenue 300r 300 Bonds? Impact fees a Future Elementary Property Purchase Cost 1,500« Revenue 1,500 1,500 Bonds f .< High School 30.000 Modernization and Expansion Birch Bay 1,500 Primary/ Elementary School Site Campus Primary/ 4,539 Elementary School Modernization and Expansion' Stadium 3,961 Improvements and Pipeline Fields Restrooms and Fields Addition Elementary #9 — Site Acquisition Cost 1,800 1,800 Revenue 1,800 1,800 Elementary #9 Construction Cost 13,500 13,500 Revenue 13,500 13,500 High School #2 i New Construction Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 745 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 41,500 41,500 Revenue 41,500 41,500 l;, tart 11 E-,, New Middle School Construction t: ` ax (Capacity Costs '�:°• only) s,'9kf172 Cost 9,072 n •'" Revenue 9,072 New Middle School Construction (without new capacity costs) : , -.; . <>>. :...:::>• Cost 23,898 p;> 23,898 Revenue 23,898 23,898 Elementary Classroom additional and related common area improvement at Irene Reither/Ten Miles°:' Creek :. Cost 3,980 3,980 Revenue 3,980 3,980 State match, bonds, mitigation/ impact fees High School Addition Cost 20,000 20,000 Revenue 20,000 20,000 State match, bonds, mitigation/ impact fees Various Portables Cost I 75 75 Revenue 75 75 Bonds, mitigation/ impact fees 127 November 2009 746 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) Expand and modernize Mt. Baker Junior High School — Phase 1 Expand and modernize Mt. Baker Junior High School — Phase 2 No Projects Currently Identified 3 1 The Blaine School District does not have a CFP that identifies project costs and revenues. The district has a State Study and Survey which is described in the narrative above. The State Study and Survey identifies projects;and their posts in summary fashion. For that reason, project dollars are only shown in the:total column. 2 The Mount Baker School District's CFP does not identify project costs arid revenues. The district has a,State Study and Survey which is described in the narrative above. Although the State Study'iand Survey identifies projects it does not identify costs and revenues for all projects. The Mount Baker School Board did not.engage in a formal process of adopting the Study & Survey document, but it is used by the District as a planning guide. For these reasons, projects are shown in this table without costs. 3 The Nooksack School District does not have a CFP... The district has hired someone.to'prepa're a survey of facilities as of July 2009. The district does not have any projects planned, except maintenance, in:the foreseeable future. (Personal communication email from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009.) Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 747 Solid Waste (County) Overview State law (RCW 70.95.010) requires counties to plan an integrated solid waste management system that emphasizes waste reduction and recycling. Management of §alid gste that cannot be recycled or managed alternatively can be incinerated, placed in a Jaridfill or a Combination of the two. Whatcom County Public Works Solid Waste Division is the lead;plamm�g'agency forxso waste management in the County. The Solid Waste Division is respons ble_f .. -several program trews , encompassing waste prevention, economically efficient recycling and :disposal systems, litter control, hazardous waste education and disposal opportunities, the moYiiaTirig;of the county's ;:. closed landfills, and comprehensive planning, as well as providing support fortle Whatcom County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The County prepared a Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan in 2007 which serves as the basis for the solid waste componen4`,9'f the Capital Facilities Plan. Inventory of Current Facilities:. The County's solid waste system is'e combination of private and public entities. The County's hazardous waste disposal facility, Disposal of Toxics, is owned by the County, but operated by a private firm. . The County relies upon privately operated disposal facilities for solid waste disposal service. Because of the absence of any County landfill, privately owned disposal facilities will continue to find it necessary to export waste. These facilities include two transfer stations and five drop-off sites, which are shown in Table 63 below. Certified solid waste haulers in the County are Sanitary Service Company (SSC), Blaine Bay Refuse, and Nooksack Valley Disposal (NVD) (Personal Communication from Penni Lemperes to Matt Aamot, July 28, 2009). There are numerous recycling collection sites located throughout the County. See Table 63 below for a current inventory of solid waste facilities in the County. 129 November 2009 nm Table 63. Solid Waste Facility Inventory Name Owner Operator Location Hazardous Waste Disposal Disposal of Toxics Whatcom County Whatcom County 3505 Airport Drive Transfer Stations Regional Disposal Co Regional Disposal Regional Dispos,al;;;,,;, 1524 Slater Rd, Co Co Ferndale ,;' Msr Recycling &Disposal Svcs. RDS RDS 4916 LaBounty Place, (RDS) Ferndale Solid Waste Drop -Sites Birch Bay Whatcom County Sanitary Service ;°::; ,. 4297 Birch Bay- . (lease to Sanitary Company Lynden Rd, Blaine Service Company) Cedarville Whatcom County Sanitary Service Cedarville Rd off of Mt. (lease to Sanitary Company Baker Highway =' Service Company) Everson Sanitary Service Company (SSC) Sanitary Service Santrary. Service 1001 Roeder Ave., Company Company::;::. Bellingham Nooksack Valley Disposal Nooksack Valley _ Nooksack Valley 250 Birch Bay-Lynden Disposal Disposal Rd, Lynden Point Recycling and Refuse Whatcom County Point Recycling and Off Johnson Road, Pt (PRR) (lease'to Point Refuse Roberts. Recycling and Refuse) Recycling Drop -Off Locations Alrite Recycling Center N/A N/A 1900 Racine Birch'Bay Recycling N/A N/A 4297 Birch Bay- Lynden Rd. Cedarville Recycling N/A N/A Cedarville Road (off Mt. Baker Highway) City Organics N/A N/A Bellingham "Clean Green" Facility N/A N/A North of Lakeway Dr. on Woburn Disposal of Toxics Facility N/A N/A 3505 Airport Drive Green Earth Technology N/A N/A 774 Meadowlark Rd, Lynden Jiffy Lube N/A N/A Multiple locations Jim's Automotive Experts N/A N/A 102 E. Main, Everson Lynden Christian Paper Depot N/A N/A 503 Drayton, Lynden Master Lube N/A N/A 111 E. Maple Nooksack Valley Disposal N/A N/A 250 Birch Bay-Lynden Rd. 130 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 749 Name Owner Operator Location Northwest Recycling N/A N/A 1419 C. Street Northwest Recycling Warehouse N/A N/A . 1515 Kentucky Street Point Recycling and Refuse N/A N/A Off Johnson Rd., Point Roberts Recycling and Disposal Services N/A N/A 4916 LaBounty Place Regional Disposal Co. N/A N/A s F , , 152k$later Road Relectronics N/A N/A 1000 C Street Safe and Easy Recycling N/A N/A n4 2001 Iowa Street, Ste. F. Sanitary Service Company N/A N/A 1001 Roeder Avenue Schuck's Automotive N/A N/A Multiple locations Z Recyclers N/A N/A 6129,Guide Meridian N/A = not available Sources: Whatcom County Solid Waste Plan (2007), Internet review of Whatcom County Public Works"Solid Waste"Division website information on location of disposal and recycling sites (accessed February la, 2009), and personal co nmunication from Penni Lemperes to Matt Aamot, July 28, 2009 and August 12, 2009->i. The entire County is served by private waste collection services. In unincorporated areas, solid waste service is provided to residents on a mandatory basis by four private, companies operating`' under certificates issued by the Washington Utilities and.Transportaiion'Commission (WUTC). Level of Service Capacity Analysis The existing LOS for municipal "solid waste is calculated based upon future solid waste generation rates derived from a table found in the 2007 Whatcom County Solid Waste Management Plan (Waste Disposal Projections, Whatcom County, 2007, page 23). Table 64 uses the same rates of waste disposal projections found in the 2007 Whatcom County Solid Waste Management Plan to project future waste disposal rates to 2015 and 2029 under updated population projections developed for those horizon years. Table 64. Solid Waste LOS Analysis Year Population Solid Waste Generation Rate Solid Waste Production (tons solid waste per capita per year) (tonslyear) 2008 191,000 0.77 147,070 2015 207,402 0.77 159,699 2029 244,892 0.77 188,567 Source: ICF Jones & Stokes The County uses waste generation forecasting as a vital element of solid waste management planning. The County uses this data to help address waste prevention, recycling and special waste issues. The County updates its waste generation models periodically and uses them in conjunction with program and facility planning and evaluation. 131 November 2009 750 Capital Projects and Funding Capital Project Funding As noted above, solid waste collection throughout the County is mostly provided by privately owned and operated companies, except for the County's hazardous waste disposal facility. Municipalities and private firms have financed their programs through user revenues paid to the County, which are directed to a dedicated Solid Waste Fund, used to, func� eaprtal projects. This fund is also eligible to apply for state grand funds to assist solid waste financing\ Capital Projects Currently, the Solid Waste Division has no capital projects Lemperes to Matt Aamot, July 28, 2009). t: ai Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 751 Stormwater (County) Overview Storm drainage facilities within unincorporated Whatcom County include a diverse combination of natural and constructed conveyance systems and quantity and quality control facilities. Ownership, maintenance responsibility, and stewardship of drainageacilties take,,lace through a variety of means. In 1999, the Whatcom County Comprehensive Water Resources, Plan was, developed in:response to the County's new and expanding obligations around water issues,: including stormwater. Developed by the County water team with input from the local community, the plan is the centerpiece of efforts to create an effective framework for coordinating the county's wide-ranging work in protecting water resources, including addressing stormwater. In response to increasing federal and state mandates to Iocalgovernments to manage stormwater and to the County's desire to improve its own stewardship of _sensitive watersheds, the County established a Stormwater Division within the Public Works. Department in,2005. The Stormwater Division is responsible for the design, engineering, and construction of County -owned stormwater facilities, the vast majority of which are road -related stormwater conveyance systems (culverts and ditches, etc.). Inventory of Current Facilities Stormwater. facilities include the natural and constructed stormwater conveyance systems (i.e., stormwater pipe, ditches, catch basins, and other structures), rate control facilities, and runoff quality enhancement facilities: Topography and flows govern the nature and function of the County's drainage infrastructure without consideration of property ownership, land use, or political boundaries. Conveyance systems include natural and constructed open channels, pipe systems and culverts. These systems may be located on private property or within County right-of-way. The division of ownership, function, and location determines the entity responsible for facilities maintenance. Rate control facilities include retention and detention ponds, tanks, and vaults. The common purpose of these facilities is to reduce the rate of stormwater flow from a specific site or area to reduce the potential for localized flooding, or downstream erosion problems. These facilities are designed to hold a volume of run-off based on the amount of impervious area and a particular storm event. These facilities may be located on public or private property depending upon the area being served. Runoff quality enhancement includes such facilities as water quality ponds and bio-filtration swales. The purpose of these facilities is to remove a certain type and/or amount of pollutant from the runoff before it is discharged into a water body or collection system or dispersed over 133 November 2009 752 the ground for infiltration. These facilities may be located on public or private property depending upon the area being served. The County has completed an inventory map of the County drainage system. The County will update and maintain a detailed inventory of stormwater facilities in compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) Phase H Stormwater Management Program. A summary of the current stormwater facility inventory is included in Table 65 below. Table 65. Inventory of Public Stormwater Facilities -- Type of System Cross Culverts Driveway Culverts Other Culverts Outfalls Yard Drain Total Facilities Source: Whatcom County Stormwater Division data (2009). Quantity (number of u 22 1;5,568 Level of Service Capacity Analysis Although the County does not have.a formal and explicit capital facility LOS standard for stormwater facilities, the County has adopted a stormwater compliance program in accordance with the NPDES Phase II. This program applies to the following areas of the County: areas that are currently designated :as UGAs, or urbanized areas in or near the cities of Bellingham and Ferndale.: Urbanized areas are. defined as areas with a population of more than 1,000 people. The specific watershed subbasins that are part of the NPDES Phase II program include: ■ Chuckanut Bay ■ Chuckanut/Padden Watershed ■ Lake Whatcom ■ Hillsdale/Emerald Lake ■ North Bellingham/King Mountain ■ Northwest Bellingham/Airport ■ Silver Creek and Barrett Lake Watershed Urbanized Area ■ Ferndale East and West UGA Goals of the program include detection and elimination of illicit discharges to surface waters, controlling runoff from new development, redevelopment, and new construction, pollution prevention and operation and maintenance for municipal operations, public education, stormwater monitoring and report requirements. � 134 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 753 Capital Projects and Funding The County has placed an increasing emphasis on the protection of sensitive watersheds. This has resulted in the adoption of a comprehensive stormwater plan for Lake Whatcom, as well as the request from the Lake Samish community for county assistance in the preparation of a stormwater plan for that watershed. In addition, the Birch Bay community has developed a stormwater plan which will be implemented primarily with funds from the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management subzone of the Flood Control Zo'heistDt. 4 Capital Project Funding Stormwater facilities are generally funded through the creation=d a stormwater utility/management fee based on the total impervious surface of an owned property. If such a fee, is not imposed then these services may be funded with miscellaneous capital dollars, such as Real; Estate Excise Tax revenues. Capital Projects Whatcom County has identified the following capital.projectsfor stormwater (Table 66). Most existing projects that have been identified are found in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Whatcom County expects to identify new capital projects as the Stormwater Division completes additional, stormwater plans. 135 November 2009 754 Table 66. Whatcom County Stormwater Projects Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Silver Beach Creek Stream stabilization Cost 50 50 Revenue 50 = .: 50 REET II, grants , Silver Beach Creek main channel velocity reductions = Cost 150 150 Revenue 150 150 REET II, grants Silver Beach Creek upper channel velocity and volume Cost 230 230 Revenue 230 230 REET II, grants Hillsdale subbasin drainage retrofits Cost 21:0 ' 210 Revenue 210 210 REET II, grants, FCZD interlocal Velocity reductions, Toad Lake at Academy Road Cost 200 200 Revenue 200 200 REET II, fees, grants Silver Beach Creek i Culvert Replacement Cost 260 260 Revenue 260 260 REET II, fees, grants Total 640 460 :. 1,100 Source: Whatcom County Six Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2009-2014 136 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 755 Transportation (Countywide) Overview Whatcom County's transportation network is principally made up of County roads as well as state highways, such as I-5 and SR-9, which provide intercity and interstate connections. In addition to the roadway network, Whatcom County also operates a daily ferry service, between Go"oseberry Point and Lummi Island. Inventory of Current Facilities The 2009 inventory of transportation facilities shows a total of 951 miles of County roads;' (approximately 362 miles are classified as an arterial or collector roadways). Additionally, there are approximately 217 miles of state highways in Whatcom County. State.highways include I-5, SR-9, SR-542, SR-548, SR-539, SR-544, SR-546, SR-547, SR-11, and SR=543�' "all of which serve vital transportation network connections. The table m below summarizes the existing miles of countywide arterial roadways by County functional classification. Table 67. Inventory of County Roadways by Functional Classification Functional Classification Total Milesof Roadway (centerline miles)> "Percent of Total Rural Major Collector 155 16% Rural Minor Collector 164 17% Urban Principal Arterial 0.3 0% Urban Minor Arterial 27 3% Urban Collector Arterial 16 2% Other Road Classifications 589 62% Subtotal 951.3 100% State Routes 217.2 19% County Roads 951.3 81 % Total 1,168.5 100% Source: Whatcom County Public Works GIS roads data layer, (2008); and email correspondence with Elizabeth Sjostrom of WSDOT for state routes (February 20, 2009). In addition to the roadway network discussed above, the County owns one ferry vessel which it uses to provide its Lummi Island ferry service. Level of Service Capacity Analysis County LOS Standards Whatcom County establishes a LOS standard for transportation facilities in Chapter 6 of its Comprehensive Plan. 137 November 2009 756 Whatcom County's existing transportation LOS standards are as follows: Policy 6A-3 Establish the following levels of service (LOS) for purposes of maintaining transportation concurrency: ■ A volume -to -capacity ratio less than 0.75 during weekday p.m. peak hours for county arterials and collectors located outside of urban growth areas, except for specified primary routes as shown on Map 14A (of Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan), which shall have a volume -to -capacity ratio less than or equal to 0.90 (LOS D). ■ A volume -to -capacity ratio less than or equal to 0.90 (LOS D Si better) dingveekday p.m. peak hours for county arterials and collectors within urban growth areas riotassciated with cities, which may be reduced for concurrency evaluation puroses in accordant,, vt�ith.Policy 6A-4. ■ A volume -to -capacity ratio less than or equal to 0.9 during weekday p.m. peak hours (equivalent to LOS D for county arterials and collectors growth areas which may be reduced for concurrency evaluation purposes in accordance with Policy 6A-4. ■ Coordinate with Whatcom Transit Authority to ensure, adequate transit service in,urban areas.. _ ■ 513 ferry passenger trips annually per capita Lummi Islandpopulation. Policy 6A-4 For proposed developments in designated urban growth areas, increase the volume -to -capacity ratio standard for impacted ti*nsportatibn facilities by 0.05 if at least one of the following amenities is existing or is con.iinitted`to being provided as part of the development: ■ Transit service and stops within_onequarter mile walking. distance accessible from the development using non -motorized facilities that meet orare,functionally equivalent to Whatcom County Road Standards. ■ Non -motorized facilities that meet or are -functionally equivalent to Whatcom County Road Standards along the .impacted facility. LO'S Analysis The Transportation LOS analysis is taken from an analysis prepared for the 10-Year UGA Review Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). Details on the travel demand forecast methodology can be found in Chapter 3.9 of that document. Model of Future Traffic Conditions Using the Whatcom Council of Governments regional model, the projected population and employment growth was used to estimate the number of trips that will be generated in 20296. These trips are then distributed among transportation analysis zones and assigned to the street network. The result is a model of projected future traffic conditions under each future land use scenario. 6 The analysis in the EIS was based on population and employment growth by the years 2029-2031. The EIS does not discern any difference in the probable impacts or mitigation measures whether that population is reached in 2029, 2031, or any other year about that time. The EIS results were reported for the upper range of 2031, but are found applicable to the year 2029 as reported in this CFP. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 757 The future transportation network also reflects future improvement projects for which funding has been committed. For the future analysis reflected in the Final EIS, improvement to four lanes was assumed on the following state highways: ■ SR 539 (Guide Meridian) from Horton Road to Bay Lyn Drive ■ SR 542 (Sunset Drive) from Woburn Street to McLeod Road LOS Analysis of Future Traffic Conditions After the future 2029 traffic volume on each analysis road segment was projected, t was divided by the road's capacity to calculate the volume to capacity (W)""ratio. For any segments on which projected V/C would exceed the adopted LOS standard for that road a potential adverse impact was identified, and mitigation identified that would lower V/C to a level4ithin adopted standards., Results of this analysis were compared to analysis completed for the County 's-impact fee calculation project (Transpo Group 2008). Potential differences in results can be.explained by differences in some baseline assumptions. Namely, the;analysis completed for the 10;=Year UGA Review reflects 2029 conditions, while the impact fee analysis''was completed for.2027 conditions. In addition, the analysis presented for the 10-Year UGA Review reflects adjustments that were made to land use assumptions, based upon updated information that indicated a higher level of growth was occurring in rural areas than was previously assumed. For these reasons, the 10-Year UGA Review analysis could potentially identify, deficiencies in addition to those identified for the impact fee analysis. LOS Impacts on, County Roads This section describes impacts to County Roads. It is meant to provide an order of magnitude analysis of the regional growth alternatives studied in the EIS; the final County Council action was 'in the range of the analysis. The analysis focuses on the County's adopted LOS standard for roadway segments. The analysis supplements previous County transportation analyses by providing a cumulative traffic analysis for a new horizon year of 2029 testing new growth alternatives. Recent subarea planning processes have produced more local transportation analyses at a finer level of detail, including intersection analyses: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Foothills Subarea Plan. December 19, 2008. Prepared by Whatcom County Planning and Development Services (transportation analyses by Transpo Group, Inc.). Birch Bay Transportation Planning Study. January 2009. Prepared by Transpo Group, Inc. for Whatcom County (adopted as Birch Bay Community Plan, Appendix A under Ordinance 2009-036). As population and employment are projected to increase under all of the studied alternatives, the resulting increase in traffic is expected to degrade the LOS on the transportation system under all alternatives. Table 68 summarizes the county roads with projected 2029 V/C ratios that exceed 39 November 2009 758 LOS standards, under one or more alternatives. Table 69 summarizes the total projected lane - miles expected to be deficient under each of the alternatives. 140 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 759 m N O N d CD W Cl) C d .0 t .y r? ZS b OD to _(D M ca U c C .0 N J O .+ y W O N CD m c O R 0 O _1 m E (a z 'D R O N T � C Q •-- O O O O CQ r- r- � O O (M 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O LO 0 O) 0) N N V) V) LO tf) O (O O 00 (O P- ?� V) 0) 0)O O O O O O O O) O O O O O o 0)v v o (o O co (o O O O 0 O M 0~0 - 000, -- 0c0 O 0) O O 0) 0) O "i O O O orn -., LO ti LO LO ti -' -'ua - ti LO ti LO ti rn rn rn 0) 0)O O O O O O 11- O - O O f- to O 't O. ' O O O O O (V O O O 00 D O O.-- N - O O c- O O 0)- - O O CO (O ti 0 O 0) O 0 O O- '.O O O. O O O M O ti O O c-. -i M (O (O N M 4 (p '.7 �t O O O O O CO Fl- 00 O '.7 O O O O O O O -. r- _ O 0) O m O O O - 4 0 0 c N oM 4 � LLI c a -a m co FD 0 1 m 0 a) � 0 U) T 0 E W Co -0 'a N a) .� N O LO -O Jo a) () O 0 Y L_ -( N m _ co J O N N W U) N E Q O c S o > W -D -D U O W W > - a) > (n (n m Y -p N 0 0 -D N Y v N N@ �nOf Ync _9 _U W 2x U m> W Q L L L L L L O O O O O a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m c 0) 0) 0) 0) O o O O o O o aD 9 a) 0 N 'O 'O 'D 'O 'O C C C C C a) m > O > O > O > O > O > O a) a) a) m a) J U WW ww WW wx w0� WQ� _ = 2 = 2 o) N � N N 0 � (D (D CD co (0 m 0 0 N N E O Z 760 d� > d +' E c O to O> 00 0)O CT 'IT (fl to CT 'IT 0')0)Ch 0') I- CA 0 M 0) 0 N ' 6 X O c; r r r O O O O O r O T W W co 60i o I- LO a) 0) 00 00 a) O Q, o o r r r o 0 0 0 o r .V i Y O O N a Z C) ` a� a c 0 0 0) E (v ZQ 0d- U U � � (a (a Cl) v cm N J C O r.+ y O W Q N O) N In c O ca 0 O J -=:"t 00 Cl) I- m m O O N CO b O O I� (D O 0 0, r r r O O O O O r It r0 00 0 0 r- coO O 00 00 a) f rn rn o � rn r- r- CC) rn- rn o O O O o O O C7 p r rn rn m rn m rn m rn rn 0 0 0' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N (0 O O .to O O U? O - N C'7 'zt 7 _ O N O M N r O O O O O -O O O O Co I� O Cn N co co to V C) co r— O O r O CO CM O O O N CM h- 00 r r O O O O r r CO Cl) Cl) C6 to I— CD O N O - co LO �t co co r— O (D 00 O O 't O O- O ce) O co O O _ O CM N 'C,; :-- CM CM It c-; N 0 ` LO > "U' '0 J '6 D) itj M * c a) -0 !n r V a)U m c 0 Q' 4) R5 D)tw '6 y N LO d N t U) '6 U -6 'O m D7 C O 0 m N N U C a) Z D7 L Co �� LO �' U RS M N C Z n n u) (6 `O O O_ .E CU ra3 Q )m m� -0 YO o c`a�@ ro q�mU' a N U-) arc _� c O c � al-0 am �' U N N 2n rn JQ Jit i- (n"0 m mQ mll llZ mN m0 O�tO mOm N� 'D 'D 'D m m (4 N N I�- Ob 0) CM 't co O O cM It to O (O (D CO �t �t 00 00 C) C) b 0') 0') m r r T N N N N N N N N N N 761 N � > N N 7 E C V E O x 0 cc w y w M co LO LO O 6) O O 00 00 OR M O O O O O ._0.. p ,' co co O 0) Cl M 0) CO w ._.: O p %� N O O co O) r- I- N V rn rn OR o cn o O o 0 0 0 Y O C cy) co CO 0 M a O o _ 0 00 o 0 O c c- O '�0—+—,, E R O 0)• ;,', OMO OMO Cl? .ZQ 7UO.. 000` 0 O •,'0 ;�. O O V m O) O) °) O) LO LO LO 0)j o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c C t _ N N - O K CV .N� O 00 00 (O O I- (O � J O O O d O O Q m (O 00 co O (O- --,- O m M O CV 6" ., lq O. - LO 0) > 01 f0 O -p 0 co U) Co a�O00 cv U0 J- o Z o N t O -6 o M O _ cnm -t O > E Cm W Y 0 —OU LOZ-O O N0 Q� m� N.? O S N >' 0 t0,1 w> N> M N (D to O O .p N O >cu 4) J L0 _ m E� OJ (n J L.LZ (ri�� J > > > j m 0 6 6 -a -a 70 > Z0` cn t6 w O O O Q C L L L U N N N E2 Z Z Z cn in in H Z _y .y 7n (O r- co O M d' O t0 — C N CN'7 M CNM V d Q V 0 0 N a E a O Z 762 Table 69 Projected Roadway Segment Deficiencies by 2029 No Action Current No Comp. Action Action Action Executive Plan Trends Alt. X Alt. Y Recommendations Total Deficient Lane -Miles 45.3 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4 Percent of Deficient Lane- 6.2% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% ; 6.8% Miles' .. "= •- ' Percentage of total of modeled lane -miles of County road (727.9 miles). Capital Projects and Funding Fe„£ Table 70 identifies the County's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. Table 71 identifies the roadways locations that have been identified for improvement between 2016 and 2029. Some projects were identified in the Final EIS in order to meet adopted County . roadway segment LOS standards; all action alternatives' n the Final EIS were found to require the same improvements. Planning -level costs for recommended projects are also summarized in Table 71. Table 71 also identifies the recommended improvements that are identi"fied under the County's current impact fee calculation project (Transpo Group 2008). The projected impacts and identified improvements on Hannegan.Road and Slater Road as part of the 10-Year UGA Review are consistent with the projections completed for the County impact fee analysis. These are in addition to those identified as part of the. lO=Year UGA Review. The analysis completed for this 10-Year UGA Review reflects 2029 conditions, whiletthe impact fee analysis was completed for 2027 conditions. In addition,. the analysis presented for the 10-Year UGA Review reflects adjustments that were made to, land use assumptions, based upon updated information that indicated a higher level of growth was occurring in rural areas than was previously assumed. For these reasons, a longer planning horizon and an update of land use, this 10-Year UGA Review analysis has identified impacts and mitigation on four additional roads, as compared to the impact fee analysis. The 2027 impact fee analysis (Transpo 2008) lists additional transportation projects that are based on more localized and refined analyses including the County's current Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), subarea plan studies, etc. The impact fee study is hereby incorporated by reference: ■ The Transpo Group, Inc. May 2008. Whatcom County Transportation Impact Fee Program Study Report (Draft). Prepared for Whatcom County. The WCOG is presently in the midst of a Whatcom Transportation Plan Update scheduled for completion by June 30, 2012. The Plan update will include development of a new countywide travel demand forecasting model, which is scheduled for completion in early 2010. In addition, it Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 144 763 is possible that as part of the update process, a coordinated functional classification and LOS measurement system will be developed between Whatcom County and cities. Due to the results of Whatcom County's 10-Year UGA Review, including selection of a regional growth alternative, together with the pending WCOG countywide model update in 2010, it is expected that Whatcom County will review its Transportation Element, TIP, and make Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element amendments as needed in its next Comprehensive Plan Update scheduled for completion in 2011. 74� November 2009 QOV 74� November 2009 QOV t✓ K iz 0 N N• � � N• � N• � N• � � ta ta tq � ta N `.�, °• O O O C) C) O C) C) O O O O O In O .;1 Ef3 Ef3 61) Eli EA E,H Ef3 61i Ef3 tf3 61) 60, tf3 64 tf3 M N C) 0 O O O O O O Cl O Cl Cl Cl O Cl 61) 64 61) Eli 64 64 Efl Efl 61) Ef! 61) 61) 61) 64 61) ;> A O N,, O :F ....• .'C) O O O O C:) C-)f� O O O O O Ef3 Ef?g;., ;.' Ef3 fA Efi GH EA EA EA Ki Ef3 fA Ef3 GH Ef3 cc .0. 1;O N O C)O O'+ �� -� � C) CD C) N C) C)O O Cl)C 61) 6j. EA tfi E13=.. 69 EA to EA 64 61) EA EA 69 EA !H p - Lf) - �Lb O �- O O N � N "C7 L, V P-- N V 00 LO O LO 61) Ei) Ei? 69 td! Efi EA Ef! EA Efl EA EA EA 64 -ERLo 0 N O '0 N O C)) W -O LL. O O _ O LO C) O 0)f�- O O Cl N Ef3 � EA � Ef! EA EA Ef3 Eli :. - •Ef)- G9 C)C)O EA 61) EA EA 61) Lo NO Lf) L O C) V O - - LO C)O C) 0) C) LOO C)O C) C)O C)N Cl) N Cl) LO _O 0)- L` - .ti. r CO LO � EA Eli 61) to E13 (1i tfl- to E1) 6%, EA EA EA Eli EA G- C)O O O N 0) ~ IX 0 U ? �+ ca a) C O -le C LL Y N a) @ m C C O V N O O U Y ppC •0 [� N @ C Z *k Y p a_ V c0 N U m Z to C Y m O O C U O 67 C L (0 LL O c0 C 0) O fn a) O — -o U CD Y O Z Z 'a) m p co a o � J o t �' 0 m 0) a) m aa)) � No ca T C ?, O :O U O E - O O M �S c> m Q.O C a) Q 0 � � ` � a) Q � •iC Q U N - (0 '0 v p SJC x V CO � J CD � � m U U m 2 Fo U M 0- *k 2 0- } C) N O Ln El _ r Nco # AIPOIad dll T!:;:. co 'ITLO CO� c0 6) NcM r r 'I r LO c- 765 LO 0 N b04 6-> b04 b04 b04 b04 64 64 64 b04 b04 b04 b04 b04 b04 O O O N -.;0 O O O O O O O O O N M to M O O O 64 b4 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 69 69 69 M N � CD CD C3 C� b04 b04 =. ) b04 b04 b09 b09 b04 b04 b04 b04 N -N CD CD, # O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD V! 69 64 �: fA b4 �b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 EA b4 b4 b4 b4 N fll.._:. N L ' O G..: N O ,,,,, CD co to CD N O b4 b4 CD fA. CD -fA CD Efl -_ CDCD -b4. b4 to b4 (to b4 fA CD b4 CDLO b4 b4 b4 fA, V! O "8 V N C J-_ LL O CD CD 0- -O- -0.' CD N CD tq 00 N 0 N to 69 69 to 69 to 69 to 69 to EA U( e9 to b4 V) V> M ' EA co V9 co 64 to 64 0 64 co 64 LO O N FO— O 0 „ O O 0 00 to O O N tLO EA 69 to 69 to 69 to 69 to 69 to EA to 69 LO EA m 69 - M -. -69 - - M H9 � e4 LO V9 N e9 O V Z O 0 rn O rn rn > m m U O E rn O O O 5 N U U U U @ Q cu Z CT _0 a o o U) a r U) m _ J rn U- 0 N •O C - Na) 2i p O > 7 (If of G0 NO �O U-O L O O OOf NO d�cu d r r a>i O L oLO o o rn rn r O- p (6 Q (6 U (6 O (06 N N O N '6 O 'c 0 7 p (06 Z (n J (n m 2 �t J Z *k Q m U)m Z U (n 0 LO N O 0 } — to N U (n U U U U U) W i # AI!Ja!Jd dll co rl- 00 rn 0 N N N N co N v N LO N (o N rl- N co N 0) N 0 co 766 C) Olt N0 0 0 0 0 - m m m LO m 0 NN 'ITV r EAEAEA 60'> 603� 611> 611> 611> 611> U3, U3, 60`i 609 60-> 69 69 69 69 Opp C C> m m co C, LO m C) CN Nt It � m 64 6 69 6Ft &3� U )� U )� U )� 6 '.) 6r>696969669 69 U> 6 6 69 6 VA C) C) 0 0 C) 0 0O =1 69 0 69 C> 69 0 U3, C) 69 C) Lo N Lo N Lo NCN Ky C) C) m 0 U> LO - 0 CN 0 N o o U> 61Y 6ey 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 V)- LO CM C) LO C) CD CD C) 0 0 0 LO (n 69 6A '6'- ro 69 C) 69 C) 6) CN 69 C) 69 C) 69 CN 69 m 6A C) U)- C) 69 LO 6' LO 69. N 69 CN 69 V). �"I.c -4 0 C) C) LO C) C) C) 0 C) co co r 0. .69> 0 .60> C) 6t 69' CN 69 C) 6�t C) 6t N 6t Co 6t a 601 0 W, Lo 60> 0 6% C14 69# N 6�t v V)� p C14 0 C) C) CM LA C=) N0 ce) LO 0 LO LO C) C) 0 0 C) CM LO 69 ce) 69 co 69 LO 6 - 6-t - 6) CN 6) 0 6), 0 6- N 6-t 'IT Ui LO Ui C) UA LO Qi 0 69 C14 69 04 6c# - V), Ln w C> a N o r- CD C) _j = LL. C) m C) C) C) C, (D CD LO 0 LO CD w C�' C)-LO C) C) LO U') co C) 00 Go C-i C> C14 - co C) CO - U') -7 OD OD - LO V r- (D - - - U), 6c# 6c# 6t 6t 69 69 W W W '69- 64 64i 6> 69 69 6F. 69 Ln id CV C) C) CD C14 1-- 0 C) C) lfll 0 0. C) C) C'! C) C) C> 0 0 CD Cl) LOm C) LO 00 C) CO C) LO U.) CO 'LO OD OD C> LO LO ;r LO 1- LO CO CO co W� CM C4 V> 6FP ffi 6cp ffi vi ffi 6f> 69 609 609 69 ffi to o. CD C) LO C) LO (0 C) C) C) m 0) ca 0) ca (DCO 6) _0 E a) Q) >io W E a) ta > 0 2 _ a) 76 E cu E (U 0) 0 - CL CL 0 L) 2_1 U) a) > o co E 2 C. ca 0 '(7) -0 co C). 2 a) E a- Z 0 o) > o > < 0 E2 (1) Z) C E 93- (o 'a co L) 0 >1 co 2 > C: �r) N C -r- (1) 0) m 0) c 0 0 -j b) E LL L m Q. 0 E (b _0 C� Z) () 0 (1) n 0 0 5 0 i;-; C) z 0 (1) > m n- 2 0 o F- �o -0 - 0 2 (0 > co E 6 2 CL ( * 0 0 o) 0 0 w 0 w LL LOL 3 LOL 3 w 65 i2 zS 6 &5 Z.9 Lf- w z # 4JOPd d1l 'IT C; NCO ce) Cf) co LO co CO co [I- co CO m M m C) 'T V N V M 'IT V LO � Co IT r- 'IT ;3j 0 Z 0 .r- U) 0 U) co U) CL co O 04 fA m E oL CL c6 (D (0 (D .r- 0 (D :2 0 p co (D CL CL co 0 TMcn 767 O aD mQ N C N (D L •C U F--• m U) Q c o Li n EN �o � NO N c E 0 m C � w O a` U +� O N T E 02 U n E o N p 2 m -0 (D O w n Q) C C (> @ T @ U a) w 0) U) Q� � C m O Q) U �c E O 0 L O J N C m O "O N m Q N E R Z V N �O a o _C R 0 "E avi `m a o } Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O CT O O O 0 0f w o 0 0 M � w � N aT f-13� L O (D C C O U C m O fl- En (n> m U C O D cn 0 m .� 0 N i C cO C Cl) m 'cm -ON C N U Op p cn-0 c 3 C)N E v� c U O O U -0 c " U O-•G O O � 0 m 0 C-OV0� o C L( -0O E m -0 O C p m �� O cn m C m @ mO C1U c (a a).-.m c�U�o c m i:-SE"", '. m C O C m N '0 Q) to •X O m E O R�1t Cl) -0 � E N U N C C _ a)7 m C m U ._ O p= U m N- Cl) C ` 'O om -p d p (Ca C Q)L O— p U 3 �Cm ��� U�m W MEOW m` O O m -p Cn O c m � •. E m _c @ < 0 L m Cl) O N m O O m .0 00 y .E 0 N C(6 @ C d m Z)= m U ,Lo - m 0 m O Q' IM 0 1 CM 7 _7 C U C U O @ O @ U) to + c- c-0 E m E m O c O c m _m 0E C E C c Ln C m i C m C p 0 c o C in -0 m 0 - m C C 7 C U o"F U o.Fn V) 0) E E Cl) i 0 >cum 0 2i _m > p -o O C m LO 0 0 `O ° U 0 Q' U C m Q' (n 'D O L11 m C 00 O J J U m C a� J E m c 3 f0 CD m CD O d c > f6CO.O CD > U ` U 2 V Q Co O � U M m m m m 5 E a� m� C7� X X X N C? OD Lo U) rn 0 N m a E 0 0 z O O O o O O O O O o O o O 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 O 0 Ci 0 O 00 CM 00 co M 1- O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O r W O O O O LO V O LO O O 69 CM 69 (A 69 CM 64 00 69 00 69 LO W. 69 V 69 N E9 3 CM 69 r m U @ f6 � 0) c U 0 37 U :3 0) 2 U 'O U 'd C C _0 'O �0 -0 @ C. CU E 0) 'O c 'O c a) 'O 0) C @ @ -O_p @ U O N U 4) E 0) O — C (U6 p N U(D U U N� c p p UO U Co -O U C O E 0) O E Ea) ,(6 0 Co c - O O N E(D U ,O -00 UNU @ a @ O O -0 O C N Ep(p O O c: O > O U Uc O_ W CN� CE E (D p E Op o o C U cu .N O .N N C: CU CD@ (6 O 0) c C :(6 0) C 'tn 'a @ @ U) 'O @ a) C: 0 '0 @ O .� O .� O .� O O iC to N 'O t/7 (c6 to m c"JJ C6 m E LC6 0 (—Co /.:'.� C � :_ ,.., 0 O O O O N (c6 (C6 (0 r? N C Co 0 O c coO.±Sc 7 •@ `7 U O U p C U p 7 C .X O C V O CV +@-' U C ` c O C C C U— i T p -.. @ U LA C. i x T S"': @ E ''.. .. U— i T p @ U U :- `' D1 y C .�. D1 U C p N -O U C `� C N O U 7 0 t/J .O. .O. -d ..0 LLL i 3 U 'UO 7 i U O N - . ,) co c a) O �aO D- O �@�NO _0 _0 N 'o CU m �. b N -N U U N C N w 00- O O O_ 02 O Q v- -�=Q -p �5 Q-6 E �'�...."� fY .S C)C)Q in Q C)U' C N U U E m E U .E -O c T > C OU:.� ;C @ @ -O ¢. (U6 a 'D i O ,C (n E E 0) O U O O O En0) m co io U @ -j Z rn E c @ C _T (n O (E6 U N % 0 C) L -O T n N C -O C '0 �o @@ in U N U _ O O � -� '- c C C (o T co N @ 0) . N 0) N 0) N m N a Y N N C OU p o � O Ep > �°�) O N m O N (6 (6 (6 Z � �' @ (n Of (If c a) O 0) T ca N a) N > J J ?j �' U@ m C C C O `p N N N LO E N N _m L @ @ f6 @ E @ _lz@ @ r @ @ (6 E_ J J Jit U m x x x x LO CM (O il W O O V O O r N � (n (n (n C) C) C) C)_ w w w � � � � � � w � 769 r m 0 a E J V Am. a c O ca 0 O .J m E R z m 'O a` �1 0 0 00 C C C 0 C C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 000 N N O C C 0 0 _ _ M N N N N M fR FR fR fR fR fR EA fR fR fR _0 co C _0 •° _O ` -a) -O C a) O U 7 Co (6 N .0 N (b N N co (`CO y 'O m �3 -� -a— ro`o so �o �m co co a�� o° o° 33 3 -° O."L 0' N U !n p !n !n c C C O O C N fo (co •U •0) N n3 O co O p t co . c N� r co co ° O= O O O °° Z5, .� D_ E U c c E '� O .� O .co N c U c N >, C o `� n3 '� U U O N m — (m c N c O N v� 0 i U >O E L ` L c ` u1 3 m rn "' C +-' c6 COc6 cu cu (0 -0 co -O .O 'U Co O> O N a) cn O U n3 ".0 O U CU 'fj m N .0 •° C U .r N •° O O._ -,;,-O c O O C ` D_ O O_ — .— ` O a 3 a) c a) > 0) a) . o w e y E w a) co >� 2) rj aa)) _0 co':: O Il .; O •° O -O O 'p O O _° N O •� :- O O O co p 7 0 7 C D_ a).. d C a 7 D_ C .0..3 U O> O_ a) d a) U o� Ecu E� Ec E�;E'c �c� �.c0 E� Ecco �c co O c n O -°. E E-51, co ns J co_ O L O � J.. co p, p m a) n3 O 0 U co C C O N 'p O � . .O 0' 2 0 C °.. p O N a) co Co . c o m �� c c � a .. > O o ° U) m m O ° m° m aa)) aa) a ) `o � co c m Q' m_ Q Q 'O -O co co Q) > > 0 0 a) m 0 m m m 0 -2 -2 L L O m (0 _ _ m m co O a N 0? Z> :2 2E C fn O co O O r J co co U') LO L Of U) V) co 0 0 co m o p C - C — X co co M L9 O � O O C O 0 O co fR w a) 3 -6 C O a) 2 U c co L � C Q o= C •V � Co N O •O 0 a) N f�6 0 0 c O U aa) c0 c G� c co } O E CU E co s rn c a� m d' N 0 CO L O z 770 r d 0 L a o o 00 C) O o 1 0 1 C 0 0 o C) o m O o O O o o C) C) o O o C) 0 C) C) w O p O N O 00 O O 1� Lu U � es ea r <s3 o m -O C' o N p N p N p N a) N Q N_ o -0 •� C -p _0 N L C U U a) = c0 3 U (a 5 m L 3 C co uJ O 0 u1 O '0 0 U O '0 0 U O -0 0 U O -2 Q N O 'Q —O U -O o Nsmc- � �E -Q caE -0 mE -v mE -p NE mE c u) a)"�i;40:. N">< //U Q N Q LU U) C C C C C C C C C C v C C C a3 m O ;`;"O%'cp :� LO M> .Q tf .� a) O C co O C co o C w o C m O y C yco O N C N .N C ns "C O n3 .0 O O O O B ,0O -0-0 :E U) ' O O EU) c N O cu U u) U U W U V) U cA U U) m O d:Oi' E '0 '0 '0 '0 'O 'D C U ,'� O O C U p a) O U O U p U p U p U p c,) a3 a) N a) y N'�C U-0 C O C .N c0 7 O 7 O 7 O O Q O O C co (6 0 U — O O U _ C, __ O O (0 c6 c6 7 c6 7 cL6 L N t 7 N (p O O a) 'p .- a) O J U a) `� 7 , ` 'O ` 'p 'O 'p �7 '' 'Q L TJ 7 E C O v, E 5 O- ,�-. O a) > O a) > O a) > O a) > O d > O N > O c a) �> cn o > cn o` o�. 0o"was c a Via) a 0Co a coI a tea) a Uas a to c 0 (C v� a) a) C D 0) cp) O Ca O 3 vi O p Q C O .0. O a)� OO U0 C Q Q U`O p a) :U aU U U a)U / o -O .. LL L/C L/ teC Of C L/ C ULto •' _ (If N '0 '. a) 0 (IfO a) c0 I m C C _C a3 E J 'O in O Q m L `-::.- a) m U . _ U (I' 0 m - .O. � 2 Q Cn Y 0 cn O > � O � �O (0 ..� > O j O L d Y O -p co, O c o as E �• � cu Z C 3 O m �° m a) coo �° a) 00 Y !n a W � L _C E C_ .. (6 C :C L cu m L p J cn a) 2 m c0 m a) cn m m :D c0 - .I m m m W O a I � m Y o O m 0 of f6 — Cn 2 oU) a3 s E O m 0 O 0 E aa)) C cA Of coZ7 O Q) m as U) cn > m Q m cn M O c0 I� OD O cp N U 771 L> u D 0 L IL o CD CD O O R O O (h y co N O) W U e» ro U w O N 0 c. IL im N 7 C N Q U (4 H > 0 N Y L m Co Ci c U') Nt U') N co W O O O O O O C O N U co I- c0 o w p_ cc to C c+-� to N w v $+ E o `o > 0 2 c0 no m E m w O _ @ O c U T ca U N N c a3 O O = O '0O cta o E E E N E E W N N G N U O > a� 2a 7 L 2 J C O n f6 i0 (0 O O o. U o N; U)N N O a) 'e c6 c6 c c n r - N N N 3 N c � F ..:=:a a ca cu ca CU aNi v°�, m a ..b.: a E E CL -VS ty Ca" O c6 O.;N. p 6 -O a) Q N Q fA Q Cn, . Q y 7 Nof p c N N ca m U) mica Cl co U > N " ..8 E c O � N O 'O O Z o E w cm E EEt_tU; 9 J Q J 0 E _T O o' �C U O cc0 m. m o �: JS 5 •'v -' c N c6 C .0 N C c o w Jff m coJS E"O E,a) C O= C L O O N E a) O Q N T p .Y c O O `O_1 (9 w U)N V1 0. c KS N Xcr-E aNi > C CaN O C ca > > 0` co �O E v n LL C] 0 O c mU E U C O L cr Ca2 O 'O - N 5 O. C f6 E 2 Z cn N CO:) N EN O Q CD O. 7 O N O O N � 3U ca as 0 Q �caE4 N ca c6 O- a)C_ H O N O` a) E co ao rn na)a t a) H s �_ N ~ O LL U � �_ co W W W W O U) rn 0 N a E 0 z 772 Transit Overview Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) is the primary provider of public„transportation services in Whatcom County. WTA provides fixed -route bus service in Bellingham and throughout Whatcom County. Complementary paratransit service -is offered in corjnction with broader senior and disabled service under the Specialized Transportation program ;WTA also offers vanpool leasing, ridematching and commuter van service from selected markets Inventory of Current Facilities The WTA operates 26 fixed routes with 40 transit coaches (primarily 35=and40-foot Orion buses). Specialized Transportation paratransit service is provided by 34 irui" buses with"a capacity to carry 16 passengers each. WTA owns and manages a fleet of 23 vans-,f6i its two commuter van services. Table 72 below summarize s`thepark'&side facilities that-WTA serves along with routes that serve them. Table 72. Whatcom Transportation Authority Park &.Ride Facilities Park & Ride Location Served by Routes Number of Parking Stalls Ferndale Station 1671 Main Street 27, 70X, 55 134 South Bellingham East 1-5,and. Old Fai rhaven, Parkway (Exit 250 East - side) 105 29 South Bellingham West 1-6 and Old Fairhaven Parkway (Exit 250 West side); 105 24 Lake Samish 1-5 at Exit 246 - 19 Lynden Station Northwest Avenue 1945 Front Street East of Northwest on McLeod Rd. 26 232 89 (Not listed) Birch Bay Square South side of mall 70X, 55 10 Blaine Library 3rd and G Street 70X, 55 10 Lincoln Creek Lincoln Street, north of 1-5 on -ramp 80X, 90A&B, 190 (Not listed) ---- - Fairhaven Park & Ride -- - - ---- -------- ---------- -- ---------- Harris and 41h - - - - (Not listed) ---- - - - --- - 237 Blaine Library 3rd and G Street (Not listed) 10 Source: Whatcom Transportation Authority website (accessed February 6, 2009), and WSDOT Choices website http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Choices/ParkRide.cfm#Whatcom; accessed on March 4, 2009. Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 74 773 Level of Service Capacity Analysis Public transit providers typically provide LOS standards difficult to relate to capital facility needs with respect to changes in population over time. For example, Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) provides one capital facility standard of a shelter at each transit stop that has 25 boardings or more (WTA Strategic Plan, page 2-43, September 2004). Capital Projects and Funding `s ` Capital Project Funding According to WSDOT's 2007 Summary of Public Transportation, — TAis'expected to receive $2 million in 2010 from Federal Section 5309 Grants, and between $;1S;mlion and $1.9 million":;:;-..: annually from 2010-2013 from Federal Section 5307 Grants. These are the;,only funds reserved for capital, as other revenue sources such as farebox revenues and salesY�ax;may also be used for operating expenses. Capital Projects The WTA breaks down capital outlays under categories that include' Vehicles, Public Facilities, Strategic Partnerships, Street Side Improvements; "arid Technology Projects. The WTA's September 2004 Strategic Plan identified the following projects that=will. occur during the County CFP planning period. The WTA currently does not have any capital projects except for ongoing fleet replacement (personal communication, Rick Nicholson email, August 11, 2009). Table 73. Transit Capital ProjecW ; Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016• Total CostslRevenue 2029 (thousands $) Vehicle, Purchase - 11 Fixed Route Buses, 5 Specialized Buses, 9 Pool Vans Cost 5,394 5,394 Safety and Security Projects Cost 100 100 Source: WTA Strategic Plan, Six -year Strategic Business Plan, Chapter 5. (September, 2004) 155 November 2009 774 Fire Protection Overview The County is served by 15 different fire departments or districts, 13 of which serve ■ Fire District 5 . ■ Fire District 16 South Whatcom Fit.. u. ority The cities of Bellingham and Lynden have their own fire departments. Fire District 7 serves the City of Ferndale and the Cherry Point UGA. North Whatcom Fire and Rescue'(Fire District 21) serves the City of Blaine and the Birch Bay UGA. Fire District 14 serves the City of Sumas and the Columbia Valley UGA. Fire District 1 serves the cities of Everson'' and Nooksack. Each city and fire protection district is assigned a numeric,fire protection rating (a Class 1 rating is considered best) by the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau. Insurance companies fund the Bureau to perform on -site inspections of fire districts to determine the rating. The Bureau analyzes five areas: average tesponse time, water supply, communication network, schedule of fire inspections, and existingconditions of fire: stations. Fire station evaluations focus on the age of vehicles, amount of personnel training, and whether the facilities are staffed or not. Insurance companies use the fire protection rating to help determine insurance rates on all fire insurance policies. Quality of fire service canhave a significant impact on fire insurance rates with the greatest impact experienced by commercial occupancies. In addition to fire protection services, the agencies listed here provide responses to medical emergencies. In fact, EMS calls account for 75% of the responses by most fire protection agencies. A countywide 911 dispatch system is jointly operated by the City of Bellingham Fire and Police Departments and administered by a countywide governmental board called "What -Comm Administrative Board" (Boyd pers. comm.). Inventory of Current Facilities Table 74 summarizes the capital facilities for each fire district. It also includes each district's fire rating and service population. Unless otherwise stated, the 2008 population is based on estimates prepared for the CFP update process. . Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 76 775 Table 74. Fire Facilities Inventory Fire Protection Number Fire Fire Units EMS Service Area Serves UGA Provider of Rating 1 2 Services Population (YIN) Stations (YIN) (2008) City of Bellingham 8 3 3 22 Y 78,500 Y City ofLynden 1 5 6 Y 11,350 Y North Whatcom Fire & 104 N/A 32 Y-,,;28,246 5 Y Rescue (District 21) r' Fire District 1 2 8T 6 107 Y 8,460Y Fire District 4 3 6 13 8,600 8 Y Fire District 5 2 6 6 Y 1,370 N Fire District 7 6 6/5 9 24 Y 19,530 Y Fire District 8 4 N/A N/A Y ,6240 Y Fire District 11 1 8 5 Y 1 610: < N Fire District 14 3 8 15 Y 7,262-1" Y Fire District 16 3 N/A N/A" ` Y `' 1,160." N Fire District 17 2 6 8 Y 1,520 N Fire District 18 2 N/A N/A Y 2,460 N Glacier Fire District 19 1 7 4 Y 1,630 N" South Whatcom Fire 6 N/A.12 26 'Y 13,000 13 Y Authority N/A = Not Available; Y/N.= Yes or No 1 Fire rating,is based upon the" Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau. Insurance companies use the Bureau's ratings to help determine insurance rates on all fire insurance policies. 2 Fire units include fire and/or emergency response units such as fire engines, water tenders, and medic units. 3 Two of the 8 stations are medic stations that serve unincorporated areas of the County, one serving northwest and the other north and east of the Bellingham city limits. Station 1 also houses the countywide fire/EMS dispatch center. (Boyd, Bill, Fir e Chief, Bellingham Fire Department, personal communication, April 14, 2009 email.) 4 Includes 3 career fire stations and 7 volunteer fire stations. Source: North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan, August 2009, Exhibit 1). 5 Source: North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan, August 2009 6 This indicates a tanker rating, which means that the rating is achieved through additional water for fire flow provided from tanker trucks (Personal email communication from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009). 7 Per email communication from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot (July 14, 2009), this figure includes 3 fire engines with 1,000 gallon water tanks, 2 tanker trucks with 3,000 gallon capacity (water delivery at 1,000 gallons per minute), 3 aid cars, and 2 rescue boats. 8 Personal communication, Email from Bill McLaughlin to Matt Aamot, on February 25, 2009. 9 Fire rating for Cherry Point is 6 and fire rating for Femdale is 5 (Personal communication between Gary Russell and Alex Cleanthous, July 1, 2009) 10 Personal communication, Email from Denise Christensen to Matt Aamot, on February 19, 2009. 11 Although Glacier Fire District 19 does not specifically serve the Columbia Valley UGA, it is part of a mutual aid agreement that would provide back-up to Fire District 14 which does include the Columbia Valley UGA within its service area. 12 At time of inventory, the South Whatcom Fire Authority has not received a rating for the whole agency. Agency was formed in January 2009. Currently, Geneva and Sudden Valley communities are rated Class 5; Yew Street Road and Chuckanut Drive areas are rated a Class 6; and the Lake Samish Area is rated Class 8. 13 Personal communication, Email from Bill Hewitt to Matt Aamot, on March 10, 2009. Source: Individual district plans and district communications with County staff. 157 November 2009 776 Level of Service Capacity Analysis Two methods that can be used to determine LOS for fire districts are square feet per emergency incident and response time. Since many districts operate using a LOS standard tied to response time, it is included in this discussion. However, for capital forecasting, a method that ties fire and EMS response incidents to projected population, employment, and/or land use provides a more quantifiable LOS that can be easily related to facility needs. xl- Square Feet per Incident Whatcom County will consider adoption of fire district capital facility plans by reference into the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, as they are approved by the districts. Until the County defines a level of service as proposed in its Comprehiei�sive Plan Chapter 4 policies, this Capital Facilities Plan will rely on analysis based owd sgpar feet per incident.'" Tlie methodology in the plan is based upon review of records received from the_Vhhatcom County Fire Marshal's Office for Fire Districts. These records include 2008 existing squaefeet_ of fire district facilities, and calls for fire and aid service for the years 2006-2008 were used to.proyide average annual calls for service per district. This information and a"LOS methodology are outlined in Table 75 below. A review of the Fire District LOS analysis provided in Table 76 below indicates that all districts serving urban areas would have a fire facility deficit by 2029, if new facilities were not added. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review "a 777 Table 75. Level of Service Standard for Fire Districts: Square Feet per Incident Fire District Total Facility Size (2008) Average Annual Calls For Square Feet Per Incident (Square Feet) Fire and Aid Service (2006-2008) Fire District 1 17,008 682.3 24.93 Fire District 4 25,314 531.3 47;6`4 Fire District 7 39.007 1,761 22 Fire District 8 28,460 1,025.3 27 76., , Fire District 14 18,400 747.0 24.63 North Whatcom Fire and 72,422 2,362.3 30.66' Rescue South Whatcom Fire 35,418 734=.48:25 Authority Fire District 5 8,250 134.0 61.57 Fire District 11 4,200 60.67 69.23 Fire District 16 9,100 T11.21.3 75.0 Fire District 17 6,892 89.7 76.86 Fire District 18 5,400 118.7,-.- 45.51 Fire District 19 3,600 84.0 42.86 1 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue, prepared a draft Capital Facilities Plan (undated) that was reviewed and evaluated as part of the preparation of.the.Capital Facilities Plan. This undated version of the District's draft CFP included a square foot per incident measurement as one of many factors reviewed in`.evaluating the District's ability to respond to emergency incidents, whether fire or medical (Square feet:per.:incident for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue was listed as 35.64 in the undated draft). Since that time, North Whatcom; Fire and Rescuehas prepared and adopted an updated Capital Facilities Plan (dated August 15, 2009) which does not utilize 0:square footage,per incident analysis. The updated methodology relies on response time and fire station geographic: coverage to arrive at a number of stations and apparatus needed to maintain recent ratios to existing development: Most fire districts in Whatcom County do not currently have this information. For this reason, and to ensure consistency of analysis, the North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Square Feet per Incident in Table 75 utilizes the information obtained from the Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office. Source: Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office, Warner Webb, email to Matt Aamot, April 23, 2009. Table 76 indicates that all fire districts serving urban areas are projected to experience deficits in 2029. With the exception of Fire District 4, all fire districts serving urban areas also have higher fire facility deficits than their rural counterparts in 2029. All rural fire districts, with the exception of Fire Districts 5, and 18 are expected to have facility deficits in 2029. All fire districts can reduce these anticipated fire facility deficits with capital facility projects that maintain or replace facilities and equipment in the 2009-2029 planning period. Response Time Response time can be defined as the amount of time that elapses between the initial call for assistance and arrival of the first emergency unit on site. Most fire service providers base their response time on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. NFPA 1710 provides minimum standards for fire suppression/emergency medical operations of an 159 November 2009 778 organization that is substantially career responders. NFPA 1720 provides minimum standards for fire suppression/ emergency medical operations for an organization that is substantially volunteer responders. Many fire service providers make a distinction along the lines of a shorter response time in urban areas, and longer response times in rural areas, with suburban environments receiving a response time between the urban and rural standard. In addition, RCW 52.33.030 requires fire districts and departments to establish response time performance standards, specifically each fire district or department is required to establish objectives for a variety of r;;r measures that evaluate the ability of the district or department to arrive at'a scene and'begin mitigation operations prior to a critical EMS or fire event. An example of response time standards is Bellingham's for its'city limits:, l.,rninuf6$. turnout, 4 minutes for travel for the first engine to critical advanced life support (ALS) medical emergencies and structure fires, and 8 minutes for travel for all first alarm responsesJo structure fires, &,the arrival of ALS paramedic unit. Whatcom County is not proposing to adopt a response time level of service standard for the purpose of capital- facility planning under RCW 36.70A 070.Q3). A number of factors are relevant ,t _. to meeting response time objectives, including buildings, apparatus, career staffing; volunteer staffing, and fire department programs. Capital facility planning alone cannot assure that a given response time will be met. However, it may be appropriate to develop; a,response time level of service standard for evaluating proposed, developments for concurrency. The County may undertake a process to develop fire protection concurrency standards in 2010-2011. Table 76. Fire District Level of. Service Analysis Annual, Average`.:;' ; 2029 Projected CaIIs For . Facility Fire and Aid ... Total Facility Size Level of Service Reservel(Deficit) Service Incidents per .(2008) Square Feet Per Expressed in Square Fire District (2006.2008) 'capita (2008) (Square Feet) Incident Feet of Facilities MORN, OV: �.: Fire District 1 682.3 0.08 17,008 24.93 (4,952)( Fire District 4 ° 531.3 0.05 25,314 47.64 (2,428) Fire District 7 1,761 0.09 39.007 22.15 (19,505) Fire District 8 1,025.3 0.17 28,460 27.76 (8,421) Fire District 14 ° 747.0 0.07 18,400 24.63 (4,369) North Whatcom 2,362.3 0.102 72,422 30.66 3 (34,623) Fire and Rescue South Whatcom 734 0.05 35,418 48.25 (3,308) Fire Authority ° Fire District 5 134.0 0.07 8,250 61.57 549 Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 1b° 779 Annual Average 2029 Projected Calls For Facility Fire and Aid Total Facility Size Level of Service Reservel(Deficit) Service Incidents per (2008) Square Feet Per Expressed in Square Fire District (2006-2008) capita (2008) (Square Feet) Incident Feet of Facilities Fire District 11 60.67 0.04 4,200 69.23 (1,164) Fire District 16 121.3 0.12 9,100 75.0 (1,853) Fire District 17 89.7 0.06 6,892 76 86= ; q; (2,865) Fire District 18 118.7 0.05 5,400 45.51 ) : 85 r .: „_, :. Fire District 19 84.0 0.05 3,600 42.86 „ `-• (380) 1 The steps used to calculate the results areas follows: a) Determine incidents per capita: Average calls for service 2006-2008 supplied_ byVVhatcom County Fire Mershal ! 200,8',"`. estimated population (Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 10-Year Urban Ctowtfi'*ea Review, May 2009;� x Appendix D) b) Determine square feet per incident: Current square footage of fire stations supplied by,Whatcom County Fire Marshal 1 Average calls for service 2006-2008 c) Calculate 2029 incidents: Future 2029 population. of each district (Appendix D) x incidents per capita, d) Calculate square footage required: 2029 estimated incidents x Square feet per incident e) Compare to square footage available: 2008 inventory of fire station square footage supplied by Wl%atcom County Fire Marshal f) Calculate Reserve (Deficit): Square footage available — square footage`required' . 2 The district's own population estimate of 2008 population (28,246) is higher and was developed based on 2000 U.S. Census calculation of district population plus the City of Blaine, which annexed to the district in 2004 (District Plan, p. 3). Population estimates prepared for the CFP analysis indicate a,lower population including Blaine of 23r570. If assuming the higher population, the incident per capita would be 0.08. For.. conservative analysis the higher 0.10 rate was applied to the future growth numbers. If using the Districts 2008 population as a base and the net increase of each alternative, the results would be 15% lower than the square footage estimates.above. 3 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue prepared a.draft Capital Facilities Plan (undated) that was reviewed and evaluated as part of the preparation of the Capital Facilities Plan.: This undated version of the District's draft CFP included a square foot per incident measurement as one of many factors reviewed in evaluating the District's ability to respond to emergency incidents, whether fire or medical.•(Square feet per incident for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue was listed as 35.64 in the undated draft). Since that.time, North Whatcom Fire and Rescue has prepared and adopted an updated Capital Facilities Plan (dated August 15, 2009) which does not utilize a square footage per incident analysis. The updated methodology relies on response time and fire station geographic coverage to arrive at a number of stations and apparatus needed to maintain recent ratios to existing development. Most fire districts in Whatcom County do not currently have this information. For this reason, and to ensure consistency of analysis, the North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Square Feet Per Incident in Tables 76 and 77 utilizes the information obtained from the Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office. 4 If using these Districts own 2008 population estimates, the incidents per capita would be higher (incidents per capita divided by smaller population). The facility deficits would be approximately 16% higher for Fire District 4, 28% higher for Fire District 14, and 6% higher for the South Whatcom Fire Authority. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes, Berk & Associates, and Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office (2008). Capital Projects and Funding Capital Project Funding City Fire Departments and Regional Fire Districts usually fund needed capital improvements through a combination of revenue sources. These can include General Fund revenues, excess property tax levies, sales taxes, capital bonds, fire benefit charges, and, for city fire departments, fire impact fees. The State of Washington authorizes cities and regional fire districts to levy both "regular" and "special" property taxes to support their operational and capital needs. As part of the regular property tax levy, a fire service provider is authorized to levy a property tax at a total maximum 161 November 2009 .0 rate of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value. However, the total maximum aggregate "regular" property tax levy by all taxing agencies in an area may not exceed $5.60.Occasionally, all local levies will total more than this limit. In this case, "junior" taxing districts, including fire districts, must follow state statute to lower their levy rate so that the total aggregate rate does not exceed the statutory limit. Fire districts may also pass "special' property tax levies for short-term periods without a statutory maximum levy limit. An Emergency Medical Service property tax may be levied at a total :makimum rate,of$0.50 per $1,000 of assessed value. This levy must pass by at least 60% of the vote and rnust.:be renewed every six years. These funds can be charged by city fire departments, but n0t,-'kAkeAistricts. ;x Fire impact fees are collected on new residential and commercial development to fund facility improvements necessary to serve that development. These fees are usually charged on an average; call percentage basis. Under RCW 82.02.050(4) and .090(7), fire distnctS .cannot collect impact. %` fees. Additional comments on capital funding strategies of note are discussed below ■ Bellingham Fire Department — The Bellingham Fire Department receives capital=dollars from the Medic One Fund, which is funded by a 1%o'sales tax ihat'can be used for operations or capital; from the first 0.25% of Real Estate Excise Taxes, and, from general fund revenues. ■ Lynden Fire Department — The City of Lynden Fire Department receives capital funding from the general fund and from impact fees. Impact fees for the fire department are project driven, and are expected to pay a set portion of the costs of needed expansion due to growth. Capital Projects,., Capital projects. for the Bellingham Fire Department, Lynden Fire Department, North Whatcom Fire and Rescue (which �serves the Birch Bay and Blaine UGAs), and Fire District 14 are provided below. The following fire districts do not have approved capital facility plans: . Fire District 1 (serving the Everson and Nooksack UGAs), and ■ : Fire District 7 (serving the Ferndale and Cherry Point UGAs). As these districts approve capital facility plans, they will be incorporated by reference into the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Table 77. Fire District/Department Capital Projects 1 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Boat House Cost 1 150 1 1 1 1 1 1 150 Revenue 150 150 REET (1s1 Quarter) Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 162 781 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Classroom/Office Cost 1,000 1,000 Revenue 1,000 1,000 REET (15` Quarter) Broadway Fire Station Upstairs Carpet Cost 9 �• , =�> Revenue 9 9 REET (15i Quarter) w" Cardiac Monitor/ Defibrilator Cost 24 s'A: 24.,4 Revenue 24 24 Medic 1 Fund Field Computers Cost 11 12 23 Revenue 11 12 23 Medic 1 Fund Medic Unit Cost 158 158 Revenue 158 158 Medic 1 Fund Rechassis Medic Unit Cost 111 111 Revenue 111 111 Medic 1 Fund Thermal Imaging Camera Cost 12 12 24 Revenue 12 12 24 General Fund A ttY fl �-y f oksl Ladder Truck Purchase Cost 950 950 Fire Station Remodel — Sleeper November 2009 782 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Cost 380 380 New Ambulance Cost 130 130 New Pumper Truck Cost 600 ", ' 600 New Station A S with engine and aid vehicle (location TBD, but likely northwest area of district) Cost ;: w.'; 5723.1 New Station B •a with engine and aid vehicle (location TBD) Cost 5,723.1 Station 62 Seismic Upgrade Cost 376.2 Station 63 Seismic - Upgrade Cost 340 Station 63 Exhaust system Cost 140 Station 64 Exterior Skin Replacement Cost 117.5 Station 64 Reroof Cost 87.5 Station 64 Seismic Upgrade Cost 218.7 Station 65 Seismic Upgrade Cost 227.5 Station 65 Exterior Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 7b4 783 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016• Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Skin Replacement Cost 121.8 Station 68 Seismic Upgrade Cost > '.,a, . 223.8 Station 68 Site Al Paving Overlay`., rl Cost iA7.5 a Station 69 Seismic Upgrade P9 Cost 279.9 Station 69 Site Paving Overlay Cost126.2 Station 70 Seismic Upgrade Cost 226.2 Station 71 Seismic Upgrade Cost 426.8 Station 71 Exhaust System., Cost 70 Station 72 Seismic Upgrade Cost 285.7 a� Tender 91-02 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 240 Tender 93 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 240 Initial Attack 91 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 140 165 November 2009 Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Tender92 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 240 Utility 91 Replacement (Vehicle).. Cost:, - "40:•. Utility 93 ` Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 40 Aid 91-02 Replacement (Vehicle) ~, Cost :' `: • 155 Engine 91 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 275 Utility 92 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 40 Brush 92 CAFS Replacement (Ve)�cle) Cost 140 Aid 93 Replacement (Vehicle) :.. Cost 155 Aid 92 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 155 Aid 91 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 155 Tender 91 Replacement (Vehicle) Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review ebb 785 Project 2010 Costs/Revenue (thousands $) Cost Engine 93 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost C 91-03 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 40 Engine 92 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost Initial Attack 93 Replacement (Vehicle) Cost 2011 j 2012 I 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 240 Total 240 350 140 140 1 Specific revenue sources in Table 77 are only provided where; identified within the service provider's individual plans. 2 City of Bellingham 2008 Adopted Budget includesTire,Department projects through'2013, Mile the City of Bellingham Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities element (Chapter 5) only include fire department projects through 2011. Locations are not provided for projects. 3 City of Lynden Fire Department 2009-20.14 Capital Facilities Plan shows projects through 2014. Locations are not provided for projects. 4 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue's August'15 20o9 Capital Facilities Plan identifies cost but does not identify year of funding. Therefore,' all project costs are noted only imthe Total column. Locations are not provided for new stations, and locations,of projects at,existing"stations are associated;with the station number per August 15, 2009 Capital Facilities Plan (page 24' 5 Fire District 14's September 2009 Capital Facilities Plan identifies cost but does not identify year of funding for all vehicle replacements. Therefore, project costs that do not have,a specific date associated with them or are shown as overdue are noted only in the Total column. (Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan, September 2009, Figure 2). Yy, Sources: For Bellingham Fire: City of Bellingham, 2008 Adopted Budget, Capital Facilities Plan (page 408),and Bellingham Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities (Chapter 5), page CF-75. For Lynden Fire: City of Lynden 2008-2014 Fire Department Capital Facilities Plan For North Whatcom Fire and Rescue: North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan prepared by Henderson, Young & Company, (August 15, 2009). For Fire District 14: Whatcom County Fire District 14 Fire and EMS Capital Facilities Plan prepared by Kent Greene and Robert McNally of Emergency Services Consulting International, (September 2009). ur November 2009 .0 Capital Facilities Implementation Chapter 4 of the County's Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies that establish LOS standards, promote adequate facilities to serve growth, and ensure that land use is coordinated and consistent with the capital facilities element. The County adopts a Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for County facilitiesIh the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan (Appendix F), and updates it every other year The Cities also have adopted capital facility elements in their own Comprehensive Plans They adopt functional plans for various services, generally every six years Special districts prepare :,; >; capital plans typically on a regular basis. As part of the 10-Year UGA Review and in accordance with GMA, the determinations of UGA sizing based on projected growtbJand capacity, andlva labil ty of urban - services. In terms of ensuring adequate capital facilities and services, the Co ay make the following adjustments to balance growth, needed capital facilities; and revenue,:over time: ■ Make a change in LOS standards; ■ Add facilities and funding to meet the anticipated demand by 2029; and/or ■ Alter growth allocations. Recognizing that land use and capital facility planning takes time and requires coordination, and that capital facilit—planning is best accomplished once growth allocations are made and UGA boundaries established as -part of the 10-Year UGA Review, the County has adopted policies regarding reconciliation of the Comprehensive Plan and public facility and service plans. The purpose of the reconciliation process is to provide adequate time and information to special districts and cities as they incorporate the growth allocations into their comprehensive plans, and update capital facility plans, during their detailed plan update processes. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 168 787 References City of Blaine 2009 Lighthouse Point Reclamation Facility http://wa- blaine.civicplus.com/index.aspx Accessed: April 27, 2009 Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction website: http://www.kl 2.wa.us/SchFacilities/Programs/EnrolhnentProj ectioi 2009. Whatcom Transportation Authority website (accessed February i6,, 200' Washington State Department of Health website (accessed February, 5; download) Washington State Department of Transportation Choices website: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Choices/ParkRide.cfm#Whatcom; accessed Bellingham School District No. 501 WA 2009. 2009. Capital Facilities Plan 2( Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. 2009. Comprehensive Water. System Plan. Birch Bay, WA CHS Engineers, LLC March 2009. Prepared`for Birch Bay`Water and Sewer District. Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. 2009. Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Birch Bay, WA CHS Engineers, LLC May 2009. Prepared for Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. Blaine School District. No Date (excerpt). Blaine School District State Study and Survey. (Blaine, WA) Steward +, King Architects: No Date (excerpt). Prepared for Blaine School District City of Bellingham. 2000, : City of Bellingham.Draft Water System Plan. (Bellingham, WA) CH2MHill. June 2009. Prepared for City of Bellingham. City of Bellingham. 2008. City of Bellingham Public Review Draft Comprehensive Sewer Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Carollo Engineers August 2008. Prepared for City of Bellingham City of Bellingham. 2008. City of Bellingham Capital Facilities Plan. (Bellingham, WA) 2008. City of Bellingham. 2006. City of Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. (Bellingham, WA) June, 2006. City of Blaine. 2008. City of Blaine Comprehensive Plan Amended May 2006. (Blaine, WA) amended through July 2008. City of Blaine. 2008. City of Blaine Water System Plan. (Blaine, WA) CHS Engineers, LLC July, 2008. Prepared for City of Blaine. City of Blaine. 2005. November 2005 Revision to City of Blaine General Sewer Plan. (Blaine, WA). November 2005. 11oa November 2009 WV City of Blaine. 2004. City of Blaine General Sewer Plan. (Blaine, WA) CH2MHill September, 2004. Prepared for City of Blaine. City of Everson. 2004. City of Everson Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2004-2024. (Everson, WA) December, 2004. City of Everson. 2004. City of Everson Capital Facilities Element of Comprehensive Plan 2004-2024. (Everson, WA) December, 2004. City of Everson. 2003. City of Everson Water System Comprehensive Plan."(Eversoii, WA) Wilson Engineering, LLC. July, 2003. Prepared for City of Eversoii City of Ferndale. 2005. City of Ferndale Comprehensive P1ariT 2005 Update,to 1;996 an. (Ferndale, WA) Planning and Building Department 2005. City of Ferndale. 1996. City of Ferndale Comprehensive Wastewater -Facilities Plan. (Ferndale; WA) Vasey Engineering Company, Inc. 1996. Prepared for City of;herndale. City of Ferndale. 2006. 2006 Water System Plan. (Ferndale, WA) 2006.- City of Lynden. 2005. Comprehensive Plan 2004 Update Final Draft. (Lyndep, WA); City of Lynden Planning Department. 2005. City of Lynden. 2008. 2008-2014 Fire Department Capital Facilities Plan. (Lynden, WA) City of Lynden Fire Department 2008. City of Lynden. 2007. General Sewer.<P:lari. (Lynden, WA) BHC_Consultants December, 2007. Prepared for City of Lynden City of Lynden. 2008. City of Lynden Water System Plan. (Lynden, WA) Gray & Osborne, Incorporated August, 2008. Prepared for City of Lynden. City of Lynden. 2008. 2009-2014 City of Lynden Parks Department Capital Facilities Plan. (Lynden, WA) City of Lynden Parks Department. 2008. City of Nooksack. 2004. City of Nooksack Comprehensive Land Use Plan Capital Facilities Element. (Nooksack, WA) 2004. City of Nooksack. 2005. Comprehensive Water System Plan. (Nooksack, WA) Sehome Engineering, Inc. December, 2005. Prepared for City of Nooksack. City of Sumas. 2004. City of Sumas Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element. (Sumas, WA) November, 2004. City of Sumas. 2000. Water System Comprehensive Plan. (Sumas, WA) David Evans and Associates September, 2000. Prepared for City of Sumas. Evergreen Water -Sewer District. 2004. Comprehensive Water System Plan. (WA) June, 2004. Ferndale School District, #502. 2005. Ferndale Schools Capital Facilities Plan and School Impact Fee Ordinance. (Ferndale, WA) Kask Consulting, Inc. December, 2005. Prepared for Ferndale School District #502. Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. 2007. Comprehensive Sewer Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Wilson Engineering, LLC September, 2007. Prepared for Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 170 no Lynden School District. 2006. Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan. (Lynden, WA) June, 2006. Meridian School District #505. 2009. Meridian School District Capital Facilities Plan 2009- 2015. (Bellingham, WA) June 2009. Meridian School District #505. 2006. 2006 Study and Survey Plan 2009-2015. (Bellingham, WA) ALSC Architects and Coffinan Engineering. June, 2006. Prepared for the Meridian School District #505. Mount Baker School District #507. 2006. Mount Baker School Districf.Studyand;Survey. (Deming, WA) Stewart + King Architects 2006. Prepared for Mount Baker Scho8i`bistrict #507. Mount Baker School District #507. 2006. Mount Baker School District Six -Year Capital,, Facilities Plan, February 2006. North Whatcom Fire and Rescue. 2009. Capital Facilities Plan.,(Blaine; WA) Henderson, Young & Company August 15, 2009. Prepared for North Whatcom Fire;;<aricl.Rescue. North Whatcom Fire and Rescue. 2008. Facilities and Capital Needs Assessment. (Blaine, WA) Emergency Services Consulting, Inc. March 2008. Prepared for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue. Personal communication with Boyd, Bill. Chief,,City of Bellingham Fire Department, Bellingham, WA April 27, 2009. Personal communication with Silvas, Jerry. Facilities Manager. Nooksack Valley School District, Everson, WA April 24, 200:9," Personal -communication with Kenoyer Jim. Facilities Manager. Blaine School District, Blaine, WA Apri1.27, 200.9 Personal communication between Rollin Harper:Sehome Planning and Erin Osborn, Whatcom County as relayed in Email from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. Personal communication with Paul Fabiniak, Department of Ecology and Richard Rodriguez, Department of Health (letter), March 17, 2009. Personal communication (e-mail), Doug Dahl of Whatcom County Emergency Management Whatcom County Emergency Management, June 23, 2009. Personal communication, Tammy Adams, Wastewater Plant Manager and Dean Martin, Whatcom County Planning, July 10, 2009 Personal communication: Rodney Langer email to Matt Aamot on June 24, 2009 forwarding Kelly Wynn email. Personal communication email from Brent Baldwin, City of Bellingham to Matt Aamot, Whatcom County, June 29, 2009. Personal email communication, Erin Osborn, Whatcom County Planning to Matt Aamot, Whatcom County Planning, July 14, 2009. 171 November 2009 790 Personal communication between Timothy Yeomans and Gil Cerise (telephone), Meridian School District, July 30, 2009. Personal communication (telephone) with Kenoyer, Jim. Facilities Manager. Blaine School District, Blaine, WA August 5, 2009 Personal email communication, Ron Cowan, Bellingham School District to Matt Aamot, Whatcom County, May 15, 2009. Personal communication, Rick Thompson, Superintendent of Ly idt'n'School Dist 6t, July 30, 2009. , z, Personal email communication from Perini Lemperes, Whatcom':oiurtySolid Waste`"to,1VTat . '.::. Aamot, Whatcom County Planning, July 28, 2009 Personal email communication from Perini Lemperes, Whatcom County .Solid Waste to Matt Aamot, Whatcom County Planning, August 12, 2009 Boyd, Bill, Fire Chief, Bellingham Fire Department, personal communication, `April Y4, 2009 email. Personal communication, Email from Bill McLaughlin to Matt Aamot .ori February 25, 2009. Personal communication between Gary _Russell and Alex Cleanthous,'July 1, 2009 Personal communication, Email from Denise Christensen .to 1Vlatt Aamot, on February 19, 2009 Personal communication, Email from Bi11 Hewitt to Matt Aamot, on March 10, 2009. Personal, communication; .Email -from Rick Nicholson to Matt Aamot, on August 11, 2009 Public Utility District #1 (PUD #1) of Whatcom, County. 2004. PUD #1 Water System Plan. (Ferndale, WA) Donald E. Wright, PE Consulting Engineer October, 2004. Prepared for PUD #1 Whatcom County. 2008. Comprehensive Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Whatcom County Planning and Development Services. June 2008. Whatcom County. 2008. Foothills Subarea Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. (Bellingham, WA) Whatcom County Planning and Development Services. December 2008. Whatcom County. 2008. Six -Year Capital Improvement Program 2009-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). (Bellingham, WA) 2008. Whatcom County. 2000. Whatcom County Coordinated Water System Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. February, 2000. Prepared for Whatcom County Water Utility Coordinating Committee Whatcom County. 2008. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan - Chapter 6 Transportation. Ordinance 2009-037. (Bellingham, WA) May, 2009. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 791 Whatcom County. 2008. Whatcom County Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (Draft). (Bellingham, WA) April 2008. Whatcom County. 1999. 1999 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. (Bellingham, WA) November 1999. Whatcom County. 2007. Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Whatcom County Public Works, Solid Waste Division. 2007. Whatcom County. No Date. Whatcom County NPDES Phase II Stor..... t anaeinent Program. (Bellingham, WA) No Date. Whatcom County Fire District #14. No Date. Fire District #14, Capital Facilrties,:Plan., (WA) No Date. Whatcom County Water District #2. 2009. Water System Plan (Lynden, WA) Reichardt;`& k Ebe Engineering, Inc. 2009. Prepared for Whatcom County Water:==DstrEt #2 4�ry_sx;,; Whatcom County Water District #7. 2008. Draft Water System Plan."'(BelTingham, WA) Reichardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. August, 2008. Prepared for Whatcom Coiin%iyWater District #7 Whatcom County Water District #10. 2001. Water System Comprehensive Plan: (Bellingham, WA) November, 2001. Whatcom County Water District #13. 2005. Water System Plan for Whatcom County Water District #13. (WA) Reichardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. February,. 2005 Prepared for Whatcom County Water District #13 Whatcom Transportation Authority.. 2004. WTA Strategic Service Plan. (Bellingham, WA) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates September, 2004. Prepared for Whatcom Transportation Authority 173 November 2009 792 Appendix 1 Growth Estimates by Special District 793 This page intentionally blank Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 1176 794 Page 1 .;: 795 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 178 796 Page 3 797 Appendix 2 Birch Bay Draft Capital Facilities Funding Analysis Effects of Birch Bay 's Potential I Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 1110 no Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Update Capital Facilities Funding Analysis Effects of Birch Bay 's Potential Incorporation Assumed January 1, 2012 Introduction sf r x :� Revenue projections in the Capital Facilities Plan are calculated orithe assumption that`uh Bay does not incorporate, and therefore remains part of the tax, population,`and land bases of h Whatcom County through the 2029 planning horizon. This appendix'compares the capital revenue projections for Whatcom County to the estimated revenues given a hypothetical Birch Bay incorporation. on January 1, 2012. This comparison gives an estimate of how Birch Bay's incorporation would affect Whatcom County capital revenues. Dedicated Capital A Birch Bay incorporation would decrease road levy revenues received by Whatcom County, because property taxes paid on assessed value in Birch Bay would no longer accrue to the County. Currently Whatcom County has banked capacity of approximately $1.0 million. For this analysis we have assumed that the County will not increase the levy rate to collect this banked capacity, nor will they collect the allowed 1.0% increase, but will continue to collect funds at a level equal to the previous year's revenues; plus new construction. Because assessed value is increasing while the property tax revenues increase only with new construction, the levy rate necessarily declines each year. However, assuming a Birch Bay incorporation in 2012 leaves less assessed value in the unincorporated County to support current revenue levels. Collecting revenues equal to the previous year would therefore necessitate a levy rate increase. Because the County Council is generally conservative when it comes to increasing the levy rate, we have assumed in this case that the rate will remain the same as the previous year, resulting in a decrease in revenues. This scenario therefore increases the County's banked capacity from a total $5.2 million over the study period to $6.3 million. 181 November2009 799 Exhibit 1 Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 1988-2029 $2.0 M -' - ------------------ ..-....t............. .._......__.._..__...._.._.._..__....__._...... ----' I 1 a I $ 1.2 M ---------------- ------------------- �- 1 S0.8 M ---- -- ---------- - t----------------------------------------------------------- - - I 1 $ 0.4 M I--------------------------------- -Birch Bay Incorporation 1 —Without Incorporation $ 0.0 M 1988 1991 2994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2022 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis.'" ':,,;;,r,; Exhibit 2 shows estimated total Road Levy in four summary time periods. The first summary time periods are six years, and the last is two years. Exhibit 2 Projected Future Whatcom County Road Levy Revenues 2010-2029 _', Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation $ 9,565,783 $ ; 1'889,772' $ 10,220,355 $ 3,481,427 $ 33,157,338 With Birch Bay Incorporation $ 9,174,464, $ 9,314,307 $ 9,662,727; $ 3,300,350 $ 31,451,848 Change inFbvenue $ (391,319). $ (575,465) $ (557;628) $ (181,077) $ (1,705,490) Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax If Birch Bay incorporated, the County could expect fuel tax revenues to decline, based on the loss in rural centerline road miles. This loss would: total about $40,000 over the planning period. Exhibit 3 Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 1988-2029 $so,000 1 $ 30,000-------- :"`_...----- ----------------------------- --------------- ----------------------•------------------------ z '$ 20,000 ""�- I Birch Bay Incorporation $10,000 .....................,._......................................._ I Without Incorporation $o 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Exhibit 4 shows anticipated total Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenues available for capital in .four summary time periods. Comprehensive Plan Update —10 Year UGA Review 182 Exhibit 4 Projected Future Whatcom County Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 2010.2029 Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation $ 244,877 $ 262,322 $ 280,986 $ 98,032 $ 886,218 With Birch Bay Incorporation $ 237,838 $ 249,770 $ 265,816 $ 92,347 $ 845,771 Change in Pevenue $ (7,039) $ (12,552) $ (15,170) $ (5,685) $ (40,447) Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis I f,Ai Transportation Grants State Transportation Grants Since state grant revenues have been estimated on a per capita basis, Birch�Bay's incorporation is projected to result in fewer state grant dollars each year after 2011. The fotat;estimated loss in grant revenue is approximately $650,000 through 2029... . Exhibit 5 Whatcom County State Transportation` Grant Revenues 1988-2029 $ 2.5 M-------------'...__....."'------------------ -------------------"'--` 1 x Birch Bay Incorporation $2.0M ............._.......... ......._............................_....................__.................._--+-.........._.._........__.. _........._..._......._.. _..... —Without Incorporation I $ 1.5 M n ; ---------------1------------------------........ ------------------------------------ I I $ 1.0 M -------------............. ..'----V ----------------� ------------------------ $0.5M.. ............................... ............... I $ 0.0 M 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Exhibit 6 shows estimated total state grant revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 6 Projected Future Whatcom County State Transportation Grant Revenues 2010- 2029 Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation $ 2,567,461 $ 2,509,891 $ 2,450,205 $ 803,074 $ 8,330,631 With Birch Bay Incorporation $ 2,444,696 $ 2,302,608 $ 2,215,159 $ 718,556 $ 7,681,019 Change in Pevenue $ (122,765) $ (207,283) $ (235,046) $ (84,518) $ (649,612) Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Federal Transportation Grants Federal grant revenues, like state grants, have been estimated on a per capita basis. Birch Bay's incorporation, and the County's corresponding loss of population, may cause federal grant 183 November 2009 revenues to decrease by about $3.2 million over the planning period from the no -incorporation scenario. Exhibit 7 Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant Revenues 1988-2029 1 Birch Bay Incorporation $4.0M------- ......---..__.....----......---_-- ......... .....'--..,...._..__. I «Without Incorporation 1 $ 2.0 M ........__...._ .._.... _.............._.... ......._. .... _ .. _. _. I I I $ 0.0 M . . . . . . - 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis Exhibit 8 shows anticipated total federal grant revenues in four summary tirrie periods... Exhibit 8 Projected Future Whatcom County Federal Transportation Grant," evenues 2010-2029 Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation $12.,837,306 $12,549,4:56•.. $.12;2.51,023 $ 4,015,371 $ 41,653,156 With Birch Bay Incorporation $12,223',481 $11,513,042 ,$1.;1'1075,794 $ 3,592,780 $ 38,405,097 Change inPevenue $ :(613,824) $(1,036,415) $(1,175,229) $ (422,591) $ (3,248,059) Source: Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis. Exhibit 9 shows total projected dedicated transportation revenues for Whatcom County in four summary time periods. The Overall effect of a Birch Bay incorporation on transportation capital revenues would be a loss of approximately $5.6 million over the 2010-2029 planning period. Exhibit 9 Projected Total Transportation Revenues 2010-2029 Estimated Future Revenues . Without Incorporation $ 25,215,427 $ 25,211,442 $ 25,202,569 $ 8,397,905 $ 84,027,343 With Birch Bay Incorporation $ 24,080,480 $ 23,379,726 $ 23,219,495 $ 7,704,033 $ 78,383,735 Change inRavenue $ (1,134,948) $ (1,831,716) $ (1,983,073) $ (693,871) $ (5,643,608) Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review 11` M General Capital Revenues 0 Real Estate Excise Tax Because REET dollars are directly related to the sale of real estate, which is currently in a slow period, this analysis assumes a slower -than -average annual rate of turn over of existing, property in the unincorporated County at 2% in 2009, increasing incrementally 201116, implying f, an eight -year recovery period from the current economic recession. The exception to,,this is turn- over in Birch Bay, which is assumed at 8.0% for the entire study<period for residential pr."operty and 4.0% for commercial. Given these assumptions, a Birch Bay incorporation is esttmated,to reduce County REET revenues by about $280,000 in 2012. This diffexe ice increases each year' resulting in a total reduction in REET revenue over the planning period of about $13.4 million Exhibit 10 Whatcom County Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 2004-209 : $ 14 M------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ... i $ 12 M ------------- :- 1 ---------------------- ----- ------- $8M.................................................i._..................._..._....__...................._._..............................,_.......__....__..........._..tea ...�,,,w*"=,�°.:..... $6M i --- $4M..°°...,.._............_...._...._......--•.._....._............._......_,..........._._...._...—Birch Bay Incorporation i $ 2 ►1'`--------------------------------------------------------- —Without Incor oration P -- $OM 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Exhibit 11 shows anticipated total Real Estate Excise Tax revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 11 Projected Future Whatcom County Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues 2010- 2029 Estimated Future Revenues " Without Incorporation . $ 20,501,239 $ 40,211,821 $ 52,300,967 $ 20,758,254 $133,772,281 With Birch Bay Incorporation $18,991,926 $ 36,102,947 $ 46,750,343 $ 18,509,373 $120,354,589 Change in Fbvenue $ (1,509,313) $ (4,108,874) $ (5,550,624) $ (2,248,881) $ (13,417,692) Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax The incorporation of Birch Bay would have no effect on the revenues from the Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax, because it is a countywide tax based on total County population. 185 November 2009 io Exhibit 12 shows anticipated total Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 12 Projected Future Whatcom County Rural Counties Public Facilities Tax Revenues 2010.2029 Estimated Future Revenues Without Incorporation With Birch Bay Incorporation Chanqe in Fbvenue $ 22,564,191 $ 9,044,835 $ 22,564,191 $ 9,044,835 Source: Whatcom County, Berk & Associates analysis. Total General Capital Revenues Exhibit 13 summarizes total general capital revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 13 Projected Total General Capital Revenues Estimated Future Revenues $ 31,609,026 $ 31,609,026 Without Incorporation $ 43,065,430 $ 49,256,656 $ 52,300,967 $ 20,758,254 $165,381,307 With Birch Bay Incorporation $ 41„556,117 $ 45,147,782, $ 46,750,343 $ 18,509,373 $151,963,615 Change in Revenue $ (1,509,313) $ (4,108,874) $ (5,550,624) $ (2,248,881) $ (13,417,692) Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis Summary .Given a hypothetical incorporation of Birch Bay in 2012, Whatcom County is estimated to see a reduction in total future capital revenues of approximately $19 million dollars over the study period. Exhibit 14 summarizes the total revenues in four summary time periods. Exhibit 14 Projected Total Capital Revenues Estimated Future, Revenues Without Incorporation $ 68,280,857 $ 74,468,098 $ 77,503,535 $ 29,156,158 $249,408,649 With Birch Bay Incorporation $ 65,636,597 $ 68,527,508 $ 69,969,838 $ 26,213,406 $230,347,349 Change in Revenue $ (2,644,261) $ (5,940,590) $ (7,533,697) $ (2,942,752) $ (19,061,300) Source: Whatcom County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Berk & Associates analysis Comprehensive Plan Update -10 Year UGA Review �uu M This page intentionally blank. 187 November 2009 M :1• Appendix 3 Whatcom County Rural Water Systems [Oom :1: Rural Area Water Systems Table 2-1 identifies the Group A water systems with 50 or more connections that serve rural areas of the County. The inventory data presented in Table 2-1 is derived from State DOH information. 191 November 2009 E:1i1'1 N C 4L) d i C Q U + 0 LO t 3 cN G d N` N CD W Q Q. L 4) t O 0 C N > C E N U) U) N cc N N R H -a U) a) o as QU) Cl) N 4 Y L U O O U C LO 00 O } U 0) fC 0 _ O C.7 � Cy7 �L+ 4):. d 0 (0j O, N c O m r a � o O a ,n Z O N N O Y -0 5 waa ti N Q. O U Q 0 d 'C a tin co 00 Q U) Q d 3 -a O O 0 U Q d E 0 Z �O 4) Z Y Q �U w0� QU 0 E d 0 N — O T LO N Q LL1 Q> W Z 0 0 OU QO Q Q O O Lr); LO a- Q Q W Z Y w� >U Q m W U) p W z? D C7 0o ti O Cl) Q W Q Z 0 Z Of U w LL J 0 mQ O ti m LO Q Z Z O OQ UU Q } U) Q Q m(if J W J Q m� O LO V LO S Q cr W Q W Y Q m �w W � DU v LO ti LO TW O O O O (D 0) O w O Q LO ti 0 LO ti co N > r a- Q ti N ti v Q O LO cli LO O O O LO LO LO 0 ch N > > a- Q O I L O ch v O O O O O ti N r- V O LO V Q 0 V 0 O O N V N > > Q O LO ti 0 810 O O O O Cl) O O O O O OD N co M Q w m 0 �U) zW w J W Q U) 06 w CC w Q M V N O O LO o O LO O co C O .D U O in Zn Q LO _rn V N V O O O O O O C O O c0 V O c0 r- Lf) _.. ..O OD v c0 M O co O N > i i I Q I Q I z w W— J (� < m I � < U �0 U) J (n ~ w J Q Q LL>��� 0 OD r- N N M O N 0) O O O O O � O OD V c0 N N r- O N r— N OD O OD O N M 00 O O N O 00 M v OD N N co Q w Q �z O0 LLI U 0 Q v O O N tt 00 O O O LO 00 O OD m LO LO O O C O .T U O U) U) Q Q Z 0 Z Q QU DO ()fU) w U) Q W � W >Q 0 N O M O c0 N O O O O N O O M N N c Q O LO M N M O O O 00 tt LO LO V V y Q Q 0 0-cnQ_ O�U JZO Yo< v O M M M N co O O O N LO O O v O 811 -0 N d d > O CL C_ CDN Q N aT chcc f N O C- N � U V1 C O Cc .+ O d O U:- N O C f) N •,y � C CD U N - c O CD N C- C O O a- Z C_ m O O (.7 U m E m Z CD N co E CD O Cfl Nt CO Cl) O O C 0 co 0 O O Q Q 2 U W Z m0W �U QO W U J U) L Q M Cfl N CO Cl) _O N O O O 0 O N LO co Cl) O C 0 co 0 O O Q Q U U W U) J O O M O V) CO O O 0 O LO LO CO LO TT 0 rn 0 > c Q Y 2 U0- QU U� Y Q W� O LO O LO Q c9 Z Y U 0- } of W mU Q �Z O O M O O O O O co LO L Q } Of Z OY U(If W 0- =w J O O O O t0 co co O O O co co O O M r- M O O C 0 0 O O Q Q w Q *9 U Q LL w d0j < O O O 1 rn co O O O N co N c M N r- Cfl LO C7.' T 0 C O (>> U 0 I Q Q Z o 0 Y Z Q 0 Y Q w00 <2 J Q �0 0� W p W >Q wQ O O CO N � Cl) r-__ N O Cl O Cfl N N N O N O O LO 0 �U 0 O Q Q O O LO CO LO LO O O O 0 co co LO r- LO r- C 0 �U 0 O Q Q Z 0 Q W UO Zw Of LU o O O CD LO O O O N CO co co O O N 0 >>6 0- Q 2 UU W OU m U W Q Z Of �W Q Z� O O M LO O co N Cl) N co co O O O O LO co r- N co LO N O Nt O O O 0 co Q Z w0 J Q >0 Y U UU Q Q 0Q Z O M O LO O N O O 0 r- LO r- t0 O C 0 �U 0 O Q Q w Q U 3:U �0 U OQ O Cl) O 812 't7 N Al y 0 V O Q N Q N Q 4) Im (1 O O O_ N cc U to c O r r V O C ~ c O i0" c U r a0+ +� N N N O � U c O (D v a L c c 0 O a z N 0 O N � 't7 7 NCL O wa CLd 3 -0 0 V O as E m z E of N O O O O o (3i ,Ln.... M (V CD N N 00 LO " 04 O co: O O (_ 0 U 0 Ln rn a Q Of LU Q z z ~O W d �O OQ 0 O O N (D d z O Q WU WO J u) d LU1 W cn w pQ O3: O LO M M CD O O � L O O O O O O O o O co 00 C-4 Cl)O co t` O M O LO CD .. ..:.:0, O M.. LO LO in ` LO V CI) O L O . LO N N 0 0 i La (6 (6 I V I > ffO ffO a a d CL d a a i I Q i w w Y Q 3: w Q Q QH pOz �z0 0-} p— LLJ O— (nU �d OQ d U p w U! U =O U cn dw W Q UO w cn I w0 ; --i co OQ �� Co �Q ! �Q O L!i CD o N 0 LO O Cf) 00 CD CD CD (O LO (fl , O O O O M , CD LO co LO CD O V 5 d O U z_W O� W )-0 Z� CO LO O Cfl n IT O O O C N N r-N 04 t` r- M 0 U 0 Ln d d O O N O O 0 O LA co Ln N 00 N 00 CID N a d 0 LO O O O O (0 00 M 00 co , c 0 �U 0 a a w wZ ¢O 'S Q cn 0 vi Q Co O N CD M M N CD , N m a a O O O O (o U') Ln r` E 813 L) > 0-- CL to co Lf) ai LO C14 CD CD Ci C) w C) LQ CL 650 C) C) C14 O cc L) CO OC) co C:) CO CN t; a) CD 0) :2 a 0) a 00 C:), '42) 0 M. C:) (01 cc CD .2 m Cc U) 4) = CL ZE 0 00- .0 CDC -0 = CL CD 0 LO W a- C.0 CD a0 CL CL CD a 3: CD 00 > -7- CL CD = -0 0 0 C) 0 CD E co cc E w CD U) >1 3: co -j E CD CD LO ,It 0 z w F-- m 0 W Z � < CD LO I- LO 0) CO LO f.0 LO Ts co -I- O C) 0C) C) C) IlL L6 ,It C14 LO co co C) LO co I- 64" C) co C*4 LO LO co LO Cl) CN a) 8 —cn 1 16 > a) > -2 0 O IQ Z) z LO co m co co co o i 0 1 0 LO m co 0) i M M co co 814 ƒ 3 * E ■ k � [TO Appendix 4 Maps 817 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009. --------------------- Appendix G — Tmodel Run f Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic ---------------------------------------------------- ---- ----- - Formatted- Font: 12 pt, Not Italic Appendix G TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS State Law Requirements State law requires that, prior to collecting transportation impact fees, the Comprehensive Plan must identify deficiencies in public streets and roads that serve existing development and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time (RCW 82.02.050(4)(a)). Procedure Through a transportation impact fee program development study performed in 2007-08, the County has developed a list of planned system improvements that are reasonably related to the impacts of projected growth and are therefore eligible for funding through impact fees. The Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program shows all projects that are programmed for construction in 2009 through 2014. Results The analysis of V/C ratios performed by the Whatcom County Division of Engineering did not show any County roads that are currently deficient in meeting the level of service standards set forth in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. PROJECTED 2022 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS State Law Requirements State law requires that the County's Comprehensive Plan must identify additional demands placed on existing public streets and roads by new development (RCW 82.02.050(4)(b)). D.+: 1.1: d: that the total Whatcom County population would grow from Procedure 166,814 people in 2000 to 234,917 people in the Deleted: ,consistent with The Whatcom Council of Governments contracted with a consultant to develop a computer :.�— --- ;Deleted: Additionally, the trans ortation model to project future traffic on Count roads. The computer transportation P P 1 Y P P _• :transportation model utilized model assumed year 202 population and employment proiections from the Whatcom County i projected population growth for each _ ----------- Comprehensive Flan, which was in effect at the time of the modeling:�__ __ ____ ;urban growth area as distributed by the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. The Whatcom Council of Governments computer transportation model assumed that the following major Deleted: The population road improvements would be constructed by 2022: 1 assumptions incorporated into the transportation model are shown below.¶ I� Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G-1 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009. —pp - A endix G Tmodel Run Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic - -------- ------ Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic Road Blaine/Birch Bay Area SR 543 Lincoln Rd (Birch Point Connector) Lincoln Rd Bellingham Area West Illinois St San Juan Blvd Lakeway Dr Sunset Dr I-5 South Bound 1-5 South Bound Mid County Area SR 539 (Guide Meridian) Lynden Drayton St Extension Ferndale Nordic Way Connector Main St/1-5 Overpass Sumas Area SR 9 Garrison Rd Results Location Improvement Boblett to Border Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Shintaffer Rd to Birch Pt Rd. New 2-lane road Harborview Rd to Blaine Rd Reconstruction and new 2-lane road W Illinois to Marine Dr Elwood to San Juan Blvd Yew St to Electric Ave Woburn to City Limits Ohio on -ramp to Lakeway off Lakeway off -ramp New 2-lane road New 2-lane road Add west bound lane Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Widen to 3 lanes Widen to 2 lanes Horton Rd to SR 546 (Badger) Widen to 4 lanes 2nd St to Depot Rd Nordic Way to LaBounty Dr South of Sumas North of SR 9 New 2-lane road New 2-lane road Widen to 4 lanes Realign Close due to realignment The results of this computer model are displayed on three attached maps: Map # G1 Forecasted Total Daily Traffic for 2022 - Depicts total projected daily traffic on County and State roads for 2022, including the percentage of traffic generated by new development from 2000-2022. Map # G2 Forecasted P.M. Peak Hour Traffic for 2022 — Depicts projected p.m. peak hour traffic on County roads for 2022, including the percentage of p.m. peak hour traffic generated by new development from 2000-2022. Map # G3 Forecasted P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service for 2022 — Depicts projected p.m. peak hour level of service, in a volume/capacity ratio, for 2022. The Whatcom Council of Governments is developing an updated transportation model for its regional 2011 Whatcom Transportation Plan. Whatcom County will use that model to update future demands and Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G-2 Council Introduction Draft, November 10, 2009. Appendix G — Tmodel Run Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic Formatted• Font: 12 pt, Not Italic system needs for the 2011 Comprehensive Plan update. The City of Bellingham,torecastss,traffic for _the ,-__-- Deleted: It must be noted that t J City and urban growth area using its own computer transportation model. The County will consider Deleted: is in the process of incorporating the results from this model in future Comprehensive Plan updates in order to refine the Deleted: ing analysis for the Bellingham urban growth area. Identification of Transportation Projects to Serve New Development State Law Requirement State law requires that impact fees may be collected and spent only for the public facilities defined in RCW 82.02.090 (including roads) that are addressed by a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan (RCW 82.02.050(4)). State law also requires that the County's Comprehensive Plan must identify additional transportation facility improvements required to serve new development (RCW 82.02.050(4xc)). Procedure jjoad proiects proposed in, the next six derived from the Six -Year Transportation Improvement _..-- = Deleted: Road projects completed in _years_were Program. Projects that weren't reasonably related to the impacts of new development (i.e. maintenance the last six -years and related costs that would have to be completed even if there wasn't an new growth) were omitted from the list projects P Y 9 ) Were derived from Whatcom county !Public Works Department records. of projects for which impact fees could be collected. Results Whatcom County has identified transportation facility improvements necessary to serve new development as shown below. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G-3 821 G — Tmodel Run Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic Projects Eligible for Impact Fees Project Name Project Limits Project Cost ($1,000s) Estimated Birch Bay- Lynden Road / Portal Intersection $3,000 Way Birch Bay-Lynden Road / Intersection $3,000 Harborview Road Birch Bay-Lynden Road Portal Way to UGA limit just east of Blaine Road $1,500 Widening Birch Bay-Lynden Road UGA limit just east of Blaine Road to Harborview $1,800 Widening Birch Point Connector Road Birch Pt. Road. to Shintaffer Road. $2,000 Lincoln Road Extension and Shintaffer Road. to Blaine Road (SR 548) $9,000 Improvement Portal Way/Dakota Creek Bridge $5,000 Bridge #500 Birch Bay- Lynden Road / Intersection $3,000 Blaine Road (SR 548) Grandview Road (SR 548) / Intersection $3,000 Vista Drive Intersection Hannegan Rd. Intersections (4 Intersections of Hannegan Rd with Kelly Rd., E $1,800 intersections) Laurel, Ten -Mile Rd., Van Dyk Rd. Hannegan Rd./SR 544 (E Pole Intersection $3,000 Rd.) Intersection Haxton Way Non -motorized Gooseberry Point to Slater Rd. $3,000 Improvements- 2 phases Lake Louise Rd. Sudden Valley Gate 13 to Austin St. $8,000 Lake Louise Rd. Sudden Valley Gate 13 to Whatcom Blvd. $8,000 Lake Whatcom Blvd. High Entire bridge $5,500 Bridge #115 Marine Drive Bennett Drive to Locust St. $1,400 Slater Rd. Hannegan Rd to Northwest Dr $4,000 Slater Rd. intersections (3 Slater Rd with Imhof Rd., Femdale Rd., and $3,000 intersections in project) Northwest Rd. Yew St. Rd.-Samish connector Yew St (San Juan Blvd.) and Samish Way $1,000 (amalgamation of several projects) ' ---------------------------------------- X---------------------------------------------------- -T_------------------ Ferry Dock Improvements Undefined $6,000 6,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G-4 Deleted: Yew Street Rd. Phase 2 Deleted: Samish Way to Kingsmill rDeleted: $6,000 Deleted: 79 822 Council Introduction Draft November 10, 2009................................Appendix G — Tmodel Run Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program Priori Pro-ect Identification Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars Federal Cost by Phase State Funds Local Funds Total Funds 1 Lincoln Road -1: Reconstruction and non -motorized 2 000 1 300 3 200 enhancements _2_ Birch Bay Lynden Road / Blaine Road SR 548: 20 20 Intersection improvements 3 Yew Street Road, Phase 2: Reconstruction and non- 2 228 _ 1.197 3 425 motorized enhancements 4 West Illinois / Timson Way. New roadway 5 5 5 Birch Bay Drive Pedestrian Facility: Pedestrian and non- _ 10 10 motorized enhancements 6 Potter Road Bridge #148: Replacement 795 105 900 7 Baker Lake Road, Sulphur Creek Bridge #422: 1 225 _ 190 1 415 Replacement 8 Slater Road / Nooksack River Bride 750 750 9 HaxtonWay Non -Motorized Improvements: Pedestrian _ 100 100 and bicycle off -road trail and safety improvements 10 Birch Bay Lynden Road / Portal Wav: Intersection _ 750 40 790 improvements 11 Mosquito Lake Road, Middle Fork Bridge #140: 450 _ 450 Rehabilitation 12 Clearbrook Road / Johnson Creek. Bridge #302: Bridge 800 _ 800 Replacement 13 Portal Wa /Dakota Creek Bridge #500: Reconstruction 5 5_ 14 Haxton Way: Structural overlay. paved shoulders, flood 500 _ 500 roofin 15 Point Roberts Transportation Improvement: Project 400. 400 location to be determined in 2010 16 North Shore Road: Reconstruction, non -motorized _ 50 50 enhancements 17 Slater Road Intersections: Install turn lanes at Imhof 10 10 Road and Femdale Road 18 Lincoln Road - II: Reconstruction and new road, non - 5 5 motorized enhancements 19 Siper Road: Reconstruction 5 5 20 Marine Drive: Reconstruction and bicycle/pedestrian 5 5 1 facilities 21 Marine Drive Little S ualicum Brid a#1: Rehabilitation 5 5 22 Mountain View Road: Reconstruction _ 5_ 5 23 Hannegan Road, Scott Ditch Bridge #245: Reconstruction/replacement 5 5 4 Legoe Bay Road Protection: Seawall removal and beach 5 creatio 25 Noon Road Ten Mile Creek Bridge #240 300 300 26 Assink Road Fishtrap Creek Bridge # 256 _ _ 320 320 27 South Pass Road Saar Creek Bridge # 212 _ 350 350 28 Northwest Drive Bear Creek Culvert 420 _ 58 478 29 South Pass Road Repair: JanuapL2009 storm 453 _ 92 545 30 Manley Road Culvert Re lacement: Janua 2009 storm 210 _ 30 240 31 Emerald Way Slide Repair from January 2009 storm 428 _ 104 532 32 i Rutsatz Road: Repair Janua 2009 storm damage 268 39 307 33 1 Refurbish/Upgrade of the Whatcom Chief 850 850 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan i Deleted: 2009-2014 Transportation Improvement Program ¶ 9 Priority 2 Formatted: Right Formatted: Left Formatted: Right 1_Formatted: Left ~ Formatted: Right ' a Formatted: Left — ------ `Formatted: Right i Formatted: Not Highlight l Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight ;� atted: Not Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Right Formatted: Right :. Formatted: Right I Formatted: Right-- 'Formatted: Right ' Formatted: Right G-5 Formatted: Left 823 G — Tmodel Run Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic 34 Ferry Dock Improvements: Improvements to Lummi 600 600 Island Ferry Docks 35 Various Fegy Parkin and Sta in _ 10 10 36 Gooseberry Point Fenn Dock Relocation: Relocation 10 5 15 feasibility study 37 Various Bridges Rehabilitation / Replacement: As 1600 1 000 prioritized 38 Subdivision overlays: Various locations 850 850 39 Structural Oveda s: Various locations 850 850 40 Right of Way Acg uisition: Various locations _ 180 180 41 Unanticipated Site Improvements: As prioritized 1 000 1 000 42 Gravel Conversions: Various locations 50 50 43 Storm water Quality Improvements: As Prioritized 450 450 44 Non -motorized Transportation Improvements: Various 750 750 Locations 45 Fish Passage Pro'ect: Various Locations 650 650 46 Railroad Crossing Improvements: Various Locations 180 47 Nei hborhood Traffic Calming: Various Locations �-13810 180 Totals 77 287 4 200 25.597 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan G-6 The population assumptions incorporated into the transportation model are shown below. k� s a� k '9�!r F,�y4 � vx j^^^' y., � •p r � 9 � d�v �✓�i4� ��a �^x �� a -000 ?ject�d' :-A 2000 �y cl Population �22° . x •*� x 1r� 4 CAl (roes lat4on CFO,e; Gowth z ;ir�ntsj 'Y.p•:/ },"rrChid k �'�'�, UGAs� �r de i��t. - _ fax. •-•,•;..5� - Y Nf A a 4 � ��`X"'�, ,yes � t � i y�.x SSA' 1 s <i 4k t � � x i'� 3, � ..,. ��< :zs: � c: z'�, � � -,.,,�. ,a.t,.�> w=r:..* t•.�. As � I1G/•15 �k'"s���: 3gel6nglram, >$ 67,171 78,040 113,055 35,015 ;' Blame' 3,770 4,779 7,942 -_.3,163 b�',��iersori= r 2,035 2,256 3,912 1,656 k ; Ferndale 8,758 9,934 17,322 7,388 r Linden .:......... .:..... 9,020 9,604 16,900 7,296 851 895 1,881 986 pumas ; 4,a, 978 995 1,669 674 z 92,583 106,503 162,681 56,178 Umncof poratetl'°r 74,231 60,311 72,236 11,925 �, •,, . .. 7ota1 WhatcomBfi81 86 814 , ��9 i 68 03 Count The computer transportation model assumed that total Whatcom County employment would grow from 83,195 jobs in 2000 to 116,288 jobs in 2022. Projected employment utilized in the transportation model was derived From the "baseline forecast' from Whatcom County Population and Economic Forecasts (ECONorthwest, May 2002), with the exception of agriculture and mining employment, which were not evaluated by the ECO Northwest. study. Page"�`� [2] Deleted , . `..., •:<, "'Sz Garr Davis..'..w ..r„ °s % { ......009.12✓OpPM, E-Om 2009-2014 Transportation Improvement Program Priority Project Identification Project Costs in Thousands of Dollars Federal Cost by Phase State Funds Local Funds Total Funds 1 Hanne an Road / SR 544 Intersection: Si nalization 1,910 1,910 2 Lincoln Road - I: Reconstruction and non -motorized enhancements 500 500 3 Birch Bay Lynden Road / Blaine Road SR 548: Intersection Improvements 5 5 4 Yew Street Road, Phase 2: Reconstruction and non- motorized enhancements 1,864 1,636 3,500 5 Birch Bay Drive Pedestrian Facility: Pedestrian and non- motorized enhancements 5 5 6 Bay Road Fish Passage: Fish Passage project, CRP # 908012 5 5 7 West Illinois / Timson Way: New roadway 1,100 750 5 1,855 8 Hampton Road, Mormon Ditch Bridge #261: Bridge replacement 4,775 350 5,125 9 Baker Lake Road, Sulphur Creek Bridge #422: Replacement 1,100 165 1,265 10 Mosquito Lake Road, Middle Fork Bridge #140: Rehabilitation 4,150 4,150 11 Slater Road / Nooksack River Bride 750 750 12 Lake Louise Road: Reconstruction 2,860 750 3,610 13 Haxton Way Non -Motorized Improvements: Pedestrian and bicycle off -road trail and safety improvements 1,624 430 2,054 14 Birch Bay Lynden Road / Portal Way: Intersection improvements 750 750 15 Clearbrook Road / Johnson Creek, Bridge #302: Bridge Replacement 794 794 16 Portal Way/ Dakota Creek Bridge #500: Reconstruction 5 5 17 Potter Road, Bridge #148: Replacement 5 5 18 Lummi View Drive: Embankment Stabilization 5 5 19 Haxton Way: Structural overlay, paved shoulders, flood proofing 500 500 20 Tyee Drive: Reconstruction and non -motorized enhancements 5 5 21 North Shore Road: Reconstruction, non -motorized enhancements 5 5 22 Slater Road Intersections: Install turn lanes at Imhof Road and Femdale Road 5 5 23 Lincoln Road - II: Reconstruction and new road, non- motorized enhancements 5 5 24 Siper Road: Reconstruction 5 5 25 Marine Drive: Reconstruction and bicycle/pedestrian facilities 5 5 26 Marine Drive, Little Squalicum Brid a#1: Rehabilitation 5 5 27 Mountain View Road: Reconstruction 5 5 28 Hannegan Road, Scott Ditch Bridge #245: Reconstruction/replacement 10 10 29 Refurbish/Upgrade of the Whatcom Chief 40 40 1 30 1 Ferry Dock Improvements: Improvements to Lummi I 1 1 30 1 30 1 • Island Ferry Docks 31 Various Ferry Parking and Staging 30 30 32 Gooseberry Point Ferry Dock Relocation: Relocation feasibility study 154 71 225 Various Bridges Rehabilitation / Replacement: As prioritized 1 1,400 1,400 34 Subdivision overlays: Various locations 5 5 35 Structural Overlays: Various locations 5 5 36 Right of Way Acquisition: Various locations 30 30 37 Unanticipated Site Improvements: As prioritized 2,400 2,400 38 Gravel Conversions: Various locations 5 5 39 Storm water Quality Improvements: As Prioritized 1 5 5 40 Non -motorized Transportation Improvements: Various Locations 5 5 41 Fish Passage Project: Various Locations 5 5 42 Railroad Crossing Improvements: Various Locations 5 5 43 Neighborhood Traffic Calming: Various Locations 5 5 Totals 16,797 6,510 7,731 31,038 827 m Exhibit B Amend the Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20) as shown below. WCC 20.20 Urban Residential (UR) District 20.20.252 Maximum density, minimum lot size and maximum lot size within an urban growth area. 1Vlaxurium Minimum Lot Siz"e L4a Size Min. Reserve Conventional Fluster: Maximum Cluster "_ ,.Area (Cluster District Gross Density Lots Ubdxvisions) UR: all densities Maximum N/A* 8000 22,000 sq 80% without public sewer gross sq. and water* * density: 1 dwelling unit/-510 acres UR: In Lake Maximum :; 5 acres N/A'"- N/A N/A Whatcom Watershed densitLj1 dwellia unit/5 acres with public sewer and water, and -; : stormwater collection and detention facilities.' density:4 4-0-ac-res 8,000 22-,000-sc- WIA dwellkng sq-. ft- ft, U unkkW-acres A*4e1-1in�s v-Gr-r$r"nnvu -p uaric sewer- and watff UR: all densities Maximum N/A* 8,000 22,000 sq. 80% outside short-term gross sq. ft. ft. planning areas** density: 1 dwelling unit/-510 acres UR: all densities Maximum N/A* 8,000 22,000 sq. 80% with public sewer or gross sq. water* * density: 1 ---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- Exhibit Page 1 of 9 dwelling unit/-S10 acres UR-3: in short-term Maximum 12,000 sq. ft. 8,000 N/A 25% planning areas with gross sq. ft. public sewer and density: 3 water, and dwelling stormwater units/ 1 acre collection and detention facilities UR-4: in short-term Maximum 8,000 sq. ft. 6, ,"_ 0 % T f 20% planning areas with gross q 'ft 'sq. public sewer and density: 4 water, and dwelling stormwater units/1 acre collection and detention facilities Minimum net density: 4 dwelling units/1 acre* UR-6: in short-term Maximum 5,500 sg ft„ 4,000 N/A 20% planning areas with gross `�" sq. ft. public sewer and density 6 water, and dwelling stormwater units/1 acre collection and detention facilities Minimum net density: 6 dwelling units/1 acre* * * For the purpose of administering the lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional minimum lot size shall be fi-vve-ten acres. ** Minimum density shall be calculated as net density, after deducting the areas restricted from development by critical area regulations and infrastructure requirements. Exhibit B— ------------------------- -------------- -.Page 2 of 9 1 WCC 20.22 Urban Residential Medium (URM) District 20.22.250 Maximum/minimum density, minimum lot size and width. (Ord. 2004-021 § 1, 2004). 20.22.251 Minimum lot size. For the purpose of creating new building lots within the Urban Residential Medium Density District, several land use densities are herein provided. The minimum lot size requirements for new construction vary according to whether or not public sewer and water serve the project site and whether or not transferable de�elopmex ti�rights are used. The minimum lot size shall be ten acres or, if public sewer aid wd O are provided the minimum lot size shall be 7,200 square feet. (Ord. 2004-021 § 1zs2004z ,Qrd. 87-12, 1987; Ord.87-11 1987). 20.22.252 Maximum/minimum density and minimum lot size — General. 20.22.252 Maximum/minimum density and minimumlot.size — General. (1) Maximum Minimum Lot Size Reserve Mimmum " Minimum Area Gross: Lot Size —= Lot Size Clustered (Cluster District Denszty ;-, Conventional — Cluster Lots Divisions) URM: all densities Maxnnu n -,,N/A* 7,200 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% without public sewer and,, density: 1 ft. ft. water dwelling ; unit/510 acres a'rMe Max4mum 10-aef s 7;300- . 2-2,g9-s� S 890 T r(-o- vd-kha' bhe •density: 1- -ft-. -ft-. -ae-w-ei-card `dv atef d'd e li*g too us -acres URM: all densities Maximum N/A* 7,200 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% outside short-term density: 1 ft, ft. planning areas dwelling unit/510 acres URM: all densities with Maximum N/A* 7,200 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% public sewer or water density: 1 ft. ft. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Exhibit Page 3 of 9 831 dwelling unit/5 10 acres URM-6: with public Maximum 7,200 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A sewer and water, and density: 6 stormwater collection and dwelling detention facilities units/acre URM-12: with public Maximum 7,200 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A sewer and water, and density: 12 stormwater collection and dwelling detention facilities units/acre I�TA UR-M-18: with public Maximum 7,200 sq. ft.. N/A N/A sewer and water, and density: 18 stormwater collection and dwelling ri detention facilities units/acre URM-24: with public Minimum N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A sewer and water, net density: , §' stormwater collection and 10 dwelling: detention facilities and, to units/acre obtain a net density greater than 10 dwelling A:... units per acre, transferable development rights Maxiniur>i pursuant to the provisions density: 24 of Chapter 20 89-_WCC dwelling and subsection (4 of this .units/gross section acre * For the purpose of administering the lot consolidation provisions of WCC 20.83.070, the conventional minimum lot -size shall be fwe ten acres. Revise 20.22.252(4) as follows: (4) In the URM-24 zZ-ones4n-the-Bell-inghani--L--r-bm GreNvtli Area, minimum density shall be calculated as net density, after deducting the areas restricted from development by critical area regulations and infrastructure requirements. Revise 20.22.252(5) as follows: In the URM-24 zZones4n4hngh-ai-n-U an-Cir—o r--ea, transferable development rights (TDRs) 4&mti T-ake-V, lY� �c-�door. �-must be used to achieve net densities higher than 10 dwelling units/acre, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.89 WCC, Density Transfer Procedure,in-cru„r4.ruevelop-atgym, Yi.,ic�u�.��.�x.�. Each development right transferred h-erri-th T-��tc�w-a-tw-,hed-may be used to develop three dwelling units in the LICAURM-24 zone. Exhibit B-------------------------- Page 4 of 9 832 Exhibit B Page 5 of 9 833 WCC 20.24 Urban Residential Mix Use (LTRMX) 20.24.251 Minimum lot size. For the purpose of creating new building lots within the Urban Residential Mixed District, several land use densities are herein provided. The minimum lot size requirements for new construction vary according to whether or not public sewer, water, and, where identified by the appropriate Comprehensive Plan policies, stormwater collection and detention facilities serve the project site. Where public sewer and water are not provided, the minimum lot size shall be ten acres. If public sewer and water, and, where specified by the Comprehensive Plan, stormwater AraW g f�c i fies are provided, the minimum lot size shall be as presented in WCC 20 242'2'. (OSrd 09-024 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 2004-021 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2001-023 § 1, 2001; Or 98 083 Exh. A § 66, 1998; Ord. 97-046 § 2, 1997). 20.24.252 Density and minimum lot size. k. Minimum Reserve Minimum:= rC�Iusteqred Area Lot Size Lot Size` (Cluster District Gross Density Conventional' �::`Cluster Lots Divisions) URMX: all densities Maximum - ` N/A 4,000 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% without public sewer density: 1 ft. ft. and water dwelling ; unit/510 acres �j ` Nfaxiu 48-aer-es 4,000 2�y2999-sc- -89°�0 sq. dweRing uniV444eres ;tt, ,,,t r„t,i;Wef and-w-ar.,. URMX: all densities Maximum N/A 4,000 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% outside short-term density: 1 ft. ft. planning areas dwelling unit/5 10 acres URMX: all densities Maximum N/A 4,000 sq. 22,000 sq. 80% with public sewer or density: 1 ft. ft. water dwelling unit/510 acres URMX: with public Maximum 4,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A sewer and water, and gross density: stormwater collection 10 dwelling and detention facilities units/1 acre - ---— -------------------------------------------------------------- Exhibit B Page 6 of 9 Minimum net density: 6 dwelling units/1 acre URMX (6 — 10): with Maximum 4,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A public sewer and water, gross density: and stormwater 10 dwelling collection and units/1 acre detention facilities Minimum net density: 6 units/1 acre URMX (6 — 12): with Maximum N/A N/A N/A.., N/A public sewer and water, gross density:A:. and stormwater 12 dwelling collection and units/1 acre detention facilities Minimum net density: 6 units/1 acre URMX (10 — 24): with Maximum N/A NlA N/A N/A public sewer and water, gross density and stormwater 24 dwelling collection and units/1 acre detention facilities Miriimum.net density units/1 acre (1) Minimum density shall"becalculated as net density, after deducting the areas restricted from development by critical areas regulations and infrastructure requirements. (2) For development with densities over a zone's minimum net density, 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. Each development right transferred from the Lake Whatcom watershed may be used to develop three dwelling units in the UGA. TDRs must be used to attain any density greater than the minimum net density of a zone. (Ord. 2009-024 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 2004- 021 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2001-023 § 1, 2001; Ord. 99-087 § 1, 1999; Ord. 97-046 § 2, 1997). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exhibit BPage 7 of 9 835 Chapter 20.74 CHERRY POINT INDUSTRIAL (CP) DISTRICT Sections: 20.74.010 Purpose. 20.74.020 Applicability. 20.74.030 Permitted uses. 20.74.040 ti Accessory uses. A; 20.74.050 Conditional uses. 20.74.060 Master site plan requirements. 20.74.070 Minimum lot size and parcelizatori 20.74.080 Design standards. 20.74.090 Traffic Demand Mari$a"'eg ment. V 20.74.090 Traffic Demand A" ement programs for.desi ng atinjor Industrial Urban Growth Area. Any employer in the Cherry Point Urban Growth Area that employs one hundred or more full-time employees at a single worksite who begin their regular work day between 6:00 am and 9:00 am on M requirements of WCC 16.24. (1) Employers located in Cherry Point who have not implemented a TDM program, shall implement a TDM program by December 1, 2011. (2) Employers in Cherry Point meeting the criteria for having to complete a plan after December 1. 2011 shall meet the reauirements of this section within one vear havine met the criteria. Exhibit B Page 8 of 9 • WCC 20.40 Agriculture District 20.40.010 Purpose. The primary purposes of this district are to implement the agricultural designation of the Comprehensive Plan, established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170, preserve, enhance and support the production of food and fiber in Whatcom County to maintain a sufficiently large agricultural land base to ensure a viable agriculture industry and to maintain the economic feasibility of supporting services. Whatcom County supports agricultural activities as the highest priority use in the Agriculture District, with all other uses being subordinate to agricultural activities. Whatcom County seeks to minimize conflict,with, surrounding zoning districts, in conjunction with Chapter 14.02 WCC;'Right tb,'T fin. In order to limit the further fragmentation of the commercial agricultural I&i* p, the Agriculture District includes smaller areas of d with poorer "ality soils or nonagricultural uses, which do not meet the defffifid of agriculture lan&'of long-term commercial significance. A secondar. Ap trpose of this distnet°is to to allow agricultural uses in the near term urban development consistent with the prtite6tion of the resource land. Yt WCC 20.42 Rural Forestry District 20.42.010 Purpose. The prima y,purpose of-,l s.district is to implement the forestry designation of the Whatcoiri':.County Cbmprelieusive Plan, established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 by. providing the:opportunity for nonindustrial landowners to manage their land..for'lorig-term productivity and sustained use of forest resources. In addition, the district. encourages the management of land for wildlife, aesthetics, and other noncommodityvalues. It also provides for uses that are compatible with these activities, while maintaining water quality and soil productivity. Lummi Island Scenic Estates shall be administered under the RR -I zone district regulations. A secondary_ purpose of this district is to serve as a holding district within the urban growth area comprehensive plan designations to allow forestry uses in the near term while protecting the area from suburban sprawl and preserving the potential for future urban development. ExhibitB---------------------------------------�------------------------------ - ------ - --Page 9 of 9 837 Official Zoning Map - Map UGA 1-a a >'+ .• \ E F Sp;.rtx' S�'+�•g'{��" lP�rt, N'.... .5MAP i.`,•tF i; • ( � o''` Nil ' { " ' roF. If t ,, �a' e .y, ON' a7', %f, na tE it'�� '� fig' .d •;� S'd s IPRIe St any F AN, E, t-�_<aY+• .t'3 -- ,� s �-�<�f"•�, .�- � "\"° a, x<��� L � �' Rik - '��a. � �A' "�i ,t r• -= a ~ N Ulk �s 5 n x1 SPuaR €� mHerbor r- Jli , 9 i� All :".y.,; ass 5 � � Si �S t �'�t§^•. '§y�.�'� �-y ... � .. ,1' fii yaisl� 33 g0x a W Si7ingIEi}� ds y/ f Unlversit m k # Rts( gal. r ,4 �V#3 � RF f yx ^xa 'v F F t d. a RF - f :_,I ��,.,, • � ;. AI ka Ferry r a AA� m�V� k Fost Fn. 3 f p f fit' A— GALBRAITH MTN r x ;rl s :ea w ±e P� , r ''liS�RuRr3J3:1 i 3- i - ...... - s _ f a• ^� p i ... Bellingham UGA & Surrounding Area November10, 2009 Title 20 Zoning Designations USC PY NXITCW CCJPIY'S SIS SM1'A IMPLIES TNC USER'S �yNDoavS �� ASREEIAEN1 k'I-?i 1:tE FJtto VINE SrRTCMFN uM4apl��m co", PT tlpmCmc'.rdiwlalxi9aayv;e+raplY'+!'=crc�e.^.!eC?JIYe:xenaxlY P'" 3 w^09 x • • ExistingZoning Boundary g ry � "� Proposed Urban Growth Area I lSmsaplL,- Dh r/f YmtAPlat p'vrapse elt er es?ztse> :-- mtpllW k[ epr asax,441.111, mrasa9+S leeaar. r b p>eaaYQer p QaS:RYae aE..wla6 ana31amc. s AaYawrmmz scPawcpaaolryw:'z.�am..= : usaoemc�rhxrmlastra:, �o • --- makn+ors-swQem a.a �a!aa �e -ems - ^. Proposed Zoning Boundary ;;; aamapi. wTa er.:aa.mY.namtr<x as pwa{Ip_i area IQfa �Ag6 Qao.xa Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserve Please Note: These maps do not reflect the Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 1008109. The entire Urban Growth Area has been designated Short Term Planning Area. a — a 14W 2— S•a atm i aid ICI i•' -.:A4 M14 I. Ha�.!�'� L V ei _ T! " y�(��ppy5l�, Ji 'w'1u" YV' <.o#'`• ji. -4' 'CC c ? `_yt7�k,.+ ,Cottonwood Beach '4 6 €:s.r . . �; £ � •fir .tx9".:e'. ?� ..< < 1 t , BIRCH BA`{ STATE P'49K...::�.::::,...::._ ii Pl. Whi[eham 0 .•, .. _.:�?«-:::. "iti .i4sa $ilti•Y..j.k:lLaSa .1:!'aF1Ci�/1@iN'ISdY j Official Zoning Map - Map UGA 2-a 1 Blaine UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations Existing Zoning Boundary i Proposed Urban Growth Areas Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short -Term Planning Area. 1 November 10, 2009 USEFFltEHTlMA COJ!71V'S GIS DATA IMPUES THE USER'S �rC!x P-knryA 11-i IIEPS:IA N'IHGMAT'FMPtfI: I 400 . CO` o p enlxmomccn+:!Y915:!x!eaaYws:rYwsY;YiSrYmYm5mnry5r„anarny "� 200Q '<o en!nnx5wlr.,i map mr:..—v Partl:.l.: puhraSY, etlkxr 5rn!eSL nr T' iinyllnl.ke:nP*=Enr-1w!Innnrxn'wMYlt rt. in E:eglp!ng llE 0:5Yr• y i�%�'�'-• ax}. sut2nrs. m�P�aER.waL Y:rryxIllY c'Ee!d �LPlstsl SY IAIB mYn r`i.S::;if. •,;: i��::; 44• lSf ue,.1,+Ih4 r+_nsw=ei.311 re5nw9dlIIIlY tat NY!M1YrtY!, Intl s_ � funliY=.sor_sa lY kultl Waelenm CScran lnrnlne in!a axa apahsl Ynn " -Enaae. locS.cr:leF:llly a>:flnY i!BnY BnE YSF Y!!M1h:9YP. 4C ', ,M,i �4W •��'lLOPYB Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. 0 12. 2- aew 720Y 96. Official Zoning Map - Map UGA 3-a is L kney k r I Q lzztl �AG_ lk C13 AG F- _71 7' 7 J L r h - -6 J N Jr A "i" ....... . .......... F A G I A V .3 -3 1.Z7 AG Y. . ....... ... . ...... __ Eft -� - lAG J J ERS 0M . . ................ r --- - ----- I�N in yk R --A 7 1, X ....... . . 7", ....... ... .... . ..... CG . . .... IN _H A, ... . .... ....... . .... 7_J zj....... . . ....... SSG UR % Y'J_ — - - ------- I . ........... .. . ........ — ........ . . ......... . .... . . E_J \'Xo . ..... . ......... .......... N, 1 . . . . ...... - - - ------- . ....... 0; ......... ... . . _j ILA - )AI . .......... M_ L C ;..--;.--: - ---------- .......... ... . ........ . .. ... .. I., k_ IT M Im UF i� ........... . .... .... . .......... ..... A . ... ... .. .. . ................. ........ kip L ............. .......... .... . .......... .... ....... . ........ . . ..... 7 . .......... Hnnpm .... .. .... ...... ... ... . ........ .. _.qr ii� . . ................... Everson UGA & Surrounding Area November 70, 2009 WE OF W ATCOM COOK"" 015 OVA IMPLIE5 T f WRIA REFMFNT Title 20 Zoning Designations vd­ C." KIWI 700q "'.0—Cm Existing Zoning Boundary IK" % Proposed Urban Growth Area C'. Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserve Please Note: These maps do not reflect the Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short -Term Planning Area. 840 A PP. ■ —1 M M M M ■■ A r II& a Of R5 R r4) -o Of vrnciai Zuriniq iviap - iviap UGA 4-a '�--•.. . _ • AG ! Lat(ijmR 'Rd_ �..... ..... W -.�;. .. .. .. :a - i._ _ ...... Slater Rd r •ry Qf Rayhorst - Rd Ferndale UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Areas Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing„ in italics. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short -Term Planning Area. November 10, 2009 USE OF`tiNkTGOM t:uWiY'3 GIS 9A-A t'¢r'LIE$7fF USER'3 ""GO KOMW CO A6flEFMFNf :tilYet :NE f]:L4t41Mf.5iA:EMEWi: o SO 04,E%r arn;amcc,cymnl>,imaa•rxiarraara:�urn:-:.aomrya: a�rr �'T 3v04 m lttFa¢cmr..l¢maP br,-r PWn1-_:IArcurc:., P¢-s�a�,�a:¢o:rr impned Wc•�P�ru.m•mwa,rAMr.o maaw:a•:¢ml-a1"•Arn.�• yr er, e¢rc:nct mG:;era¢Pr q¢rl ly r+:. ¢rtcFl•Icd an thl¢-9 AW�iel1, lhBmS•Sau.-'"@loll rpSP_14"jty w .a Wh O. _ "e lur!F.er e0r'-rs N hoW Y/haF,om C:xYt har .lets lmn aid apaln•J a-i tlamA¢¢. bis. sr ��a111v xdHra tr¢m v.=.v uss aF l[:a mac. •�Fi'E¢oW'�4e Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. Lynden UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area OMMMMonq Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserve Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. November 10, 2009 "af Or WHATOOM tOOOTY's CIS MAI €MPLCSEr.[LISEAS t�oMP Cp iy tSflfftlENi WE'llitlf rS.xAWIMO STATEMf9T: px � rp 4��r Wnaxemccanrau!N�onTuena[[hamexneremr!tpraeramr �o'? 2004 � a d slaaeaWwa maomre-y Part:edu ww:ar. a:n�r naarGr;m �+. ko[eyrnaanlallpn o[ttextaMY4 n[aOa e.r:erurp lne accir �•i f�.rl'�..�E -. ,_w 'GT, CIElY.tT,i 1p�E'aet O'Ooa!Ily o!OMa oYp:[Ia3 of ili map. f '-'i'b�*.%^%� hpT asac+'aMe lanY aemxxe nll rc[ppnJe!Illy!pr p[a iaertc!, ara aep aaalrA ary h:ndtta■W., laid WV"It'beurn'U.1. s -- - 0lrpn I naalAae. IOan.C!8e■11■a adstnp l!ala afy tlll p!:pIR [IB'r III P�OfYFIOWf'ae ��i / Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short -Term Planning Area. b 600 1600 aiW CapO bapOa' Tc Official Zoning Map - Map UGA 6-a Cr AG f J R(5) I r i ]][ 1A. ...gg t.... ems: L `? _ ;. i .... I. ............ .. ::.: ' - F? 5 �• Y '—1 1. Y:�-� 1 1 4 J i R 5X a, ss Rd ...�....____.._a—; ..... - ... ....., .. _.. as • Yf�`l�S 1, • Nooksack UGA & Surrounding Area November 3, 2009 �.wroRwF:� L'YE!l� FINRTGFA7 CC'IATY'3 GIS DATA I.Y.Fllf9 ^.It UUfR'S AGRFEAtEMT AUN INI'!'U;1.U'RINF UTA=kMlN9: Title 20 Zoning Designations 4•ap`Tp4`OM �„,,.aMtea;adad� __ 3 zco4 r< =p.=:MN: taslcu=aFxnr�•amalr i INi•m la, elk�Map =aypslwluµrvt]u, aN?+l R[A.tata . IMpn� F=-.w�w:runmxo.•xf Mw wnnnay wrs zsa. �'$ .. , . Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area xq.cerax=wap�eacesagezNN/a1:Yzfr,LMed anlNli rva'r'. `��•si«:i^� g arererw•na;a�,w.—aa an napaml.INY 7cr•se tM+zaf, aid y-X:�•.-r krRn a®x�M wM•v�comf *. F/ga eLxkfMM aNd�aln lA= i0 ''=: ZW dawxa. txa a: acnry =axmFlMc en Fw alths maa. •FVFIOp�'Y Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserve Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short -Term Planning Area. pee, 0 ro. B�0 f6:0 i<]0 33H1 ON vrnciai f-umng iviap - iviap U"A r-a 6 AG i - f_._..... ...... _._..._..� CO =� r'! ...... .... _ ja' � -�... ' � d -•- - ! i . ! .................! . _ _ --- - J -- ` _ iif �,% is ".:;.�;•:..:: �:� � 't M i 'IF ........._ i AG U) Sumas UGA & Surrounding Area November, 2009 �y OPNia N^NEF ENi 11:^t CNE F-]:LOWIXG STd'(MENI.MPLIaIIE NSEN': CO` ^ Title 20 Zoning Designations oCey''tiG�N! txa Q.m Gaa-y■avncagxa ar.F a° snag=�SryaPmFery n-3� aooe "< ollrcFats a!IMa meP lPr a.^.y ganLs!_•psrvsea, vitas asQ=ap at ,.; 5:_w: Impllarc. ".j�: •." xpF.'� pa 9proravn:^Y.lrsn or wa:ram�'a matlo eartaercl-Q L`A gad+ Y^, jF, !=ty: %F i�^��''� Existing Zoning Boundary. Proposed Urban Growth Areas A.(aaar al ln!6ma; assi!.^.aa all!_iParsl r!ea;tavM. e:f: wr.(aa aoaeaa onose a+tm;om c;. QnamieaaiMmasana P(a-( 4p j.x �—yare aartiA:e.los[.u!::s��llts sis;iw h.s: a'Y uca at lF.:a ma¢ v�lyELOOMv` (There is no proposed Proposed Zoning Boundary Unincorporated UGA for Sumas) Please Note: These maps do not reflect the Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. as a 844 Official Zoning Map - Map UGA 8-a IhA r3N ; iSfF ', jc � Y�'•. ��: `may `�•A..' - <_\----_...__......_X..Q i i..Ji q t q _. ( i f ��' '::R1:0••'tl:a�. • � Rlvl �4 •�•'' i ■ R(10) UR(4) Dircn Day UGA a Surrounding Area K*«', USE tl?WXh1i:Ch1 UD�I?IIY'4 GIU pR":AIM?l�tS iHEIISFX'X y9�COM C�>a Afi9FQMF.Xt:Yr:H iJk'F;1:.IAW.IMS LIq'=fetF*l Title 20 ZoningDesignationsg� Proposed Urban Growth Area ass= p �"X°'°°m°°�#t°`-'='�•°°��°�°rc°°'�"°�°■°��°�~m°°'°°" � 2eoy kr eXMral4nn,r :sx: gtlk=ni eFlii +q .f Qritxuq: QaP°tt. _.,, drfXe!X.F=�aara°anI°.9W ar xarrzafQli ma!°wncaba Ub ttWn �'�=�; �^.-.� m Existing Zoning Boundary."'.'.'. Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserveraa�I°q�!W3tQa�t..�-„..ga�.Q�ga.. Y. aarr_eGQ.wnD3la=rea °rgcX4}`="_a!e,-1. cIMGA:F.f NaQ. t .•"':• -: •F-u Qart,Ya.laaa. ar.aClar iscolrca!!r aaaoliy¢naa. �AZ•QQoWF�"e Proposed Zoning Boundary ���� Subject to Ord. #2004-049 Please Note: These maps do not reflect the Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, Existing Zoning Designations, when changing„ in italics. as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short -Term Planning Area. Q �QO faro 290J 42M fifiW *This area only, in the UGAR, is subject to Ord. #2004-049 upon future inclusion into the UGA. Official Zoning Map - Map UGA 9-a Columbia Valley UGA & Surrounding Area November 10,2009 ylryry L'S'pF WNI'GOMGGL=kiT'ti G:P DAiA IMPuES THE IIi`ER'S r�OMlvYS d.4GkEMF4l Wllk lilt. tGU.GWIHG SfAIF(g}ry'-: T`pS� C0�'Y> Title 20 Zoning Designations o W%WmCPYEI,eaEl�ma;:,m5tmp,�almtlSAbla➢i::yta�a.nm, 3 7o09 <E•mh'=a^k9a?PmPnse `':.. lAMtat➢b:'!hE^:=P siRct aYPr_a.- / Inpkw. He,aFeaebmi Er s: vxmnry is mWEebrceehq E¢Pldedea?hk.^..�. Existing Zoning Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area api,EL^E0yWmPlCebeu x?gvaU;, a?68b N':"�.'r�iV p-Y Yst?PI IAh map zsub:t5 al�iMP:MIMII?i •t•tu Paeebl em` - Q Y^titt.P?aae•b mWV.OEIE �,�„�x,a1?Emp dE➢gin alY =p �- . demdEe ':i6. 9(!7.➢III'1 ull:! from anY Y50 bl NIS ma: QmFyELOvtlE� Proposed Zoning Boundary �' Proposed Urban Growth Area Reserve Please Note: These maps do not reflect the `— — zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. as proposed in the Rural Element Update, Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. passed by the Planning Commission 10)08109. The entire Urban Growth Area has been zoned Short -Term Planning Area. o WO Iwo 20w �aoo lowxi M urnciai t-oning iviap - iviap uwA -iu-a Cherry Point UGA & Surrounding Area Title 20 Zoning Designations ' Existing Zoning Boundary L_ Proposed Urban Growth Areas Proposed Zoning Boundary Proposed Zoning Designations in bold. Existing Zoning Designations, when changing, in italics. MOUNTAI 9 November 10, 2009 USE dF WMRTLCM GUNTY3 f,13 OA.'A IM IES! pp WY""'Ib FE NE USER'S q GpM ('p M ABREFMENTINIT.I* FaJ WING S!CEMENT: 4o 3,t`P1' V'1jFlsn WT.aL'am Cauay OkLlelmi in)vea!rca!T a:.+irel:in:icllil/a: xxTl.'_'j r- oq 0! mPeie M ILA maP1!r �.:/� ml'.L•Le�i-'raiL1� ■lhir el¢'aie x mpNip. 11o:ePrserEalk ra:ea. .i made wn:eMq Lv acm x �i� f' h,., _. m T•COIr00eT, AvPI'—'Laeaf ar�[x!IIT N::11!ai:he'4o1..Rlelad-2.. Aai O»:0(iN!ecr�aart^et al!reipar.arl![Y `;!F`� NCleriSlaaa Nl NOM ribaGmn Ca.iT haer'eaS lna aitl iOaleY a-i cF_-yyti dnmaee.Eaas. ar..a.nrv:a:mN Nim as nii a!¢a maa. s ; °B!'ELovM� Please Note: These maps do not reflect the zoning changes that may be adjacent to UGAs, as proposed in the Rural Element Update, passed by the Planning Commission 10108109. Feel 0 t pop 1000 a fug 6 000 B 000 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5280 Northwest Drive, Suite B < Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, 360-380-8100 �qsN,►°�°� 360-738-2525 Fax MEMORANDUM TO: Whatcom County Council CC: Pete Kremen, County Executive FROM: David Stalheim, Director DATE: November 16, 2009 RE: Urban Growth Area Decision DAVID STALHEIM Director J.E. "SAM" RYAN Assistant Director On Tuesday, November 10`h, I outlined four Urban Growth Area issues that we asked the County Council to reconsider before taking final action on the ordinance November 20'. Those four areas include the Urban Growth Areas for Lynden, Sumas, Everson and Ferndale. In addition, we would ask that the Council reconsider not including the provisional rezone requirements for development requirements in the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area at the intersection of Blaine and Alderson Roads. The Urban Growth Area proposal submitted to the County Council by Executive Kremen included reduction of approximately 7,600 acres from existing Urban Growth Areas while allocating an increase of nearly 12,000 people over existing plans. This recommendation did not come at the expense of agricultural land; in fact, the recommendation resulted in no net loss of agricultural land of long-term commercial significance in Whatcom County. The Growth Management Act requires the county attempt to reach agreement with each city on the location of an urban growth area. The County Executive reached out to each city before making a recommendation, none of which were what the city had originally requested in June. As the review process unfolded, several cities (Everson, Nooksack, Sumas, Lynden and Bellingham) made it clear that while they preferred their original proposal that the alternatives proposed by the County Executive might also be acceptable to the cities. The proposal of the County Executive should be viewed as an attempt to balance the interest of the cities with the interest of the county, and thus fulfilling the requirements of the Growth Management Act. I would urge the Council to carefully consider these recommendations as they do meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The following pages include a summary of these recommendations, along with reasons to consider alternatives to what the Council introduced on November 10`h. -0 . TO: Whatcom County Council RE: Urban Growth Area Recommendation November 16, 2009 Lynden Reconsideration for the following two actions is requested: 1. Replace the Council's proposal for Lynden's UGA and UGA Reserve with the Executive's recommendation. That recommendation included designating an Urban Growth Area to Double Ditch Road (Council put this into UGA Reserve) and the area on the west side of Double Ditch Road into UGA Reserve. (See attached map for Executive's recommendation.) 2. Replace the population growth allocation to Lynden to 5,175 and adjust the county growth forecast accordingly to 246,602. Recommend: ♦ UGA to Double Ditch ♦ UGA Reserve on west side of Double Ditch There is great sensitivity to expansion of Lynden into agricultural lands. However, additional consideration of the following issues would be suggested: ♦ If growth is not allocated based on historic share of growth to Lynden, where will it go? People and businesses choose to locate in that community for a variety of reasons. If there is not sufficient land for housing in the city, will people choose instead to move into adjacent rural and resource lands? See exhibit on following page that shows existing development rights on agricultural lands. ♦ Failure to provide sufficient area for Lynden to grow will only increase pressure on utilizing these development rights that will result in not only a loss of agricultural land, but placing development in the middle of the agricultural zones that will increase the conflict between these two uses. ♦ The city committed to working together with the County on efforts to ensure protection of at least 100,000 acres of agricultural lands. The City agreed to establish a TDR receiving zone to accept density transferred out of agricultural lands. ♦ The densities used for the unincorporated parts of the Lynden Urban Growth Area (7.6 units per net acre) are higher than any other urban area, even the city of Bellingham. Page 2 of 7 M TO: Whatcom County Council RE: Urban Growth Area Recommendation November 16, 2009 Lynden has also agreed to establish minimum density requirements in the single family zoning designations to ensure that the land is used efficiently and as planned in this review process. The following exhibit shows agricultural lands in the vicinity of Lynden with development rights still available. Blue indicates full build out; yellow indicates a potential additional dwelling unit; orange is two additional dwelling units and brown is three additional dwelling units. Sumas Reconsideration is requested as follows: 1. Accept the Executive's recommendation to include employment opportunity south of Sumas and an Urban Growth Area Reserve for residential areas. Consider alternative for Urban Growth Area to Hovel Road to allow for residential development outside floodplain areas. Consideration should be given to the following: ♦ The population growth request for Sumas and allocation was based on a Draft EIS population bracket. If the same allocation process for Sumas was used as for Blaine, Everson, Ferndale and Nooksack, an allocation of 1,133 people would have been allocated to Sumas, rather than the 793. This underscores the need to assume that the lands designated by the Executive for Urban Growth Area Reserve may be needed within the planning period, or slightly beyond, and would provide consistency with the other small cities in Whatcom County (except Lynden which has a low allocation). Page 3 of 7 1 TO: Whatcom County Council RE: Urban Growth Area Recommendation November 16, 2009 ♦ The employment growth into the Urban Growth Area would accommodate employment opportunities not otherwise available within the city of Sumas. The reasons for this were outlined in the city's proposal in June. This is justification to allocate land for urban growth. The employment numbers were also undercounted in Sumas due to state data reporting problems, so consideration should be given to not restricting the growth ♦ Sumas has provided information regarding flooding within the area south of the city currently designated as an Urban Growth Area. This is one of the few areas that does not flood, so limiting growth would be counter productive to efforts that encourage development outside Nooksack River flood overflow areas that can endanger 75% to 80% of the city. Recommendation: ♦ Add UGA and UGA Reserve ♦ Consider UGA to Hovel Road, with remaining in Reserve Sumas UGA and UGA Reserve Area overlaid on FEMA maps. White areas are outside 100-year Page 4 of 7 851 TO: Whatcom County Council RE: Urban Growth Area Recommendation Everson Reconsideration is requested as follows: November 16, 2009 1. Accept the Executive's recommendation for Everson that included expansion of the Urban Growth Area north into agricultural lands in exchange for reducing the Urban Growth Area and placement into agricultural lands. Consideration should be given to the following: ♦ The city meets the expectation of no net loss of agricultural lands in their proposal. ♦ The expansion is outside of the floodplain and the GMA now restricts further UGA expansion into floodplains. ♦ The expansion is centrally located adjacent to parks and can be adequately provided with public services and facilities. Page 5 of 7 852 TO: Whatcom County Council RE: Urban Growth Area Recommendation November 16, 2009 Ferndale Reconsideration is requested as follows: 1. Amend the Executive's original recommendation to include the West Thornton (Area "3") and Storr Road/Mountain View Road (Area "4") areas in the Urban Growth Area. 2. Accept the Executive's recommendation for an Urban Growth Area Reserve for the Vista/Malloy area to the north of Ferndale. Recommendation: ♦ Add areas back into UGA Reserve for ioint olannino Recommendation: ♦ Add areas back into UGA Consideration should be given to the following: ♦ The city provided additional details in the October 23, 2009 proposal that justifies including the West Thornton and Storr Road/Mountain View Road areas in the UGA. These issues include extension of sewer, water, roads and other public services to the area. In addition, the area would provide a mix of housing types not available within multi -family zones in the city. ♦ The area to the north (Vista/Malloy) is a logical growth area for the city and should be planned by the city as the lead agency. Continued planning for urban facilities and services for this area, along with measures to protect the sensitive Drayton Harbor and Birch Bay watersheds, should take place. Page 6 of 7 853 TO: Whatcom County Council RE: Urban Growth Area Recommendation Birch Bay Reconsideration is requested as follows: November 16, 2009 1. The Council should reconsider not including the provisional rezone requirements for development requirements in the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area at the intersection of Blaine and Alderson Roads. Both the County Executive and County Planning Commission recommended deleting the provisions of this rezone adopted in 2004. The TDR requirements still exist for the residential portions of this development to meet the higher density requirements. Page 7 of 7 FM WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. g on9-446 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: SM nF)] E D Nov, 1-7 2009 WHATCOM �v+OUNTY COUNCIL _ Nov. 24' 2009 Council Division Head. - Dept. Head. Prosecutor: Purchasing/Budget: Executive: '' 17 TITLE OF DO ENT: Substance Abuse Advisory Board appointment ATTACHMENTS: Application for appointment SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes (X) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( )Fes (X) 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.) County Executive Pete Kremen requests confirmation of his appointment of Gayla Donaldson to the Substance Abuse Advisory Board. COMMITTEEACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 855 PETE KREMEN COUNCILMEMBERS: County Executive Qorvt:'cy,. Barbara E. Brenner Laurie Caskey-Schreiber Sam Crawford Seth M. Fleetwood Robert Kelly L. Ward Nelson Carl Weimer APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO WHATCOM COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Name of board or committee -please see reverse:�L�h5AU.5A-(rj�Sorci Which position on this board are you applying for (if applicable)? Which Council district do you reside in? ( ) One Are you a US citizen? N yes ( ) no Name: Street City: (JJ Two ( ) Three Are you a registered voter? 'N yes ( ) no Mailing Address (edifferent from street address): Day Telephone: _75 f0"((-S 1 Evening Telephone: Fax Number: E-mail address: Occupation (If retired, please indicate former occupation): Professional/Community Activities: Qualifications related to position: Date: Zip Code:. - Describe why you are interested in serving on this board or commission: 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 L4no If yes, please explain: References (please include name and daytime telephone number): Signature of applicant: As a candidate to a public board or commission, the above information will be available to the County Council, County Executive, and the public.