Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Packet Nov 7 2012
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-330 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: jm 10/8/12 U u E C E U f n V � E D OCT 15 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 10/23/2012 Introduction Division Head: 11/7/2012 Finance Council Dept. Head: A4 J /O /Q i'- Prosecutor: fz i Purchasing/Budget: Executive: TITLE OF DOC NT.- Repeal and Replace WCC Chapter 2.44 to Establish a Behavioral Health Program. ATTACHMENT.• Memo to Executive, WCC Chapter 2.44 Exhibit A, Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: The purpose of the proposed amendment to Whatcom County Code is to repeal and replace Chapter 2.44. The new chapter will establish the Behavioral Health Program and a single behavior health advisory board. The existing Chapter 2.44 contained many outdated or inapplicable sections. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION.• 10/23/2012: 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/council. WHATCOM COUNTY Health Department Leading the community in promoting health and preventing disease. Memorandum TO: Jack Louws, Whatcom County Executive Wb FROM: Regina A. Delahunt, Director DATE: October 10, 2012 Regina A. Delahunt Director Greg Stern, M.D. Health Officer RECEIVED OCT 12 2012 JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE RE: Ordinance Replacing WCC Chapter 2.44 Combined Treatment Services The attached ordinance to be considered by council repeals and replaces Whatcom County Code Chapter 2.44 since many of the provisions of the existing WCC 2.44 are obsolete and no longer apply due to changes in state law. A significant provision of the proposed ordinance is the replacement of the existing Mental Health Advisory Board and the Substance Abuse Advisory Board with a single Behavioral Health Advisory Board. This change will provide greater efficiency since the boards often advise the Health Department about similar services and populations. It is also consistent with the direction being set by health care reform activities to integrate substance abuse treatment and mental health services. The two boards have been meeting jointly for some time and are supportive of the recommended change to combine the two boards and form a single Behavioral Health Advisory Board. Please contact Jackie Mitchell at ext. #32017, if you have any questions. 509 Girard Street PUBLIC HEALTH 1500 North State Street Bellingham, WA 98225-4005 ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND Bellingham, WA 98225-4551 (360) 676-6724 HEALTHIER WHATCOM COUNTY (360) 676-4593 FAX (360) 676-6771 www.whatcomcounty.us/health FAX (360) 676-6772 2 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 Date prepared: 10/ 11 / 12 ORDINANCE NO. PROPOSED BY: Health INTRODUCTION DATE: An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing WCC Chapter 2.44 to Establish a Behavioral Health Program WHEREAS, certain sections of the existing code are obsolete because the department no longer offers the services specified and because state law has changed; and WHEREAS, Whatcom County currently has two separate boards advising the County on behavioral health services; and WHEREAS, national and state healthcare changes are leading the way to integrated behavioral health services; and WHEREAS, national data indicates that up to 42% of people who have a severe mental health disorder also have a substance use disorder indicating a high degree of overlapping needs and risk factors; and WHEREAS, people with both mental health and substance use disorders have higher rates of violence, poorer overall functioning, and poorer health outcomes than people with either condition alone; and WHEREAS, the quality of our citizens' health and recovery from behavioral health disorders is improved when we integrate and coordinate care to the greatest extent possible; and WHEREAS, an integrated behavioral health advisory board will increase organizational efficiencies and is recommended by the Whatcom County Mental Health and Substance Abuse Advisory Boards. Page 1 3 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 Date prepared: 10/ 11 / 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that Whatcom County Code Chapter 2.44 is repealed and replaced as specified in Exhibit A of this ordinance to include integrating substance abuse and mental health advisory boards into a Behavioral Health Advisory Board and repealing obsolete sections. ADOPTED this day of , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council 7,R VED AS TO F Civil Deputy Prosecutor Page 2 Kathy Kershner, Council Chair WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Jack Louws, County Executive ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date Signed: M Exhibit A Chapter 2.44 Behavioral Health Program Sections: 2.44.010 Department responsibilities. 2.44.020 Contracts. 2.44.030 Behavioral Health Advisory Board is created. 2.44.040 Severability, 2.44.050 References to State Law. 2.44.010 Department responsibilities. A. Administration of funding. The Health Department shall administer the Behavioral Health Program under the authority of the County Executive. The Department shall administer funds for behavioral health programs, including substance abuse and mental health services. This administration will include state and federal funds (RCW 70.96A), sales and use tax (RCW 82.14) property tax (RCW 71.20.) and 2% liquor profits and excise taxes (RCW 70.96A.) B. Compliance with state regulations. The Health Department shall adhere to all federal and state laws for the administration and coordination of substance abuse and mental health services and funding. (RCW 70.96A &RCW 71.20) The department shall ensure the appointment of the Substance Abuse Coordinator, according to RCW 70.96A. C. Treatment services. The Health Department shall plan and prioritize programs and services for people with substance use disorders and mental health disorders. The Health Department shall ensure, to the extent allowed by state and federal laws, a system of integrated and coordinated behavioral health care and treatment. (Ord. 96-061 Ex. A; Ord. 87-79 § 1). D. Cooperation and coordination with other entities. The Health Department may enter into contracts with and/or receive moneys from public and private entities to carry out behavioral health services. (Ord. 87-79 § 9). The Department will work with state, regional, and local entities which provide services, payment, or funding to assure a reasonable system of care for people with behavioral health disorders. (Ord. 96-061 Exh. A; Ord. 87-79 § 2) 2.44.020 Contracts. All previous contracts, agreements, rights, claims and obligations shall continue in full force. k" 2.44.030 Behavioral Health Advisory Board is created. A. The Whatcom County Behavioral Health Advisory Board is created and shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Health Department. The Behavioral Health Advisory Board may advise the Health Department on general priorities for behavioral health programs, including substance abuse and mental health services. B. The membership of the Behavioral Health Advisory Board shall adhere to rules described in RCW 70.96A ensuring that the membership is composed of residents who reflect minority groups and the diversity within the community. The Behavioral Health Advisory Board shall consist of ten members who are residents of Whatcom County. Nine members of the Behavioral Health Advisory Board shall be appointed by the County Executive, subject to confirmation by a majority of the County Council. One member shall be a member of the County Council and shall be appointed by the County Council. One quarter of the board's members must be people in recovery from alcohol or other drug addictions as required by RCW 70.96A. Additional board membership criterion shall be indicated in the Behavioral Health Advisory Board bylaws. The term of office for the members appointed by the executive shall be three years. In order to stagger the terms of office on the initial board: • Three members shall be appointed to serve for three years. • Three members shall serve for two years. • Three members shall serve for one year. The term of office for the member appointed by the County Council shall be for one year. The council member's term extends from the time of the council's reorganization meeting in January to the next such meeting in the following year. C. At their initial meeting or as soon as possible, the advisory board shall elect officers and adopt bylaws. The board shall adopt rules and regulations of procedure as needed for the conduct of their business. (Ord. 88-9 (part); Ord. 87-79 § 4). D. The Behavioral Health Advisory Board may advise the Health Department about nominees to act as representatives on other county, regional, and state advisory boards. (Ord. 87-79 § 6). 2.44.040 Severability. If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this chapter or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances is not affected. (Ord. 2008-027 Exh. A). 2.44.050 References to State Law. Any and all reference to state statues are in effect as referenced above or as hereinafter amended by state authority. X WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-333 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Finance/ Originator. D OCT 3 0 2012 1117112 Council Division Head: Dept. Head: Prosecutor: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL jV Purchasing/Budget: j Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Resolution Ordering the Cancellation of Accounts Receivable More than a Year Old ATTACHMENTS: Proposed resolution and list of uncollectible accounts receivable. 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 resolution orders the cancellation of accounts receivable for parking violations that are over a year old and are uncollectible. The total amount to be cancelled is $180.00. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. WHATCOM COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Brad Bennett, Finance Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Louws, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, Finance Manager DATE: October 23, 2012 FINANCE/ACCOUNTING Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #503 Bellingham, WA 98225-4082 i OCT 24 2019 JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUBJECT: Resolution to Cancel Accounts Receivable for Parking Violations Attached is a proposed resolution to cancel uncollected accounts receivable for parking violations that are over a year old. We are unable to send to collections parking violations that are five dollars or less. As per RCW 36.32.120, with Council authorization, we would like to cancel these accounts receivable. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Kristin Frank at extension 50790. Thank you. SPONSORED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: Executive INTRODUCTION DATE: November 7, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE MORE THAN A YEAR OLD WHEREAS, the Revised Code of Washington, Section 36.32.120, states the County legislative authority shall audit the collection of money belonging to the County; and, WHEREAS, Administrative Services has provided a list of parking violation accounts receivable that were incurred prior to September 1, 2011 and are uncollectible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that Administrative Services Finance is directed to write off as uncollectible accounts receivable listed in Exhibit A. APPROVED this day of , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Kershner, Council Chair APPROVED as to form: Civil Deputy Prosecutor 9 Parking Violations Accounts Receivable Over One Year Outstanding (Invoice date before 9/1/11) EXHIBIT A: CANCELLATION OF PARKING VIOLATION ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Invoice Date Fund I Customer No. Customer Name Invoice No. Description Amount 11817 507 19227441 DOUGLAS, JOEL R. 03/31/09'VIOL# 2844 LIC# 362SGX 5.001 14632 507. 2201560. MATZ, DEENA M 09/08/101VIOL# 3663 LIC# 323VEE 5.00: 14657 507 1988794:AYON-SANCHEZ, MARIA 09/30/10'VIOL# 3681 LIC# 843VHB ..._._.._.. 5.00 14648 507 2203549!FISCHER, LEANDRE E _... -- --- - --- -- 09/30/10fVIOL# 3674 LIC# 989VYT 5.00! 14655; 507: 2203661 [SMITH, TANYA MARIE 09/30/10!VIOL# 3678 LIC# 795ZSG 5.00: 14652; 5071 _... - - - - -- - - - _ 2203670'HOFF, THOMAS J _ ...__-__._.. —. - 09/30/10IVIOL# 3675 LIC# 294TEB ��- _ 5.00; 14661, 507' 2206416 OLIVER, DIANE M 09/30/101 VIOL# 3688 LIC# 847ZAH I 5.00 14772! 507 22091151CLONCH, CHRISTOPHER T j 10/31/10IVIOL# 3693 LIC# 072WHO �- 5.00 14804' 507' 22092031MCEVOY ANN A 10/31/10rVIOL# 3695 LIC# 915UQP 5.00! 14806 507 2209326 OS0 GRANDE INDUSTRIES 10/31/101VIOL# 3697 LIC# 901VYJ 5.00! 14931 507 - - - - .._..-._._.... - ....... 2211418;MCCOY, JOH_NATHAN R -- --_...._._............. ..._.- -- - 11/30/10 VIOL# 3701 LIC# B96142F 1 5.001 15062. 507, 2216235'BOWMAN, DANIEL 12/31/10,VIOL# 3712 LIC# 119UVQ 5.00' 15064. .. 507'ROY 2216243ROBINSON RENTALS .. ...............-..........._..,...._.. - 12/31/10,VIOL# 371.4 LIC# 715ZD6 -- � -_ -- L - ---- 5;00 15137: 507 ._ 2216622IPATERSON, ROSS - .._..._......_.._ 01 /31 /11 VIOL# 3720 LIC# OOOUQR _ I 5 001 15135 507` 22167021 CHRISTENSEN, CHRIS E 01/31/11;VIOL# 3717 LIC# 001WLM 5.00' 15238 507 2219663;KIMMIE, EMMANUEL 02/28/11 VIOL# 3729 LI64ACC8065 i 5A0 15244 507 2092931jPORTREY,RODNEY ;.._...... 03/31/111VIOL#3806LIC#686YAO 5.00 15239, 507, 2203661 SMITH TANYA MARIE --...._..;...-------_._...... .........._........ .._. 03/31/111VIOL# 3731 LIC# 795ZSG ' - 5.00 15240� _......... ..... 507, ..._.,....._..1 22197351 ._.._.._" FLYNN CODY C 03/31/11 VIIOL# 3732 LIC# ABC2782 5.00, 15243I 5071 22197941MEANS, __. _. GARY L _.. _.._. 03/31/11!VIOL# 3735 LIC# 620XEO - _ -..._._ --- _._, 5.00 CHARLES A 7 LIC# ADD2539 04/30/111VIOL# i 5.00 15355: 507, 2223355`MILLER, IALLMAN, CHELSEY & PATRICA A BYRN 755 37 .........._...-.._-,._ ....., 04/30/11 i 56 LIC# 851TMQ -.,-_--_........_.... 5 00 , 15595; 507� 2096501 ------ - GRUNHURD, BREEANNE 06/30/111VIOL#3775 LIC#421UQO 5.00; 15603'. 507 _._. _.._... _ - - 2227305 BYRON, TRACY & KANDICE MCGEE .. ...--......... - ..-- -- ....._._..._..._... - .. _....... ._.... 06/30/111VIOL# 3789 LIC# 201ZGV I 5.00 15607 507. _....... . _. 22273301GRAINGER, JOSEPH&ANDREA i _........ .... -....-----.._.. --------...-- ... 06/30/11! VIOL# 3796 LIC# 016WLK 5_00 15609. 507• 2227381 JAVIER, SATURINO 06/30/11!VIOL# 3798 LIC# 710XOK I 5.00, 15623, 507 2229087; MINKLER, BROOKE B 06/30/111 VIOL# 3801 LIC# 265XIQ --. ..._.. __..... _. ..... _.. .....- -,._. 5.00! 15750, 507 2071689STAFFORD, GORDON C. 1 07/31/11 1VIOL# 3810 LIC# 097WLM 5.001 15751. 507 2232788 SANCHEZ SOLANO, ANGELINA 07/31/111VIOL# 3811 LIC# 832UIC j 5.001 15754 507; 2232833 TURK, RYAN H 07/31/11 iVIOL# 3803 LIC# ABC3549 5.00 15806 507: 2227330;GRAINGER, JOSEPH & ANDREA 08/31/111VIOL# 3824 LIC# 016WLK i 5.00 15832 507: 2234142;ZETTLE,MICHAELL 08/31/11�VIOL#3826LIC# 637SQP _ 5.00: 15833' 507' 2234151 j PALMER, ROBERT 08/31/11 IVIOL# 3827 LIC# 202YSP -- 5,00' 15835. 507: 2234177'GARCIA-VENEGAS, GABINO 08/31/11 iVIOL# 3829 LIC# 327YAN 5.00 15827 50T 2234311 BROWN, GLORIA J ! 08/31 /1 1;VIOL# 3830 LIC# 143TXP 5.00; 15883: 507; 2234564'SHORE, BRIAN D _ J_ �- 08/31/11;VIOL# 3863 LIC# B99747N 5.00 10 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-334 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Finance Originator: V DD OCT 3 0 2012 1117112 Council Division Head - Dept. Head: Dept. Prosecutor: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Purchasing/Budge!: �p/�3/� Z Executive: D�t1_ TITLE OF DO UMENT. Resolution Ordering the Cancellation of Warrants More than a Year Old ATTACHMENTS: Proposed resolution and list of unredeemed warrants. 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 resolution orders the cancellation of warrants that are over a year old and have not been presented for payment. The total amount to be cancelled is $6726.97. 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. 11 �GOM CO WHATCOM COUNTY a� f" `� ,� �;��_,�4�yF��� � FINANCE/ACCOUNTING ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #503 Brad Bennett, Finance Manager �9sHING�0 Bellingham, WA 98225-4082 OCT 2 4 ?N2 MEMORANDUM JACK LO1-RIVS COUNTY EXE-:C t"t--1`VE TO: Jack Louws, County Executive FROM: Brad Bennett, Finance Manager DATE: October 23, 2012 SUBJECT: Resolution to Cancel Warrants Attached is a proposed resolution to cancel unredeemed warrants that are over a year old. Every year, as per RC W 36.22.100, with Council authorization, we cancel. warrants that have not been redeemed. These warrants are stale dated but after we cancel them a payee can still request the warrant to be reissued. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Kristin Frank at extension 50790. Thank you. 12 SPONSORED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: Executive INTRODUCTION DATE: November 7, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS MORE THAN A YEAR OLD WHEREAS, the Revised Code of Washington, Section 36.22.100, states the County legislative authority shall cancel county warrants not presented within one year of the date of their issue; and, WHEREAS, Administrative Services has provided a list of warrants that were issued prior to August 1, 2011 but never presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that Administrative Services Finance and the Treasurer's Office are directed pursuant to RCW 36.22.100 to cancel the warrants listed in Exhibit A which will adjust the funds as if such warrants had never been drawn. APPROVED this day of , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED as to form: Civil Deputy Prosecutor Kathy Kershner, Council Chair 13 EXHIBIT A: CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS OVER ONE YEAR OLD nts issued before August 1, 2011 1 844961 12/20/10 12/20/10,DIRTY KNEES NURSERY t $ (166.87) 1 288610' 12/17/10 12/17/10!'SAWYER, JEFFREY D. $ (153.23_ 1 845268 12/20/10' 12/20/10!TANOVAN, DAVID B ; $ (120.00)l 1 840780: 11/02/10 11/02/10jPAIGE SHOSHANA L. i $ (74_03) 1 844982. 12/20/10 12/20/10j FAKKEMA, DAVID B j $ (70.00) 1 862016 07/19/11, 07/19/11 LULOW, MAX T ; $ (60.80) 1 847204 01/19/11 01/19/11IHOITINK, MICHAEL : $ (60.00) 1 845027', 12/20/10 - 12/20/10! HALTERMAN KRAIG D $ (60.00) 1 849731 02/15/11 02/15/11,SAULIE-ROHMAN, FLETCHER $ (55.70) 1 862124: 07/19/11 07/19/11'RODRIQUEZ, JAVIER $ (52_64)_ - -- 1 852 852949. 03/29/11 - _ .. 03/29/11 , VASILCHENKO VALENTINA : $ (50_29)y ---- - 1 842090 -- --a 11/16/10 - t_ - ----- - _ - -- --- -- - 11/16/10ISLAND CO SHERIFF - - - .:.. $ (50.00) 1 862529' 07/26/11: 07/26/11 MITTNACHT, KATHERINE C 1 841259, 11/09/10 11/09/10�BEESLEY, KATHRYN B . $ (45.00)± 1 838846, 10/12/10 10/12/10;MT BAKER SCHOOL DIST#507 i $ (45.00) 1 85506& 04/26/11 04/26/11 YAKIMA SCRIPTS & SUPPLIES $ (41.75) 1 854882. 04/26/11 : 04/26/11 YELLOWFACE, WILLARD $ (40.00)' 1 837700, 09/28/10 09/28/101QUANZ, JORDAN R $ (40.00) 1 841217 11/09/10 - 11/09/10 LANE LAW FIRM PLLC -5 : $ - (38.00) 1 843658 12/07/10 12/07/10 REYNOLDS, TROY A $ (37.50) 11 836671 09/14/10 09/14/101PAIGE SHOSHANA L. $ (36.14) 1 8374021 _ 09/28/10 09/28/10;BOLENDER, ERIN E ! $ (36.00) 1' 857797 06/01 /1 1 06/01/11 i DANVILLE, OI-IVIA $ (35.00)1 1 8402W 10/26/10, 10/26/10 BELLINGAR, CYNTHIA E ' $ (35.00) 1 846220 01/11/11 01 /11 /11 1 DOYLE, WILLIAM J ' $ (33.00) 1 857859 06/01/11 06/01/1'I BOLAND, SANDRA . $ (32.44) 1; 858559 06/14/11' 06/14/11EVANS, PHIL $ (32.24) 1 861924. 07/19/11 ! 07/19/11 GRAYBER, DACIA J $ (31.53) 1, 858720 06/14/1 Ili 06/14/11 ' SIBIGA, CARL q $ (30.40) 1 852537 03/22/111: 03/22/11 ; URQUHART, KEN $ (30.40) 1 _8435721 12/07/10 _ . 2/07/1GIRAD 101RANNAARIE _. - -.--- . _ _ ... _.._ ... M - -_. . $ (30_40) _ j 1 8622581 07/19/11 j 07/19/11 ;ZORNES, MATTHEW E ; $ (30.20)1 1 843705i 12/07/10; 12/07/10VANBUSKIRK, KELLY ; $ (30.10) 833110 08/10/10 08/10/10 ASH, CASEY J ° $ (28.50) 1 841454 11/09/10 11/09/10';.POLLETT, LAWRENCE M $ (28.00) 1 . 847876 -._ . -01/25/11 _ _ AIG A 01/25/11 ISCHOLTEN, CR _. .....,--- •----T---- ; $ ---_._.. (27.44) 1 858138' 06/01/11 : 06/01/11 WHITE, MARY ; $ (26.52 1 850530 03/01/11 03/01/11 STEWART, SCOTT $ (25.30) 1 849510 02/15/11 02/15/11 CARDINALE, MARIA $ (25.10); 1 848654 02/08/11 02/08/11 iMURPHY, MOLLY M. $ (25.00)I 1 843708 12/07/10' _ _-. 12/07/10 VREE, BEVERLY R _....._.. _._._..._..------------- $ ---- (25.00); 1 837685 09/28/10! 09/28/10 PETHICK, DAVID R $ (25.00) 1 852522; 03/22/11! 03/22/11'STOECKL, LINDA ' $ - (24.28) _. 1 ' 837383' 09/28/10 09/28/10: BARROW, ROBERT E -- -- _..- -- --- -- $ - --- -- (24.00) ---- 1 861985 07/19/11 07/19/11'KUCHENREUTHER, KIRK H : $ (23.26) 1 853648i 04/12/11 04/12/11!JONES, KATHRYN $ (23.06) 1 841353 11/09/10 - 11/09/10 GRAN, MICHAEL A - $ _- - (23.00) 1 840524 10/26/10: 10/26/10STYER, JENNIFER J $ (23.00) 1: 861852; 07/19/11 i 07/19/11! COX, RACHELL $ (22.04) 1 862127: 07/19/1 li 07/19/11';SABROWSKI, MARTHA F $ (22.04) 1 858491 06/14/11 06/14/11 !:BRUSH, MICHAEL $ (22.04) 1 853433 04/05/11 , 04/05/11 ;VANSELOW, MICHAEL J $ (22.00) 1 837569 09/28/10 09/28/10 JOHNSON, TIMOTHY W+_$ (22.00) 1 833311 08/10/101 08/10/10 RADKE, THEODORE E ._ $ 14 (21..00) EXHIBIT A: CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS OVER ONE YEAR OLD nts issued before August 1, 2011 1 853774� 04/12/11 -- 04/12/11! STRONG, KRISTINA $ (20.64)' V 840287. - - - - -- ------------- 10/26/10. 10/26/10: DEMERICE, VINCENT J $ (20.00 1 846499; 10/26/101 10/26/101SESTRAP, DANIELLE S $ (20.00)' 1 . 857961' 06/01 /11' 06/01 /111 HAWLEY, MARILYN $ (19.18) 8575221 05/25/11. 05/25/11 DUCHENE, DONALD $ - - - ------- - (i 9.00)' 1 843678: 12/07/10;: 12 kTE k SAMUELC ----------- $ (17.50)1 858106; 06/01 /1 V $ (16.12),; 1 -- ---- -- 861938; --- 07/19/11 07/19/11 -------- ...... - HAUPT, RICHARD ------------ $10)1 858538 06/14/11:' 06/14/ CHOLAS f$ (15-10Y 1 854757! 04/19/111 04/19/11 11STAHLY, DANIEL !$ (15.10) 1. 853432� 04/05/111 04/05/11 �VALICH, MICHAEL (15.10).. 1 8450281 12/20/10: 12/20/10! HALVERSON, JASON A ........ ..... ....... .... .... .... .. :$ (15.00) .1, 84.3729 12/0.71/1 0.:. L-SON.,.Y.l CTO,R 11A. J (15.00)4; 1; 841495 11/09/101 .1.2/07/.1.0.!.W.l 11/09/10'SOLVIK,KATHRYN A :$ (15.00): ... . ....... . 835596 08/31/10 ' 08/31/10:HOLEMAN, ERIKA R $ ......-..I (15.00), 1 861901' 07/19/11: 07/19/11 FLORA, SKYLER L : $ (14.59): 1 837672 09/28/10:: 09/28/10: PACKARD, ALLISON D :$ (14.50); 1 854774 04/19/11: 04/19/1 VTIERNEY IV, WILLIAM :$ (14.08) 1 853541 04/12/11. 04/12/11: BLOCK, CODY ;$ (13.32) i 1 853773: 04/12/11 ---- 04/12/1 l'STRONG, CRAIG ---------------- 1$ (13.32)' 1 86�?397; 07/26/11 . .. .... . .... - - ----- 07/26/111 ELICH, PETER A (13.06) 8546151 04/19/11 ----------- 04/19/11 !GREENE, LACEY (13.06)' 1 8531 7 i 04/05/11:; 04/05/11 BRUCH, JASON j! 06/21/111: ..... ..... . 06/21/111NOGAR, NICHOLAS 1 $ (13-OO)i 1 ..859644i 837776: 09/28/10; 09/28/10 VINCENT, DEBORAH $ (13.00) 1 835393 08/31/10. ... .... .. ... ...... 08/31/10'HIATT, URTNEY M (13.00)i 862662. 07/26/11: 07/26/11 TURNER, NEAT - --- ------- !$ --- (12.55) 1 862080 07/19/1 1:' 07/19/11! PARKS, ROLF H (12.55)': 1 862475 07/26/11 07/26/11, KENNEDY, JESSE C $ 0 2.04); 1 861973' 07/19/111 07/19/11 !KEITH, DENISE A $ . ......... . (12.04): 1 853818:1 04/12/11 04/12/11; WITTMAN, SUZANNE t$ (12.04): 1 8453091 12120/10 12/20/101, WALKER, DANIELLE T. $ (12-00): 1. 844361: 12/14/10! 12/14/10 KURAN, JAMES 12.00) � 862622: 07/26/111 07/26/11 jSELNES, RAY F :$ (11.53) 1 8579781 06/01/111 06/01 /111 IRVING, QUINN !$ (11.53); 1 845025! 12/20/10! -1, -2,-/2,-0 / -10- 1 A, A-- 6—F I' E-l' -D-, " -P-H- -I L-l- -IP' J $ (11.50) 1: 845040: --,! - ---------- 12 /20/10 - - - - - --------- - 12/20110, HODGE, MAUREEN C --- (11.50)!: 1 837488 09/28/10; 09/281101 FOSTER, VINCENT E Is (11.50) 1 854799 04/19/11 04/19/11';WALLACE, IAN .. .. .. ......... $ (11.02) 1 837664 09/28/10 09/28/101NIEDERMEYER, STEVEN J $ (11.00): 1 853160 04/05/117 04/05/11 BARNES, ZESIRA $ (10. 5 1)'� 1 837429 09/28/10 09/28/1 O'� C HAR R 0 N, LO U I S J $ (10.50) 1 833130 08/10/10 . .. . ...... . - 08/10/10'BLACKBURN, PETER C (10.50) 1 844400. 12/14/10 12/14/10:PHAM, VU BRUCE (10.00) 1 289784' 03/25/11! 03/25/11 BHEAR, CAROL A. :$ (7,20) 1 288518 12/03/10: . ........ ..... 12/03/101MOYES, KEVIN W. . .... .... .. (4.15) 1: 288520 12/03/10 --- - ------- 12/03/101OAKS, RAYMOND E. is ---- --------- (4.15); 1 - 862430; 07/26/111 07/26/11 MAFSTAD, WAYNE R (4.08);. 1, 288507, 12/03/10 ' 12/03/ 0 1HARRIS, STEVEN B. 1$ (3.43) 1. 07/19/11 6.1F861724 07/1/11H6WARTH, SHARON R (3.00) 11 288506, 3/10L 12/03/10 2/0 12/03V10JGE.RV.OL, MAGNUS B. 2.78) i 11 2884it 12/03/10;1. 2/03/101ALLGIRE, JOHN W. (2 288501:: 12/03/10 12/03/101 EMMONS, 111, RICHARD A. $..._... (2.77); 1 288519; 12/03/10 l'il /i 6 lki Y, PAUL R. ........_1 i$ (2 .77) EXHIBIT A: CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS OVER ONE YEAR OLD nts issued before August 1, 2011 1 288524. 12/03/10 12/03/10 ROOSMA, WILLIAM D. ` $ (2.77) 1 288521: 12/03/10 12/03/10! PAZ, ANTHONY L. $ .. (2.76)' 1 - ----- - 288535 12/03/10 12/03/10'WOOD , BENJAMIN E. $ (1.73)' 1 288527, 12/03/10: 12/03/101 STREUBEL, STANLEY A. $ - (1.39) - --- - - - 1 288523 - 12/03/10 -- -- - - - -- -- - 12/03/10: R El MER, ZACHARY T. - - - $ ...- (1.38); 1 288528; 12/03/10 12/03/107ADDONIO, FRANK M. $ - - (1.38) - -- 1 837520: 09/28/10 ! .. ..... _.. _ ___....._ ---.. -- - - - -- - -- --- 09/28/10;HANNA, DEBRA K -------- --- : $ ... .... - • . (1.00) 1 288509 12/03/10j 12/03/101HIGH, MATTHEW S. $ (0.83); Total General Fund $ (2,896.46) 108 290022. 7/11 04/07/11�PAPPAS,-._._.-__...__....__._______.___.__._...._.�_____--,;____.__._._._....... PETER � $ (3.61) 108 287440 - 09/00! /10 _ 09/10/10HOLLY D. ? $ (2.35) _ _... _ _... ... . ,..._.....-..._ ._ - =... _....... _........... ..._.... Total RoadOTIS, Fund $ (5.96) 114 834487, 08/24/10 08/24/10.VETERANS - VETERANS AFFAIRS $ (48.00) 114. 836757. 09/21/10 09/21/10VETERANS - SANITARY SERVICE $ (45.38) Total Veteran's Relief Fund $ (93.38)_ 118 287726 10/08/10 10/08/10, MARSHALL, LANDON J. $ (27.23); 118 288226 11/19/1& 11/19/10,FREEMAN, CHRIS S. $ (5.73)' Total Whatcom County Jail Fund -._ ..._-. --- ----- -- _ - - --- -- - ----- ----------- ; $ --- - - - (32.96); -- - 444 290909: 06/30/11 06/30/11. DIXON, KENT A. $ (136.37); _ _System -.. ._. _.. _.... Total Ferry_ - - .. __.._.. _------- Fund - 507; 846102 01/04/11 01/04/11 jPSC ENVIRONMENTAL LLC - KENT $ (77.02) 'Total Administrative Services Fund $ (77.02). TOTAL WHATCOM COUNTY FUNDS $ (3,242.15) 671 846609 01/18/11! 01/18/11NEECE, KATHLEEN $ (31.47) 671 845406; 12/28/10 12/28/10i HINGHAM PUBLIC LIBRARY :$ (12.00); 671 846601 01/18/11 01/18/11;HARRIS, KEVIN $ (3.20); Total Rural Library $ (46.67), 6721 832846 08/03/10; 08/03/10'WINCHES ` _ ..... _.__..............__.___ ....._ ... _, TER, NOMA $ (123.20) - Total NW Regional Council $ (123.20) 705, 288392 11/30/10; 11/30/10 MEREDITH, TOD R. (684.31) $ 'Total Fire District No. 5 € $ (684.31); 708 839314; 10/19/10 10/19/10; FERNANDES, JOLIE E $ (100.00); 708 287325 08/31/10' 08/31/10 CROY, WALLACE W. $ (95.97). 708 288044 10/29/10 10/29/10_ GORTNER, JESSE C. $ (83.12)' 708 290347 04/29/11 04/29/11 REINHART, GARRET K. $ (28.44)! Total Fire District No. 8 $ (307.53) 714 842579, 11/23/101... 11 /2; INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY ..3/10_ _ -- _ ---- _ ---------- - $ - ----- (314.76) --- - - - . 714 290623: 05/31/11 05/31/11 MAXWELL, ANNA M. $ (47.17) 714 287949,_10/29/10 10/29/10HEMMANN, JAMES L. (44.34) 714 859966, 06/29/11 ! ---.---------__---__'_$ 06/29/11 ! KORANDA, ALLEN Y. $ (40.00): 714, 290954 06/30/11' 06/30/11;KORANDA, ALLEN Y. $ (23.59); ;Total Fire District No. 14 1 $ (469.86) EXHIBIT A: CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS OVER ONE YEAR OLD nts issued before August 1, 2011 716 835152 08/24/10 08/24/10SANDERSON SAFETY & SUPPLY $ (21.06) 716 844529 12/15 ..... ... Total Fire District No. 16 $ (36.25) 718 844141: 12/-14/10: 12/14/10, FUTRELLE, ETHAN i $ (9.68) 'Total Fire District No. 18 $ (9.68) 752 JUSTIN A. $ (28.31) 752 - 29144� - 07/29/11; :CARTER, 07/29/11;.._-.._...____.._._...--_-._...._......--.-.----.._......_..,..._...-._.-_---.-----------._...._.,...___...._._...._.......__ BERGMAN, MATTHEW J. $......._._.... ._..__._.._... (14.15) _-......_...:_.. . 752 854375 04/19/11 ' ' DESSERT -- .. _..._._.........-- _ , SCOTT M. _...__.._...__._ , i $ (11.00), ...... .. ...... .........04119/11 'Total South Whatcom Fire Authority $ 4-1 (53.46), ;_.. ...... _ ..804. _ .. __.. 839449 ..... - ....... f.._ 10/19/101 ................_......_.---'-- — --_.__.-.......__,...,_..,..__...._._..._..........._.._._..._.. 10/19/10SLICA -SECURITY LIFE INSURANC -..--------. ' $ �._ _ — _..... _..._._._. (587.37) 804, 844725 12/15/101 _ _.---- —� __-------______ 12/15/1011SLICA - SECURITY LIFE INSURANC ` $ (577.92). _ 'Total Water District No 4 _ ; $ (1,165.29)1 807: 859489 06/21/11 06/21/11 iWEBB, MICHAEL R. $ f (75.00) 'Total Water District No. 7 $ (75.00) 818 859929 .. 06/29/11 `: - ..._._ _ ... - ._..... _.... ......... 06/29/11: WA ST DEPT LICENSING - ...... _.._ .__........... $ --- -- (9.00) Total Water District No. 18 $ (9.00 819 838249 09/28/10 09/28/10;QUILL CORPORATION $ (504.57) Total Water District No. 19 $ (504.57) TOTAL DISTRICT FUNDS $ (3,484.82) TOTAL FUNDS $ (6,726.97) 17 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-335 Assigned to: CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Finance/ Originator:L. Baldwin 1011/`8112 n R �, D IJ \\v// 11107112 Council Division Head.- 1 `�/'���12 OCT 3 0 2012 Dept Head: 'o/�� ,� Prosecutor: WHATCOM COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: B6 �2 COUNCIL Executive: t�e TITLE OF DOCU NT.- Amendment-No. 1 to Contract Agreement No. 201007026 with Aquatechnex, Inc. for the Silver Lake Flowering Rush Project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract information Sheet 2. Memo 3. Contract Amendment SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Requested Date: SUMMA R Y STA TEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate.. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) This Amendment No. 1 is to increase the contract amount by $20,000 for Aquatechnex. Inc. for the treatment and monitoring of Flowering Rush in Silver Lake (Maple Falls, WA). 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. WHATCOM COUNTY �pOM COV Frank Abart Public Works Dept. sP z„ Director Noxious Weed Control Board 3 l'RECEIVED 322 N. Commercial St., Suite 110 Bellingham WA 98225 �gSN,NGt°� OCT 2 5 2012 MEMORANDUM JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO: Jack Louws, County Executive Whatcom County Council THROUGH: Frank M. Abart, Director, Whatcom County Public Works /4/731-"rl�� FROM: Laurel Baldwin, Coordinator RE: Amendment No. 1 to Silver Lake Flowering Rush Contract with Aquatechnex, Inc. DATE: October 18, 2012 Enclosed for your review and signature are two (2) originals of Amendment No. 1 to Contract Agreement No. 201007026 between the Whatcom County Noxious Weed Board and Aquatechnex, Inc. for -the Silver Lake Flowering Rush Project. ■ Background and Purpose DOE amended the original Grant Agreement (No. G1000559) to provide additional funding of $20,000 to continue the treatment of Class "A" Noxious Weed, Flowering Rush, in Silver Lake. This amendment allows the contractor, Aquatechnex, to provide additional treatment services ■ Funding Amount and Source The contract amendment will allow additional funds of up to $20,000 to be paid to -the Contractor. • Differences from Previous Contract Only the funding amount is amended. The scope of work of the contract agreement is unchanged. Please contact Laurel Baldwin at extension 50680, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. Encl. 19 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcorn County Contract No. a o 10 0 76a6 -� Originating Department: Public Works -Noxious Weed Board Contract Administrator: Laurel Baldwin Contractor's /A enc Name: A uatechnex, Inc. Is this a New Contract? If not, is this an Amendment or Renewal to an Existing Contract? Yes _ No X Yes X No If yes, previous number(s): 201007026 Is this a grant agreement? Yes_ No X If yes, grantor agency contract number(s) CFDA number Is this contract grant funded? Yes X No Ifyes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) 201005028-1 Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Yes _ No 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 $ $50, 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 $_$20, 000 and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Executive with Total Amended Amount: supporting memo for approval. $ $70, 000 Scope of Services This Amendment No. 1 is to increase the contract amount by $20,000 for Aquatechnex. Inc. for the treatment and monitoring of Flowering Rush in Silver Lake (Maple Falls, WA). Term o Contract: Expiration Date:12131113 Contract Routing Steps & Signof [sign or initiall [indicate date transmitted) 1. Prepared by: L. Baldwin Date^ 10118112--�electronicJ 2. Attorney reviewed: Dan Gibson Date ID 22 1L [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed: Abe�.y»G Date �4Zy5/2 y [electronic) 4. IT reviewed ifIT related Date [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date electronic] hard copy printed 6Attorney signoff. Dan Gibson ,Date i 0 Z l 2. 7. Contractor signed: .� Date _ 10 - t IT- I Z. 8. Submitted to Exec Office ✓ Date to -2!;-► Z [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date IL 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 NEI COUNTY ORIGINAL Amendment No. _ Whatcom County Contract No. 201007026 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND AQUATECHNEX, INC. Whatcom County Contract No. -?A/c)o7oab--/ THIS AMENDMENT is to the Contract between Whatcom County and Aquatechnex, Inc., dated S ►1 10 and designated "Whatcom County Contract No. 201007026. In consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived, the parties agree to the following: This Amendment extends the term of this Agreement through December 31, 2013 and increases the maximum consideration by $20,000 to a total consideration of $70,000. This Amendment adds no changes to the Scope of Work, Exhibit A incorporated by reference herein. Unless specifically amended by this agreement, all other terms and conditions of the original contract shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment takes effect: regardless of the date of signature. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Whatcom County and���c�,1�1�e �(�(_ have executed this Amendment on the date and year below written. DATED this i`� day of 20_a_. CONTRACTOR: Terry McNabb, Aquatechnex Inc. CONTRACTOR NAkt, TITLE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )Ss. COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) � �� rib On thilq�,, day of ( 2011, before me personally appeared to me known to be the of the 1n nd who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing lereof PUB C in and for the State of Washington siding at I /—� My commission expires (0 P O 1 (� Notary Public State of Washington JACQUELINE K KERMODE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES June 16, 2016 21 Whatcom County Contract No. WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for Approval: Frank Abart Department Director Date Approved as to form: k)�Cx- sLtaz ro/1�1Y Daniel L. Gibson Date Asst. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Jack Louws, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of , 20 _, before me personally appeared Jack Louws, 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: Aquatechnex (Type in Name of Contractor/Firm) Terry McNabb (Type in Name & Title of Signatory Authorized by Firm Bylaws, if applicable) Address: PO Box 30824 Bellingham WA 98228 Mailing Address: same as above Contact Name: Terry McNabb Contact Phone: 360.527-1271 Contact FAX: Contact Email: tmcnabbaOaguatechnex.com Amendment No. 1 Aquatechnex Contract Agreement 201007026 Flowering Rush Management, 2010-2013 v 1.0 22 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-336 CLEARANCES Initial Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: K.ChristensenDivision L,lG FDate u u DJ. 11/7/12 Finance/Counci[ Head: J2vbz, Hutchins OCT 3 0 2012 Dept. Head. �� (� F. Abart I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Prosecutor- D. Gibson 10hq IL Purchasing/Budget:/0 B. Bennett / Executive: / J. Louws [� TITLE OF DOCUMEKT. Washington State Dept. of Ecology FY 2012 Grant — Coronado -Fremont Stormwater Improvements ATTACHMENTS. ■ Memo ■ Contract Information Sheet ■ Grant Agreement SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ), NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes (X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: S UMMAR Y STA TEMENT 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.) This FY 2012 Stormwater grant with Washington State Department of Ecology will reimburse the County for design improvements and construction activities in the Coronado -Fremont area of Lake Whatcom. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. r 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. 23 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FRANK M. ABART Director STORMWATER 322 N. Commercial Street, Suite 301 Bellingham, WA 98225 Telephone: (360) 715-7450 R AX: 360) 715-7451 mcoun .usV,t.Lj MEMORANDUM OCT 2 5 2012 JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO: The Honorable Jack Louws, Whatcom County Executive, and Honorable Members of the Whatcom County Council THROUGH: Frank M. Abart, Public Works Director/��'l� FROM: Jon Hutchings, Ph.D., Assistant Director Kirk N. Christensen, P.E., Stormwater Manager )(IfL RE: Washington State Dept. of Ecology (DOE) FY 2012 Grant Coronado -Fremont Stormwater Improvements DATE: October 22, 2012 ■ Requested Action Please find attached for your review and signature two (2) originals of FY 2012 Grant Agreement G1200573 between Washington State Dept. of Ecology (DOE) and Whatcom County. Public Works-Stormwater requests the County Executive approve the receipt of a DOE grant to fund design and construction of stormwater improvement activities in the Coronado -Fremont area. ■ Background and Purpose This grant will reimburse design and construction project expenditures related to stormwater improvements in the Coronado Avenue -Fremont Street area of the Geneva neighborhood that drains to Lake Whatcom. The project improves water quality through construction and installation of bio-infiltration swales, stormwater vaults, and channel restoration. These improvements treat stormwater, promote infiltration, slow velocity to reduce sediment transport, reduce flooding, and stabilize a portion of an eroded creek. ■ Funding Amount and Source Through this grant, DOE will provide the County with $527,639 in grant funds (75% of total eligible costs)' for the Coronado -Fremont stormwater improvements project (cost center 123208). The County's cost share portion is $179,880 or 25% of total eligible costs. Please contact Kirk at extension 50209 if you have any questions. Enclosures 24 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. o�0to, /0 00 Originating Department: Public Works- Stormwater Contract Administrator: Kirk Christensen, Stormwater Manager Contractor's /Agency Name: Washington State Dept. of Ecology (DOE) 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) _G1200573 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 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 $_527, 639 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 This FY 2012 Stormwater grant with Washington State Department of Ecology will reimburse the County for design improvements and construction activities in the Coronado -Fremont area of Lake Whatcom. Term of Contract: Expiration Date: June 30, 2015 Contract Routing Steps & Signoff [sign or initial] [indicate date transmitted( 1. Prepared by: Remy McConnell Date 9117112 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: L. Gibson_ Date_10110112_ [electronic] _Daniel 3. AS Finance reviewed: O Date /o ?� 4 -z— electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related -Date [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date [electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff.• Daniel L. Gibson Date 10110112_ 7. Contractor signed. Date 8. Submitted to Exec Office ,/ Date 16 -25-1Z [summary via electronic, • hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) 11. Executive signed: 12. Contractor Original 13. Returned to dept, 14. County Original to Council Date Date Date Date 25 SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION FORM FOR GRANT/LOAN RECIPIENTS Department of Ecology Water Quality Program PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504 7600 Phone: (360) 407-6600 FAX: (360) 407 7151 Name of Organization Date Submitted WHATCOM COUNTY 11/7 12 Project Title Agreement Number CORONADO-FREMONT STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS e G1200573 AUTHORIZING SIGNATORY Signature Print or Type Title/Term of Office JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE 2012-2016 AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS Si nature Print or Type Title JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT Signature Print or Type Title FRANK M. ABART PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ?_A114 KIRK N. CHRISTENSEN PUBLIC WORKS /I f V V STORMWATER MANAGER ECY 070-206 (Rev. 01/2006) Ecology is an equal opportunity, agency. W aO l.zI a 007 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington FY 2012 STATEWIDE STORMWATER GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND WHATCOM COUNTY GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER G1200573 CORONADO-FREMONT STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION.......................................................................................... 1 PART II. PROJECT SUMMARY.................................................................................................. 3 PART III. PROJECT BUDGET.................................................................................................. 3 PART IV. PROJECT GOALS AND OUTCOMES....................................................................... 4 PARTV. SCOPE OF WORK......................................................................................................... 4 PART VI. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS...................................................................... 8 PART VII. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN.................................................................. 9 ATTACHMENT I: GENERAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FY 2012 STORMWATER GRANT PROGRAM.............................................................................. 11 ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES FUNDINGRECOGNITION............................................................................................................................................11 INCREASEDOVERSIGHT.............................................................................................................................................11 INDIRECTRATE..........................................................................................................................................................11 MATCHINGREQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................................................................12 MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS PARTICIPATION................................................................................................12 PAYMENTREQUEST SUBMITTALS..............................................................................................................................13 POSTPROJECT ASSESSMENT......................................................................................................................................13 PROCUREMENT..........................................................................................................................................................13 PROGRESSREPORTS..................................................................................................................................................13 1 27 REQUIRED DOCUMENT SUBMITTALS.........................................................................................................................14 ATTACHMENT II: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO GRANT AND LOAN AGREEMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ................................. 15 A. RECIPIENT PERFORMANCE...........................................................................................................................15 B. SUBGRANTEE/CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE.............................................................................................15 C. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY.........................................................................................................................15 D. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES (BIDDING).................................................................................................15 E. ASSIGNMENTS..................................................................................................................................................15 F. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS.....................................................................................................................15 G: KICKBACKS.......................................................................................................................................................16 H. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS...........................................................................................................................16 I. PERFORMANCE REPORTING...........................................................................................................................16 J. COMPENSATION................................................................................................................................................17 K. TERMINATION..................................................................................................................................................18 L. WAIVER..............................................................................................................................................................18 M. PROPERTY RIGHTS..........................................................................................................................................18 N. SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS.............................................................................................................................19 O. RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS TO RECIPIENT.................................................................................................20 P. PROJECT APPROVAL........................................................................................................................................20 Q. DISPUTES...........................................................................................................................................................20 R. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.................................................................................................................................21 S. INDEMNIFICATION ........................................................................................................:..................................21 T. GOVERNING LAW.............................................................................................................................................21 U. SEVERABILITY................................................................................:.................................................................21 V. PRECEDENCE....................................................................................................................................................21 ii FY 2012 STATEWIDE STORMWATER GRANT PROGRAM Funding Agreement Between THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS THIS is a binding agreement between the state of Washington Department of Ecology (DEPARTMENT) and Whatcom County Public Works(RECIPIENT). The purpose of this agreement is to provide funds to the RECIPIENT, who will carry out the requirements described in this agreement. PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Title: Grant Number: State Fiscal Year: Total Project Cost: Total Eligible Cost: DEPARTMENT Share: RECIPIENT Share: DEPARTMENT Maximum Percentage: RECIPIENT Information RECIPIENT Name: Mailing Address: Fax Number: Federal Taxpayer ID Number: PROJECT Manager: Email Address: Phone Number: PROJECT Financial Officer: Email Address: Phone Number: 1 Coronado -Fremont Stormwater Improvements G1200573 FY 2012 $892,154 $703,519 $527,639 $175,880 75 % Whatcom County Public Works 322 N. Commercial St., Suite 301 Bellingham, WA 98225 360-715-7451 91-6001383 Kirk Christensen kchriste@co.whatcom.wa.us 360-715-7450 Shonda Shipman sshipman@co.whatcom.wa.us 360-676-6692 we DEPARTMENT Contact Information Project Manager: Email Address: Phone Number: Project Engineer: Email Address: Phone Number: Address: ® Northwest WA State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Fax (425) 649-7098 ❑ Southwest WA State Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office P.O. Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504-7775 Fax (360) 407-6305 ❑ Bellingham WA State Department of Ecology Bellingham Field Office 1440 10th Street, Suite 102 Bellingham, WA 98225 Fax (360) 715-5225 Financial Manager: Email Address: Phone Number: Fax Number: Address: Melisa Snoeberger melisa.snoeber er@ecy.wa.gov 425-649-7047 Dan Gariepy, P.E. dan,gariepy@eC,y.wa.gov 360-407-6444 ❑ Central WA State Department of Ecology Central Regional Office 15 West Yakima Ave, Suite 200 Yakima, WA 98902-3452 Fax (509) 575-2809 ❑ Eastern WA State Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office N. 4601 Monroe Spokane, WA 99205-1295 Fax (509) 329-3570 ❑ Headquarters WA State Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Fax (360) 407-6426 2 Jennifer Holderman j ennifer.holdermangecy.wa. gov 360-407-7196 360-407-7151 WA State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program, FMS P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 30 CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: • FY 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Funds (state funds): ® Yes Amount: $620,752 Funded with Local Toxics Control Account — State • Prior Authorization Granted: N Yes If yes, Effective Date: May 1, 2012 • Increased Oversight? ❑ Yes N No The effective date of this agreement is the Prior Authorization date. This agreement expires: June 30, 2015. Post Project Assessment date — three years after the expiration date of the agreement (see Post Project Assessment in Attachment I): June 30, 2018 PART H. PROJECT SUMMARY This project will address water quality for the state of Washington by increasing stormwater infiltration, reducing flow velocities, and preventing further erosion and degradation of Silver Beach Creek. The ultimate goal of this project is to reduce pollutant loading to Lake Whatcom. PART III. PROJECT BUDGET Coronado -Fremont Stormwater Improvements TASKS/OBJECTS TOTAL PROJECT COST **TOTAL ELIGIBLE COST (TEC) 1 - Project Administration/Management $19,200 $16,320 2 - Design Plans and Specifications $98,297 $83,553 3 - Construction Management $79,861 $67,882 4 - Construction $630,311 $535,764 Total $827,669 $703,519 ** The DEPARTMENT's Fiscal Office will track to the Total Eligible Cost. MATCHING REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT Share: maximum 75% of TEC $527,639 3 31 RECIPIENT Share: minimum 25% of TEC Cash $175,880 $175,880 Other types of in -kind, such as volunteer work are not eligible PART IV. PROJECT GOALS AND OUTCOMES A. Financial Assistance Water Quality Project Goals: The overall goals of this project are focused on the protection of Lake Whatcom and include one or more of the following: ® Stormwater System Retrofit ® Low Impact Development Best Management Practices (BMP) ❑ Designated beneficial uses will be restored or protected, 303(d)-Listed water bodies restored to water quality standards, healthy waters prevented from being degraded. B. Water Quality and Environmental Outcomes: The following are the anticipated water quality and environmental improvements from the project. 1. Treat stormwater runoff using a combination of constructed facilities to address incision, reduce velocities, and trap sediments. 2. Reduce pollutant loading to Lake Whatcom. 3. Provide stormwater flow control and treatment in an area where it is not currently present. C. Performance Items and Deliverables: The following are the anticipated action items that will play an integral role in implementation of the project. Install sediment and flow control vaults. 2. Install TAPE GULD stormwater treatment units. 3. Construct bio-infiltration swales PART V. SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 - Project Administration/Management A. The RECIPIENT will administer the project. Responsibilities will include, but not be limited to: maintenance of project records; submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms, and progress reports; compliance with applicable procurement, contracting, and interlocal agreement requirements; application for, receipt of, and compliance with all required permits, licenses, easements, or property rights necessary for the project; and submittal of required performance items. B. The RECIPIENT must manage the project. Efforts will include: conducting, coordinating, and scheduling project activities and assuring quality control. Every effort will be made to maintain effective communication with the RECIPIENT's designees; the 4 32 DEPARTMENT; all affected local, state, or federal jurisdictions; and any interested individuals or groups. The RECIPIENT must carry out this project in accordance with any completion dates outlined in this agreement. C. The RECIPIENT must ensure this project is completed according to the details of this agreement. The RECIPIENT may elect to use its own forces or it may contract for professional services necessary to perform and complete project -related work. Required Performance: 1. Effective administration and management of this grant project. 2. Timely submittal of all required performance items, progress reports, and financial vouchers. 3. Submit at least three hard copies and one electronic copy of the final project report after a draft has been approved by the DEPARTMENT. 4. Write and submit a one to two page summary of project accomplishments and outcomes at project completion, including pictures, to be published in the DEPARTMENT's Annual Water Quality Financial Assistance Report following the DEPARTMENT's water quality stories format. Task 2 — Design Plans and Specifications A. The RECIPIENT will submit to the DEPARTMENT's Project Manager, a copy of the State Environmental Review Act (SEPA) Lead Agency's signed and dated SEPA determination. B. During the planning and design stage and prior to any ground disturbing activities, the RECIPIENT will submit to the DEPARTMENT's Project Manager one of the following: a. If Cultural Resources Review (Executive Order 05-05) is complete, a copy of the letter of concurrence from the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and correspondence from any tribes. b. If Cultural Resources Review (Executive Order 05-05) is not complete, the RECIPIENT will submit a DAHP EZ-1 form to the DEPARTMENT's Project Manager to initiate review of project activities by DAHP and tribal governments. C. The RECIPIENT will submit two hard copies and one digital copy of the Pre -design report to the DEPARTMENT for review. At its discretion, the DEPARTMENT may request 60 percent complete design plans for review. Based on receipt of the Pre -design report or the 60 percent complete design plans, the DEPARTMENT will provide comments to the RECIPIENT within 45 days of receipt of the plans. D. Prior to advertising for contractor bids, the RECIPIENT will submit two hard copies and one digital copy of the finial plans and specifications to the DEPARTMENT's Project Manager for review. The DEPARTMENT will provide comments to the RECIPIENT within 45 days of receipt of the plans. The DEPARTMENT's Project Manager will work with the DEPARTMENT's engineer to review the plans and specifications for 5 33 consistency with the appropriate design criteria and grant requirements. The RECIPIENT must justify significant deviations from the following: The appropriate guidance manual below depends on the region that your project is conducted: Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (S , or the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW), both can be found at: http://www.egy.wa.goy/programs/wq/stormwater/tech.html, or the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound found at: http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/LID/LID manual2005.pdf, or equivalent design manuals, or 2. Equivalent manual as developed by the local jurisdiction and approved by the DEPARTMENT. 3. Good engineering practices and generally recognized engineering standards. 4. The project pre -design report. E. The plans, specifications, construction contract documents, and addenda must be approved by the RECIPIENT prior to submittal to the DEPARTMENT. F. The RECIPIENT will prepare and submit a projected construction schedule to the DEPARTMENT. G. The RECIPIENT will submit to the DEPARTMENT a current, updated construction cost estimate and updated project schedule, along with each plans and specifications submittal. H. The RECIPIENT will submit all pre -design figures and construction plans to the DEPARTMENT, reduced to 11" x 17" in size. The RECIPIENT may bind them with the specifications or related construction contract documents or bound as a separate document. All reduced drawings must be legible. I. The RECIPIENT will develop and submit an operations and maintenance plan for the stormwater treatment and low impact development (LID) features. The operation and maintenance plan will describe how the RECIPIENT will ensure project success consistent with the design manual used. The operation and maintenance plan must also address long term activities to assure ongoing pollutant removal and flow -control capability of the project. (See the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume 5, Section 4.6 or Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington Appendix 5A.) rol 34 Required Performance: 1. Submit a copy of the signed and dated SEPA determination to the DEPARTMENT. 2. Submit a copy of either: 1) Letter of Concurrence from DAHP; or, 2) the DAHP EZ-1 form, for DEPARTMENT coordination on compliance with Executive Order 05-05. 3. Submit a Pie -design report to the DEPARTMENT. 4. Submit final plans and specifications to the DEPARTMENT, which include the DEPARTNIENT's Bid Specification Clauses Inserts, found at: http://www.ecy.wa. goy/programs/wq/funding/GrantLoanMgjntDocs/Eng/GrantLo anNlgmtEngRes.html Task 3 — Construction Management A. The RECIPIENT will provide construction oversight and management of the project. B. The RECIPIENT will submit a detailed construction. quality assurance plan to the DEPARTMENT before the start of construction. This plan must describe how adequate and competent construction oversight will be performed. C. The RECIPIENT will submit a construction schedule to the DEPARTMENT within 30 days of the start of construction. The construction schedule will be revised and/or updated whenever major changes occur and at a minimum of every three months. The RECIPIENT will submit the construction schedule to the DEPARTMENT with the quarterly report. When changes in the construction schedule affect previous cash flow estimates, revised cash flow projections must also be submitted to the DEPARTMENT. D. Prior to execution, the RECIPIENT will submit eligible change orders that are a significant deviation from the DEPARTMENT reviewed plans and specifications in writing for DEPARTMENT review and approval for payment. All other change orders must be approved by the DEPARTMENT for technical merit and should be submitted within 30 days after execution. Change orders are to be signed by the contractor, the engineer (if appropriate), and the RECIPIENT prior to submittal to the DEPARTMENT for approval- E. Upon completion of construction, the RECIPIENT will provide to the DEPARTMENT's Project Manager a Stormwater Construction Completion Form signed by a professional engineer, indicating that the project was completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and major change orders approved by the DEPARTMENT's Project Engineer and shown on the Record Drawings. The Stormwater Construction Completion form can be found at: bqp://www.ea.wa.goy/programs/wq/fundingLGrantLoanMgEWocs/Ene/GrantLoanMgmtEng Res.html Required Performance: 1. Submit the project construction quality assurance plan to the DEPARTMENT. 2. Submit the construction schedule to the DEPARTMENT. 7 35 3. Submit the signed and dated Stormwater Construction Completion Form to the DEPARTMENT. Task 4 — Construction A. `The RECIPIENT will install, in accordance with the DEPARTMENT reviewed plans and specifications, sediment and flow control vaults, TAPE-GULD treatment and bio- infiltration swales. B. The RECIPIENT will submit to the DEPARTMENT's Project Manager a copy of the construction contract within 30 days of execution. Required Performance: l . Submit a copy of the bid documents (e.g. bid announcement, bid award, bid tabulations) to the DEPARTMENT. 2. Submit a copy of the construction contract to the DEPARTMENT. 3. Install sediment and flow control vaults 4. Install TAPE GULD stormwater treatment units. 5. Construct bio-infiltration swales. PART VI. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Adjusted Construction Budget. The construction budget, as reflected in the agreement, will be adjusted once actual construction bids are received. If the low responsive responsible construction bid(s) exceed the engineer's estimate of construction costs, the DEPARTMENT may approve, if funding is available and through formal amendment to this agreement, funding increases for up to ten percent of the engineer's original estimate. I If the low responsive responsible construction bid(s) come in lower than the engineer's estimate of construction costs, the DEPARTMENT may reduce the grant amount. B. Change Orders. If funding is available, the DEPARTMENT may approve, through formal amendment to this agreement, funding for change orders for up to five percent of the eligible portion of the low responsive responsible construction bid(s). C. Documents for Review. The plans, specifications, construction contract documents, and addenda must be approved by the RECIPIENT prior to submittal for DEPARTMENT review. D. Failure to Commence Work. In the event the RECIPIENT fails to commence work on the project within four months of the signatory date, the DEPARTMENT reserves the right to terminate this agreement. E. Use of Force Account. In the event the RECIPIENT elects to use its own forces to accomplish eligible project work, the RECIPIENT acknowledges that it has the legal 8 36 authority to perform the work and adequate and technically qualified staff to perform the work without compromising other government functions. The RECIPIENT must track and report the force account work submitted to the DEPARTMENT for reimbursement. PART VII. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN The following contain the entire understanding between the parties, and there are no other understandings or representations other than as set forth, or incorporated by reference, herein: • This agreement. • Attachment I: General Project Management Requirements. • Attachment II: General Terms and Conditions. • The effective edition, at the signing of this agreement, of the DEPARTMENT's "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans" (Yellow Book). • The associated funding guidelines that correspond to the fiscal year in which the project is funded. • The applicable statutes and regulations. No subsequent modifications or amendments of this agreement will be of any force or effect unless signed by authorized representatives of the RECIPIENT and the DEPARTMENT and made a part of this agreement, EXCEPT that in response to a request from the RECIPIENT, the DEPARTMENT may redistribute the grant budget. The DEPARTMENT or the RECIPIENT may change their respective staff contacts without the concurrence of either party. The RECIPIENT acknowledges that they have had the opportunity to thoroughly review the terms of this agreement, the attachments, all incorporated or referenced documents, as well as all applicable statutes, rules, and guidelines mentioned in this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby sign this agreement: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY KELLY SUSEWIND, P.E., P.G. DATE WATER QUALITY PROGRAM MANAGER Approved As To Form: Office of the Attorney General 6 WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS SEE ATTACHED - Page, Ib 37 WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for Approval: Frank M. Abart Date Public Works Director Approved as to form: h;lkn,-� ru 64 /12, Daniel L. Gibson Date Assistant Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Jack Louws, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of . 20 , before me personally appeared Jack Louws, 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 HM ATTACHMENT I: GENERAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FY 2012 STORMWATER GRANT PROGRAM ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The RECIPIENT must comply with all requirements listed in Executive Order 05-05 prior to implementing any project that involves ground disturbing activities. The RECIPIENT must conduct and submit a cultural resources survey or complete and submit an EZ-1 Form to the DEPARTMENT's project manager prior to any ground disturbing activities. The DEPARTMENT will contact the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and affected tribes regarding the proposed project activities in order to fulfill Executive Order 05-05 requirements. Any prior communication between the RECIPIENT, the DAHP, and the tribes is not sufficient to meet requirements. Any mitigation measures as an outcome of this process will be requirements of this agreement. Another agency's cultural resources review must have prior approval from the DEPARTMENT in order to be adopted to meet Executive Order 05-05 requirements for the project. Any ground disturbing activities that occur prior to the completion of the Executive Order 05-05 process will not be eligible for reimbursement. Activities associated with cultural resources review are grant eligible and reimbursable. hl!p://www.dghp.wa.gov/govemors-executive-order-05-05 FUNDING RECOGNITION The RECIPIENT must inform the public about DEPARTMENT or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding participation in this project through the use of project signs, acknowledgement in published materials, reports, the news media, or other public announcements. Projects addressing site -specific locations must utilize appropriately sized and weather -resistant signs. Sign logos are available from the DEPARTMENT upon request. INCREASED OVERSIGHT If this project is selected for increased oversight (as indicated on page 3 of this agreement), the RECIPIENT must submit all backup documentation with each payment request submittal. In addition, the DEPARTMENT's Project Manager must establish a schedule for additional site visits to provide technical assistance to the RECIPIENT and verify progress or payment information. INDIRECT RATE To acknowledge overhead costs, the RECIPIENT may charge an indirect rate of up to 25 percent based on employees' direct salary and benefit costs incurred while conducting project -related work. The DEPARTMENT's Financial Manager may require a list of items included in the indirect rate at any time. I 39 MATCHING REQUIREMENTS Cash Match Requirement. FY 2011 Stormwater Retrofit and LID Competitive grants and FY 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program require cash match only. Interlocal Match Requirement. The RECIPIENT certifies by signing this agreement that all negotiated interlocal agreements are consistent with all of the following: • Terms of this grant agreement. • The edition of "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans" that is effective at the signing of this agreement. • Chapter 39.34 RCW Interlocal Cooperation Act. MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS PARTICIPATION The RECIPIENT agrees to solicit and recruit, to the extent possible, certified minority -owned (MBE) and women -owned (WBE) businesses in purchases and contracts initiated after the effective date of this agreement. Contract awards or rejections cannot be made based on MBE or WBE participation. M/WBE participation is encouraged, however, and the RECIPIENT and all prospective bidders or persons submitting qualifications should take the following steps, when possible, in any procurement initiated after the effective date of this agreement: a) Include qualified minority and women's businesses on solicitation lists. b) Assure that qualified minority and women's businesses are solicited whenever they are potential sources of services or supplies. c) Divide the total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities, to permit maximum participation by qualified minority and women's businesses. d) Establish delivery schedules, where work requirements permit, which will encourage participation of qualified minority and women's businesses. e) Use the services and assistance of the State Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises (OMWBE) and the Office of Minority Business Enterprises of the U.S. Department of Commerce, as appropriate. The RECIPIENT must report to the DEPARTMENT at the time of submitting each invoice, on forms provided by the DEPARTMENT (Form D), payments made to qualified firms. Please include the following information: a) Name and state OMWBE certification number (if available) of any qualified firm receiving funds under the invoice, including any sub -and/or sub -subcontractors. b) The total dollar amount paid to qualified firms under this invoice. 12 PAYMENT REQUEST SUBMITTALS Frequency. The RECIPIENT must submit payment requests at least quarterly but no more often than monthly, unless allowed by the DEPARTMENT's Financial Manager. The DEPARTMENT's Financial Manager may require the RECIPIENT to submit regular payment requests to ensure efficient and timely use of funds. Supporting Documentation. The RECIPIENT must submit all payment request vouchers and supportive documentation to the DEPARTMENT's Financial Manager. Payment request voucher submittals are based on match requirements found in the budget. Required Forms. Any Match Combination Form A 19-1 A (original signature) Form B1 (ECY 060-3) Form C 1 (ECY 060-8) Form D (ECY 060-11) Cash Only Match Form A19-1A (original signature) Form B2 (ECY 060-7) Form C2 (ECY 060-9) Form D (ECY 060-11) Where Applicable Form E (ECY 060-12) Form F (ECY 060-13) Form H (F-21) Form I (ECY 060-15) H.eporting eligible costs. The RECIPIENT must report all eligible costs incurred on the project, regardless of the source of funding for those costs. This includes costs used as match. All eligible and ineligible project costs must be separate and identifiable. Reimbursements. Payments will be made on a cost -reimbursable basis. POST PROJECT ASSESSMENT The RECIPIENT agrees to submit a brief survey regarding the key project results or water quality project outcomes and the status of long-term environmental results or goals from the project three years after project completion. The DEPARTMENT's Water Quality Program Performance Measures Lead will contact the RECIPIENT before the Post Project Assessment date to request this data. The DEPARTMENT may also conduct site interviews and inspections, and may otherwise evaluate the Project, as part of this assessment. PROCUREMENT The RECIPIENT certifies by signing this agreement that all applicable requirements have been satisfied in the procurement of any professional services. PROGRESS REPORTS The. RECIPIENT must submit quarterly progress reports to the DEPARTMENT's Financial Manager and Project Manager. Payment requests will not be processed without a progress report. 13 41 Reporting Periods. • January 1 through March 31 • April 1 through June 30 • July 1 through September 30 • October 1 through December 31 Reporting Due Date. Quarterly progress reports are due 15 days following the end of the quarter. Report Content. At a minimum, all progress reports must contain a comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for the period, the reasons for delay if established objectives were not met, analysis and explanation of any cost overruns, and any additional pertinent information specified in this agreement. REQUIRED DOCUMENT SUBMITTALS The RECIPIENT must submit the following documents to the DEPARTMENT as requested by the DEPARTMENT's Project Manager or Financial Manager: • Draft project completion reports — one copy • Electronic copy of final project completion report — one copy • Final project completion reports — up to three copies • Final project completion reports of statewide significance — up to 50 copies • Educational products developed under this agreement — up to two copies • Documents that require DEPARTMENT Approval — two copies (one for the DEPARTMENT and one for the RECIPIENT) • Interlocal agreements — one copy for the DEPARTMENT's Financial Manager • Professional services procurement agreements — 1 copy to the DEPARTMENT's Financial Manager 14 42 ATTACHMENT II: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO GRANT AND LOAN AGREEMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY A. RECIPIENT PERFORMANCE All activities for which grant/loan funds are to be used shall be accomplished by the RECIPIENT and RECIPIENT's employees. The RECIPIENT shall only use contractor/consultant assistance if that has been included in the agreement's final scope of work and budget. B. SUBGRANTEE/CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE The RECIPIENT must ensure that all subgrantees and contractors comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement. C. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY The RECIPIENT shall ensure that in all subcontracts entered into by the RECIPIENT pursuant to this agreement, the state of Washington is named as an express third -parry beneficiary of such subcontracts with full rights as such. D. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES (BIDDING) Contracts for construction, purchase of equipment and professional architectural and engineering services shall be awarded through a competitive process, if required by State law. RECIPIENT shall retain copies of all bids received and contracts awarded, for inspection and use by the DEPARTMENT. E. ASSIGNMENTS No right or claim of the RECIPIENT arising under this agreement shall be transferred or assigned by the RECIPIENT. F. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS 1. The RECIPIENT shall comply fully with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, orders, regulations and permits. Prior to commencement of any construction, the RECIPIENT shall secure the necessary approvals and permits required by authorities having jurisdiction over the project, provide assurance to the DEPARTMENT that all approvals and permits have been secured, and make copies available to the DEPARTMENT upon request. 2. Discrimination. The DEPARTMENT and the RECIPIENT agree to be bound by all Federal and State laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination. The RECIPIENT further agrees to affirmatively support the program of the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises to the maximum extent possible. If the agreement is federally -funded, the RECIPIENT shall report to the DEPARTMENT the percent of grant/loan funds available to women or minority owned businesses. 3. Wages and Job Safety. The RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the United States and the state of Washington which affect wages and job safety. 15 43 4. Industrial Insurance. The RECIPIENT certifies full compliance with all applicable state industrial insurance requirements. If the RECIPIENT fails to comply with such laws, the DEPARTMENT shall have the right to immediately terminate this agreement for cause as provided in Section K.1, herein. G. KICKBACKS The RECIPIENT is prohibited from inducing by any means any person employed or otherwise involved in this project to give up any part of the compensation to which he/she is otherwise entitled or, receive any fee, commission or gift in return for award of a subcontract hereunder. H. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS The RECIPIENT shall maintain complete program and financial records relating to this agreement. Such records shall clearly indicate total receipts and expenditures by fund source and task or object. All grant/loan records shall be kept in a manner which provides an audit trail for all expenditures. All records shall be kept in a common file to facilitate audits and inspections. Engineering documentation and field inspection reports of all construction work accomplished under this agreement shall be maintained by the RECIPIENT. 2. All grant/loan records shall be open for audit or inspection by the DEPARTMENT or by any duly authorized audit representative of the state of Washington for a period of at least three years after the final grant payment/loan repayment or any dispute resolution hereunder. If any such audits identify discrepancies in the financial records, the RECIPIENT shall provide clarification and/or make adjustments accordingly. 3. All work performed under this agreement and any equipment purchased, shall be made available to the DEPARTMENT and to any authorized state, federal or local representative for inspection at any time during the course of this agreement and for at least three years following grant/loan termination or dispute resolution hereunder. 4. RECIPIENT shall meet the provisions in OMB Circular A-133 (Audits of States, Local Governments & Non Profit Organizations), including the compliance Supplement to OMB Circular A-133, if the RECIPIENT expends $500,000 or more in a year in Federal funds. The $500,000 threshold for each year is a cumulative total of all federal funding from all sources. The RECIPIENT must forward a copy of the audit along with the RECIPIENT'S response and the final corrective action plan to the DEPARTMENT within 90 days of the date of the audit report. I. PERFORMANCE REPORTING The RECIPIENT shall submit progress reports to the DEPARTMENT with each payment request or such other schedule as set forth in the Special Conditions. The RECIPIENT shall also report in writing to the DEPARTMENT any problems, delays or adverse conditions which will materially affect their ability to meet project objectives or time schedules. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or proposed and any assistance needed from the DEPARTMENT to resolve the situation. Payments may be withheld if required progress reports are not submitted. Quarterly reports shall cover the periods January 1 through March 31, M1 April 1 through June 30, July 1 through September 30, and October 1 through December 31. Reports shall be due within 30 days following the end of the quarter being reported. J. COMPENSATION 1. Method of compensation. Payment shall normally be made on a reimbursable basis as specified in the grant agreement and no more often than once per month. Each request for payment will be submitted by the RECIPIENT on State voucher request forms provided by the DEPARTMENT along with documentation of the expenses. Payments shall be made for each task/phase of the project, or portion thereof, as set out in the Scope of Work when completed by the RECIPIENT and approved as satisfactory by the Project Officer. The payment request form and supportive documents must itemize all allowable costs by major elements as described in the Scope of Work. Instructions for submitting the payment requests are found in "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans", part IV, published by the DEPARTMENT. A copy of this document shall be furnished to the RECIPIENT. When payment requests are approved by the DEPARTMENT, payments will be made to the mutually agreed upon designee. Payment requests,shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT and directed to the Project Officer assigned to administer this agreement. 2. Period of Compensation. Payments shall only be made for actions of the RECIPIENT pursuant to the grant/loan agreement and performed after the effective date and prior to the expiration date of this agreement, unless those dates are specifically modified in writing as provided herein. 3. Final Request(s) for Payment. The RECIPIENT should submit final requests for compensation within forty-five (45) days after the expiration date of this agreement and within fifteen (15) days after the end of a fiscal biennium. Failure to comply may result in delayed reimbursement. 4. Performance Guarantee. The DEPARTMENT may withhold an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of each reimbursement payment as security for the RECIPIENT's performance. Monies withheld by the DEPARTMENT may be paid to the RECIPIENT when the project(s) described herein, or a portion thereof, have been completed if, in the DEPARTMENT's sole discretion, such payment is reasonable and approved according to this agreement and, as appropriate, upon completion of an audit as specified under section J.6. herein. 5. Unauthorized Expenditures. All payments to the RECIPIENT may be subject to final audit by the DEPARTMENT and any unauthorized expenditure(s) charged to this grant/loan shall be refunded to the DEPARTMENT by the RECIPIENT. 6. Mileage and Per Diem. If mileage and per diem are paid to the employees of the RECIPIENT or other public entities, it shall not exceed the amount allowed under state law for state employees. 7. Overhead Costs. No reimbursement for overhead costs shall be allowed unless provided for in the Scope of Work hereunder. 17 45 K. TERMINATION For Cause. The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to the RECIPIENT is contingent upon satisfactory performance by the RECIPIENT of all of its obligations under this agreement. In the event the RECIPIENT unjustifiably fails, in the opinion of the DEPARTMENT, to perform any obligation required of it by this agreement, the DEPARTMENT may refuse to pay any further funds there under and/or terminate this agreement by giving written notice of termination. A written notice of termination shall be given at least five working days prior to the effective date of termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports or other materials prepared by the RECIPIENT under this agreement, at the option of the DEPARTMENT, shall become Department property and the RECIPIENT shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials. Despite the above, the RECIPIENT shall not be relieved of any liability to the DEPARTMENT for damages sustained by the DEPARTMENT and/or the State of Washington because of any breach of agreement by the RECIPIENT. The DEPARTMENT may withhold payments for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the DEPARTMENT from the RECIPIENT is determined. 2. Insufficient Funds. The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to make payments is contingent on the availability of state and federal funds through legislative appropriation and state allotment. When this agreement crosses over state fiscal years the obligation of the DEPARTMENT is contingent upon the appropriation of funds during the next fiscal year. The failure to appropriate or allot such funds shall be good cause to terminate this agreement as provided in paragraph K.1 above. When this agreement crosses the RECIPIENT's fiscal year, the obligation of the RECIPIENT to continue or complete the project described herein shall be contingent upon appropriation of funds by the RECIPIENT's governing body; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall preclude the DEPARTMENT from demanding repayment of ALL funds paid to the RECIPIENT in accordance with Section O herein. 3. Failure to Commence Work. In the event the RECIPIENT fails to commence work on the project funded herein within four months after the effective date of this agreement, or by any date agreed upon in writing for commencement of work, the DEPARTMENT reserves the right to terminate this agreement. L. WAIVER Waiver of any RECIPIENT default is not a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of a breach of any provision of this agreement is not a waiver of any subsequent breach and will not be construed as a modification of the terms of this agreement unless stated as such in writing by the authorized representative of the DEPARTMENT. M. PROPERTY RIGHTS 1. Copyrights and Patents. When the RECIPIENT creates any copyrightable materials or invents any patentable property, the RECIPIENT may copyright or patent the same but the 18 DEPARTMENT retains a royalty -free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, recover or otherwise use the material(s) or property and to authorize others to use the same for federal, state or local government purposes. Where federal funding is involved, the federal government may have a proprietary interest in patent rights to any inventions that are developed by the RECIPIENT as provided in 35 U.S.C. 200-212. 2. Publications. When the RECIPIENT or persons employed by the RECIPIENT use or publish information of the DEPARTMENT; present papers, lectures, or seminars involving information supplied by the DEPARTMENT; use logos, reports, maps or other data, in printed reports, signs, brochures, pamphlets, etc., appropriate credit shall be given to the DEPARTMENT. 3. Tangible Property Rights. The DEPARTMENT's current edition of "Administrative Requirements for Ecology Grants and Loans", Part V, shall control the use and disposition of all real and personal property purchased wholly or in part with funds furnished by the DEPARTMENT in the absence of state, federal statute(s), regulation(s), or policy(s) to the contrary or upon specific instructions with respect thereto in the Scope of Work. 4. Personal Property Furnished by the DEPARTMENT. When the DEPARTMENT provides personal property directly to the RECIPIENT for use in performance of the project, it shall be returned to the DEPARTMENT prior to final payment by the DEPARTMENT. If said property is lost, stolen or damaged while in the RECIPIENT's possession, the DEPARTMENT shall be reimbursed in cash or by setoff by the RECIPIENT for the fair market value of such property. 5. Acquisition Projects. The following provisions shall apply if the project covered by this agreement includes funds for the acquisition of land or facilities: a. Prior to disbursement of funds provided for in this agreement, the RECIPIENT shall establish that the cost of land/or facilities is fair and reasonable. b. The RECIPIENT shall provide satisfactory evidence of title or ability to acquire title for each parcel prior to disbursement of funds provided by this agreement. Such evidence may include title insurance policies, Torrens certificates, or abstracts, and attorney's opinions establishing that the land is free from any impediment, lien, or claim which would impair the uses contemplated by this agreement. 6. Conversions. Regardless of the contract termination date shown on the cover sheet, the RECIPIENT shall not at any time convert any equipment, property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this agreement to uses other than those for which assistance was originally approved without prior written approval of the DEPARTMENT. Such approval may be conditioned upon payment to the DEPARTMENT of that portion of the proceeds of the sale, lease or other conversion or encumbrance which monies granted pursuant to this agreement bear to the total acquisition, purchase or construction costs of such property. N. SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS In order to sustain Washington's natural resources and ecosystems, the RECIPIENT is encouraged to implement sustainable practices where and when possible. These practices include 19 47 Oz •paxapuax uoisioap ailj gjim aouepx000, ui pine juouiaax2L, sigjgo oouuuuogxad oqj gjinn XIjua2ilip paaooxd Ilvus LNM(IjDaH agj `xapunaxag ajndsip go uotstaap luuTj Butpuod •pxeog sBuueaFl outlazogS agj JO pxUog s2uueaH IoxjuoO uoijnllod gill xagjia axogag jg nos ail jou Ilim xojoaxiQ agjgo uotstaap agjgo nnainaZl AjunoO uojsxnq j go j moO xouadnS agj ul lg2noxq aq llegs uoijeutuuajap s,xojoaxiQ agj moxg sluaddV •anisnlouoo pine Iuuid oq Ilugs sluaddu Bons go uoijruiauajap agj xog anijnjuasaxdax pozuogjnL' X np xo xojo3.n agjgo uoisioap agZ •ILaddt siglgo jxoddns ut aouapina xaggo of pine pxeag .cfaq of Xjrunlxoddo agj anvil dugs jXgIdIOg2I, oqj `asnelo sigl .iapun Bm oomid Rut, go luadde ,glyA uoijoouuoo ul -leaddte uonym L, •LNMI, -dVdgQ a pjo xojowTU a p of sagsiuxn3 asinn.iaipo xo slreui LMal(IID H oqj `juouiajujs Bons go jdiaoaxgo olep agj uioxg sXtp Xjxigj uiglyA `ssofun gntsnlouoo,pine lUutd aq Iltgs iuioggo pgjtu2is3p xagjo xo xgoiUO Too fold agjgo uoisioap aqj, LNgIdIOgH ggj of uoisioap go juauiajnls UOUj I l 8 apinoid IlLgs oigm IeioilUo pajru21sop xggjo xo xaoIUO joafoxd gill Xq popioop aq Ilt,gs 2ull!jm uigo pasodsip jou si goigm juotu3w2t, sigl .iapun Butsixu Ioeggo uoijsanb t, Buiuxaouoo ajndsip Niue `ju3ut3ax2e siT ut papinoid osLmjogjo se jdooxg Sa,LRdSIQ '0 -moloq xog pgpinoxd s-e suoisioop Iuaddu of jg2u agl anug hugs LNgIdIOjH gg L •uiano2 Ilugs auop oq of Niom agjgo xajonxego pine juajxo agj of se iuia3go pojuu2isop xagjo xo xaogjo joofoid agjgo uoijruiuixajop agj `auop aq of ,Lion agj go xajouxego puu jugjxo ggj of pn2gx gjinn ajndsip U st a.iagj juana agj ul •algisuodsa.i oq pine podoi iitgs LNgIdIOgX oqj moya of iuiotUgo pajmi2isop .iggjo xo xaoluo joafoxd agj gBnomp LNgWL-aVdgQ agjgo ILInoiddu pine mouox agj of joafgns oq dugs .LNgI&DHH agj Xq juautaax b sup .iapun pouuogxad oq of somuos pine iliom Ile go xajo-exego put, juajxo a U 'IVA02IddV ,LD:IfO Id 'd •Sjxadoxd Bons go omen xteg oqj Buijoolgax juiiou u uLe Xq poonpa.i oq Ilugs soiuout XLdax of A41I1g,11 S,.LNald DaU agj pine fjxadoxd S,.LNjW L-aVdgQ agj oui000q Xmi `ZNRKL-aVdgQ agj3o uotjdo gill It, `juauiaaxft siilj .iopun paxinbot, fpodoxd XuV •uoij�uiuuoj Bons of xoud INgIdIOg2I oqj of pied uaaq ptg goiilm sgiuoui kedai of pojt,2ilgo oq jou Bugs INgI IIDJH agl `anogtl Z`x uotjooS ut s-e spunl ju=Wnsm of onp LNgNLL-dVjgQ agj Xq ponuguoosip uaaq anug sjuomXud 3I •spung go juouiXtdax spumiop jjgap .L21`ddgQ a p grail agj umxg xeoX xad juaoxad anlannj go ajt,x gill it, anxoou hugs Isaxajul •uuojiod of ampuj Bons Xq ZNqWZ-jVdgQ gglgo uomTdo agj ul ssoppionn paxapuoi on, jegj joofoxd aglgo sjxed osogj xog .LNgIdIOgH oqj of posxngsip spuiig ut,oiljuuj2 iiu j tgaW L-aVdHQ gill of Xudax of paxinbai aq `uoijaxostp alos s,ZNg�IZ-dvdgQ oqj it, `Xbui LNgIdIOgH agj `jumaoi a sigj Xq ji go paxmbax suotjrBijgo uumxad of `uosuax Xue xog `silej .LNgIdIOHH oqj Iuana agj ul -xxom go adooS agj ut paquosap joafoxd, aglgo uoijalduioo Xxojo-qgsijts gill Butpnloui juautaai2v siglgo ooutuuo3-iad Xxojotgsijes uodn juo2upuoo si sluouuiud juauiasmgugoi se ji of pied saiuom urelax of llggldlDjU agjgo lg2u agZ ,LNMCuaau O,L S,LmaviAVd 30 AH3A03a2I'O / tligeurejsns/no inn oa �nnnn//: jjg aas `uoljvuuogui axom xo3 -(xadtd poloSom ` a) slonpoxd poonpoxd XIgeululsns go asn pine osLgomd pine `XBxauo molo go asn MR iZ Jb0/jb0 'A3 a 010-S S •suorJtpuoD puu suuaZ it'rauaD agJ (a) pine `.,,suuol pug sJueto X00103g .roj sivauzaunbag anrJeaisturuzpV„ agJ 2urpnioui aouatajar Kq utaxag paJuzodzoout suu3i XuV (p) :suo!j!puoD pue suual, iuioadS (o) `.�izom jo adooS (q) `.suoiWjn2oj put, s3jr4uls 3juls put, junpa3 aiquoiiddu (u) :i3pzo BuTmoiioj agJ ut oouapaoazd BUTA12 Xq paniosW aq IILgs Xoua}sisuooui agi `utazag papinord asLwagio ssaiun `Juauraat�� srq} ut XbuaJsrsuoout JO Juana agJ ui II3N:I(ld3II2id 'A •aigU.zanas aq of papioap aau Ju3ut33a2u srgijo suorsinozd agJ pua sign of pine `uorsrnoid piiunui agJ JnoiglyA Joajja uoAiB aq uuo gotrinn Juauxaat�� sigi JO suoistnozd .zagio mp Joojju Jou Iiugs 1,4!piienu! dons `piiLnut piag ag iiugs oouazajax Xq p3jujodroout Juaumoop Xuu JO uotsrnozd Xuu jo Juoutaaz& sup jo uotsinozd Xuu jI A,LPIIflNr2IIIAIIS '11 uoJ�unlseAk jo ojujS agJ jo smul agJ Xq pautanoB oq hugs Juxmw2u sTEU AkVrl '9NE[NH3 AOO ',L Ju3uz33a2u s.ql jo Jno BuTsLm so3Xoidur3 jo siu32t, s,Xjmd JugJ jo , J4md iugJ jo uotssiruo jo Jou JuaBtiBau agi uzoj Butsue f4j3dozd jo suosi3d of sounfut IIu so Xue .toj ,,4!j!guti Xue isureo-e puu uzoxj ssapnmg i3gJo agi pion puu AjTcnuaput IILgs XJzud gmn `Jruuad uoJ2uigsnAk jo aiu.S agJ jo s mj pue uotJnJtisuoD agJ JLgJ Juaixa agJ o1 Z •3izom Jo adooS agJ ut papinozd su idaoxa `utazag paquosap Joafozd agJ of paJuiaz sisoo .zagio put, `saaj s,JuuJinsuoo `satreius jo JuotuXud joj aigisuodsaz piag oq XL,m ou ui ilLIgs lmaw ldvdzlQ aqL • I OI1,vaI3llmw:qc I TT 'S -joongj spaaoord agJ jo Ju=3312L, srgJ ui `Joaaipur jo Jowq) `Jsaaaiut fxeranoad jo ieuosi3d Xu-e 3ALq ags/ag hugs jou `.paisonjut XIloomput jo XIloaztp `si ags/ag goigm ut uotJUroossu jo drgs.zauiaud `uojjujodroo Xuejo JsazaJut agJ ao JsaraJut imoszad zag/siri sJoajF gotgm uoisioop Xu-eut ojrdl3Tl d iiugs `iu3uta3z2u s.qT jo ino Buikuuo jo `ienoiddu `nlatnaa agJ ut ,4!llq!suodsar .to uotJounj Xu-e sasiwoxa oyA Juouzow2la s!ig of Xwd ragira jo aaXoiduuo io `iu32u `nqumiu `zaogjo oN .LSa2Ia.LKII 30131JA AI03 2I • WHA1 G'UM G'UUN1'Y (,'UUN(;IL AUL1VDA BILL NO. ABZU1Z—JJ / CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Finance Originator: kw 10101172 D 11/7/2012 Council Division Head: 10 2 0/jb`-1a'Z Dept. Head. OCT 3 0 2012 Prosecutor: d � � WHATCOM COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: / V Z/t 2 COUNCIL Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Maintenance Agreement between Whatcom County and. MorphoTrust USA - ATTACHMENTS: Memo to Jack Louws 2013 Maintenance Agreement 2 SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARYSTATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. This maintenance agreement provides 915 maintenance and quarterly preventative maintenance visits for the electronic fingerprint machines and a store and forward machine which stores the electronic prints and then forwards them in a batch to Olympia. This maintenance agreement also assures that the booking processes are not delayed due to non -operational equipment. COMMITTEEACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 50 WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE BILL ELFO SHERIFF PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, WA 98225-4078 (360) 676-6650 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Jack Louws, County Executive Bill Elfo, Sheriff October 16, 2012 JEFF PARKS UNDERSHERIFF ART EDGE CHIEF DEPUTY DOUG CHADWICK CHIEF DEPUTY STEVE COOLEY CHIEFINSPECTOR WENDY JOKES CHIEF OF CORRECTIONS RECEIVED OCT 26 U2 JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE 2013 Maintenance Agreement between Whatcom County and MorphoTrust USA Enclosed are two (2) originals of the 2013 Maintenance Agreement between Whatcom County and MorphoTrust USA ■ Background and Purpose This Maintenance Agreement provides 9/5 maintenance and quarterly preventative maintenance visits for the electronic fingerprint machines and a store and forward machine which stores the electronic prints and then forwards them in a batch to Olympia. This Maintenance Agreement assures that the booking processes are not delayed due to non- operational equipment. ■ Funding Amount and Source The maximum consideration for the term of this Maintenance Agreement shall not exceed $24,015.00. Funding for this agreement comes from the Whatcom County Jail 2013 budget. ■ Differences from Previous Contract There are no differences from last year's agreement. Please contact Karen Walker at extension 50467, 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 5lblic Safety. WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. aor�roo/n Originating Department: Sheriff/Corrections Contract Administrator: Karen Walker Contractor's / Agency Name: MorphoTrust USA 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 # 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? Contract Yes No x If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Cost Center: Is this contract excluded from E-Verify? No Yes X_ If no, include Attachment D Contractor Declaration If yes, indicate qualified exclusion(s) below: x_ Contract less than$100,000. Professional services agreement for certified/licensed professional Work is for less than 120 days Contract for Commercial off the shelf items (COTS) Interlocal Agreement (between Govt.) _ Public Works Dept. - Local Agency/Federally Funded FHWA Contract Amount:(sum of orig contract amt and any prior If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15,000 or a Bid is amendments) more than $35,000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% Total Amount: increase in amount or more than $10,000, whichever is greater, must $24,015.00 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. Scope of Services: This maintenance agreement addendum provides 9/5 maintenance and quarterly preventative maintenance visits for the electronic fingerprint machines and a store and forward machine which stores the electronic prints and then forwards them in a batch to Olympia. This maintenance agreement assures that the booking processes are not delayed due to non -operational equipment. Term of Contract: 1 year I Expiration Date: 12/31/13 Contract Routing Steps & Signoff: Lgn or initial] [indicate date transmittedl 1. Prepared by kw Date_10/01/12 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed Date 1 A- � 5- 14 [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewedos Date Z iZ [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 ( /2 [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Reviewed by DCA Date 10. Council approved (if necessary) Date 11. Executive signed Date 12. Contractor Original Returned to dept. Date 13. County Original to Council Date 14. County Original to Council Date this form may need to expand to more than one page. Last Revised 6/9/11 52 COUKINITY ORGINAL IDENTIX INCORPORTED dba Morpko`rr-u.sf USA - SYSTEM MAINTENANCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS for use with U.S. End Uset• Customers covering Identix® Live Scan Product Line I. GENERAL SCOPE OF COVERAGE Subject to payment in fill of the applicable maintenance fees for the system ("System") described in Identix Incorporated's ("Identix") current Maintenance Agreement Addendum ("Addendum") with customer ("Customer"), Identix, or its authorized agents or subcontractors, shall provide the System maintenance services ("Services") set forth and in accordance with the terms herein (thus "Agreement") and the Addendum. The terms of the Addendum are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. II. MAINTENANCE SERVICES The Services provided by Identix are those services selected by Customer from one or more of the following maintenance services programs: A. Included With All Remedial Maintenance Services. Included With All Remedial Maintenance Services are as follows: • Unlimited 24/7 telephone technical support for System hardware and so$►vare from the Identix TouchCare Support Center via Identix toll free telephone number. • TouchCare Support Center managed problem escalation, as required, to Identix' technical support staff to resolve unique problems. • Identix shall furnish all parts and components necessary for the service and maintenance of the System. Replacement parts shall be sent to the Customer. All replaced defective parts shall become Identix' property. Identix shall determine if a replacement part is necessary. Replacement parts and components may be new or refurbished. Unless otherwise agreed by Identix, replacement parts and components needed at international destinations shall be shipped by Identix to the Customer -specified United States destination, and the Customer shall arrange for shipment of the parts and components to the final international destination. In the event Identix ships replacement parts and components to an international destination, the Customer shuall be responsible for all shipping expenses, duties, a0121�(�l a tariffs, taxes, and all other delivery related charges. Identix shall make available to Customer one copy (in electronic or other standard form) of each Update (defined herein) for those System components that are developed by Identix and for which Identix, in its sole discretion, elects to develop and generally make available to customers whose Systems are under warranty or under a current Identix Maintenance Agreement Addendum. Customer shall provide Identix with continuous network or dial -up access to the System (whether stand alone or connected to a central site), and Identix shall deliver the Update via this remote means of delivery. In the event continuous ruetvork or dial -up access is not available for 2417 Maintenwice Services and 9/5 Maintenance Services Customers, then Identix shall install the Update during any subsequently scheduled on -site visit by Identix for service of the System. An "Update" means a new release of such System so$tivare components that are developed by Identix which contain (i) bug fixes, corrections, or a work -around of previously identified errors with such sofrivare, or (ii) minor enhancements, improvements, or revisions with substantially similar (but not. new) functionality to the original licensed System sofhvare. B. 24/7 Maintenance Services. Identix' 2417 Maintenance Services are as follows: • Customer will receive a telephone response to service calls within one (1) hour from the time the Customer places a service call with Identix' Help Desk. • Identix' Help Desk will attempt problem resolution via telephonic verbal and dial -in troubleshooting prior to dispatching an Identix field service engineer to Customer's facility for on -site service. • If on -site service is necessary, such service shall be provided 24/7, including holidays. Identix shall use its best efforts to have an Identix' field service engineer at the Customer's facility within four (4) hours from the time the engineer is dispatched by Identix' Versionl/2007/2IMarch2007 1 53 Help Desk for customers located within a i00 mile radius of an authorized Identix' service location and within 24 hours for customers located outside such 100 mile radius. At no additional charge, Identix will provide Customer with up to four (4) Customer - requested type of transaction changes to existing type of transaction applications; provided, however, that any such type of transaction change does not, in the sole opinion of Identix' Development Management Team, require a significant development effort. In such event, Identix will provide Customer with a quote for developing and providing Customer with any such applications and changes. Table updates are treated as Updates and will be made available to Customer in accordance with Section II.A. of this Agreement. C. 9/5 Maintenance Services. Identix' 915 Maintenwice Services are as follows: • Customer will receive a telephone response to service calls within one (1) hour from the time Customer places a service call with Identix' Help Desk. • Identix' Help Desk will attempt problem resolution via telephonic verbal and dial -in troubleshooting prior to dispatching an Identix field service engineer to Customer's facility for on -site service. • If on -site service is necessary, such service shall be provided nine (9) business hours (that is, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) per day, five business days per week. Identix shall use its best efforts to have an Identix' field service engineer at Customer's facility within eight (8) working hours from the time the engineer is dispatched by Identix' Help Desk if Customer's facility is located within a 100 mile radius of an authorized Identix' service location and within 24 hours if Customer's facility is located outside such 100 mile radius. • Upon Identix' acceptance of Customer's request for after hours service, Customer shall pay for such after hours service on a time and materials basis at Identix' then current rates, • At no additional charge, Identix will provide Customer with up to four (4) Customer - requested type of transaction changes to existing type of transaction applications; provided, however, that any such type of transaction change does not, in the sole opinion of Identix' Development Management Team, require a significant development effort. In such event, Identix will provide Customer with a quote for developing and providing Customer with any such applications and changes. Table updates are treated as Updates and will be made available to Customer in accordance with Section II.A. of this Agreement. D. Help Desk Maintenance Services. Identix' Help Desk Maintenwice Services are as follows: • The Services do not include any Identix on -site maintenance services. The Customer agrees to provide the on -site personnel. to assist the Identix Help Desk with troubleshooting, module replacement, and installation of Updates, as required. • Customer shall maintain at least one (1) Identix trained System manager on the Customer's System support staff during the term of such Services period contained in the applicable Addendum, and such Customer System manager shall be responsible for periodically backing -up System software in accordance with Identix' periodic requirements. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by Identix, the Customer shall be responsible for the installation of each Update. • Customer will receive a telephone response to service calls within one (1) hour from the time the Customer places a service call with Identix' Help Desk. • Identix shall furnish all parts and components necessary for the maintenance of the System. Identix' shipment of a replacement part to Customer will be initiated promptly after the Identix' Help Desk determines the need for such item. Replacement part orders initiated prior to 3:00 p.m. Central shalt be shipped the same business day, where orders initiated after 3:00 p.m. Central shall be shipped the next business day. All shipments are made via next day priority air. • If a defective part is required by Identix to be returned to Identix, the packaging material used in shipment of the replacement part must be reused to return the defective part. [Note: defective parts are not repaired and returned to Customer. Customer will be invoiced for any defective parts that are not returned to Identix within two (2) weeks after receipt of the replacement part. Identix is not responsible for any markings (i.e., asset tags) that Customer may place on System components. It is Customer's responsibility to remove such markings.] Version 112007121March2007 2 54 Upon Customer's request for Identix on -site service, Identix shall use its best efforts to have an Identix field service engineer at the Customer's facility within 48 hours from the time the engineer is dispatched by Identix' Help Desk. Customer shall pay for such on - site service on a time and travel basis at Identix' then current rates and travel policies, respectively. Prior to dispatch of an Identix engineer, Customer shall either provide Identix with a purchase order ("P.O."), complete Identix' P.O. Waiver form, or provide Identix with a valid credit card number. E. Preventive Maintenance Services. Identix' Preventive Maintenwice Services are as follows: • Preventive maintenance service calls consist of System cleaning, verification of calibration, and verification of proper System configuration and operation in accordance with Identix' specifications for such System. Identix and Customer will seek to agree upon the scheduling of the preventive maintenance service call promptly after commencement of the term of this Agreement and the commencement of any renewal term. • Preventive maintenance service calls are only available in connection with Identix' 24/7 Maintenance Services and Identix' 9/5 Maintenance Services offerings. Preventive maintenance service calls are priced on a per call basis in accordance with Identix' then current published prices for such Services. Preventive Maintenance Services may not be available for certain System components. III. EXCLUSIONS FROM SERVICES A. Exclusions. The Services do not include any of the following: • System relocation. • Additional training beyond that amount or level of training originally ordered by Customer. • Maintenance support or troubleshooting for Customer provided communication networks. • Maintenance required to the System or its parts arising out of misuse, abuse, negligence, attachment of unauthorized components (including software), or accessories or parts, use of sub- standard supplies, or other causes beyond Identix' control. • Maintenance required due to the System being modified, damaged, altered, moved or serviced by personnel other than Identix' authorized service representatives, or if parts, accessories, or components not authorized by Identix are fitted to the System. • Maintenance required due to failures caused by Customer or Customer's software or other sofhvare, hardware or products not licensed by Identix to Customer. • Providing or installing updates or upgrades to any third party (i.e., Microsoft, Oracle, etc.) software. • Providing consumable parts and components (i.e., platens, toner cartridges, etc.); such items are replaced at the Customer's expense. • Maintenance required due to failures resulting from software viruses, worms, Trojans, and any other forms of destructive or interruptive means introduced into the System. • Maintenance required due to failures caused by Customer facility issues such as inadequate power sources and protection or use of the System in environmental conditions outside of those conditions specified in Identix' System documentation. B. Availability of Additional Services. At Customer's request, Identix may agree to perform the excluded services described immediately above in accordance with Identix' then current rates. Other excluded services that may be agreed to be performed by Identix shall require .Identix' receipt of a Customer P.O., Customer's completion of Identix' P.O. Waiver form, or Customer providing Identix with a valid credit card number before work by Identix is commenced. C. Non -Registered System Components. Any System components not registered in the Addendum for which Services are requested by Customer may be required to have a pre -maintenance inspection by Identix before being added to the Addendum and this Agreement. This inspection will also be required if this Agreement has expired by more than thirty (30) days. Identix' inspection will be billed at Identix' current inspection rate plus travel expenses and parts (if any required). D. Third Party Hardware and Software. Customer shall be solely responsible for obtaining from Identix or an Identix authorized or identified vendor, at Customer's sole expense: (i) all Identix and third party softtivare that may be required for use in connection with any Updates, major enhancements or new versions; and (H) all hardware that may be required for the use of any Updates, major enhancements or new versions. Identix will specify the hardware and third party software requirements for any Updates. IV. SERVICE CALLS Version1/2007/21March2007 99 Customer may contact Identix' TouchCare Support Center by calling 1-888-HELP-IDX (888-435-7439). Service calls under this Agreement will be made at the installation address identified fit the Addendum or as otherwise agreed to in writing. V. TERM AND TERMINATION This term of this Agreement shall commence upon Identix' receipt of the annual maintenance fee reflected in the Addendum and shall continue for a period of one (1) year. This Agreement may be renewed for additional one (1) year terms upon the patties' mutual agreement and Customer's execution of an updated Addendum and Identix' receipt of the applicable annual maintenance fee reflected in the updated Addendum. Either party may terminate this Agreement in the event of a material breach by the other party that remains uncured for a period of thirty (30) days fiom the date the non -breaching party provided the other with written notice of such breach. VI. FEES FOR SERVICES A. Fees. The initial fee for Services under this Agreement shall be the amount set forth in the Addendum. The annual maintenance fee during any renewal term will be Identix' current rates in effect at the time of renewal. Customer agrees to pay the total of all charges for Services annually in advance within thirty (30) days of the date of Identix' invoice for such charges. Customer understands that alterations, attachments, specification changes, or use of sub- standard supplies that cause excessive service calls, may require an increase in Service fees during the term of this Agreement at the election of Identix, and Customer agrees to promptly pay such charges when due. B. Failure to Pam. If Customer does not pay Identix' fees for Services or parts as provided hereunder when due: (i) Identix may suspend performance of its obligation to provide Services until the account is brought current; and (ii) Identix may, at its discretion, provide the Services at current "lion contract/per call" rates on a COD basis. Customer agrees to pay Identix' costs and expenses of collection including the maximum attorneys' fee permitted by law (said fee not to exceed 25% of the amount due hereunder). VII. LLWrED WARRANTY / DISCLAEVIER / LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Identix shall provide the Services hereunder in a professional and workmanlike manner by duly qualified personnel. EXCEPT FOR THIS LIMITED WARRANTY, IDENTIX HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN REGARD TO THE SERVICES, SOFTWARE, AND ANY OTHER GOODS PROVIDED HEREUNDER. IN NO EVENT SHALL IDENTIX' AGGREGATE LIABILITY TO CUSTOMER ARISING OUT OF, OR RELATED TO, THIS AGREEMENT, UNDER ANY CAUSE OF ACTION OR THEORY OF RECOVERY, EXCEED THE NET FEES FOR IDENTIX' SERVICES ACTUALLY PAID BY CUSTOMER TO IDENTIX UNDER THE APPLICABLE ADDENDUM TO THIS AGREEMENT DURING THE TWELVE (12) MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DATE THE CUSTOMER'S CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL IDENTIX BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOST PROFITS OR REVENUE; LOSS, INACCURACY, OR CORRUPTION OF DATA OR LOSS OR INTERRUPTION OF USE; OR FOR ANY MATTER BEYOND IDENTIX' REASONABLY CONTROL, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. NO ACTION, REGARDLESS OF FORM, MAY BE BROUGHT BY CUSTOMER MORE THAN TWO (2) YEARS AFTER THE DATE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE. VIII. LIMITED LICENSE TO UPDATES Identix may deliver Identix-developed Updates to Customer. The terms of Identix' end user license for the Identix' sofhvare delivered as part of the System shall govern Customer's use of the Updates. IX. MISCELLANEOUS This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota, excluding its conflict of laws provisions. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter described herein and may not be modified except in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of Identix and the Customer. This Agreement may not be assigned by Customer without the prior express written consent of Identix. Versionl/2007/21March2007 56 WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for Approval: Approved as to form: � 12 � L k I \\n�� Ila Prosecuting -Attorney Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Jack Louws, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) Date Date On this day of , 20 , before me personally appeared Jack Louws, 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 57 z W M w U N O LL T U) N M M OC 1 C �j Q Q W YNOV o c) pLLl F-�`� > oaa uI W � z W U 0 o Q w cy>a O O O O W CD C*4 ci O a o. v� M O T' T s �o p0, A N C� y M CV rn00 p � O « O F� ACl +02 � � V L `F- {SM a ,M) z O E w A w R O r N T T O a 0 z Q� 4 4) m 4) t tlJ O 16 OO �ytLco a ZA co N 0 a U yam. m >�' w w U w U W z c�� U W z W Z 1 ° c O a 2 a Fao :1216 }� Z O m m� >oo a U m z Q z 3 CL O ci Q 0 ' U 4 w ,n n. N M xO' �s CL o 0- o ai M �~ W co F-IL a. O O O O O O O O CO I CNO CEO QQQQ Y Y Y O O O O O o O to to CA CA O m tL W lL W p U V U U � 0 0 0 o zco co I- O O O O O O O O O O O C3 :n :n 60 co co 8 co CV co N N Y T T T o_o_d.d z z z z O O O O O O C7 O CV 0 ti 47 Cn 61), 6» z c7 a V. z ZZ Z � Z am ig m Z O a U z z a zd O o N O U wwLn dn.aa.. �''� rn ==0 tL o 0 n. a a K 0 4 '? 0. , pa w 58 , t- z w m w U a N 0 LL fn d M L1J 04 c- m M Q Z w o�ag woo Y N O 0) 4 M Fes- P N W F Fw- LU H ❑ Z J Dw O ❑ ❑ =u'0 ¢w O 'd ro g M � � M h 00m C q^ VCh O? M F�1 O o N y� o00 %7vivg OW V�ifA-,q PO r� c dJ 0 0 C�) o O o 08 CD CD 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O w o co 0 0 00 O O N N N 9 N N N N N i O O CD CD O CD CD CD O CD(� V N co ( CD (� W (p (Q M T T T C" T T- T T T- T04 69 6% 69 69 64 60 69 69 69 69 co O N r T T - T N T T T T T T Y T T - T Y T T T T a IL 0C3C3 TTT•-aaa� �ti ¢� o�aQoaQo w N N N La MMMNNNN NV O OOO Cl O O - w- O O O O T O O OO O 09 g z Z z o 0 Z O 2O pcc OOOO O O Oco M O �tNM a >cmMM >> aaQQaaa y Q Q Q Q w (L fL 0 2 N � � o w zz U ago M FaZ V V - F j.c'm U � O L 'C W O py0 C O�y ytV E N � aw C to T7 c � Gl O O Y � o w w w w w w 000000005 U U U U U U U U& X X X X X X X X w O CDO O O O O O O O o p oppp O p 1p� O O Z M M M M Q M 2 M 7X C pp�,, aa i i 0. F- A 0 u. u. u. IL c9 0 m zzzz V? NUT w � a Z Z Z Z 1= FF- w w w w a a a a a� a a N a 0 9 c�st� a a.appt.. q a asa a a.aas 1-- Fes- Fa-F- 59 Z w 2 w U ix N O LL e O crj !n N W r CO t b � Q ? co X N O fQ 4 0 M CM Z _ >[[.. W of In R °' a w ar > co W 0 Q Z Z W O 2 — Wa W� MO Q D W CY Z Z ul M L 00 0 N 00 ti 41 co TO o¢�ai H0 a M al O T Tl z Q w co tU [ll I 8 v 19 0 0 d F a 0 0 ui C2 la- O w U 0 Z J Fy- z O n 11 a 0 o w O Z N C � J �- w F- a Qm F-JZJ LLIL ❑a �WOP LL, zz O z m a w w a w LL w It a Y U w U w U Q Z z w 0. Q w w w QH0LLZ> ZF- a W p�> O C U Q1 as E :h va P a c �Eyo dcE°/ ¢m c c 8'2.m c Ea ° E U yi>+0 a a c a� �_D c°cui mEN c W ., o ° �N y Too ai�ao c cca Ow 0 E m•�a atoF� 303'c � �� ow�:t--- o-a,E O ID U �Eaa a C N C L i0 0 N a vNd m N c ° o� E- 8 y� P o E d l0 O = a0+ U E'O-Z 2y ° N C ca0 .0 P iA c u +- c 61 E C .40) a o ° oci N a Ntw c N N O $a�iac ao 9W a• m , dC% L C aL+ IEye80 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-338 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: PJ 9/10/12 p ����IC D 1117112 Finance/Council Division Head: t Ia3 Dept. Head: OCT 3 0 2012 Prosecutor. WHATCOM COUNTY Purchasin /Bud et: Z COUNCIL Executive: TITLE OF DOCUM T. Agreement between the Health Dept. and Island County ATTACHMENTS: Contract Info Sheet Memo to Executive 2 Originals of Contract Agreement SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) This contract provides funding to Island County for completion of work in their jurisdiction related to chronic disease prevention as required by the Community Transformation Grant. 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. 61 WHATCOM COUNTY �oM Regina A. Delahunt Health DEPT. Director 509 Girard St. Bellingham, WA 98225 RECEIVED 9SH I NG'� OCT 3 0 2012 MEMORANDUM JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO: Jack Louws, County Executive R.4D FROM: Regina A. Delahunt, Director RE: Island County, Community Transformation Grant Amendment #1 DATE: October 23, 2012 Enclosed are two (2) originals of a new contract between Whatcom County and Island County for your review and signature. ■ Background and Purpose In October 2011, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) was awarded a five year federal Community Transformation Grant (CTG). The goal of this grant is to reduce obesity, tobacco use and associated chronic health conditions in Washington State. Whatcom County Health Department was selected by the region to serve as the Hub for the Northwest Healthy Communities Region. This contract provides funding to Island County for completion of work in their jurisdiction related to chronic disease prevention as required by the grant. ■ Funding Amount and Source The agreement is funded by CDC federal funds channeled thru the State Consolidated contract. This agreement requires Council approval because this is a new contract over $15,000. An agenda bill is attached. ■ Differences from Previous Contract This is a new contract. Please contact Astrid Newell at extension 50802, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement. - Encl. 62 WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET Whatcom County Contract No. C20la/00/3 Originating Department: Health Contract Administrator: Astrid Newell Contractor's / Agency Name: Island County 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 X No If yes, associated Whatcom County grant contract number(s) _201112012 Is this contract the result of a RFP or Bid process? Contract Yes _ No X— If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Cost Center: 677530 Is this contract excluded from E-Verify? No Yes _X_ If no, include Attachment D Contractor Declaration Form If yes, indicate qualified exclusion(s) below: _ Contract less than $100,000. Professional services agreement for certified/licensed professional Work is for less than 120 days _ Contract for Commercial off the shelf items (COTS) X— Interlocal Agreement (between Govt.) Public Works Dept. - Local Agency/Federally Funded FHWA Contract Amount:(sum of orig contract amt and any If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15,000 or a Bid is more than $35,000, prior amendments) please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting memo. Any $_30,000.00 amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more than $10,000, This Amendment Amount: 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 for Total Amended Amount: approval. $_30,000.00 Scope of Services: [Insert language from contract (Exhibit A) or summarize, expand space as necessary] In October 2011, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) was awarded a five year federal Community Transformation Grant (CTG). The goal of this grant is to reduce obesity, tobacco use and associated chronic health conditions in Washington State. The state has created a regional model for implementation of this grant. Funds are allocated to 5 regional Hubs, that in turn work with other counties in their region. Whatcom County Health Department was selected by our region to serve as the Hub for the Northwest Healthy Communities Region. This contract provides funding to Island County for completion of work in this jurisdiction related to chronic disease prevention as required by the grant.. Term of Contract: 07/1/12 — 06/30/13 1 Expiration Date: 06/30/13 Contract Routing Steps & Signoff: [sign or initiall [indicate date transmittedl 1. Prepared by: Pi Date 9/10/12 [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: rjw Date_9/13/12 [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed: mdcDate_9/12/12 [electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related Date [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date [electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff: - Psm;,i Date 7. Contractor signed: s/ Date 8. Submitted to Exec Office Date /o -3a -r ?-[summary via electronic; hardcopies] 9. Council approved (if necessary) 10. Executive signed: 11. Contractor Original Returned to dept; 12. County Original to Council Date Date Date Date 63 COUNTY ORIGINAL ao /ahDOI 3 INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ISLAND COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Whatcom County ("Whatcom") and Island County ("Island"), both counties in the state of Washington, pursuant to the authority granted by Chapter 39.34 RCW, INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT. BACKGROUND: Since October 2011, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) has begun implementing a regional model for supporting Healthy Communities work in counties across the state. The goal of this work is to improve the health of communities, reduce chronic diseases and reduce health disparities through policy, systems, environmental and infrastructure change strategies. Funds are allocated from DOH to 5 regional Hubs, that in turn work with other counties in their region. Whatcom County Health Department (Whatcom) was selected to serve as the Healthy Communities Hub for the Northwest Region (Whatcom, Skagit, Island, San Juan, Kitsap, Island, and Jefferson). Three counties (Kitsap, Skagit, and Whatcom) are designated as Community Transformation Grant priority counties due to size and chronic disease risk factors. Four counties (Island, San Juan, Clallam and Jefferson) are designated as non-CTG counties. In July 2012, DOH allocated funds to support Healthy Communities work in non-CTG counties. The purpose of this contract is to support Healthy Communities work in Island County as outlined in the following scope of work. 2. SCOPE OF WORK: This statement of work is governed by Whatcom's contract with DOH for Healthy Communities work and will be subject to change if Whatcom's contract with DOH changes. Any changes occurring due to a contract amendment with DOH will be communicated to Island County without a further amendment to this agreement unless the change results in alteration of the reimbursement amount of this agreement. Use of funds must align with the DOH Healthy Communities priorities and be supportive of local, regional, or state -level policy, environment, programmatic, and infrastructure changes. This contract shall be reviewed and approved by DOH prior to execution. 3. RESPONSIBILITIES: Whatcom will: 1. Provide technical assistance and support to Island County in carrying out their Healthy Communities work. 2. Include Island County staff in regional Healthy Communities communication, trainings, and meetings. 3. Share state and regional Healthy Communities resources with designated Island County staff. HL_070112_Island_County_CTG_Agreement •A 4. Conduct at least one annual site visit at a mutually agreeable time to discuss program progress and contract oversight. Island will: 1. Designate a primary staff person/contact for Healthy Communities work. Primary staff will ensure Island County local health jurisdiction (LHJ) administrator is kept informed of local progress and activities and invited to attend meetings or events as appropriate. 2. Develop and submit a local action/implementation plan and budget for Hub and DOH approval by December 31, 2012 outlining specific tasks and deliverables to address the focus areas within Island County's ACHIEVE Action Plan. 3. Take significant steps towards implementing action plan elements that address a policy, systems, and/or environmental change to promote healthy eating, active living and/or reduce tobacco use in Island County by June 30, 2013. The action plan should involve partners outside the health department, such as schools, YMCAs, transportation, housing, or other local partners. 4. Identify and facilitate participation of local organizations/individuals in a Regional Healthy Communities Coalition. 5. Have at least one staff person (preferably more) attend twice yearly Regional Coalition meetings. 6. Participate in conference calls, trainings, and in -person meetings as available. 7. Maintain accurate records of staff time dedicated to Healthy Communities activities. 8. Provide monthly reports of program activities and staff effort to Hub Regional Coordinator for inclusion in DOH Catalyst reporting. Due dates will be no later than the 7t' day of each month. 9. Island County will comply with all applicable Federal and State requirements that govern this agreement and will cooperate with Whatcom County on at least one annual site visit at a mutually agreeable time to discuss Island County program progress and contract oversight. 4. TERM OF AGREEMENT: The start date for this grant funded project is July 1, 2012. Therefore, the start date of this contract has been established as of that date, regardless of the time of signing and shall be in effect through June 30, 2013. 5. EXTENSION: The duration of this Agreement may be extended by mutual written consent of the parties, for a period of up to one year, and for a total of no longer than five years. 6. MANNER OF FINANCING: The source of funding for this agreement is the consolidated contract from Washington State Department of Health, CFDA# 93.283. Island County will be reimbursed for costs associated with meeting the requirements established in "Responsibilities" above in an amount not to exceed $30,000. 7. INVOICING A. All reimbursed costs must be allowable as defined in OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments. B. Indirect Costs: Eligible program costs include direct program costs and indirect cost reimbursement. With the first invoice claiming indirect costs, Island County will submit a copy of their Cost Allocation Agreement. The rate or rates specified in the agreement will H L_070112_Island_County_CTG_Agreement 2 65 be established following applicable Federal cost principles. The indirect rate used for this contract will not exceed the rate specified in the submitted Cost Allocation Agreement. C. Island County shall submit itemized invoices on a monthly basis in a format approved by Whatcom. Invoices submitted for payment must include sufficient documentation to prove the validity of all costs claimed. A general ledger report of costs claimed toward this project will be sufficient for invoicing this agreement. W hatcom reserves the right to request further back-up documentation for any costs claimed for reimbursement. D. Unallowable costs: Recipients may not use funds for the following: 1. Recipients may not use funds for research 2. Recipients may not use funds for clinical care. 3. Recipients may only expend funds for reasonable program purposes, including personnel, travel, supplies, and services such as contractual. 4. Recipients may, not generally use HHS/CDC/ADSDR funding for the purchase of furniture or equipment. However, if equipment purchase is integral to a selected strategy, it will be considered. Any such proposed spending must be identified in the budget. 5. Recipients may not use funding for construction. 6. The direct and primary recipient in a cooperative agreement program must perform a substantial role in carrying out project objectives and not merely serve as a conduit for an award to another party or provider who is ineligible. 7. Reimbursement of pre -award costs is not allowed. 8. Recipients may not use funds for abortions in accordance with Executive Order 13535. 9. If requesting indirect costs in the budget, a copy of the indirect cost rate agreement is required. If the indirect cost rate is a provisional rate, the agreement should be less than 12 months of age. E. Island County shall submit invoices to (include PO #): Attention: Business Office Whatcom County Health Department 509 Girard Street Bellingham, WA 98225 F. Payment by Whatcom will be considered timely if it is made within 30 days of the receipt and acceptance of billing information from Island. Whatcom may withhold payment of an invoice if Island submits it more than 30 days after the expiration of this contract. G. Invoices must include the following statement, with an authorized signature and date: I certify that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described on this invoice. H. Duplication of Billed Costs or Payments for Service: Island County shall not bill Whatcom for services performed or provided under this contract, and Whatcom shall not pay Island County, if Island County has been or will be paid by any other source, H L_070112_Island_County_CTG_Agreement •• including grants, for those costs used to perform or provide the services in this contract. Island County is responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed amounts paid as a result of this contract. 8. ADMINISTRATION: The following individuals are designated as representatives of the respective parties. The representatives shall be responsible for administration of this Agreement and for coordinating and monitoring performance under this Agreement. In the event such representatives are changed, the party making the change shall notify the other party. Whatcom County's representative shall be: Astrid Newell, Community Health Manager Whatcom County Health Department 1500 North State Street Bellingham, WA 98225 anewell(@whatcomcounty.us P: 360-676-4593 #50802 F: 360-676-6729 Island County's representative shall be: Keith Higman, MPH, Health Services Director Island County Public Health PO Box 5000 Coupeville, WA 98239 keithh@co.island.wa.us North Whidbey: 360.679.7351 South Whidbey: 360.321.5111 Camano: 360.629.4522 Fax: 360.679.7390 9. TREATMENT OF ASSETS AND PROPERTY: No fixed assets or personal or real property will be jointly or cooperatively, acquired, held, used, or disposed of pursuant to this Agreement. 10. INDEMNIFICATION: Each party agrees to be responsible and assume liability for its own wrongful and/or negligent acts or omissions or those of their officials, officers, agents, or employees to the fullest extent required by law, and further agrees to save, indemnify, defend, and hold the other party harmless from any such liability. It is further provided that no liability shall attach to Whatcom County by reason of entering into this contract except as expressly provided herein. 11. TERMINATION: Any party hereto may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days notice in writing either personally delivered or mailed postage -prepaid by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the party's last known address for the purposes of giving notice under this paragraph. 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. H L_070112_Island_County_CTG_Agreement 4 67 12. CHANGES, MODIFICATIONS, AMENDMENTS AND WAIVERS: The Agreement may be changed, modified, amended or waived only by written agreement executed by the parties hereto. Waiver or breach of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not be considered a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. 13. SEVERABILITY: In the event any term or condition of this Agreement or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions or applications of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid term, condition, or application. To this end the terms and conditions of this Agreement are declared severable. 14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. All items incorporated herein by reference are attached. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. 15.OTHER PROVISIONS: Island County will comply with all applicable Federal and State requirements that govern this agreement. The following exhibits include additional contract requirements. Exhibit A, Sub -recipient Agreement Exhibit B Required Assurances From Washington State Department of Health Contract # C16907 H L_070112_Island_County_CTG_Agreement 5 •: FOR WHATCOM COUNTY PROGRAM APPROVAL Astrid Newell, CH Manager HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL Re�ih� A. Delahunt, Director STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF WHATCOM /0 Date Date WHATCOM COUNTY JACK LOUWS County Executive On this day of , 20 , before me personally appeared Jack Louws, to me known to be the Executive of Whatcom County and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Bellingham. My Commission expires: APPROVED AS TO FORM: � , 1i � \� " tL�: ) ae — a �� Z Deputy Prosecu g Attorney Date H L_070112_I sland_County_CTG_Agreement 1.1 •• FOR ISLAND COUNTY Helen Price John , Chair Date Board of Island County Commissioners Island County, Washington Angie Homo a, Chair Date Island County Board of Health H L_070112_I sland_Cou nty_CTG_Agreement 70 EXHIBIT "A" SUB -RECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ISLAND COUNTY THIS SUB -RECIPIENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Whatcom County, herein after referred to as "Whatcom", and Island County, herein after referred to as "Island." This is a subgrant of US Department of Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Investigations and Technical Assistance, CFDA# 93.283. The purpose of this subaward is as stated in this agreement. Island agrees to comply with the following General Terms and Conditions and to incorporate the terms and conditions included herein in any and all subcontracting agreements entered into pursuant to this agreement. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Administrative Requirements: Island shall comply with all requirements within OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments or OMB CircularA-122, Cost Principles for Non -Profit Organizations; OMB CircularA-102, Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments or OMB Circular A-1 10, Administrative Requirements for Non -Profit Organizations; and OMB Circular A-1 33, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations, as are applicable. Island shall comply with all federal and state laws and regulations, including all nondiscrimination laws, but not limited to, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC 12101 et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and Chapter 49.60 RCW. 2. Single Audit Reporting: Non-federal entities receiving financial assistance of $500,000 or more in federal funds from all sources, direct and indirect, are required to have a single or a program -specific audit conducted in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations. Circular A-133 is available on the OMB Home Page at http://www.omb.gov. If this is applicable, Island has the responsibility of notifying the State Auditor's Office and requesting an audit. Non-federal entities that spend less than $500,000 a year in federal awards are exempt from federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in OMB Circular A-133. Island County shall maintain records and accounts so as to facilitate the audit requirement and shall ensure that any subcontractors also maintain auditable records. Island shall include the above audit requirements in any subcontracts. Island 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. Island must respond to Whatcom's requests for information or corrective action concerning audit issues within 30 days of the date of request. Whatcom reserves the right to recover from Island all disallowed costs resulting from the audit. Once the single audit has been completed, Island must send a full copy of the audit to Whatcom and a letter stating there were no findings or, if there were findings, a list of the findings. HL 070112_Island_County_CTG Agreement 71 3. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion — Lower -Tier Covered Transactions: Island certifies, by submission of this proposal or contract, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Island further agrees that it shall not knowingly enter into any lower -tier covered transactions (a transaction between Island and any other person) with a person who is proposed for debarment, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, and Island agrees to include this clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion — Lower Tier Covered Transaction" without modification, in all lower -tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier transactions. The "General Service Administration List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Non - procurement Programs" is available to research this information at http://www.epls.gov/. HL_070112_Island_County_CTG Agreement 0 72 Exhibit B Required Assurances From Washington State Department of Health Contract # C16907 STANDARD FEDERAL CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES Following are the Assurances, Certifications, and Special Conditions that apply to all federally funded (in whole or in part) agreements administered by the Washington State Department of Health. CERTIFICATIONS 1. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION The undersigned (authorized official signing for the contracting organization) certifies to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that the contractor, defined as the primary participant in accordance with 45 CFR Part 76, and its principals: a) are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal Department or agency; b) have not within a 3-year period preceding this contract 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 (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; c) are not presently indicted or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (b) of this certification; and d) have not within a 3-year period preceding this contract had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default. Should the contractor not be able to provide this certification, an explanation as to why H L_070112_Island_County_CTG_Agreement should be placed after the assurances page in the contract. The contractor agrees by signing this contract that it will include, without modification, the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, In eligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion --Lower Tier Covered Transactions" in all lower tier covered transactions (i.e., transactions with sub- grantees and/or contractors) and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions in accordance with 45 CFR Part 76. 2. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DRUG - FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS The undersigned (authorized official signing for the contracting organization) certifies that the contractor will, or will continue to, provide a drug -free workplace in accordance with 45 CFR Part 76 by: a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; b) Establishing an ongoing drug -free awareness program to inform employees about (1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (2) The contractor's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; (3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and 10 73 (4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a) above; d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a), above, that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will— (1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (2) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; e) Notifying the agency in writing within ten calendar days after receiving notice under paragraph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every contract officer or other designee on whose contract activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant; f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under paragraph (d) (2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted— (1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). For purposes of paragraph (e) regarding agency notification of criminal drug convictions, DOH has designated the following central point for receipt of such notices: Compliance and Internal Control Officer Office of Grants Management WA State Department of Health PO Box 47905 Olympia, WA 98504-7905 3. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING Title 31, United States Code, Section 1352, entitled "Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions," generally prohibits recipients of Federal grants and cooperative agreements from using Federal (appropriated) funds for lobbying the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Federal Government in connection with a SPECIFIC grant or cooperative agreement. Section 1352 also requires that each person who requests or receives a Federal grant or cooperative agreement must disclose lobbying undertaken with non -Federal (nonappropriated) funds. These requirements apply to grants and cooperative agreements EXCEEDING $100,000 in total costs (45 CFR Part 93). The undersigned (authorized official signing for the contracting organization) certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal HL_070112_I sland_County_CTG_Agreement 11 74 contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions. (If needed, Standard Form- LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," its instructions, and continuation sheet are included at the end of this application form.) (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subcontracts at all tiers (including subcontracts, subcontracts, and contracts under grants, loans and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 4. CERTIFICATION REGARDING PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT (PFCRA) The undersigned (authorized official signing for the contracting organization) certifies that the statements herein are true, complete, and accurate to the best of his or her knowledge, and that he or she is aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject him or her to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. The undersigned agrees that the contracting organization will comply with the Public Health Service terms and conditions of award if a contract is awarded. 5. CERTIFICATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE Public Law 103-227, also known as the Pro - Children Act of 1994 (Act), requires that smoking not be permitted in any portion of any indoor facility owned or leased or contracted for by an entity and used routinely or regularly for the provision of health, day care, early childhood development services, education or library services to children under the age of 18, if the services are funded by Federal programs either directly or through State or local governments, by Federal grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee. The law also applies to children's services that are provided in indoor facilities that are constructed, operated, or maintained with such Federal funds. The law does not apply to children's services provided in private residence, portions of facilities used for inpatient drug or alcohol treatment, service providers whose sole source of applicable Federal funds is Medicare or Medicaid, or facilities where WIC coupons are redeemed. Failure to comply with the provisions of the law may result in the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation and/or the imposition of an administrative compliance order on the responsible entity. By signing the certification, the undersigned certifies that the contracting organization will comply with the requirements of the Act and will not allow smoking within any portion of any indoor facility used for the provision of services for children as defined by the Act. The contracting organization agrees that it will require that the language of this certification be included in any subcontracts which contain provisions for children's H L_070112_Island_County_CTG_Agreement 12 75 services and that all subrecipients shall certify accordingly. The Public Health Services strongly encourages all recipients to provide a smoke -free workplace and promote the non- use of tobacco products. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people. 6. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS INSTRUCTIONS FOR CERTIFICATION 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective contractor is providing the certification set out below. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective contractor shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective contractor to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective contractor knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause of default. The prospective contractor shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to whom this contract is submitted if at any time the prospective contractor learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to whom this contract is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 6) The prospective contractor agrees by submitting this contract that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, 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 DOH. 7) The prospective contractor further agrees by submitting this contract that it will include the clause titled 'Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -- Lower Tier Covered Transaction;' provided by HHS, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 8) A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List (of excluded parties). 9) Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 10) Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, DOH may terminate this transaction for cause or default. H L_070112_Is land_County_CTG_Agreement 13 76 7. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS - - PRIMARY COVERED TRANSACTIONS 1) The prospective contractor certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals: a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this contract 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 (Federal, State or CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE REQUIRED local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, Stato or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this contract had one or more public transactions (Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default. 2) Where the prospective contractor is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective contractor shall attach an explanation to this proposal. SIGNA URE �F AUTFi�RCED ING OFFICIAL TITLE Chair Please also print or type name: Helen Price Johnson ORGANIZATION NAME. (if applicable) DATE Board of County Commissioners Io /s dal island ounty, Washington H L_070112_Island_County_CTG_Agreement 14 77 ASSURANCES - NON CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0040), Washington, DC 20503 PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. SEND IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY. Note: Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions, please contact the awarding agency. Further, certain Federal awarding agencies may require applicants to certify to additional assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified. As the duly authorized representative of the contractor, I certify that the contractor: 1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay the non -Federal share of project cost) to ensure proper planning, management, and completion of the project described in this application. 2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, and if appropriate, the State, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the award; and will establish a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards or agency directives. 3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using 'their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain. 4. Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding agency. 5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 334728- 4763) relating to prescribed standards for merit H L_070112-Island_County_CTG_Agreement systems for programs funded under one of the 19 statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F). 6. Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of -the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 3794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps; (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 33 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (f) the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the 15 basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (g) 33 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 33 290 dd-3 and 290 ee 3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; (i) any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made; and 0) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application. 7. Will comply, or has already complied, with the requirements of Titles II and III of the uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of Federal or federally assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of Federal participation in purchases. 8. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.. 1501- 1508 and 7324-7328) which lirnit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. 9. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 33276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. 3276c and 18 U.S.C. 33874) and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 33 327-333), regarding labor standards for federally assisted construction subagreements. 10. Will comply, if applicable, with flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable HL_070112_Island_County_CTG_Agreement construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more. 11. Will comply with environmental standards which may be prescribed pursuant to the following: (a) institution of environmental quality control measures under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91- 190) and Executive Order (EO) 11514; (b) notification of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d) evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with EO 11988; (e) assurance of project consistency with the approved State management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C..1451 et seq.); (f) conformity of Federal actions to State (Clear Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clear Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C..7401 et seq.); (g) protection of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, (P.L. 93-523); and (h) protection of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L. 93-205). 12 Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C..1721 et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. 13. Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. .470), EO 11593 (identification and protection of historic properties), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1 et seq.). 14. Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the protection of human subjects involved in research, development, and related activities supported by this award of assistance. NET 79 15. Will comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C._ 2131 et seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of warm blooded animals held for research, teaching, or other activities supported by this award of assistance. 16. Will comply with the Lead -Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C..4801 et seq.) which prohibits the use of lead- based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures. CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE REQUIRED 17. Will cause to be performed the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations. 18. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive ;orders, regulations and policies governing this program. SIGNATURE OF AUTH D CERTIF ING OFFICIAL �-tt TITLE Chair Please also print or type name: Helen Price Johnson ORGANIZATION NAME: (if applicable) DATE Board of County Commissioners /4!S Z/;7 Icl nA 1A/ochinrv+r%n . _.�.. .... ... _.... -j l . . _._. ... .a_-. . H L_070112_I sland_County_CTG_Agreement :1 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-339 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: -Alp /0 /3•0 VD)p p W C[E 0 V E D OCT 3 0 2012 11/07/2012 Fin/Council Division Head: Dept. Head: ���� 1p1-qd/2 Prosecutor• WHATCOM COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: /� 3 0 � COUNCIL CAP_ Executive: a� TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Provision of digital aerial imagery of western Whatcom County from Pictometry International Corporation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Background Memo 2. Whatcom County Contract Information Sheet 3. Agreement between Pictometry International Corporation and Whatcom County, WA SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Request authorization for the County Executive to enter into an agreement between Whatcom County and Pictometry International Corporation for the provision of digital aerial imagery of western Whatcom County in the amount of $123,727.69 with an option for two additional flights for a total amount of $371,183.06. 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. WHATCOM COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 108 Bellingham, WA 98225-4083 MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Louws, County Executive FROM: Perry L. Rice, IT Manager V� RE: Pictometry Contract DATE: October 30, 2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 305 Bellingham, WA 98225-4083 PERRY L. RICE IT Manager Enclosed are two (2) originals of the contract with Pictometry International Corporation (Pictometry) and Whatcom County for your review and signature. ■ Background and Purpose In 2004, 2008 and 2010 Whatcom County acquired digital aerial imagery from Pictometry. This imagery has been widely used by numerous County departments such as Planning & Development Services, Public Works, Health, Assessor's Office, Treasurer's Office, and Administrative Services. For the 2008/2010 flights, Whatcom County cost -shared with 14 other jurisdictions. The purpose of this request is to enter into an agreement with Pictometry for a new spring 2013 flight to provide Whatcom County and its regional partners with updated orthogonal and oblique digital images for 972 square miles. ■ Funding Amount and Source The amount of the contract is $123,727.69 for the spring 2013 flight with an option for two additional flights for a total consideration of $371,183.06. Funds have been appropriated in the 2012 Information Technology budget for the first flight. A regional cost -sharing partnership with the following organizations is in the process of being finalized: • Bellingham Housing Authority • City of Bellingham • City of Blaine • City of Everson • City of Ferndale • City of Lynden • City of Sumas • Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer • Lummi Nation • Nooksack Tribe • Port of Bellingham • Public Utilities District • Whatcom Conservation District • Whatcom Council of Governments • Whatcom Transportation Authority In order to obtain favorable pricing, this contract is for the spring 2013 flight and two additional flights at two to three year intervals: Flight 1 — (2013): $123,727.69 Flight 2 — Optional (2015): $123,727.69 Flight 3 — Optional (2017): $123,727.69 Three Flight Total: $371,183.06 The contract contains a "non -appropriation of funds" clause for the second and third flight which allows Whatcom County to opt out of these flights if funding is not obtained. Funding Letters of Intent have been obtained from each regional cost -sharing partner. Please contact Perry Rice at extension 52511, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the terms of this agreement, Encl. WHATCOM COUNTY CONTRACT INFORMATION SHEET "atcom County Contract No. �®(0,(O ®tS Originating Department: Administrative Services Department — Division of Information Technology Contract Administrator: Perry L. Rice Contractor's / Agency Name: Pictometry International Corporation 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? Contract Yes _ No X If yes, RFP and Bid number(s) Cost Center: Is this contract excluded from E-Verify? No Yes X If no, include Attachment D Contractor Declaration Form If yes, indicate qualified exclusion(s) below: Contract less than $100,000. X Professional services agreement for certified/licensed professional Work is for less than 120 days X Contract for Commercial off the shelf items (COTS) Interlocal Agreement (between Govt.) _ Public Works Dept. - Local Agency/Federally Funded FHWA Contract Amount: (Includes 8.7% sales tax) If a Professional Services Agreement is more than $15,000 or a Bid is more than Flight 1 (2013): $123,727.69 $35,000, please submit an Agenda Bill for Council approval and a supporting Flight 2 (Optional 2015): $123,727.69 memo. Any amendment that provides either a 10% increase in amount or more Flight 3 (Optional 2017): $123,727.69 than $10,000, whichever is greater, must also go to Council and will need an Three flight total.....$371,183.06 agenda bill and supporting memo. If less than these thresholds, just submit to Executive with supporting memo for approval. Scope of Services: Request authorization for the County Executive to enter into an agreement between Whatcom County and Pictometry International Corporation for the provision of digital aerial imagery of western Whatcom County in the amount of $123,727.69 with an option for two additional flights for a total amount of $371,183.06. Term of Contract: 6-Years Expiration Date: 12/31/2018 Contract Routing Steps & Signoff: fsign or initiall rindicate date transmitted 1. Prepared by: Date lol3b / "L [electronic] 2. Attorney reviewed: Date [electronic] 3. AS Finance reviewed: Date [electronic] 4. IT reviewed if IT related �� Date /0 30 7Gy [electronic] 5. Corrections made: Date [electronic] hard copy printed 6. Attorney signoff. &SXa,J Date (4kZ3 7. Contractor signed: Date 8. Submitted to Exec Office Date [summary via electronic; hardcopies] 10. Council approved (if necessary) 11. Executive signed: 12. Contractor Original Returned to dept; 13. County Original to Council Date Date Date Date COUNPf ORIGINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN _ _ PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP. i +: __. - `" ,- -: r._- -_ AND WHATCOM COUNTY WA �01� 10015 DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS (the "Products"): Section A: Licensed Products Section B: Product Terms, Conditions, and Specifications TERM OF AGREEMENT (the "Term"): Term of Agreement commences on the date of Shipment of the aforementioned Licensed Products and shall continue for the term defined on Section A to this Agreement. FEES AND PAYMENT TERMS (the "License Fees"): All fees referred to in this License Agreement and in any of its Sections are in United States dollars and do not include any duties, taxes (including, without limitation, any sales, use, ad valorem or withholding, value added or other taxes) or handling fees, all of which are exclusive of the license and other fees to be paid by Licensee to Pictometry and which duties, taxes and fees will be paid by Licensee without reducing any amount owed to Pictometry unless documentation of tax exemption is provided to Pictometry prior to billing. Any amount payable by Licensee that is not paid within 30 days after its invoice date will accrue interest at the rate of 1.5% per month or at the maximum lesser rate allowed by law. In addition to any applicable interest, Licensee will pay Pictometry all costs it incurs to collect any amount due under this License Agreement, including but not limited to, attorneys' fees and court costs. LIC)Ei;1iSEE NOTICE 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #305 100 Town Centre Drive, Suite A Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 Rochester, NY 14623 Attn: Perry Rice, IT Manager Attn: Director, Contract Administration Phone: 360-676-6707x52511 Fax: (360) 67-6 6775 Phone: (585) 486-0093 Fax: (585) 486-0098 AGREEMENT: This Agreement, which includes this cover sheet and the Sections hereto (collectively, this "Agreement"), constitutes the entire agreement between Pictometry and Licensee with respect to the aforementioned Products and supersedes all prior representations, agreements or arrangements, whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof. Any modifications of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by a duly authorized officer of each party. Any purchase order or similar document that Licensee may issue in connection with this Agreement will be for ordering purposes only and that any terms and conditions on such purchase order will be of no force or effect. In consideration of and subject to the payment by Licensee of the License Fees, Pictometry agrees to provide Licensee with access to and use of the Products, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Section B and the Licensee's current License Agreement to this Agreement. Licensee hereby agrees to pay the License Fees in accordance with the stated payment terms and accepts and agrees to abide by the General License Agreement. This Agreement shall not become effective until signed by both duly authorized officers of Licensee and Pictometry. PARTIES: NAME: PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP. (entity type) a Delaware Corporation SIGNATURE: SIGNATURE: NAME: NAME: TITLE: TITLE: DATE: DATE: ORIGINAL CONTRACT (HARD COPY) MUST BE RECEIVED BY PICTOMETRY WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM DATE OF SIGNING. Page 1 of 15 Whatcom County WA—C123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 SECTION A Pictometry International Corp. 100 Town Centre Drive, Suite A Rochester, NY 14623 Whatcom County WA Perry Rice 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #305 Bellingham, WA 98225-4038 360-676-6707x52511 ric co.whatcom.wa.us LICENSED PRODUCTS SHI15;Tp . Whatcom County WA Mike Pelela 311 Grand Avenue, Suite #305 Bellingham, WA 98226-4038 (360) 676-7684 x50112 mpelela@co.whqt(-.om.wa.us • ORDER # : " C 123573 .. >CUSTOIVER.ID". ;".; SAI3E5�REP 'TERMO�•Cf3NTRACT:- " NUMBER OF"EI,IGHTS A118229 RMich 6 years 3 (SAG�ON3RAC7#__ `; 35F-0801N a PRODZ�G�-N,AME � PRODUCT DESCRIPTION � :PRICE � DI COUNT � A�OLII�IT."5 fQT� s : PRI�E1�'XPE." 1 E-911 Interface - Unlimited Perpetual License. Product enables system interface but $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Seats in all PSAPS does not cover the actual integration. Licensee must engage third party to provide this integration. Product Grant 1 EAP PROGRAM Refer to detailed description of EAP Program in attached $0.00 $0.00 Terms and Conditions. Term of EAP Program will not exceed the term for EFS Maintenance and Support for Imagery on this agreement. 1 Electronic Field Stud FS) One copy of Electronic Field Study software, latest version. $0.00 $0.00 829 IMAGERY - COMMUNITY Product includes 9-inch GSD oblique frame images (4-way), $75.00 $69.75 $57,822.75 - 4-way (C5) (9in) with 9in 9-inch GSD orthogonal frame images, 9-inch GSD ortho mosaic tiles - Per Sector mosaic tiles, I -meter GSD ortho mosaic sector tiles and one LTI Grant area -wide I -meter GSD mosaic (ECW format). Orthogonal GSD: 0.75 feet/pixel; Nominal Oblique GSD (all values +5/- 10%): Front Line: 0.74 feet/pixel, Middle Line: 0.85 feet/pixel, Back Line: 1.00 feet/pixel. Refer to attached terms and conditions. 143 IMAGERY - Product includes 4-inch GSD oblique frame images (4-way), $400.00 $372.00 $53,196.00 NEIGHBORHOOD - 4-way 4-inch GSD orthogonal frame images, 1-meter GSD ortho (N5) (4in) Per Sector mosaic sector tiles and one area -wide 1-meter GSD mosaic LTI Grant (ECW format). Orthogonal GSD: 0.32 feet/pixel; Nominal Oblique GSD (all values +/-10%): Front Line: 0.33 feet/pixel, Middle Line: 0.36 feedpixel, Back Line: 0.44 feet/pixel. I Media Drive Capacity 931 G - External USB 2.01 eSATA Externally Powered. Delivery $199.00 $199.00 Drive Model IT - media prices include copying a complete image library onto EXTPOWER media. Sub -warehousing sold separately. 143 Mosaic Standard Tiles (4in) 4-inch GSD Mosaic Tiles in GeoTIFF Format. Tiles are $40.00 $0.00 $0.00 Per Sector (GeoTIFF) provided "as is." Refer to license agreement for additional details. Early Adopter Credit 143 Mosaic Tile Area -wide in New processing or re -processing of ECW area -wide mosaics $4.00 $0.00 $0.00 ECW Format - 4in GSD Per of 4-inch GSA imagery. Tiles are provided "as is." Refer to Sector (Combined) license agreement for additional details. Early Adopter Credit 829 Mosaic Tile Area -wide in New processing and re -processing of ECW area -wide $0.50 $0.00 $0.00 ECW Format - 9in GSD Per mosaics of 9-inch GSD imagery. Tiles are provided "as is." Sector (Combined) Refer to license agreement for additional details. Early Adopter Credit 143 Mosaic Tile Area -wide in New processing or re -processing of MRSID area -wide $8.00 $2.00 $286.00 MRSID Format - 4in GSD Per mosaics of 4-inch GSD imagery. Tiles are provided "as is." Sector (Combined) Refer to license agreement for additional details. Early Adopter Credit 829 Mosaic Tile Area -wide in New processing or re -processing of MRSID area -wide $0.50 $414.50 MRSID Format - 9in GSD Per mosaics of 9-inch GSD imagery. Tiles are provided "as is." Sector (Combined) Refer to license agreement for additional details. Page 2 of 15 Whatcom County WA-C123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 I Oblique Imagery Bundle with Includes digital copy of the Licensed Documentation for the $0.00 $0.00 Two (2) Years of EFS License Software, two (2) End User Training Sessions, one Maintenance & Support (1) Advanced User Technical Training, one (1) Administration / IT Training Session, ten (10) hours of telephone support, one copy of Pictometry Electronic Field Study (EFS) software, latest version, on the storage media specified herein, and access to download updated versions of the EFS Licensed Software for a period of two years from the initial date of shipment of the EFS software, along with a copy of the updated documentation. I Par Library for Server Edition Par library for Pictometry Server Edition. $0.00 $0.00 1 Pictometry Connect-100 Pictometry Connect-100 provides 100 users the ability to $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 login and access Pictometry-hosted imagery licensed to the customer via a web application or server based integration. LTI Grant - The default deployment for this account is through Connect Pictometry Online. Term is as listed below and begins from date of activation. Includes unlimited access to Pictometry- hosted imagery licensed to the customer only. License Term: 1 Year(s) 1 Pictometry for ArcGIS Pictometry for ArcGIS Desktop. Active X extension $0.00 $0.00 Desktop - Active X Extension compatible with ArcMap versions 9.3xx and 10. - Government (Seat) SUBTOTAL -FIRST CAPTURE $111,918.25 SE(OI�D CII .t c ------------------- QTY °° ;Rt3i NcE = PRODUCT DES'iON ,SRIGE I�ISCO�JNP� PRIClrl'�P> 1 EAP PROGRAM Refer to detailed description of EAP Program in attached $0.00 $0.00 Terms and Conditions. Term of EAP Program will not exceed the term for EFS Maintenance and Support for Imagery on this agreement. 1 Electronic Field Stud (EFS) One copy of Electronic Field Study software, latest version. $0.00 $0.00 829 IMAGERY - COMMUNITY Product includes 9-inch GSD oblique frame images (4-way), $75.00 $69.75 $57,822.75 - 4-way (C5) (9in) with 9in 9-inch GSD orthogonal frame images, 9-inch GSD ortho mosaic tiles - Per Sector mosaic tiles, 1-meter GSD ortho mosaic sector tiles and one LTI Grant area -wide 1-meter GSD mosaic (ECW format). Orthogonal GSD: 0.75 feet/pixel; Nominal Oblique GSD (all values +5/- 10%): Front Line: 0.74 feet/pixel, Middle Line: 0.85 feet/pixel, Back Line: 1.00 feet/pixel. Refer to attached terms and conditions. 143 IMAGERY- Product includes 4-inch GSD oblique frame images (4-way), $400.00 $372.00 $53,196.00 NEIGHBORHOOD - 4-way 4-inch GSD orthogonal frame images, 1-meter GSD ortho (N5) (4in) Per Sector mosaic sector tiles and one area -wide I -meter GSD mosaic LTI Grant (ECW format). Orthogonal GSD: 0.32 feet/pixel; Nominal Oblique GSD (all values +/-10%): Front Line: 0.33 feet/pixel, Middle Line: 0.36 feet/pixel, Back Line: 0.44 feet/pixel. 1 Media Drive Capacity 931G - External USB 2.0 / eSATA Externally Powered. Delivery $199.00 $199.00 Drive Model IT - media prices include copying a complete image library onto EXTPOWER media. Sub -warehousing sold separately. 143 Mosaic Standard Tiles (4in) 4-inch GSD Mosaic Tiles in GeoTIFF Format. Tiles are $40.00 $20.00 $2,860.00 Per Sector (GeoTIFF) provided "as is." Refer to license agreement for additional details. Early Adopter Credit 143 Mosaic Tile Area -wide in New processing or re -processing of MRSID area -wide $8.00 $2.00 $286.00 MrSID Format - 4in GSD Per mosaics of 4-inch GSD imagery. Tiles are provided "as is." Sector (Combined) Refer to license agreement for additional details. Early Adopter Credit 829 Mosaic Tile Area -wide in New processing or re -processing of MRSID area -wide $0.50 $414.50 MRSID Format - 9in GSD Per mosaics of 9-inch GSD imagery. Tiles are provided "as is." Sector (Combined) Refer to license agreement for additional details. 1 Oblique Imagery Bundle with Includes digital copy of the Licensed Documentation for the $0.00 $0.00 Two (2) Years of EFS License Software, two (2) End User Training Sessions, one Maintenance & Support (1) Advanced User Technical Training, one (1) Administration / IT Training Session, ten (10) hours of telephone support, one copy of Pictometry Electronic Field Study (EFS) software, latest version, on the storage media specified herein, and access to download updated versions of the EFS Licensed Software for a period of two years from the initial date of shipment of the EFS software, along with a copy of the updated documentation. 1 Par Library for Server Edition I Par library for Pictometry Server Edition. $0.00 $0.00 1 Pictometry for ArcGI I Pictometry for ArcGIS Desktop. Active X extension $0.00 $0.00 Page 3 of 15 Whatcom County WA - C123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 Desktop - Active X Extension - Government (Seat) compatible with ArcMap versions 9.3xx and 10. SUBTOTAL -SECOND CAPTURE I $114,778.25 :THIRD CAPTURE, QTY. PRODI7,°•• 4AME PRODUCT DESCRIPTIQIV L1S3 :PRICY;," , f7ISC0U�VT , AMOUNT PRICErI'X>'E, , 1 EAP PROGRAM Refer to detailed description of EAP Program in attached $0.00 $0.00 Terms and Conditions. Term of EAP Program will not exceed the term for EFS Maintenance and Support for Imagery on this agreement. 1 Electronic Field Study (EFS) One copy of Electronic Field Study software, latest version. $0.00 $0.00 829 IMAGERY - COMMUNITY Product includes 9-inch GSD oblique frame images (4-way), $75.00 $69.75 $57,822.75 - 4-way (C5) (9in) with 9in 9-inch GSD orthogonal frame images, 9-inch GSD ortho mosaic tiles - Per Sector mosaic tiles, 1-meter GSD ortho mosaic sector tiles and one LTI Grant area -wide 1-meter GSD mosaic (ECW format). Orthogonal GSD: 0.75 feet/pixel; Nominal Oblique GSD (all values +5/- 10"/u): Front Line: 0.74 feet/pixel, Middle Line: 0.85 feet/pixel, Back Line: 1.00 feet/pixel. Refer to attached terms and conditions. 143 IMAGERY - Product includes 4-inch GSD oblique frame images (4-way), $400.00 $372.00 $53,196.00 NEIGHBORHOOD - 4-way 4-inch GSD orthogonal frame images, 1-meter GSD ortho (N5) (4in) Per Sector mosaic sector tiles and one area -wide 1-meter GSD mosaic LTI Grant (ECW format). Orthogonal GSD: 0.32 feet/pixel; Nominal Oblique GSD (all values +/-10516): Front Line: 0.33 feet/pixel, Middle Line: 0.36 feet/pixel, Back Line: 0.44 feet/pixel. 1 Media Drive Capacity 931G - External USB 2.0 / eSATA Externally Powered. Delivery $199.00 $199.00 Drive Model IT - media prices include copying complete image library onto EXTPOWER media. Sub -warehousing sold separately. 143 Mosaic Standard Tiles (4in) 4-inch GSD Mosaic Tiles in GeoTIFF Format. Tiles are $40.00 $20.00 $2,860.00 Per Sector (GeoTIFF) provided "as is." Refer to license agreement for additional details. Early Adopter Credit 143 Mosaic Tile Area -wide in New processing or re -processing of MRSID area -wide $8.00 $2.00 $286.00 MrSID Format - 4in GSD Per mosaics of 4-inch GSD imagery. Tiles are provided "as is." Sector (Combined) Refer to license agreement for additional details. Early Adopter Credit 829 Mosaic Tile Area -wide in New processing or re -processing of MRSID area -wide $0.50 $414.50 MrSID Format - 9in GSD Per mosaics of 9-inch GSD imagery. Tiles are provided "as is." Sector (Combined) Refer to license agreement for additional details. 1 Oblique Imagery Bundle with Includes digital copy of the Licensed Documentation for the $0.00 $0.00 Two (2) Years of EFS License Software, two (2) End User Training Sessions, one Maintenance & Support (1) Advanced User Technical Training, one (1) Administration / IT Training Session, ten (10) hours of telephone support, one copy of Pictometry Electronic Field Study (EFS) software, latest version, on the storage media specified herein, and access to download updated versions of the EFS Licensed Software for a period of two years from the initial date of shipment of the EFS software, along with a copy of the updated documentation. 1 Par Library for Server Edition Par library for Pictometry Server Edition. $0.00 $0.00 1 Pictometry for ArcGIS Pictometry for ArcGIS Desktop. Active X extension $0.00 $0.00 Desktop - Active X Extension compatible with ArcMap versions 9.3xx and 10. - Government (Seat) SUBTOTAL - THIRD CAPTURE $114,778.25 Thank you for choosing Pictometry as your service provider. I TOTAL 1 $341,474.75 This order is subject to the Pictometry Online Services General Terms and Conditions (the "General Terms and Conditions") set forth in Section B as those terms and conditions may be amended from time to time by Pictometry in accordance with their terms. By signing this Order Form Customer agrees to the General Terms and Conditions as part of this order. To the extent of any conflict between the terms and conditions set forth on this Order Form and those set forth in the General Terms and Conditions the terms and conditions of this Order form shall prevail. PAYMENT TERMS Page 4 of 15 Whatcom County WA - C123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 FIRST CAPTURE no payment due at signing Due at Shipment of $56,912.46 Imagery Due at First Anniversary of $56,912.46 Shipment of Imagery Total Payments $113,824.92 SECOND CAPTURE Due at Shipment of Imagery $56,912.46 Due at First Anniversary of $56,912,46 Shipment of Imagery Total Payments $113,824.92 THIRD CAPTURE Due at Shipment of Imagery $56,912.46 Due at First Anniversary of $56,912.46 Shipment of Imagery Total Payments $113,824.92 Page 5 of 15 Whatcom County WA—C123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 iM SECTION B PRODUCT TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND SPECIFICATIONS The following are the terms, conditions, and specifications related to the products offered under the License Agreement. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary: a. Non -Appropriation of Funds: Long Term Incentives ('LTI') have been applied to the imagery fees shown in Schedule A. Non -Appropriation of funds is applied to the second and third flight. If such funds are not appropriated, Licensee shall provide Pictometry with written documentation of non -appropriation from the funding source. Such notification shall be 90-days prior to any pending image capture. If funds are not appropriated for the purchase of Oblique Imagery, contract shall stay in force but new Image Libraries shall not be captured or delivered until outstanding balances due have been paid. b. Co -Ownership of Pictometry Ortho Images: Pictometry grants the Licensee non-exclusive co -ownership of the Ortho Images subject to the following conditions: 1) The license fee is fully paid. 2) If requested, ortho images may be distributed to third parties along with the technical specifications defined in this contract. 3) Ortho images may be used in a public -facing website so long as any download feature is disabled and the Pictometry measurement tools are not exposed. 4) Whatcom County will advise data recipient that under no circumstances may third party re -sell the ortho images, or redistribute. Whatcom County will communicate to Pictometry any known breach upon discovery. c. Named Users: The following Named Users are hereby granted a perpetual license to Pictometry imagery and software assuming licensee fees for such imagery has been paid in full: Bellingham Housing Authority Nooksack Tribe Whatcom Conservation District Whatcom Transportation Authority Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer City of Everson City of Sumas Whatcom Council of Governments City of Blaine City of Ferndale City of Lynden Port of Bellingham Public Utilities District Whatcom County City of Bellingham Lununi Nation d. Public Disclosure: Pictometry acknowledges that Whatcom County is a public agency and as such is required to allow members of the public access to public records in accordance with Washington State public records laws. In the event that the Whatcom County Public Records Officer receives a public records request for information or intellectual property belonging to Pictometry, within five days of receiving such request and prior to providing any materials to the Requestor, Whatcom County will notify Pictometry of such request for information and will make attempts to provide Pictometry with adequate time to seek a protective order under applicable law, provided, nothing herein shall prohibit or preclude Whatcom County from complying with the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56, RCW, and making all requested information available as shall be required by law. e. Pictometry shall allow Whatcom County to use their Connect User Seats for their named Authorized Users. f. CONNECT ACCOUNT SHALL BE ACTIVATED JULY 1, 2013 Long Term Incentives ('LTI') have been applied to the imagery fees shown on the attached order form. In the event the licensee terminates this Agreement prior to the execution of a remaining flight capture, all LTI monetary considerations shall be revoked and the related funds shall be immediately due and payable to Pictometry. Repayment of LTI considerations does not apply if funds for Oblique Imagery are not appropriated. If such funds are not appropriated, Licensee shall provide Pictometry with written documentation of non -appropriation from the funding source (such notification must be prior to any pending image capture). In the event of a non -appropriation, all contractual terms and conditions remain in force. No new image libraries will be captured or delivered prior to the payment of all outstanding balances. PRODUCT PARAMETERS IMAGERY — FIRST CAPTURE Product: IMAGERY - COMMUNITY - 4-way (C5) (9in) with 9in mosaic tiles - Per Sector Page 6 of 15 Whatcom County WA — C 123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 •' Ortho Tile Projection: State Plane, NAD83 — Washington State Plane North Ortho Tile Format: Units: Feet Elevation Source: USGS Leaf. Less than 30% leaf cover (Off) Special Instructions: Tiff Product: IMAGERY - NEIGHBORHOOD - 4-way (N5) (4in) Per Sector Ortho Tile Projection: State Plane, NAD83 — Washington State Plane North Ortho Tile Format: Units: Feet Elevation Source: USGS Leaf Less than 30% leaf cover (Off) Special Instructions_ Tiff IMAGERY —SECOND CAPTURE Product: IMAGERY - COMMUNITY - 4-way (C5) (9in) with 9in mosaic tiles - Per Sector Ortho Tile Projection: State Plane, NAD83 — Washington State Plane North Ortho Tile Format: Units: Feet Elevation Source: USGS Leaf. Less than 30% leaf cover (Off) Special Instructions: Tiff Product: IMAGERY - NEIGHBORHOOD - 4-way (N5) (4in) Per Sector Ortho Tile Projection: State Plane, NAD83 — Washington State Plane North Ortho Tile Format: Units: Feet Elevation Source: USGS Leaf Less than 30% leaf cover (Off) Special Instructions: Tiff IMAGERY — THIRD CAPTURE Product: IMAGERY - COMMUNITY - 4-way (C5) (9in) with 9in mosaic tiles - Per Sector Ortho Tile Projection: State Plane, NAD83 — Washington State Plane North Ortho Tile Format: Units: Feet Elevation Source: USGS Leaf Less than 30% leaf cover (Off) Special Instructions: Tiff Product: IMAGERY - NEIGHBORHOOD - 4-way (N5) (4in) Per Sector Ortho Tile Projection: State Plane, NAD83 — Washington State Plane North Ortho Tile Format: Units: Feet Elevation Source: USGS Leaf Less than 30% leaf cover (Off) Special Instructions: Tiff CONNECT — FIRST CAPTURE Product: Pictometry Connect-100 Admin User: Mike Pelela Admin User Email. mpelela@co.whatcom.wa.us Requested Activation: July 1, 2013 Geofence: WA Whatcom Special Instructions: Page 7 of 15 Whatcom County WA — C 123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 91 STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS LICENSED OBLIQUE AND ORTHOGONAL IMAGERY Imagery: Licensed Images procured with a high resolution digital camera and nominal GSD is as indicated on Sector Map. C3 products shall contain ortho images and oblique images taken from opposite directions. C5 or N5 products shall contain ortho images and oblique images taken from both opposite and perpendicular directions. Pictometry images (individual frames) are delivered in Pictometry .PSI and .PMI format (JPG combined with a metadata trailer). For each sector that includes ortho imagery, Pictometry includes a separate trailer, minimal overlap, projected in State Plane, NAD 83, feet unless the projection is stated otherwise on the executed order form. US Census Bureau TIGER line files of County or a base map must be supplied by Licensee. EFS Licensed Software: Pictometry International Corp. shall supply one copy of the Pictometry Electronic Field Study (EFS) software, latest version, on the Storage Media supplied as specified herein. Licensee and Authorized Users may download updated versions of the Licensed Software for the term of their active License (not Perpetual License) with Pictometry, as indicated on the order form, from the initial date of shipping of the EFS software, along with a copy of the updated documentation. Recommended minimum system requirements for EFS are as follows: Pentium 4,13 GHz or greater processor. 512MB RAM (I GB or more recommended for XP, 2G or more recommended for Vista and Windows 7). Windows 2000, XP, Vista (32- or 64-bit), or Windows 7 (32- or 64-bit). Video Card: 16MB graphics, 32bit color quality and 1024x768 screen resolution. 100 Mbps - NIC (network deployments). 250MB available hard disk space (EFS R1.14) Licensee agrees that Pictometry may audit Licensee's use of the Licensed Software and agrees to the sharing of supplementary data with Pictometry for the purpose of improving future software versions, providing for additional tools and enhancing the value of the software to the Licensee. Pictometry shall not transfer any data collected to any third party. Pictometry shall preserve at all times the confidentiality of information pertaining to data collections where the information is not in the public domain. Telephone Support: To the extent indicated, Pictometry shall provide telephone support to Licensee employees who have completed the Advanced User Technical Training and who are individually identified by Licensee to Pictometry. License Term: At the conclusion of the defined License Term on the order form, Pictometry shall automatically grant a Perpetual License to Licensees in good standing for the then current version of the Licensed Products. Maintenance and Support for the Perpetual License may be purchased at Licensee's request. Licensee Storage Media: Licensee will make available on Licensee Server sufficient disk storage space to accommodate the Licensed Products. Licensee will also provide a 100 mb/s network link to the server. On delivery, the Licensed Images and Licensed Software may be copied to the Licensee server via the network connection. Delivery Schedule: The image capture process and the delivery date may be affected by weather conditions or aircraft availability. Licensee will accept delivery within thirty (30) days of notification by Pictometry. Digital Imagery Specifications: Dimensions and Resolution All values are approximates based on target height -over -ground. The actual values vary due to conditions outside of Pictometry's control, including, but not limited to, air traffic control restrictions, weather, and elevation changes in the underlying ground surface. Sector Tiles One -Meter Sector Tiles Footprint, 5,280 x 5,280 feet (1,609 x 1,609 meters) Pixel Size: 3.28 feet/pixel (1.0 meters/pixel) Source Imagery: Community Orthogonal (12 and 9 inch / 30 and 22.5 cm) and/or Neighborhood Orthogonal Radiometry: Not radiometrically balanced, may have observable cut lines and could consist of imagery taken over a period of several days File Size (Approx. ): 700 KB (JPG format) 12 inch Sector Tiles Footprint: 5,280 x 5,280 feet (1,609 x 1,609 meters) Pixel Size: 1.0 feet/pixel (0.3048 meters/pixel) Source Imagery: Community Orthogonal (12 and 9 inch / 30 and 22.5 cm) and/or Neighborhood Orthogonal Radiometry: Not radiometrically balanced, may have observable cut lines and could consist of imagery taken over a period of several days. File Size (Approx.): 7,000 KB (JPG format) 9 inch Sector Tiles Footprint: 5,280 x 5,280 feet (1,609 x 1,609 meters) Pixel Size: 0.75 feet /pixel (0.2286 meters/pixel) Source Imagery: Community Orthogonal (nominal 9 inch / 22.5 cm) and/or Neighborhood Orthogonal Radiometry: Not radiometrically balanced, may have observable cut lines and could consist of imagery taken over a period of several days. File Sue (Approx): 12,000 KB (JPG format) 6 Inch Quarter Sector Tiles Footprint: 2,640 x 2,640 feet (805 x 805 meters) Pixel Size: 0.5 feet/pixel (0.1524 meters/pixel) Source Imagery: Neighborhood Orthogonal and/or Neighborhood Orthogonal Radiometry: Not radiometrically balanced, may have observable cut lines and could consist of imagery taken over a period of several days File Size (Approx.): 8,000 KB (JPG format) 4 Inch Quarter Sector Tiles Footprint: 2,640 x 2,640 feet (805 x 805 meters) Page 8 of 15 Whatcom County WA—C123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 92 Pixel Size: 0333 feet/pixel (0.1016 meters/pixel) Source Imagery: Neighborhood Orthogonal and/or Neighborhood Orthogonal Radiometry: Not radiometrically balanced, may have observable cut lines and could consist of imagery taken over a period of several days. File Size (Approx.): 19,000 KB (JPG format) General Specifications: Orthogonal Images Image Format Industry -standard image format with proprietary image trailer. Image Quality Images will have an unobstructed view of the ground and objects on the ground. In controlled airspace around airports, etc., and in areas of steep elevation changes, the image ground sample distance and resolutions may vary. There may be varying degrees of ground illumination and color variations due to lighting and cloud shadows. Measurement Accuracy <0.5% measurement error, excluding user pixel selection error Pixel Placement Accuracy Pictometry provides a visualization system and therefore does not certify image accuracy. Sensor Orientation Pictometry utilizes an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), ground station post -corrected differential GPS, and Kalman filtering to achieve a high degree of positional and directional accuracy. Sensor Positional Accuracy mean 15cm absolute Sensor Directional Accuracy 0.015 degrees absolute (roll/pitch). 0.035 degrees absolute (heading) Ortho-Rectification The images are ortho-rectified to remove the variations due to elevation changes (utilizing the best DEM data available, including customer provided DEM data), resulting in geographically square pixels aligned to a rectilinear grid. This grid can be specified by any number of coordinate systems, including Latitude/Longitude, State Plane, UTM, and more. The desired coordinate system should be specified in the contract, or a default coordinate system will be used. Image Export JFIF (JPEG), TIFF, or BMP. Pictometry software can be utilized to export the images into any of the above industry -standard formats. The orthogonal images can optionally be transformed to a different projection during this export process, and an associated location reference file can be created for use in importing the images into other GIS mapping software. Image Tiling Individual orthogonal images are edge -feathered and mosaicked to produce orthogonal image tiles with tile sizes selected to balance single image coverage as well as manageability of open images. These orthogonal tiles provide continuous coverage across the area of interest. While some color balancing is done, these orthogonal tiles are not fully radiometrically balanced or edge -matched. Oblioue Images Image Format Industry -standard image format with proprietary image trailer. Image Quality Images will have an unobstructed view of the ground and objects on the ground. In controlled airspace around airports, etc., and in areas of steep elevation change, the image ground sample distance may vary. There may be varying degrees of ground illumination and color variations due to lighting and cloud shadows. Due to the nature of oblique aerial photography, there may also be artifacts such as haze, glint and glare caused by reflected light. Measurement Accuracy <0.75% measurement error, excluding user pixel selection error Pixel Placement Accuracy Pictometry provides a visualization system and therefore does not certify image accuracy. Sensor Orientation Pictometry utilizes an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), ground station post -corrected differential GPS, and Kalman filtering to achieve a high degree of positional and directional accuracy. Sensor Positional Accuracy mean 15cm absolute Sensor Directional Accuracy 0.015 degrees absolute (roll/pitch) 0.035 degrees absolute (heading) Image Export JFIF (JPEG), TIFF, BMP Pictometry software can be utilized to export the images into any of the above industry -standard formats Notes 1. The existing National Map Accuracy Standards focus on conventional analog aerial photography products. When used for digital mapping products, it is necessary to specify the approximate image scale (e.g. 1:1200) when stating NMAS requirements. 2. Pictometry's orthogonal images provide the coordinate accuracy fulfilling most planemetric requirements, however, Pictometry data is not intended for authoritative definitive mapping or surveying replacement. If there is a need for authoritative mapping products, additional work is required by licensed individuals in order to certify Pictometry's orthogonal imagery. Alternatively, a separate, authoritative orthogonal image capture can be done and those orthogonal images used inside of Pictometry. Our oblique images are unique to Pictometry and are intended to provide data not available elsewhere and lateral views with more visual information, such as building stock analysis. In Pictometry the orthogonal and oblique images are linked for your convenience and additional study. With a few clicks you can find the revealing lateral views, height measurements, and other information afforded by the oblique images while using the coordinate accuracy afforded by the orthogonal images. Documentation: Pictometry International Corp. shall fumish I digital copy of the Licensed Documentation for the Licensed Software. Page 9 of 15 Whatcom County WA — C 123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 93 Training: End User orientation session(s), is limited to 25 attendees per training session, for employee(s) of the Licensee, or Authorized Subdivision(s) thereof. Advanced User technical training is limited to 10 attendees using Licensee computers. Administration / IT training is designed to provide the administrators of the Pictometry image library with the knowledge they will need to manage and distribute access to the Pictometry solution. Administration / IT Training is provided remotely via online tools. Renewal Licensees will receive online training sessions, customized to address Licensee's needs. Pictometry Trainers shall contact Licensee to determine training needs_ EAP Economic Alliance Partnership (EAP): Licensee shall be eligible for the EAP program for the Tenn of Contract as defined on Section A to this Agreement. For multi -library contracts (more than one image capture on Section A), EAP terms and conditions shown below will apply for a period of two years from the date of execution of the Agreement. Any remaining image library captures will be covered by the then prevailing EAP terms, as defined by Pictometry International Corp A. Imagery — with Pictometry's EAP program the Licensee may retain its imagery, as the EFS Software and Image License becomes perpetual at the end of the term of the License Agreement. B. Disaster Coverage at No Additional Charge — Pictometry will image up to 200 square miles of affected areas (as determined by Pictometry) of the events described below at no additional charge to the license fee: • Hurricane: affected areas of Category 11 hurricanes and above. Coverage for hurricanes below this category or for areas exceeding 200 square miles will be available to active licensees at EAP rates, dependent upon resource availability. • Tornado: imagery of areas impacted by Tornados with ratings of EF4 and above. Coverage for tornados below EF4 or for areas exceeding 200 square miles will be available to active licensees at EAP rates, dependent upon resource availability. • Terrorist: damage due to terrorist attack for up to 200 square miles. Coverage beyond 200 square miles will be available to active licensees at EAP rates, dependent upon resource availability. • Earthquake: affected areas with damage to critical infrastructure resulting from an Earthquake at or exceeding 6.0 on the Richter magnitude scale. Coverage for Earthquakes below 6.0 or for areas exceeding 200 square miles will be available to active licensees at EAP rates, dependent upon resource availability. • Tsunami: affected areas with damage to critical infrastructure resulting from a Tsunami. Coverage for areas exceeding 200 square miles will be available to active licensees at EAP rates, dependent upon resource availability. C. Software— Use of Pictometry Change AnalysisT`r or Web Deployment of Disaster Imagery — Pictometry's Rapid Response Program includes the use of Change Analysis software for ninety days from the date of delivery of any EAP imagery. The Change Analysis software simultaneously compares pre and post disaster images to aid recovery and restoration efforts. Pictometry Web Deployment of disaster imagery may also be available at no charge for ninety days. STANDARD ORTHO MOSAIC PRODUCTS Pictometry Standard Ortho Mosaic Products: Pictometry ortho mosaic products are the result of high definition, full color aerial images and automated mosaicking processes that incorporate digital elevation data to create large -area mosaic ortho images from the individual Pictometry ortho frames. Pictometry's process includes quality control, programmatic error correction, and data integrity checks into the planning, capture, and processing of the images. Certain artifacts may remain evident in the ortho mosaic tiles, including, but not limited to: disconnects in non -elevated surfaces , disconnects in elevated surfaces (roadways, bridges, etc.), building intersect and clipping, seasonal cutlines, ground illumination cutlines, color variations (illumination differences and multiple-aircraftfcamera captures), color variations (mixed GSD), color variations (e.g. water) and lack of edges of coverage (the border of a county, for example). Note: If mathematical operations will be performed on the Mosaic Tiles (such as automated feature extraction), that would be compromised by compression artifacts, Ortho Mosaic Tiles may be created from non -compressed TIFF imagery and delivered in TIFF format with world files and separate trailers, minimal overlap, projected in State Plane, NAD 83, feet unless the projection is stated otherwise. Custom Ortho-Mosaics: It is important to note that while the custom ortho-mosaic can generally be created at any pixel resolution, up or down, creating an ortho-mosaic with a pixel size smaller than the ground sample distance of the input imagery will not contain anymore information than the resolution of the input imagery. For example, if you create a six-inch ortho-mosaic from one -foot imagery, even though the pixels will be six-inch, the overall image data resolution will still only be one -foot. For this reason, it is important to ensure the base imagery purchased meets or exceeds the resolution requirements of any ortho-mosaics you need. Under -sampling, for instance creating a one -foot ortho-mosaic from six-inch resolution imagery, is not a problem and generally produces very good results. In general, ortho-mosaics from Pictometry's neighborhood orthogonal imagery can meet NMAS 1:1200 (1.0-meter RMS error at 95% confidence interval) in relatively flat terrains or areas with good elevation data. For areas with highly variable terrain or areas with poor elevation data, this number generally drops to NMAS I :2400 (2.0-meter RMS error at 95% confidence interval). Certified ortho-mosaics can be created from Pictometry's community orthogonal imagery, but only under certain capture parameters. As such, it is important to include any custom ortho-mosaic requirement with the image capture requirements such that the communityorthogonal imagery can be captured in a way consistent with certification requirements. CONNECT PICTOMETRY ONLINE SERVICES GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS These Pictometry Online Services General Terns and Conditions (the "General Terms and Conditions"), in combination with the corresponding Pictometryorder form, if any, collectively constitute the license agreement (the "License Agreement") that governs your use of the Pictometry online services (the "Online Services"), the images available in the Online Services, and all associated metadata and data layers included in, provided with, or derived from those images (the "Licensed Content") provided by Pictometry International Corp. and its affiliated companies (collectively, "Pictometry"). The terms `you" and `your" in uppercase or lowercase shall mean the individual, entity (e.g., corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietor, etc.) or government agency entering into the License Agreement. GRANT OF RIGHTS; RESTRICTIONS ON USE; OWNERSHIP Page 10 of 15 Whatcom County WA — C123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 •A 1.1 You are granted a nonexclusive, nontransferable, limited right to access and use the Online Services and the Licensed Content obtained or derived from the Online Services solely for your internal business purposes and not for resale or redistribution. The rights granted to you include, subject to the restrictions set forth below and on the Order Form, the right to copy I imited portions of the Licensed Content onto your computer to facilitate preparation of hardcopies and work product records, and the right to make hardcopies of the Licensed Content, provided that the Licensed Content and the permitted copies thereof may not be sold, leased, loaned, distributed, or copied for use by anyone other than you. 1.2 You may not make the Online Services available to any other party. 1.3 You may not copy the Licensed Content or portions thereof onto any computer or storage device or media for the purpose of creating or maintaining one or more databases of that content for use in substitution for subsequent access to the content through the Online Services. 1.4 You may not distribute or otherwise make available any Licensed Content to Google or its affiliates, either directly or indirectly. 1.5 You may not exploit the goodwill of Pictometry, including its trademarks, service marks, or logos, without the express written consent of Pictometry. 1.6 You may not remove, alter or obscure copyright notices or other notices contained in the Licensed Content. 1.7 You may not offer any part of the Online Services or the Licensed Content for commercial resale or commercial redistribution in any medium. 1.8 You may not use the Online Services or the Licensed Content to compete with any businesses of Pictometry. 1.9 You may not use information included in the Online Services or the Licensed Content to determine an individual consumer's eligibility for (a) credit or insurance for personal, family, or household purposes; (b) employment; or (c) a government license or benefit. The term "consumer" is defined in the United States Fair Credit Reporting Act at 15 USC § 1681. 1.10 You may not access the Online Services via mechanical, programmatic, robotic, scripted or any other automated means. Unless otherwise agreed by Pictometry in writing, use of the Online Services is permitted only via manually conducted, discrete, human -initiated individual search and retrieval activities. 1.11 All right, title, and interest (including all copyrights, trademarks and other intellectual property rights) in the Online Services and the Licensed Content in all media belong to Pictometry or its third party suppliers. Neither you nor any users of the Online Services or the Licensed Content acquire any proprietary interest in the Online Services, the Licensed Content, or any copies thereof, except the limited use rights granted herein. 2. ACCESS TO SERVICES 2.1 Only you, your employees, and temporary employees and contractors dedicated to performing work exclusively for you (each, an "Eligible User" and collectively, the "Eligible Users") are eligible to access and use the Online Services and the Licensed Content pursuant to the License Agreement. Each Eligible User to be provided access to the Online Service shall be assigned a unique login/password ("Pictometry Credential") for purposes of accessing the Online Services. You agree that each Pictometry Credential shall only be used by the Eligible User to whom it was originally assigned and that Pictometry Credentials may not be shared with, or used by, any other person, including other Eligible Users. You will promptly notify Pictometry to deactivate an Eligible User's Pictometry Credential in the event the Eligible User no longer meets the eligibility requirements or you otherwise wish to terminate the Eligible User's access to the Online Services. You are responsible for all use of the Online Services accessed with Pictometry Credentials issued to your Eligible Users, including associated charges, whether by Eligible Users or others. You will use reasonable commercial efforts to prevent unauthorized use of Pictometry Credentials assigned to your Eligible Users and will promptly deactivate any Pictometry Credentials you suspect are lost, stolen, compromised, or misused. 2.2 The Online Services, the Licensed Content, and features and functionality within the Online Services may be enhanced, added to, withdrawn, or otherwise changed by Pictometry without notice. 2.3 You are aware and understand that any user data collected or stored by the Online Services may be accessed by US law enforcement agencies under the US PATRIOT Act. You hereby release, and agree to hold Pictometry harmless from, all claims against Pictometry with respect to such access. 3. DISCLAIMERS 3.1 The Online Services and the Licensed Content are provided for visualization purposes only, are not authoritative or definitive, and do not constitute professional engineering or surveying services. 3.2 The Online Services and the Licensed Content are not to be relied upon to precisely locate or determine property boundaries and should not be used in lieu of a professional survey where the accuracy of measurements, distance, height, angle, area and volume, may have significant consequences. 3.3 All measurements and reports generated by the Online Services or from the Licensed Content are based upon second order visualization and measurement data that do not provide authoritative or definitive measurement results suitable for professional engineering or surveying purposes. 3.4 Contour information obtained from the Online Services or contained in the Licensed Content is generated from undersampled elevation data, is provided for informational purposes only, and is not suitable for use as the basis for hydrographic computations, estimations or analyses. 3.5 While the Online Services and the Licensed Content may be considered useful supplements for life critical applications, they are not designed or maintained to support such applications and Pictometry and its third party suppliers of the Online Services and the Licensed Content hereby disclaim all liability for damages claims and expenses arising from such use. 3.6 Your reliance on the Online Services and the Licensed Content should only be undertaken after an independent review of their accuracy, completeness, efficacy, timeliness and adequacy for your intended purpose. 3.7 Pictometry and each third party supplier of any portion of the Online Services or the Licensed Content assume no responsibility for any consequences resulting from the use of the Online Services or the Licensed Content. 3.8 Pictometry and each third party supplier of any portion of the Online Services or the Licensed Content hereby disclaim all liability for damages, claims and expenses arising from or in any way related to the accuracy or availability of the Online Services and the Licensed Content. 3.9 By accepting these General Terms and Conditions or by using the Online Services or the Licensed Content, you waive any and all rights you may have against Pictometry, each third party supplier of any portion of the Online Services or the Licensed Content, and each of their directors, officers, members and employees, arising out of use of or reliance upon the Online Services or the Licensed Content. 4. LIMITED WARRANTY 4.1 Pictometry represents and warrants that it has the right and authority to make the Online Services and the Licensed Content available to you and your Eligible Users as authorized expressly by this License Agreement. 4.2 EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SECTION 4.1, THE ONLINE SERVICES AND LICENSED CONTENT ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS", "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS AND PICTOMETRY AND EACH THIRD PARTY SUPPLIER OF LICENSED CONTENT EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 5. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 5.1 No Covered Party (as defined below) shall be liable for any loss, injury, claim, liability, or damage of any kind resulting in any way from (a) any errors in or omissions from the Online Services or the Licensed Content, (b) the unavailability or interruption of the Online Services or any features thereof or the Licensed Content, (c) your or an Eligible User's use of the Online Services or the Licensed Content, (d) the loss or corruption of any data or equipment in connection with the Online Services or the Licensed Content, (e) the content, accuracy, or completeness of the Licensed Content, all regardless of whether you received assistance in the use of the Online Service from a Covered Party, (f) any delay or failure in performance beyond the reasonable control of a Covered Party, or (g) any content retrieved from the Internet even if retrieved or linked to from within the Online Services. Page 11 of 15 Whatcom County WA-C123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 95 5.2 "Covered Party" means (a) Pictometry and any officer, director, employee, subcontractor, agent, successor, or assign of Pictometry, and (b) each third party supplier of any Licensed Content, third party alliance entity, their affiliates, and any officer, director, employee, subcontractor, agent, successor, or assign of any third party supplier of any Licensed Content or third party alliance entity and their affiliates. 5.3 TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF THE COVERED PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY CLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE ONLINE SERVICES OR THE LICENSED CONTENT OR THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT EXCEED THE LESSER OF YOUR ACTUAL DIRECT DAMAGES OR THE AMOUNT YOU PAID FOR THE ONLINE SERVICES IN THE TWELVE MONTH PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE THE CLAIM AROSE. YOUR RIGHT TO MONETARY DAMAGES IN THAT AMOUNT SHALL BE IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER REMEDIES WHICH YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST ANY COVERED PARTY. 5.4 TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW, NEITHER YOU NOR THE COVERED PARTIES WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ATTORNEYS' FEES) IN ANY WAY DUE TO, RESULTING FROM, OR ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ONLINE SERVICES, THE LICENSED CONTENT, OR THE FAILURE OF ANY COVERED PARTY TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS. THE FOREGOING LIMITATION OF LIABILITY SHALL NOT APPLY TO A PARTY'S INDEMNITY OBLIGATIONS OR YOUR (AND YOUR ELIGIBLE USERS') INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPRIETARY DATA BELONGING TO PICTOMETRY OR ITS THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS. 5.5 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 5: (a) If there is a breach ofthe warranty in Section 4.1 above, then Pictometry, at its option and expense, shall either defend or settle any action and hold you harmless against proceedings or damages of any kind or description based on a third parry's claim of patent, trademark, service mark, copyright or trade secret infringement related to use ofthe Online Services or the Licensed Content, asserted against you by such third party provided: (i) all use ofthe Online Services and the Licensed Content was in accordance with this License Agreement; (ii) the claim, cause of action or infringement was not caused by you modifying or combining the Online Services or the Licensed Content with or into other products, applications, images or data not approved by Pictometry; (iii) you give Pictometry prompt notice of such claim; and (iv) you give Pictometry the right to control and direct the investigation, defense and settlement of such claim. You, at Pictometry's expense, shall reasonably cooperate with Pictometry in connection with the foregoing. (b) In addition to Section 5.5(a), if the Online Services, the operation thereof or the Licensed Content become, or in the opinion of Pictometry are likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement, Pictometry may, at its option and expense, either: (i) procure for you the right to continue using the Online Services or the Licensed Content, (ii) replace or modify the Online Services or the Licensed Content so that they become non -infringing; or (iii) terminate the License Agreement on notice to you and grant you a pro-rata refund or credit (whichever is applicable) for any pre -paid fees or fixed charges. (c) The provisions of Sections 5.5(a) and (b) shall constitute your sole and exclusive remedy for the respective matters specified therein. 6. MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 The terms and conditions of this License Agreement maybe changed from time to time immediately upon notice to you. If any changes are made to this License Agreement, such changes will: (a) only be applied prospectively; and (b) not be specifically directed against you or your Eligible Users but will apply to all similarly situated Pictometry customers using the Online Services. You may terminate this License Agreement upon written notice to Pictometry if any change to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement is unacceptable to you. For termination to be effective under this Section 6.1, written notice of termination must be provided to Pictometry within 90 days ofthe effective date ofthe change. Continued use ofthe Online Services following the effective date of any change constitutes acceptance ofthe change, but does not affect the foregoing termination right. Except as provided above, this License Agreement may not be supplemented, modified or otherwise revised unless signed by duly authorized representatives of both parties. Furthermore, this License Agreement may not be supplemented, modified or otherwise revised by email exchange, even if the email contains a printed name or signature line bearing signature -like font. The foregoing does not prohibit the execution of electronic contracts bearing electronic signatures of authorized representatives of both parties, provided such signatures include digital certifications or are otherwise authenticated. 62 In the event of a breach of this License Agreement by you, any Eligible User or someone using the Pictometry Credential of an Eligible User, Pictometry may temporarily suspend or discontinue providing access to the Online Services to any or all Eligible Users without notice and Pictometry may pursue any other legal remedies available to it. 6.3 All notices and other communications hereunder shall be in writing or displayed electronically in the Online Services by Pictometry. Notices shall be deemed to have been properly given on the date deposited in the mail, if mailed; on the date first made available, if displayed in the Online Services; or on the date, received, if delivered in any other manner. Legal notices to Pictometry should be sent to Pictometry, Attn: General Counsel, 100 Town Centre Drive, Suite A, Rochester, New York I4623. 6.4 The failure of you, Pictometry, or any third party supplier ofthe Online Services or any Licensed Content to enforce any provision hereof shall not constitute or be construed as a waiver of such provision or ofthe right to enforce it at a later time. 6.5 Neither you nor any Eligible User may assign or otherwise transfer your rights or delegate your duties under this License Agreement without the prior written consent of Pictometry. Any attempt by you or any Eligible User to assign, transfer or delegate your rights or obligations under this License Agreement without Pictometry's consent shall be void, and shall also void the limited license granted to you by this License Agreement. This License Agreement and any amendment thereto shall be binding on, and will inure to the benefit ofthe parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. 6.6 This License Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws ofthe State of New York, excluding its conflicts of law principles. Unless you are a government entity, in the event that any legal proceedings are commenced with respect to any matter arising under this License Agreement, the parties specifically consent and agree that the courts ofthe State of New York or, in the alternative, the Federal Courts located in the State of New York shall have exclusive jurisdiction over each of the parties and over the subject matter of any such proceedings, and that the venue of any such action shall be in Monroe County, New York or the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, as applicable. 6.7 This License Agreement will be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. If any provision of this License Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable to any extent, then (a) such provision will be interpreted, construed and reformed to the extent reasonably required to render it valid, enforceable and consistent with its original intent and (b) such invalidity or unenforceability will not affect any other provision of this License Agreement. 6.8 Where applicable, each affiliated company of Pictometry and each third party supplier ofthe Online Services or any Licensed Content has the right to assert and enforce the provisions of this License Agreement directly on its own behalf as a third party beneficiary. 6.9 In the event of a breach of your obligations under this License Agreement or your payment obligations with respect to access to the Online Services or the Licensed Content, you agree to pay all of Pictometry's costs of enforcement and collection, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 6.10 This License Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter and replaces and supersedes any prior written or verbal communications, representations, proposals or quotations relating to that subject matter. PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP. SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") CAREFULLY BEFORE DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING OR USING THIS SOFTWARE. BY USING THIS SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL OR USE THIS SOFTWARE. GENERAL. The software ("Pictometry Software") and any written materials that accompany the software ("Documentation") in any media or form are licensed, not Page 12 of 15 Whatcom County WA — C 123573 20I21030 CMT-00000-20121018 e sold, to you by Pictometry International Corp. ("Pictometry") for use only under the terms of this License. Pictometry reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this License. LICENSE. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited, non -transferable, terminable, non-sublicenseable, non-exclusive license to install and use the Pictometry Software and the Documentation (collectively, the "Proprietary Materials") solely for internal use. Use of the functionality provided by the Pictometry Software other than for your internal use is prohibited, except with the prior written approval of Pictometry. You may make one copy of the Pictometry Software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the original. You will not and will not enable others to decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, create derivative works of, or tamper with or disable any security or monitoring features within the Pictometry Software. Any attempt to do so is a violation of the rights of Pictometry and its licensors. TITLE. The Proprietary Materials are confidential information of, trade secrets of, and are proprietary to Pictometry. Title to the Proprietary Materials is and will remain in Pictometry and its licensors. All applicable rights to patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property rights in the Proprietary Materials are and will remain in Pictometry and its licensors. You will not assert any right, title or interest in the Proprietary Materials provided to you under this License, except for the express license granted to you hereunder. You will not remove any copyright or other proprietary notice or legend contained on or included in any Proprietary Materials and you will reproduce all such information on all copies made hereunder. You will keep the Proprietary Materials free of all claims, liens and encumbrances. DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTY. USE OF THE PICTOMETRY SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE PICTOMETRY SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND PICTOMETRY HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE PICTOMETRY SOFTWARE, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. PICTOMETRY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN OR PROVIDED BY THE PICTOMETRY SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, THAT THE OPERATION OF THE PICTOMETRY SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR -FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE PROPRIETARY MATERIALS WILL BE CORRECTED. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT WILL PICTOMETRY BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION OR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO YOUR USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PICTOMETRY SOFTWARE, HOWEVER CAUSED, REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY (CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE), EVEN IF PICTOMETRY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT WILL PICTOMETRY S TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ALL DAMAGES (OTHER THAN AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW IN CASES INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURY) CAUSED BY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE PICTOMETRY SOFTWARE EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00). THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS WILL APPLY EVEN IF THE ABOVE STATED REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. TERMINATION. This License will terminate automatically without notice from Pictometry if you fail to comply with any term of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you will cease all use of the Pictometry Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Proprietary Materials. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. Restricted Rights. Pictometry Software acquired with United States Government funds or intended for use within or for any United States federal agency is provided with "Restricted Rights" as defined in DFARS 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software and FAR 52.227-I4, Rights in Data -General, including Alternate III, as applicable. Pictometry must be notified in advance of any license grants to United States federal governmental entities. The Pictometry Software is developed for general use in a variety of applications and is not developed or intended for use in any inherently dangerous applications or applications that could lead to property damage, personal injury or death. If you use the Pictometry Software in such applications, then you will be responsible for taking all appropriate fail-safe, backup, redundancy, and other measures to ensure the safe use of the Pictometry Software in such applications, including but not limited to, in any nuclear, aviation, mass transit, public safety or medical applications. Foreign Trade Restrictions. The parties acknowledge that certain information, software technology, accompanying documentation and technical information may be subject to United States export control laws. You will not directly or indirectly export or re-export the Pictometry Software in violation of the Export Administration Regulations of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Governing Law. This License will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, excluding its conflict of laws principles Assignment. You may not assign this License without Pictometry's prior written consent. Any assignment in violation of this License will be null, void and of no force and effect. For all purposes under this License, any merger, consolidation, spin-off, acquisition or change -in -control will be deemed an assignment. Partial Invalidity; Survival. If any provision of this License is held invalid or unenforceable by competent authority, that provision will be construed so as to be limited or reduced to be enforceable to the maximum extent compatible with the law as it will then appear. The total invalidity or unenforceability of any particular provision of this License will not affect its other provisions and this License will be construed in all respects as if the invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted. The provisions of this License that by their nature would survive its termination will survive indefinitely. Force Majeure. Neither party will be liable for any costs or damages due to nonperformance under this License arising out of any cause not within the reasonable control of such party and without its fault or negligence. Neither party will be liable for any delay or failure in the performance of its obligations under this License that directly results from any failure of the other party to perform its obligations as set forth in this License. Waiver. No waiver of a breach of any term of this License will be effective unless in writing and duly executed by the waiving party. No such waiver will constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term of this License. No failure on the part of a party to exercise, and no delay in exercising any of its rights hereunder will operate as a waiver thereof, nor will any single or partial exercise by a party of any right preclude any other or future exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right. No course of dealing between the parties will be deemed effective to modify, amend or discharge any part of this License or the rights or obligations of any party hereunder. Entire Agreement; Construction. This License contains the entire understanding ofthe parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous understandings regarding that subject matter. No amendment to or modification of this License will be binding unless in writing and signed by Pictometry. There are no representations, warranties, or obligations of any party not expressly contained herein. The headings in this License are for convenience only. They do not constitute a portion of this License and will not be used in any construction of it. Page 13 of 15 Whatcom County WA — C123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 97 WHATCOM COUNTY: Recommended for Approval: IT Mana er Date Approved as to form: I',— P, '�) - \ � V ) 0) rosecuting Attomey Date Approved: Accepted for Whatcom County: By: Jack Louws, Whatcom County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) On this day of , 20 _, before me personally appeared Jack Louws, 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 Page 14 of 15 Whatcom County WA—C123573 20121030 1 CMT-00000-20121018 W• SECTOR MAP Whatcorn_ WA ( AINHAT) Nq iA t � f_. .YL 1 � � Jy, tl'2F �a 'y"i .w'•4.'.i�� � _— � yJt } ormmnity Sectors-- 829 Ne' rhood Sectors: 143 Page 15 of 15 Whatcom County WA—C123573 20121030 CMT-00000-20121018 We WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-300 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assi ned to: Originator: Josh Fleischmann 0812912012 9111112 Introduction 9/25/2012 Division Head Head: D SEP 04 2012 Hearing Dept. Head: J.E. got / o'L /R / 10/09/2012 P&D Committee "Sam "Ryan WHATCOM 10/23/2012 P&D Committee Prosecutor: Karen COUNTY 11/07/2012 COTW Frakes ��. COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget: Executive: Jack Louivs / �ev TITLE OFDOCk1VffT. Zoning amendment to allow Agricultural Slaughtering Facilities in the Agriculture Zoning District ATTACHMENTS: 1) Staff memo to Council 2 Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( X) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? (X) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( X ) 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 file required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining file intent of file action.) The proposed amendment would allow for agricultural slaughtering facilities within the Agriculture (AG) zoning district. Agricultural slaughtering facilities that employ no more than 20 full time employees would be reviewed as a permitted use. Agricultural slaughtering facilities that employ more than 20 full time employees would be reviewed as a conditional use. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: 10/09/2012: Amended and held in Committee 9/11/2012: Introduced 10/23/2012: Amended and recommended to Council 9/25/2012: Held in Planning & Development for introduction as amended. (See Council's Committee to October 9, 2012 motion at evening meeting) 10/23/2012: Council Approved 7-0 motion to refer to Committee of the Whole on Nov. 7 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.wliatcom.wa.us/council. XTA 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 PROPOSED BY: SPONSORED BY: BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ZONING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AGRICULTURAL SLAUGHTERING FACILITIES IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by Gabriel Claycamp to amend the Agriculture (AG) zoning district to allow the small scale slaughter of livestock; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); and WHEREAS, In accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 Whatcom County Planning and Development Services notified the Department of Commerce of the proposed zoning text amendment; and WHEREAS, notice of the Whatcom County Planning Commission hearing on the proposed amendment was published in the Bellingham Herald; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment and considered all testimony; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Planning Commission held 3 work sessions on the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Planning Commission forwarded its findings and reasons for action to the County Council; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council has reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendment and considered all testimony; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council held 2 work sessions in the Planning and Development Committee; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council held a public hearing on the Planning and Development Committee recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions: Page 1 101 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 FINDINGS 1. The proposal is to amend the Agriculture (AG) District portion of the Zoning Code (WCC 20.40), to allow for agricultural slaughtering facilities. 2. The proposal was posted on the County website on June 5, 2012. 3. Notice that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to citizen, media and other groups on the County's e-mail list on June 11, 2012. 4. Notice of the subject amendment was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on June 5, 2012. 5. Notice of the Planning Commission work session for the subject amendment was posted on the County's website in May 2012. 6. In order to approve the zoning amendment, the County must find that is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Additionally, the County must find that the zoning amendment is consistent with and implements the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 7. The Growth Management Act includes a planning goal to "Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities" (RCW 36.70A.020(5)). This proposed zoning amendment would allow for agricultural slaughtering facilities within the agriculture zoning district. Presently, agricultural slaughtering. facilities are prohibited within the agriculture zoning district. Staff recognizes the benefit to the agricultural industry this amendment would provide by allowing greater opportunities for farmers to get their product to the end user. The Growth Management Act allows for jurisdictions to implement innovative zoning techniques, which should be designed to conserve agricultural lands and encourage the agricultural economy. This proposed amendment would support planning goal RCW 36.70A.020(5) Economic Development. 8. The Growth Management Act also includes a planning goal to "Maintain and enhance natural resource -based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of Page 2 102 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 W productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses" (RCW 36.70A.020(8)). This proposed zoning amendment would allow for agricultural slaughtering facilities within the agriculture zoning district. Staff recognizes the benefit to the agricultural industry this amendment would provide by allowing greater opportunities for farmers to get their product to the end user. This proposed amendment would support planning goal RCW 36.70A.020(8) Natural Resource Industries. 9. Policy 8B-1: Promote the expansion and stability of local and regional agricultural economies This proposed zoning amendment would allow for agricultural slaughtering facilities within the agriculture zoning district. Presently, Keizer Meats of Lynden operates a mobile slaughtering unit, which is the only USDA approved slaughtering facility north of Seattle that is open to the public. Keizer Meats has received conditional approval to operate a small scale agricultural slaughtering facility at the location of their approved meat cutting and packing facility on Bob Hall Rd. Approval of this proposed amendment would allow citizens within the agriculture zoning district to provide slaughtering services to Whatcom County farmers and allow greater opportunities for farmers to get their product to the end user. 10. Policy 8B-2: Assist Whatcom County's agricultural industry in the pursuit of its long-term economic potential. This should include the development of strategies and policies necessary to reach this potential, in terms of both production and diversity. 30 This proposed zoning amendment would allow for uses not presently allowed 31 in the agriculture zoning district. Allowing this use may increase production 32 and diversity of livestock by providing greater opportunities for livestock 33 owners to get their product to the end user. 34 35 11. Policy 8B-4: Support methods and strategies to market Whatcom County 36 agriculture in ways which ensure that agricultural activities (such as dairying) 37 and entities (such as processors) will remain here in the long term. 38 39 Allowing agricultural slaughtering facilities within the agriculture zoning 40 district would provide a new method for marketing Whatcom County 41 livestock, as there are not presently any permitted Conditional Use Permits 42 for agricultural slaughtering facilities within Whatcom County jurisdiction that 43 are open to the public 44 45 12. County -Wide Planning Policy I-5: The county and the cities should include an 46 economic development element in their Comprehensive Plans. Economic Page 3 103 1 development elements should be consistent with the CEDS. Economic 2 development shall be coordinated with environmental concerns to protect the 3 quality of life. Planning efforts should address economic sustainability. As 4 part of the comprehensive planning process and through implementation of 5 the comprehensive plan, the County shall develop and adopt goals, policies 6 and regulations that protect resource land industries and support and 7 encourage resource -based industries. 8 9 Approval of this proposed amendment would allow citizens within the 10 agriculture zoning district to provide slaughtering services to Whatcom 11 County farmers and allow greater opportunities for farmers to get their 12 product to the end user. By approving the proposed amendment, 13 comprehensive plan goals and policies and their related development 14 regulations that support and encourage resource -based industries would be 15 implemented. 16 17 13. County -Wide Planning Policy I-9: The County and the cities recognize the 18 need for the protection and utilization of natural resources and resource 19 lands including agricultural, mineral, forestry and fishing. As part of a broad 20 based economy, productive timber, agriculture and fisheries industries should 21 be supported in a sustainable manner. 22 23 Approval.of this proposed amendment would allow citizens within the 24 agriculture zoning district to provide slaughtering services to Whatcom 25 County farmers and allow greater opportunities for farmers to get their 26 product to the end user. Approval of this proposal would allow for an 27 increase the economic base for agricultural products related to livestock. 28 29 14. Consistent with RCW 36.70A.177, this amendment will allow agricultural 30 slaughtering facilities within the agricultural zone that will support the 31 agricultural community and will not interfere with the overall agricultural use 32 of the property and neighboring properties. 33 34 15. Based on testimony provided by the applicant, as well as the size of the 35 current USDA agricultural slaughtering facility, Keizer Meats, 15,000 square 36 feet is an appropriate building size threshold to differentiate between small 37 scale agricultural slaughtering facilities administered as a permitted use, and 38 larger agricultural slaughtering facilities administered as a conditional use. 39 40 CONCLUSIONS 41 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Whatcom County 42 Comprehensive Plan. 43 44 2. The subject amendment serves the public interest by supporting the local 45 agricultural industry. 46 Page 4 104 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the Whatcom County Zoning Code is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional; such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have passed this code and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases has been declared invalid or unconstitutional, then the original ordinance or ordinances shall be in full force and effect. ADOPTED this day of , 20 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Prosecutor Page 5 Kathy Kershner, Council Chair WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Jack Louws, County Executive ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date Signed: 105 EXHIBIT A Chapter 20.40 AGRICULTURE (AG) DISTRICT 20.40.050 Permitted .056 Agricultural slaughtering facilities, which shall be located, designed, and operated so as to not interfere with the overall agricultural use of the property and neighboring properties, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The facility processes at least 50 percent agricultural goods produced in Whatcom County and that originate from permitted uses in WCC 20.40.051. (2) The facility is no larder than 15,000 square feet. (3) Where an agricultural slaughtering facility, as identified in WCC 20.97.010.2, includes incidental edible rendering, as identified in WCC 20.97.107, of animals slaughtered on site, the facility shall emit no odors that are detectable, at or beyond the property line for the use concerned, in such a concentration or of such duration as to cause a public nuisance, or threaten health or safety, or to unreasonably infringe upon the use of adjacent property. 20.40.150 Conditional Uses .164 Aaricultural slauahterina facilities, which shall be located, designed, and operated so as to not interfere with the overall agricultural use of the property and neighboring properties, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The facility processes at least 50 percent agricultural goods produced in Whatcom County and that originate from permitted uses in WCC 20.40.051. (2) The facility is larger than 15,000 square feet. (3) Where an agricultural slaughtering facility, as identified in WCC 20.97.010.2, includes incidental edible rendering, as identified in WCC 20.97.107, of animals slaughtered on site, the facility shall emit no odors that are detectable, at or beyond the property line for the use concerned, in such a concentration of or such duration as to cause a public nuisance, or threaten health or safety, or to unreasonably infringe upon the use of adjacent property_ Chapter 20.36 RURAL (R) DISTRICT 20.36.130 Administrative approval uses. .136 In R5A and R10A zoning districts, the processing of agricultural products that originate from the permitted uses in WCC 20.40.050, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The facility is not an agricultural slaughtering facility slaughterheuse or mushroom substrate production facility. 20.36.150 Conditional uses. 20.36.163 In R5A and R10A zoning districts, the processing of agricultural products that originate from the permitted uses in WCC 20.40.050, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The facility is not an agricultural slaughtering facility or mushroom substrate production facility. 106 Chapter 20.80 Supplementary Requirements 20.80.200 Setback requirements 20.80.255 Agriculture District. (1) The 50-foot front yard setback requirement for new buildings or additions may be waived if the zoning administrator finds the new building or addition is located along the same building line(s) of existing structures and will result in no additional encroachment, the public interest, safety and health are protected; provided, that for a new building the applicant shall also demonstrate that the proposed location is necessary for the economic viability and the continued operation of the agricultural use. (2) The minimum separation between new residences not located on the same property and farm uses such as barns, pens, milking sheds, agricultural slaughtering facilities, or areas used to contain, house or feed animals or store manure or feed, shall be 300 feet. New farm uses such as barns, pens, milking sheds, agricultural slaughtering facilities, or areas used to contain, house or feed animals or store manure or feed, shall be situated at least 150 feet from existing residences not located on the same property. Expansion of existing facilities within the 150-foot buffer, providing such expansion is not closer to a neighbor's residence, and pastures are excluded from this section's requirements. 20.97.010.2 Agricultural slaughtering facility "Agricultural slaughtering facility" means a facility that engages in slaughtering, on or off site, and the processing of agricultural slaughter products in accordance with local state, and federal health and agricultural regulations. Agricultural slaughtering facilities may include incidental edible rendering of by-products of animals slaughtered on site, in accordance with USDA regulations. Importation of animal by- products is strictly prohibited, unless associated with a rendering plant approved throuah the conditional use process. 20.97.107 Edible rendering "Edible rendering" is the rendering of products for human consumption. "Incidental rendering" is exclusively the rendering of products slaughtered by the agricultural slauahterina facilitv.. 20.97.189 Inedible rendering "Inedible rendering" is the rendering of products not suitable for human consumption. 20.97.343.1 Rendering Plants "Rendering plants" means a plant that processes animal by-product materials for the production of tallow, grease, and high -protein meat and bone meal. 20.97.343 Renderina "Rendering" means the process or business of producing tallow, grease, and high - protein meat and bone meal from animal by-products. 20.97.424 Slaughtering "Slaughtering" means the killing of animals for human consumption. 107 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-327 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office A enda Date Assi ned to: Originator: M.A. 1011212012 1012312012 Public Works, Health & Matt Aamot j� E C E � � E D . OCT 15 2012 Safety Committee Division Head: Mark Personius ]� �! �✓' /D/�?��7� 11/7/12 Introduction Dept. Head: Sam Ryan / 11 / 20/ 12 Hearing Prosecutor: I Royce Buckingham D WHATCOM COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: COUNCIL Executive: Jack Laws TITLE OF DENT: Six -Year Capital Improvement Program and level of service amendments. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance and Exhibits 2. Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action Other background information is on file at the Council office. SEPA review required? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( X) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( X ) 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.) Adoption of the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Whatcom County Facilities 2013-2018 (Appendix F of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan) to replace the existing Six -Year CIP for 2011-2016. The Six -Year CIP includes plans for County parks, trails, correction facilities, stormwater facilities, flood protection facilities, government buildings and transportation. The proposed amendments also include eliminating the level of service standard for County maintenance and operation facilities in chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCILACTION. 10/23/2012: Hold in Committee and also introduce November 7. Have hearing same night as the budget hearing. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. AB2012-089 and PLN2012-00002 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. WHATCOM COUNTY., Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax October 12, 2012 I.E. "Sam" Ryan Director To: Jack Louws, The Honorable Whatcom County Executive The Honorable Whatcom County Council From: Matt Aamot, Senior Planner/ Through: Mark Personius, Long Range Planning Division Manager MY RE: Six -Year Capital Improvement Program and LOS Amendments The Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Whatcom County Facilities includes plans for County parks, trails, correction facilities, stormwater facilities, flood protection facilities, government buildings and transportation. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan indicates that the Six -Year CIP should be updated every two years. The last CIP was approved by the County Council in 2010. Therefore, the CIP is being updated in 2012. Additionally, the subject proposal would delete the level of service standard for County maintenance and operation facilities. The Growth Management Act does not require that a local comprehensive plan contain a level of service standard for such facilities. Rather, County facility managers may propose, and elected officials may authorize, improvements to maintenance and operation facilities when needed. Planning & Development Services is requesting Council committee consideration of these amendments on Oct. 23. It is anticipated that the County Council would make a final decision on these amendments along with approval of the biennial budget. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Office (360) 676-6907 FAX (360) 738-2525 109 10-12-2012 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES (2013-2018) AND MODIFYING LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council initiated the subject amendments for review in 2012; and WHEREAS, Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Whatcom County facilities is reviewed every other year and is due for an update in 2012; and WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act does not require that a local comprehensive plan contain level of service (LOS) standards for maintenance & operation facilities and, therefore, this LOS standard may be deleted; and WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 13, 2012; and WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission recommended the comprehensive plan amendments on October 11, 2012; and WHEREAS, The County Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT The proposal is to amend the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as follows: a. Deleting the level of service standard for maintenance and operation facilities in chapter 4 of the comprehensive plan; b. Adopting the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Whatcom County Facilities 2013-2018; and c. Repealing the existing Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities 2011-2016. 2. Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on August 20, 2012. 110 3. A determination of non -significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on August 23, 2012. 4. The proposal was posted on the County website on August 9, 2012. 5. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to citizen, media, cities and other groups on the County's e-mail list on August 9, 2012. 6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendments was published in the Bellingham Herald on August 31, 2012. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendments on September 13, 2012. Pursuant to WCC 2.160.080, in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendments the County must find all of the following: a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. b. Further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate changed conditions that show need for the amendment. c. The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: i. The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. 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. 2 111 e. Amendments that propose the expansion of an urban growth area boundary are required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR sending area, with certain exceptions. Growth Management Act 9. The Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 to guide adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. 10. GMA planning goal # 12 is to "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards" (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). 11. The subject amendments include updating the Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities for the 2013-2018 planning period. Updating the CIP is one step in the process of planning regional facilities provided by the County to serve the people of Whatcom County. 12. The GMA, at RCW 36.70A.070(3), requires that a comprehensive plan must include a capital facilities plan element consisting of: a. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. b. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. c. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. d. At least a six -year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. e. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. 13. The Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities contains an inventory of existing County owned or operated facilities, a forecast of future needs based upon the level of service standards adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and other factors, proposed expanded or new County capital facilities, costs and funding sources. 112 14. Existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 4A-4 addresses the GMA requirement to reassess the land use element if probable capital facility funding falls short. County -Wide Planning Policies 15. County -Wide Planning Policy K-1 indicates that, as part of the comprehensive planning process, the County must identify appropriate land for public facilities that meets the needs of the community including recreation, transportation and human service facilities. 16. The CIP identifies County park, trail, transportation and other improvements as contemplated by the County Wide Planning Policies. Interlocal Agreements 17. Existing inter -local agreements between Whatcom County and the cities indicate that the County will consult with the appropriate city in planning new road construction projects within the city's urban growth area. The inter -local agreements also provide joint planning for parks. 18. The County Engineer indicated on July 2, 2012 that the County sends a copy of the six -year transportation improvement program to cities prior to approval, requests comments, and informs cities of the hearing date. The Whatcom County Parks Director stated on July 2, 2012 that the County Parks' staff maintains a consistent working relationship with appropriate staff from cities on joint park projects and planning. Therefore, the type of cooperation envisioned by the inter -local agreements is occurring. Further Studies/Changed Conditions 19. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan calls for an update of the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for County facilities every other year. Specifically, Policy 413-1 is to: 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. 20. A revised capital improvement program has been formulated for County owned or operated facilities, which presents improvement projects over the new six -year planning period. L 113 Public Interest 21. The Six -Year CIP plans for public facilities from 2013 to 2018 based upon anticipated population growth over the six -year planning period and other relevant factors. Therefore, the proposal should complement the County's growth and development plans. 22. The Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities will have a positive impact on the County's ability to provide public facilities by planning ahead for such facilities. Adverse impacts to other service providers have not been identified. 23. The goal of the Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities is to plan for County owned or operated parks, trails, stormwater facilities, flood protection facilities, government buildings, correction facilities, and transportation improvements to serve the people of Whatcom County. Planning for such County facilities is in the public interest. Spot Zoning 24. The subject proposal does not involve rezoning property. Level of Service Standard Modification 25. A level of service standard for maintenance & operation facilities is set forth in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 26. The "Growth Management Act — Procedural Criteria for Adopting Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations" state that counties are not required to set level of service standards for facilities that are not necessary for development (WAC 365-196- 415(2)(b)). 27. Whatcom County will continue to monitor and evaluate the need for maintenance & operation facility improvements. However, such facilities are not related to growth management planning. Therefore, the level of service standard for such facilities may be removed from the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS The proposed amendments conform to applicable requirements of the Growth Management Act. 2. The proposed amendments satisfy the approval criteria of WCC 2.160.080. 5 114 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 (Capital Facilities) is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A. Section 2. The Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for Whatcom County Facilities 2013- 2018 (Appendix F of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan) is hereby adopted as shown on Exhibit B. Section 3. The Whatcom County Six -Year Capital Improvement Program 2011-2016 is hereby repealed as shown on 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 , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Kershner, Chairperson APPROVED as to form: Civil Deputy Prosecutor rol ( ) Approved () Denied Jack Louws, Executive Date: 115 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 F=vhihi+ A Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities Amend the Capital Facilities chapter of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 4) as follows: 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 of a mile per 1,000 population activity centers ........................................ five centers per 100,000 population Policy 4G-3: Adopt the following level of service for correction facilities: jails..................................................................1.42 beds per 1,000 population juvenile detention ......................................... 0.125 beds per 1,000 population Policy 4G-4: Adopt the following levels of service for administrative facilities: maiRtepaRGe& GpeF.+�G (61Rrir►sGFPerated`.................... 0.41-�sq. #. Pe� Gapita sheriffs office (unincorporated).......................................0.26 sq. ft. per capita sheriff emergency ops (county-wide).........................0.011 sq. ft. per capita Note: Strikethroughs on Exhibit A show the changes to the adopted Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan language. 116 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year ClP 2013-2018 Exhibit B SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES 2013-2018 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-1 117 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 - Introduction...................................................................... 3 Chapter 2 — Parks and Recreation...................................................... 5 Chapter 3 - Maintenance & Operations..............................................14 Chapter 4 - Government Office Space................................................15 Chapter 5 - Sheriff's Office..................................................................16 Chapter 6 - Emergency ManagementlEOC.........................................17 Chapter7 - Jails...................................................................................18 Chapter 8 - Juvenile Detention...........................................................20 Chapter 9 — Transportation.................................................................21 Chapter 10 — Stormwater and Flood Protection Facilities ................23 Chapter 11 — Improvements to Existing Buildings ............................29 Chapter 12 — Costs by Project Category............................................30 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-2 118 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION The Growth Management Act requires that the County's Comprehensive Plan include a "capital facilities plan element" (RCW 36.70A.070(3)). The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan calls for the County to develop and update the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for County projects. The main purpose of this Capital Improvement Program is to plan County facilities to serve the people of Whatcom County over the next six years. Growth Management Act Requirements According to the Growth Management Act, a county's capital facilities plan must include five items, which are shown below. A. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. Current inventories of existing County capital facilities, based upon information provided by various County departments, are included in each chapter of this document. B. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. Chapters 4 and 6 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establish "level of service" standards for County parks, administrative facilities (i.e. Sheriff's office space), correction facilities, and transportation. Level of service standards are expressed in acres of parkland needed for every 1,000 people in the County, square feet of Sheriffs office space needed to serve each person in the County, etc. Forecasts of future needs for capital facilities over the six -year planning period are determined by applying the adopted level of service for a given facility to the expected population in the year 2018. F=Gr example, the adopted level of would be Reeded by the yeaF 2018 te maintain the ad9pted level A-f se-P.4roe. SiRGe the GOURty already the noorlc of the gFE)Winn nnn,,latinn C. Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. General locations and capacities (acres of parkland, jail beds, etc.) of proposed new County facilities are indicated in this document. D. At least a six -year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. This Six -Year Capital Improvement Program presents costs and funding sources for proposed County capital facilities (all figures are in 2012 dollars). There are a variety of funding sources that the County utilizes to pay for capital facilities, including real estate excise tax, conservation futures, the public utilities improvement fund, the jail fund and grants. One other potential source is the County's General Fund. The Finance Manager for Whatcom County indicated that, over the six -year planning period, there would be little revenue in the County's General Fund to finance capital facilities. However, the capital facilities proposed in this Six -Year Capital Improvement Program are within the County's funding capacity. Specifically, Whatcom County's unused limited tax general obligation bond long-term debt capacity at the end of 2011 was Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-3 119 Plannina Commission Recommended Version October 11. 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 $337,885,810, which far exceeds the expenditures proposed by this Six -Year Capital Improvement Program. Therefore, it would be possible to issue bonds to pay for capital facilities if revenue is increased, expenses decreased, or programs reprioritized to make debt service payments. Revenue and expenditure projections for roads and related non -motorized facilities are set forth in the six - year transportation improvement program. E. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Finally, in accordance with the Growth Management Act, a requirement to reassess the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure consistency between plans already exists in the Comprehensive Plan (Policy 4A-4). Charter Provisions and the County Budget In addition to Growth Management Act provisions relating to capital facilities, Section 6.30 of the County Charter also requires the County to include a six -year capital improvement program as part of the budget. Appropriation for 2013-2014 capital projects may be included in the biennial budget or may be adopted through the supplemental budget process. Ultimate funding for capital improvement projects is subject to County Council authorization in the adopted budget. Costs identified for 2015-2018 are included for planning purposes and review of potential future needs, but not for budget authorization at this time. Contracting for Services Whatcom County may contract with other entities, such as the Council of Governments and the Northwest Regional Council, for vital community services. These contracts represent County participation in providing essential services, alongside other partners, without the need to construct County owned capital facilities, which can be very costly. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-4 120 Planninq Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CUP 2013-2018 Chapter 2 - PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS Existing Developed Park Facilities The 2012 inventory of County parks shows a total of 7,145 acres with 1,941 acres of developed parks at various locations throughout the County. This inventory -is shown below, is a partial list of developed land owned by the Parks Department that is readily usable by the general public. EXISTING PARKS 1 Bay Horizon Park, 7499 Alderson Rd. 68.19 2 Deming Eagle Homestead Park, Truck Rd. 33.00 3 Hovander Homestead Park and Tennant Lake, 5299 Nielsen Rd. 333.42 4 Interurban Trail/Teddy Bear Cove Parkway, Chuckanut Dr. 11.19 5 Jackson Rd. Beach Access, Birch Bay 0.15 6 Jensen Family Forest Park, Stein Rd. and Birch Bay Lynden Rd. 21.48 7 Josh VanderYacht Park, 4106 Valley Highway 1.99 8 Lake Whatcom Park, North Shore Rd. 218.00 9 Lighthouse Marine Park, 811 Marine Dr. in Point Roberts 20.49 10 Lily Point Marine Park, East end of APA Rd. in Point Roberts 130.20 11 Lummi Island Overlook, Nugent Rd. 0.16 12 Maple Beach Park, Boundary Bay Rd. in Point Roberts 0.50 13 Monument Park, Marine Dr. and Roosevelt in Point Roberts 6.94 14 Northwest Soccer Park/Baseball & Softball Complex, Smith Rd. and Northwest Dr. 35.00 15 Nugent's Corner Access, 3671 Mt. Baker Highway 14.00 16 Point Whitehorn Marine Reserve, Koehn Rd. 54.10 17 Samish Park, 673 N. Lake Samish Dr. 30.61 18 Semiahmoo Park, 9261 Semiahmoo Parkway 17.92 19 Silver Lake Park, 9187 Silver Lake Rd. 412.05 20 Squires Lake Park, 135 Old Highway 99 North Rd. 84.15 21 Stimpson Family Nature Reserve, Lake Louise Rd. 371.27 22 Sunset Beach, West Shore Dr. on Lummi Island 2.25 23 Sunset Farm, 7989 Blaine Rd. 69.50 24 Ted Edwards Park, Oriental Ave. 3.85 25 Welcome Bridge Access, Mosquito Lake Rd. 0.60 26 Bay to Baker Trail 118.00 27 Birch Bay Shoreline Properties 11.35 28 Canyon Lake Creek Community Forest 2,266.00 29 Chuckanut Mount Park 999.80 30 Olson Property 368.70 31 - Plantation Rifle Range 60.00 32 South Fork Regional Park 603.00 33 Halverson Park 5.60 34 Roeder Home 1.15 TOTAL 6,374.61 Note: The Planning Commission modified the "Existing Parks" table after amending the paragraph above it. For consistency with the changes to the table, the acreage may need to be modified in the paragraph above the table. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-5 121 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Future Parks Level of ServicePa, �k Needs A level of service of 9.6 acres of developed parkland for every 1,000 people in the County was adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With pFejeGte l r epulatinn gFGMh in Wha#nnm Qeupt a ever the ReA six years, aR additiGRal 153 aGFes ef developed/usable parkland would be needed -hy the year 2018 to meet the adopted level Of GeWiGe Proposed Park Improvement Projects Seven park improvement projects are proposed to provide additional park space by the year 2018. These projects would add 271873 acres of parkland in Whatcom County, as shown below. Additionally, other park and recreation improvement projects will add recreational facilities at these parks, include playfields, picnic areas, restrooms, and parking. Financing for Park Improvement Projects projects are proposed on existing parkland. These but will not add acreage to the inventory. Examples The total cost of the seven proposed park improvement projects is approximately $2.5 million over the six - year planning period. These costs would be paid for through grants, real estate excise tax (REET), the park improvement fund, conservation futures, and flood funds as shown below. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-6 122 Plannino Commission Recommended Version October 11. 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, 2013-2018 F Site No and AdYe 1201 Ot�k, <2D - 2'z 2U18 is u tlingk ��* P�o�ect fVame,� C s Sources , 1. Cherry Point / 35 0 0 0 0 150,000 150,000 300,000 1 and 2 Point Whitehorn Industrial Area Access 2. Dittrich Park 24 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 0 500,000 1 and 2 Lake Samish 3. Lake Whatcom 83 0 0 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 520,000 1 and 2 County Park South Unit 4. Maple Falls Park 73 0 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 300,000 1 and 2 5. Riverplace Park 50 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 1, 2, 4 and 5 Ferndale 6. South Fork 0 0 250,000 400,000 0 0 0 650,000 1,2 and 3 Regional Park, Mosquito Lake Rd. 7. Sunnyside 6 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 100,000 1 and 2 Landing Park, North Shore Rd. Total 271 100,000 400,000 730,000 430,000 530,000 280,000 2,470,000 Funding Source Key 1. State and Federal Grants 2. REET II 3. Park Improvement Fund 4. Conservation Futures 5. Flood fund Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-7 123 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 TRAILS Existing Trails Whatcom County currently has 60.63 miles of trails in various locations throughout the County. This inventory is shown below. EXISTING TRAILS 1 Bay Crest, Sunset Dr. and Woodbridge Dr., Birch Bay 0.21 2 Bay Horizon, 7499 Alderson Rd. 0.25 3 Bay to Baker Maple Falls -Glacier 4.00 4 Canyon Lake, off Canyon Lake Rd. 4.50 5 Chuckanut Ridge 0.36 6 Deming Homestead Eagle Park, Truck Rd. 0.30 7 Hemlock, Chuckanut area 3.53 8 Hovander Marrietta Coast Millennium Trail 4.90 9 Huckleberry, Chuckanut area 0.43 10 Interurban, Chuckanut area 2.80 11 Jensen, Stein Rd. and Birch Bay Lynden Rd. 0.61 12 Lake Samish, 673 N. Lake Samish Dr. 1.30 13 Lake Whatcom Park 4.02 14 Lily Point, Point Roberts 4.17 15 Lost Lake, Chuckanut area 3.07 16 Lower Salal, Chuckanut area 1.30 17 Madrona, Chuckanut area 0.78 18 Maple Creek, off Silver Lake Rd. in Maple Falls 1.50 19 Monument Park, Marine Dr. and Roosevelt in Point Roberts 0.18 20 Olsen Property Trail, Lake Whatcom Watershed 4.00 21 Ostrom Property, 4304 South Pass Rd. 0.66 22 Pine and Cedar Lakes, Chuckanut area 3.87 23 Point Whitehorn, Birch Bay area 0.75 24 Raptor Ridge, Chuckanut area 0.40 25 Salal, Chuckanut area 1.18 26 Semiahmoo East Paved 0.63 27 Semiahmoo West Footpath 0.45 28 Silver Lake Park, 9187 Silver Lake Rd. 3.10 29 Soccer Trail, Smith Rd. and Northwest Dr. 0.30 30 Squires Lake, 135 Old Highway 99 North Rd. 2.14 31 Stimson Reserve, Lake Louise Rd. 4.04 32 Sunset, 7989 Blaine Rd. 0.57 33 Teddy Bear Cove, Chuckanut area 0.33 TOTAL 60.63 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-8 124 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Future Trail Needs A level of service of 0.60 miles of trails for every 1,000 people in the County was adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth in Whatcom County over the next six years, an additional 71 miles of trails would be needed by the year 2018 to serve the people of Whatcom County. Trail Improvement Projects Five improvement projects are proposed to provide additional trails to meet the anticipated need by the year 2018. These projects would add 71 miles of trails in Whatcom County, as shown below. Financing for Trail Improvement Projects The total cost of the five proposed trail improvement projects is approximately $6.2 million over the six -year planning period. These costs would be paid for through grants, REET, conservation futures, donations, and, potentially, a levy. This is an ambitious plan and funding needed to provide this level of service will, realistically, have to compete with higher priority functions of County government. 1. Bay to Baker 8 Trail 2. Chuckanut 2.7 Mountain Trails 3. Hertz North 1 Lake Whatcom Trail Extension TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, 2013-2018 FU Q 2017 2Q18 total ,� E "'dmg 7 Cdst a5ource5 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 1, 3 and 4 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 30,000 1, 3 and 4 1,500,000 65,000 0 0 0 0 1,565,000 1, 2, 3 and 5 4. South Fork 4.3 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 75,000 1, 2 and 5 Regional Park Trail 5. Lake Whatcom 55 0 0 125,000 125,000 125,000 175,000 550,000 1, 2 and 5 Trails - Reconveyance Lands Total 71 1,500,000 155,000 1,140,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,175,000 6,220,000 Funding Source Key 1. State and Federal Grants 2. REET II 3. Conservation Futures 4. Levy 5. Donations Note: Lake Whatcom Trails are predicated on pending Department of Natural Resources re -conveyance transaction within the Lake Whatcom watershed. For the Bay to Baker Trail and Lake Whatcom Trails, trail alignments and lengths are pending land acquisition, property easement negotiation and final trail design. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-9 125 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year ClP 2013-2018 ACTIVITY CENTERS Existing Activity Centers Activity centers are indoor facilities that provide recreational opportunities (Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9). There are currently 13 activity centers that provide a variety of year-round programs for various age groups. The activity center inventory is shown below. EXISTING ACTIVITY CENTERS 1 Bay Horizon, 7499 Alderson Rd. 2 Bellingham Senior Activity Center, 315 Halleck St. 3 Blaine Community/Senior Center, 763 G Street 4 Everson Senior Center, 111 W. Main 5 Ferndale Senior Center, 1998 Cherry Street 6 Lynden Community Center, 401 Grover Street 7 Plantation Rifle Range, 5102 Samish Way 8 Point Roberts Community Center, 1487 Gulf Road 9 Roeder Home, 2600 Sunset Dr. 10 Sumas Community Center, 461 2nd Street 11 Van Zandt Community Hall, 4106 Valley Highway 12 Welcome Valley Senior Center, 5103 Mosquito Lake Rd. 13 East Whatcom Regional Resource Center, 8251 Kendall Rd. Note: The Blaine, Everson, Lynden and Sumas Centers are owned by these respective cities. The Point Roberts Community Center is owned by the Point Roberts Park District. Whatcom County provides and/or contracts for senior activities and recreational programming at these centers. Future Activity Center Needs A level of service standard of five activity centers for every 100,000 people in the County was adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth in Whatcom County over the next six years, no additional centers would be needed by the year 2018 to meet the adopted level of service. Proposed Activity Center Improvement Projects No improvement projects that would add usable indoor space are proposed within the six -year planning period. Maintenance projects may be undertaken. Financing for Activity Center Improvement Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-10 126 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 OTHER PARK AND RECREATION PROJECTS Pursuant to RCW 82.46.010, RCW 82.46.035 and WCC 3.20, the following park, trail, and recreational facility improvements have been identified as projects that will be funded or partially funded with the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET I or REET II). These are in addition to the projects identified above that will utilize REET funds. • Bay Horizon Park Play fields Park trails • Birch Bav Restrooms, parking improvements, open space improvements and access • Canyon Lake Access road repairs • Coast Millennium Trail Trail construction • East Whatcom Regional Resource Center Play fields Covered play area • Hovander Park — Tennant Lake Improve accessibility, exhibits and function in animal contact area Improve vehicle access, entrance and non -motorized accessibility Construct new restroom building(s) Evaluate & rectify sinking building foundation Hovander Home Reconstruct / replace Tennant Lake boardwalk Surface / improve parking areas and access roads Construct group camp area and sites Construct special event group picnic area and shelters Construct bike / pedestrian facility over Nooksack River to connect with Pioneer Park Improve road access into park Remodel interior of interpretive center Adapt machine shed for public use Boat launch improvements Replace roofs and paint buildings Lake Whatcom Parks and Trails Construct two vehicle accessible bridges at Hertz Trail Construct day use areas Construct public restrooms Construct / replace docks Develop trailheads Utilize residence for events Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-11 127 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 • Lighthouse Marine Park Resurface parking areas Replace playground Replace boardwalk and buildings Construct observation deck Cabins • Maple Beach Parking Restrooms • Nooksack River Trail Develop multi -use trail • Northwest Annex Trail Surface 1.0 mile trail • Nugent's Corner Open shelter Trail improvements Accessible fishing platform Restroom • Olsen Property (Lookout Mountain Access) Restroom Parking improvements • Plantation Rifle Ranqe Renovate impact berm, add retaining wall and re -grade Resurface parking area Resurface access road Replace HVAC • Samish Park Misc. accessibility / picnic improvements - precast paver access path, re -grading and gravel resurfacing Replace playground Re -grade and resurface existing parking area and install plastic stall stripping Survey existing conditions, perform engineering analysis and bank stabilization and optimize parking configuration Repair rotted wall and pitch roof Improve parking area • Semiahmoo Park Concession building electrical, plumbing & fixture improvements Silver Lake Park Replace park playground Replacement of 300' of boardwalk Renovate all cabins, indoor plumbing, flooring and insulation Construct new shower and restroom building in campground Replace restroom in equestrian campground Install new electrical service, pads, road surfacing, water and walkways. Install services and surface road Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-12 128 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Relocate road to accommodate cabin septic tanks, etc. Replace garage at residence Replace windows, electrical service, insulate, and siding Install playgrounds in campgrounds Repair rot, etc. in lodges Horse camp shelter re -roofing Trail improvements ADA improvements New campground and cabins • Stimpson Family Nature Reserve Restroom • Sunset Farm Improve 0.5 mile trail and connect to community trail system Restrooms Stable Repairs Landscaping • Teddy Bear Cove Woodstock Farm connector trail • Warnick Bridge Trailhead improvements • Miscellaneous locations Roof replacements (shop and office) Insulation and siding (shop and office) Parking lots Landscaping Stormwater improvements Interpretive signs • Planning and Design Update Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan Park master plans Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-13 129 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 3 - MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS Existing Maintenance and Operations Space The 2012 inventory of maintenance & operations/facilities management space that serves the County is 44,411 square feet. This inventory is shown below. EXISTING SPACE 1 Central Shop, 901 W. Smith Rd. (Maintenance and Operations) 35,773 2 316 Lottie St. (Facilities Management) 4,978 3 Minimum Security Correction Facility - 2030 Division St. 3,660 (Facilities Management Storage) TOTAL 44,411 Proposed Maintenance and Operations Improvement Projects No improvement projects that would add usable space are proposed within the six -year planning period. Only maintenance projects may be undertaken. Financing Maintenance and Operations Improvement Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-14 130 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 4 - GOVERNMENT OFFICE SPACE Existing Office Space The 2012 inventory of County government office space is 180,769 square feet at eight locations. This inventory is shown below. 1 Civic Center Annex (322 North Commercial) 20,279 2 Central Plaza Building (215 N. Commercial) 10,307 3 County Courthouse (311 Grand Avenue) 94,678 4 Forest St. Annex (1000 North Forest St.) 6,487 5 509 Girard St. 13,189 6 3373 Mt. Baker Highway 2,110 7 1500 N. State St. 12,281 8 Northwest Annex (5280 and 5256 Northwest Dr.) 21,438 Total 180,769 Proposed New Office Building Projects No new buildings are proposed within the six -year planning period. Only improvement and maintenance projects in existing buildings are proposed (see chapter 11). Financing for New Office Building Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-15 131 Planninq Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 5 - SHERIFF'S OFFICE Existing Sheriff's Office Space The 2012 inventory of Sheriff office space is 23,962 square feet serving the unincorporated population. This inventory is shown below. EXISTING SHERIFF'S FACILITIES Public Safety Building (311 Grand Ave) 15,102 Minimum Security Correction Facility (2030 Division St.) 6,000 Inspector's Office, Civic Center Building (322 N. Commercial) 920 Laurel Fire Hall (6028 Guide Meridian) 1,500 East Whatcom Regional Resource Center 160 Birch Bay Fire Hall 192 Nugent's Corner Fire Hall 88 Total 23,962 Notes: 1. The Sheriffs Office also has storage facilities at various locations in Whatcom County. 2. The County has two mobile homes and an old detention facility in Point Roberts. The resident deputies operate out of their homes or utilize space at the U.S. Customs office at the border. Existing Sheriffs Office facilities locations and square footage include shared space at local fire districts that is available depending on Fire District needs and is generally subject to change with short notice or no notice, and rented or leased space not solely dedicated to Sheriffs Office use. Future Sheriff's Office Needs A level of service of 0.26 square feet of Sheriffs Office space per capita was adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth in unincorporated Whatcom County over the next six years, a small amount of additional Sheriff's Office space (approximately 81 square feet) would be needed in 2018 to meet the adopted level of service. A plan has not been formulated at the present time to increase the Sherri's Office space. Therefore, either the LOS will need to be re-evaluated at the next comprehensive plan update or a plan will need to be formulated to provide additional office space in the future. Most Sheriffs Office functions are based in the Public Safety Building adjacent to the Courthouse and are remote to the vast majority of Sheriffs Office Bureau of Law Enforcement and Investigative Services functions that take place in unincorporated Whatcom County. This results in inefficiencies and delays. Space and design factors in current facilities preclude consolidating various functions performed throughout the agency (reception, finance, etc.) and result in redundancies. When fiscally feasible. existing Sheriffs Office facilities and associated functions should be consolidated (except for "Resident Deputy" program facilities). Proposed Sheriff's Office Improvement Projects At the current time, no improvement projects that would add usable space are proposed within the six -year planning period. Financing for Sheriff's Office Improvement Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-16 132 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 6 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT/ EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) Existing Emergency Management/EOC Space The 2012 inventory of Division of Emergency Management office space is 1,821 square feet, located in the Civic Center Annex as shown below. The active Emergency Operation Center for the county was closed in 2010. If an Emergency Operations Center is needed during an emergency, the portable building at the Central Shop, which is 3,600 square feet, is the designated site for set-up. EXISTING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FACILITIES jtNo..,,,.' Facility Name., r r3�b^... Squar.: 1 Civic Center Annex (322 North Commercial) 1,821 TOTAL 1,821 Future Emergency Management/EOC Needs The Division of Emergency Management requires both daily office space for Emergency Management and, during an actual emergency, additional space for the emergency operations center (EOC). During an emergency, the EOC may have to accommodate several hundred people in a single day. These people include a combination of elected officials, trained personnel and volunteers, who serve in a variety of capacities during the emergency. A level of service of 0.011 square feet of emergency operations space per capita was adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth an additional 578 square feet, over and above the existing 1,821 square feet of office space, would be needed by the year 2018 to meet the adopted level of service. However, during an emergency when a location for an EOC is needed, there is access to the portable building at the Central Shop (approximately 3,600 square feet). This is a designated "cold site" that will require 45 minutes to 1 '/z hours to set up. The Division of Emergency Management may need to move out of the Civic Center Annex within the next year. as other County functions may move into this space. The County is working to develop a comprehensive and coordinated plan to re -locate Emergency Management, with the goal of assuring appropriate Iona -term facilities. However, this plan has not vet been finalized. Proposed Emergency Management/EOC Projects No improvement projects that would add usable space are proposed within the six -year planning period. Financing for Emergency Management/EOC Improvement Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-17 133 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year ClP 2013-2018 CHAP-rER 7 - JAILS Existing Jail Facilities The main County jail was designed for 148 beds, although it currently has 283 beds due to double bunking, internal remodeling and use of temporary beds. In 2011, the average daily population for the main jail was 265. Additionally, the jail is currently not in compliance with the Building/Fire Codes for double bunking, although a plan has been approved to bring it into compliance. Whatcom County completed construction of a 150 bed minimum security correction facility on Division St. in 2006. In 2011, the average daily population for the minimum security facility was 137. The main jail is located in the Public Safety Building next to the County Courthouse in downtown Bellingham and minimum security correction facility is located in the Bakerview Rd. industrial area. EXISTING JAIL BEDS MW a Slt ame, y Ap arfit;dJ - - 1 Public Safety Building (311 Grand Ave.) 283 2 Minimum Security Correction Facility (2030 Division St.) 150 TOTAL 433 Future Jail Needs A level of service of 1.42 beds for every 1,000 people in the County was adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth in Whatcom County over the next six years, no additional beds would be needed by the year 2018 to comply with the adopted level of service. However, based on the actual averaae dailv populations of the two Countv iail facilities, the Countv intends to review this level of service. Average daily populations documented by the Corrections Bureau since 2006 have been well above the minimum number of beds required by the current level of service standard, which was adopted in 1997. This indicates a need to review and. potentially. update the existing level of service standard. This review will begin in 2013. Proposed Jail Improvement Projects While the jail facilities are meeting the current adopted level of service, there are concerns among law and justice officials relating to the actual need in the community. This need has been documented by recommendations from the Whatcom County Law and Justice Plan Phase 11 Report (June 2000), in a report entitled Operational Review of the Whatcom County, Washington Jail (March 2004), and in the Whatcom County Jail Planning Task Force Recommendations (Dec. 2011 and March 2012). In an effort to meet the community need, the County will be siting and constructing a Sheriff's Office New Main Jail Facility, tentatively scheduled to open with 600 beds. At the time the Sheriffs Office New Main Jail Facility is open, the offenders at the minimum -security corrections facility would be relocated to the new facility. A location for the Sheriff's Office New Main Jail Facility has not been selected. It is anticipated that the new jail facility will come on line by 2016. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-18 134 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year ClP 2013-2018 Financing for Jail Improvement Projects The cost of the proposed Sheriff's Office New Main Jail Facility is approximately $60,000,000 within the six - year planning period. These costs would be paid for through the general fund, REET I, public utilities improvement fund, jail fund and voter and/Council approved bonds. JAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO SERVE COUNTY -WIDE, 2013-2018 1. Sheriffs Office 600 10,000,000 10,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 4,000,000 0 60,000,000 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 New Main Jail Facility Note: Additional projections and analysis indicate there may be a need for more than 600 beds, but these are still under review. Funding Source Key 1. General Fund 2. REET 1 3. Public Utilities Improvement Fund 4. Jail Fund 5. Voter and/or Council approved Bonds Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-19 135 Planninq Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 8 - JUVENILE DETENTION Existing Juvenile Detention Facilities The 2012 inventory of County juvenile detention facilities includes 32 beds serving the county -wide population. The juvenile detention facility is located on the sixth floor of the County Courthouse at 311 Grand Avenue. EXISTING JUVENILE DETENTION BEDS 1 County Courthouse (311 Grand Ave.) 32 Future Juvenile Detention Needs A level of service of 0.125 beds per 1,000 population was adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth in Whatcom County over the next six years, no additional beds would be needed by the year 2018 to meet the adopted level of service. Proposed Juvenile Detention Projects No improvement projects are currently proposed that would increase the number of permanent beds within the six -year planning period. Financing for Juvenile Detention Improvement Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-20 136 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 9 - "TRANSPORTATION ROADS Existing Roads The 2011 inventory shows a total of 941.5 miles of County roads. Additionally, there are 217.5 miles of state highways in Whatcom County (including 1-5). Therefore, there are approximately 1,159 miles of public roads in Whatcom County. Future Road Needs The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan sets level of service (LOS) standards for County roads. Future traffic and the level of service for roads can be forecasted using computer -modeling software. The Whatcom Council of Governments forecasts future traffic utilizing a computer transportation model. This modeling effort will inform transportation planning in Whatcom County. Whatcom County accomplishes planning for County road improvements by approving a Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program each year, as required by RCW 36.81.121. Proposed Improvement Projects The Whatcom County Council approved the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2013 through 2018 under Resolution No. 2012-023. This six -year plan includes preliminary planning for two proposed new road projects: • Horton Road Connector (between Northwest Drive and Aldrich Road); and • Lincoln Road extension (between Harborview Road and Blaine Road). While these two projects are on the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, construction is not anticipated within the six -year planning period. Rather, preliminary engineering to determine project feasibility may be initiated within this time frame. The six -year plan also includes a number of bridge replacements, several reconstruction projects, and the Birch Bay Drive & Pedestrian Facility improvements, which include pedestrian and non -motorized enhancements along Birch Bay Dr. from Alderson Rd. to Harborview Rd. In addition to the projects in the Six -Year Transportation Program, the Lincoln Road/Birch Point connector is a developer funded project. The project completion date is unknown because of current economic conditions. Financing for Improvement Projects The total cost of the County transportation projects in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program is $48,236,000. These costs include $24,705,000 of County funds, with the remainder being funded by the State and Federal governments. These costs are shown in greater detail in Resolution No. 2012-023. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-21 137 Planninq Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 LUMMI FERRY Existing Ferry Facilities Whatcom County currently has one ferry vessel serving Lummi Island. The ferry runs between Lummi Island and Gooseberry Point on a daily basis. Future Ferry Needs The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan sets a level of service of 513 ferry passenger trips annually per capita of Lummi Island population. Based upon projected population, the Lummi ferry will not meet the adopted level of service over the six -year planning period. The Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program approved in 2012 includes preliminary engineering for a new ferry, but no funds for a new ferry itself. Therefore, it will be appropriate to consider revising the LOS standard during the next comprehensive plan update. Proposed Ferry Improvement Projects No improvement projects that would add ferry capacity are proposed within the six -year planning period. Financing for Ferry Improvement Projects No improvement projects that would add ferry capacity are proposed within the six -year planning period. Other ferry improvement costs are shown on the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-22 138 Planninq Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year C/P 2013-2018 Chapter 10 Stormwater and Flood Protection Facilities STORMWATER Existina Stormwater Manaaement Facilities Public Works Department is responsible for the design, engineering, and construction of county -owned stormwater facilities. Many stormwater facilities are road -related stormwater conveyance systems, such as culverts and ditches, on and adjacent to county roads. Others are off right-of-way facilities that control storm flows and improve water quality. In response to (1) increasing federal and state mandates to manage stormwater and (2) the public's desire to improve stewardship of sensitive watersheds, Whatcom County established a Stormwater Section in the Surface Water Division of the Public Works Department in 2005. The Stormwater Section is responsible for planning, designing, engineering, and construction of stormwater facilities. Inventories of existing stormwater facilities are maintained by the Public Works Department. Engineering Services Division maintains an inventory of all road -related facilities. The Surface Water Division maintains an inventory of public and private stormwater facilities in the area covered by the county's NPDES Phase II permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. This inventory includes ditches, culverts, catch basins, vaults, ponds and swales. Stormwater projects that have been constructed since the Public Works Stormwater Section was created in 2005 are listed below. /. $ . S e t�io� Watershetl Ite amp Co IN 1 Lake Whatcom Geneva storrrw ater retrofits 2006 2 Lake Whatcorn Cable Street reconstruction & storrrw ater irrproven-ents 2007 3 Lake Whatcom Lahti Drive storrrw ater irrprovements i 2010 4 Lake Whatcom Silver Beach Creek irprovements - Brow nsville Drive to E 16th Place 2011 s. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-23 139 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year C/P 2013-2018 Whatcom County Public Works received several awards for the Silver Beach Creek improvements, which were completed in 2011 (existing site no. 4 above). Silver Beach Creek experiences increased stormwater runoff and greater peak flows due to its developed landscape. This project is designed to substantially improve water quality and reduce flooding in an especially problematic reach of the creek. The project included reshaping and stabilizing the stream channel, installing water quality treatment swales, and installing stormwater vaults. These improvements filter phosphorus -containing sediment, alleviate flooding, reduce erosion, and promote infiltration. Project construction cost was approximately $900,000 and shared between local real estate excise tax (REET) revenues and a federal EPA grant. Financina for Stormwater Proiects An increasing emphasis on the protection of sensitive watersheds has resulted in the adoption of comprehensive stormwater plans for Lake Whatcom and Birch Bay. A similar plan is currently being developed by the Lake Samish community. The adopted plans identify work towards planning, design, engineering, and construction of capital projects intended for the next six years. Capital facilities that may be constructed during the next six years are listed below. Projects are expected to be financed by a combination of REET, grants, countywide Flood Control Zone District tax revenues, local Flood Control fees and, potentially, the county general fund. Where appropriate, matching contributions from other beneficiaries will be sought. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-24 140 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Lake Whatcom Stormwater Projects, 2013-2018 1. Velocity and volume 290,000 0 0 0 0 0 290,000 1 and 2 reductions, Coronado 2. Natural drainage retrofits, 330,000 0 0 0 0 0 330,000 1 and 2 Strawberry sub -basin 3. Euclid Ave/Cedar Hills . 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 1 and 3 Install rain gardens, filter vaults and swales 4. Velocity and volume 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 1 and 3 reductions, Agate Bay Lane 5. Water Quality protection, 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 1 and 3 Agate Heights Reduce ditch erosion and install bio-infiltration swales 6. Stream restoration, 0 0 0 220,000 0 0 220,000 1 and 3 Beaver Creek 7. Sudden Valley, water 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 200,000 1 and 2 quality improvements Drainage system upgrades and water quality facilities 8. Velocity reductions, 0 0 0 0 400,000 0 400,000 1 and 2 Toad Lake at Academy Rd. 9. Silver Beach Creek 0 0 0 0 0 450,000 450,000 1 and 2 main channel restoration below Hills Dale 10. Lake Whatcom Blvd. 150,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 750,000 1, 2 and 4 stormwater improvements Vaults and roadside treatments Total 770,000 1,100,000 400,000 420,000 400,000 450,000 3,540,000 Funding Source Key 1. REET II 2. Grants, including grants from the Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Agency 3. Flood Control Zone District taxes 4. Local Flood Control District Fees Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-25 141 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Birch Bay Stormwater Projects, 2013-2018 1. Cottonwood By-pass 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 1, 2 and 4 Re-route to new outlet and installation of water quality treatment facilities 2. Cottonwood- Fern & 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 1, 2 and 4 & Beachway Neighborhood drainage improvement 3. Shintaffer Road/Deer Creek, 0 425,000 0 0 0 0 426,000 1, 2 and 4 Partial re-route to new upgraded outlet water quality treatment facilities 4. Rogers Slough, 50,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 300,000 1, 2 and 4 System upgrades to reduce flooding and provide water quality treatment facilities 5. Birch Bay Dr., Stormwater 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 1,2,3 and 4 upgrades to beach outfalls 6. Point Whitehorn, 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 1, 2 and 4 Drainage upgrade and water quality facility installation 7. Central Birch Bay 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 750,000 1, 2 and 4 Establish one or more drainage routes from upland to bay, install or upgrade conveyance system and develop water quality treatment facilities Total 600,000 425,000 250,000 500,000 200,000 750,000 2,725,000 Funding Source Key 1. REET II 2. Grants, including grants from the Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Agency 3. Flood Control Zone District taxes 4. Local Flood Control District Fees Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-26 142 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Lake Samish Stormwater Projects, 2013-2018 1. Lake Samish 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 1 Stormwater Plan Total 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 Funding Source Key 1. REET II 2. Grants, including grants from the Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Agency 3. Flood Control Zone District taxes 4. Local Flood Control District Fees Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-27 143 Plannina Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 FLOOD PROTECTION Existing Flood Protection Facilities Whatcom County has been involved in river management and protection of infrastructure for decades. In response to the devastating floods in 1990, the County established a County -wide Flood Control Zone District to address the natural hazards associated with river flooding, lowland flooding, landslides, and coastal storms. Projects range from repairs to existing flood control facilities after flood events, to flood hazard reduction projects that typically result from a comprehensive flood hazard management planning process. Significant flood projects that. have been constructed since 2000 are listed below. 1 ;South Fork Nooksack !Saxon Bank Stabilization Project 2001 2 _......._.... ,Near Sumas, iSaar Creek Sediment Trap ........... _�.�.... - p _ w __ . ... _ _._ - __ _ __ ... ..... - .. 2003 3 INear Everson ;Everson Overflow Bank Stabilization Project 4 ;Near Ferndale rand Creek Levee Setback Protect 3 2006 . ........ 5 iDeming ......t... ..._ ........ .... .. . . ;Deming Levee Rehabilitation Project ..__. . . i 2008 6 ................... Ferndale ... .......... -_. ;Hovander Park Levee Setback Project .............................. ._ .. .... .. 2010 7 zNear ;Varies SAcquisiUon of flood -prone properties i on goinc Financing for Flood Protection Projects Capital facilities that may be constructed during the next six years are listed below. Projects are expected to be financed by a combination of real estate excise taxes (REET), grants, countywide Flood Control Zone District tax revenues, local Flood Control and diking district fees and, potentially, the county general fund. Where appropriate, matching contributions from other beneficiaries will be sought. 1. Canyon Creek Fish Habitat Restoration and Flood Protection 2. Deming School and Tribal Treatment Facilities Flood Protection 3. Jones Creek Deflection Berm Debris Flow Protection and Turkington Rd. brige reconfiguration Flood Protection Projects, 2013-2018 ma�r f t r .^%tN....,.. is '1111,1"'I'll"'n .' 11, 2,226,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 2,276,000 2 and 3 300,000 1,250,000 50,000 0 0 0 1,600,000 1,2,3 and 4 675,000 325,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 3,000,000 1,2,3 and 4 4. Swift Creek and Sumas 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 1,2,3 and 4 River Bridges Sediment Management Total 3,226,000 1,650,000 2,075,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 7,026,000 Funding Source Key 1. REET II 2. Grants, including Salmon Recovery Funding Board and other applicable programs 3. Flood Control Zone District taxes 4. Local Flood Control District Fees Note: The Canyon Creek Fish Habitat Restoration and Flood Protection project costs include $973,750 in grants that have already been approved. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-28 144 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 11 — Improvements to Existing Buildings Whatcom County plans to make the following improvements to existing buildings within the six -year planning period to maintain or enhance the function of these structures. IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS, 2013-2018 1. Civic Center Annex- 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 1, 2, 3 and 5 Repair & retrofit, HVAC, engineering, lighting, and exterior repair 2. Upgrade jail and 1,400,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 2,400,000 1, 3, 4 and 5 juvenile controls and improve exiting 3. Courthouse - Exterior 0 180,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 1,180,000 1 and 3 engineering evaluation and repairs 4. Courthouse - 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 1 and 3 window replacement 5. Courthouse - Full 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 1 and 3 suite courtroom and judicial hearing room 6. Reconfiguration of 0 0 120,000 0 800,000 0 920,000 2,3, and 6 Triage - Engineering evaluation and remodel 7. Reconfiguration of Old 0 0 0 120,000 800,000 0 920,000 4 Jail - Engineering and remodel 8. Northwest Annex - 0 0 120,000 800,000 0 0 920,000 2 and 3 Engineering and remodel Total 2,400,000 2,630,000 1,240,000 920,000 1,600,000 0 8,790,000 Funding Source Key 1. Grants 2. EDI funds 3. REET 4. Jail Fund 5. Bonds 6. Behavioral Health Fund Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-29 145 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 12 — Costs by Project Category CAPITAL COSTS BY PROJECT CATEGORY, 2013-2018 Parks 100,000 400,000 730,000 430,000 530,000 280,000 2,470,000 1.78% Trails 1,500,000 155,000 1,140,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,175,000 6,220,000 4.47% Sheriff's Office New Jail 10,000,000 10,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 4,000,000 0 60,000,000 43.15% Transportation 18,906,000 11,205,000 4,470,000 4,552,000 4,552,000 4,551,000 48,236,000 34.69% Stormwater 1,400,000 1,525,000 650,000 920,000 600,000 1,200,000 6,295,000 4.53% Flood Protection 3,226,000 1,650,000 2,075,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 7,026,000 5.05% Existing Buildings 2,400,000 2,630,000 1,240,000 920,000 1,600,000 0 8,790,000 6.32% Total Cost 37,532,000 27,565,000 28,305,000 25,972,000 12,432,000 7,231,000 139,037,000 100.00% Note: Underlining and strikethroughs on Exhibit B show the Planning Commission's changes to the Aug. 2012 draft CIP (the previously adopted CIP would be totally repealed — see Exhibit C). Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-30 146 Exhibit C (Repeal Existinq CIP) Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-1 147 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 . M-1 .. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-2 148 November. 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 MMIMMMM MTEM? Om •. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-3 149 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-4 150 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 Bay Horizon Park, 7499 Alderson Rd. 68.19 2 Deming Eagle Homestead Park, Truck Rd. 33.00 3 Hovander Homestead Park and Tennant Lake, 5299 Nielsen Rd. 333.42 4 Interurban Trail/Teddy Bear Cove Parkway, Chuckanut Dr. 11.19 5 Jackson Rd. Beach Access, Birch Bay 0.15 6 Jensen Family Forest Park, Stein Rd. and Birch Bay Lynden Rd. 21.48 7 Josh VanderYacht Park, 4106 Valley Highway 1.99 8 Lake Whatcom Park, North Shore Rd. 218.00 9 Lighthouse Marine Park, 811 Marine Dr. in Point Roberts 20.49 10 Lily Point Marine Park Reserve, East end of APA Rd. in Point Roberts 130.20 11 Lummi Island Overlook, Nugent Rd. 0.16 12 Maple Beach Park, Boundary Bay Rd. in Point Roberts 0.50 13 Monument Park, Marine Dr. and Roosevelt in Point Roberts 6.94 15 Nugent's Corner Access, 3671 Mt. Baker Highway 14.00 16 Point Whitehorn Marine Reserve, Koehn Rd. 54.10 17 Samish Park 673 N. Lake Samish Dr. 30.61 18 Semiahmoo Park, 9261 Semiahmoo Parkway 19 Silver Lake Park, 9187 Silver Lake Rd. 20 Squires Lake Park, 135 Old Highway 99 North Rd. 21 Stimpson Family Nature Reserve, Lake Louise Rd. 22 Sunset Beach, West Shore Dr. on Lummi Island 23 Sunset Farm, 7989 Blaine Rd. 24 Ted Edwards Park, Oriental Ave. 25 Welcome Bridge Access, Mosquito Lake Rd. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 17.92 412.05 84.15 371.27 2.25 69.50. 3.85 0.60 TOTAL 1,941.01 F-5 151 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 10. far-Aities at these parks, but Will REA I I to the. r 26. Cherry Point / 35 0 0 0 188,000 188,000 188,000 564,000 1 Point Whitehorn Industrial Area Access 27. Dittrich Park 24 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,000,000 1 and 2 Lake Samish 28. Lake Whatcom 83 0 0 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 520,000 1 and 2 County Park South Unit 29. Maple Falls Park 73 0 90,000 90,000 0 0 0 180,000 1 and 2 30. Riverplace Park 50 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 1, 2, 4 and 5 Ferndale 31. South Fork 582 0 0 197,500 197,500 0 0 395,000 1,2 and 3 Regional Park, Mosquito Lake Rd. 32. Sunnyside 6 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 100,000 1 and 2 Landing Park, North Shore Rd. Total 853 500,000 90,000 667,500 815,500 618,000 568,000 3,259,000 Funding SOWFGe Key rC�nEnT�c a Dark Imnreyernent FLAnd 4 Genswyatinn F t es Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-6 152 November. 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 Bay Crest, Sunset Dr. and Woodbridge Dr., Birch Bay 0.21 2 Bay Horizon, 7499 Alderson Rd. 0.25 3 Bay to Baker Maple Falls -Glacier 4.00 4 Canyon Lake, off Canyon Lake Rd. 4.50 5 Chuckanut Ridge 0.36 6 Deming Homestead Eagle Park, Truck Rd. 0.30 7 Hemlock, Chuckanut area 3.53 8 Hovander Marrietta Coast Millennium Trail 4.90 9 Huckleberry, Chuckanut area 0.43 10 Interurban, Chuckanut area 2.80 11 Jensen, Stein Rd. and Birch Bay Lynden Rd. 0.61 12 Lake Samish, 673 N. Lake Samish Dr. 1.30 13 Lake Whatcom Park 4.02 14 Lily Point, Point Roberts 4.17 15 Lost Lake, Chuckanut area 3.07 16 Lower Salal, Chuckanut area 1.30 17 Madrona, Chuckanut area 0.78 18 Maple Creek, off Silver Lake Rd. in Maple Falls 1.50 19 Monument Park, Marine Dr. and Roosevelt in Point Roberts 0.18 20 Olsen Property Trail, Lake Whatcom Watershed 4.00 21 Ostrom Property, 4304 South Pass Rd. 0.66 22 Pine and Cedar Lakes, Chuckanut area 3.62 23 Point Whitehorn, Birch Bay area 0.75 24 Raptor Ridge, Chuckanut area 0.40 25 Salal, Chuckanut area 1.18 26 Semiahmoo East Paved 0.63 27 Semiahmoo West Footpath 0.45 28 Silver Lake Park, 9187 Silver Lake Rd. 3.10 29 Soccer Trail, Smith Rd. and Northwest Dr. 0.30 30 Squires Lake, 135 Old Highway 99 North Rd. 2.14 31 Stimson Reserve, Lake Louise Rd. 4.04 32 Sunset, 7989 Blaine Rd. 0.57 33 Teddy Bear Cove, Chuckanut area 0.33 TOTAL 60.38 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-7 153 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 33. Bay to Baker 8 Trail 34. Chuckanut 2.7 Mountain Trails 35. Hertz North 1 Lake Whatcom Trail Extension 36. South Fork Regional Park Trail 37. Lake Whatcom Trails - Reconveyance Lands - 9c.. — 2 - MI 1416"Jo. MIT, 11ilt 71"IEW 1 3 - TiITJ Tuf ��1 Y i �] �7�T13�iZ3rIitZL Rr7�L f^i 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 1, 3 and 4 26,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 76,000 1, 3 and 4 0 1,500,000 65,000 0 0 0 1,565,000 1, 2 and 5 4.3 0 250,000 250,000 275,000 0 0 775,000 1, 2 and 5 50 0 0 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 900,000 1, 2 and 5 Total 66 26,000 1,775,000 1,565,000 1,500,000 1,225,000 1,225,000 7,316,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-8 154 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 Bay Horizon, 7499 Alderson Rd. 2 Bellingham Senior Activity Center, 315 Halleck St. 3 Blaine Community/Senior Center, 763 G Street 4 Everson Senior Center, 111 W. Main 5 Ferndale Senior Center, 1998 Cherry Street 6 Lynden Community Center, 401 Grover Street 7 Plantation Rifle Range, 5102 Samish Way 8 Point Roberts Community Center, 1487 Gulf Road 9 Roeder Home, 2600 Sunset Dr. 10 Sumas Community Center, 461 2nd Street 11 Van Zandt Community Hall, 4106 Valley Highway 12 Welcome Valley Senior Center, 5103 Mosquito Lake Rd. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-9 155 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 13. East Whatcom 2,550,000 700,000 0 Regional Resource Center - Kendall Rd. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3,250,000 1,2,3 and 4 F-10 156 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 157 F-11 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year C!P 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-12 158 November. 2010 Version - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 Central Shop, 901 W. Smith Rd. (Maintenance and Operations) 35,773 2 316 Lottie St. (Facilities Management) 4,978 3 Minimum Security Correction Facility - 2030 Division St. 3,660 (Facilities Management Storage) Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan TOTAL 44,411 F-13 159 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 Civic Center Annex (322 North Commercial) 17,706 2 Central Plaza Building (215 N. Commercial) 10,307 4 County Courthouse (311 Grand Avenue) 94,678 5 Forest St. Annex (1000 North Forest St.) 6,487 6 509 Girard St. 13,189 8 1500 N. State St. 12,281 9 Northwest Annex (5280 and 5256 Northwest Dr.) 21,438 Total 178,196 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-14 160 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 EXISTING SHERIFF'S FACILITIES 1 Public Safety Building (311 Grand Ave) 2 Minimum Security Correction Facility (2030 Division St.) 3 Inspector's Office, Civic Center Building (322 N. Commercial) 4 Laurel Fire Hall (6028 Guide Meridian) 5 Kendall Satellite Office 6 Birch Bay Fire Hall 7 Nugent's Corner Fire Hall Notes: I he S-herfPs-OtfiGe alse has st rage fa, litie6 at va.riews Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 15,102 6,000 500 1,500 121 192 88 Total 23,503 F-15 161 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Olympic Coordination Center (3888 Sound Way) 2,250 TOTAL 2,250 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-16 162 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 .z .. _ _ fife - .. r - r <= k "i T.•�. � l � �. 3� fib.. t i ^H.. . � .. z� R. -_ »Y31 `a �, �, XP* 3,g � fd° Y J ! � Site No .,� 1 Public Safety Building (311 Grand Ave.) 283 2 Minimum Securitv Correction Facilitv (2030 Division St.) 150 TOTAL 433 100 Wz r_ IN NINE III PPM Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-17 163 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 3. New Jail at the 600 4,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 17,000,000 0 41,000,000 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 Law and Justice Center Campus Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-18 164 November. 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 County Courthouse (311 Grand Ave.) 32 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-19 165 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-20 166 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-21 167 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-22 168 November. 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Lake WhatGOM Stormwater DrejeGts 1. Silver Beach Creek, 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 1 and 2 Stream stablization (Brownsville to 16th) 2. Silver Beach Creek, 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 1 and 2 Main channel velocity reductions 3. Hillsdale sub -basin, 0 0 0 0 200,000 210,000 410,000 1, 2 and 3 drainage retrofits 4. Velocity reductions, 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 1, 2 and 4 Toad Lake at Academy Rd. 5. Velocity and volume 0 0 75,000 215,000 0 0 290,000 2 and 4 reductions, Coronado 6. Natural drainage retrofits, 0 0 37,500 112,500 0 0 150,000 2 and 4 Strawberry sub -basin 7. Natural drainage retrofits, 0 0 0 57,500 172,500 0 230,000 2 and 4 Geneva sub -basin 8. Velocity and volume 0 0 0 35,000 105,000 0 140,000 2 and 4 reductions, Agate Bay Lane 9. Water quality 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 2 and 4 protection, Agate Heights 10. Stream restoration, 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 2 and 4 Beaver Creek 11. Lake Whatcom Blvd. 0 0 150,000 600,000 0 0 750,000 1, 2 and 4 stormwater improvements Total 950,000 0 462,500 1,020,000 477,500 310,000 3,220,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-23 169 November. 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1. Charel Terrace, 225,000 0 0 0 0 0 225,000 1, 2 and 4 Drainage System upgrade and water quality treatment facility 2. Hogan Drive, 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 1, 2 and 4 Road culvert outlet armoring and dissipator 3.Cottonwood By-pass, 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 1, 2 and 4 Re-route to new outlet and installation of water quality treatment facilities 4. Shintaffer Road/Deer Creek, 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 1, 2 and 4 Partial re-route to new upgraded outlet water quality treatment facilities System upgrades to reduce flooding and provide water quality treatment facilities 6. Point Whitehorn, 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 1, 2 and 4 Drainage upgrade and water quality facility installation 7. Central Birch Bay 0 0 0 0 750,000 0 750,000 1, 2 and 4 Establish one or more drainage routes from upland to bay, install or upgrade conveyance system and develop water quality treatment facilities 8. Birch Bay Dr., Stormwater 0 0 0 50,000 150,000 0 200,000 1,2,3 and 4 Upgrades to beach outfalls Total 235,000 300,000 250,000 550,000 1,100,000 0 2,435,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-24 170 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1. Lake Samish 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 1 Stormwater Plan Total 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 Cllnrl*nn SO irno Key 1. p�iT 2. Grants 2- Flood Gentrel znnemi�irt�es A 1 nrol Flood Gentrel Dictrirt Fees Protect , 3 �� 2011 , 20 �2�2013 h 204 2015 201 ti Total l untling Cost_ 5ourcesa �, uw a: .. ...... ................. . _.... . , 1. Deming School and 200,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,2,3 and 4 Tribal Facilities Flood Protection 2. Turkington Road Bridge / 200,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 700,000 1,2,3 and 4 Acme Community Landslide Protection 3. Swift Creek and Sumas 85,000 0 0 0 0 0 85,000 1,2,3 and 4 River Bridges Sediment Management Total 485,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 1,985,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-25 171 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1. Civic Center Annex - 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 1, 2, 3 and 5 Repair & retrofit, HVAC, engineering, lighting, and exterior repair 2. Upgrade jail and 1,000,000 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 2,400,000 1, 3, 4 and 5 juvenile controls and improve exiting engineering evaluation and repairs 4. Courthouse - 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 1 and 3 window replacement 5. Courthouse - Full 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 1 and 3 suite courtroom and judicial hearing room Total 2,000,000 3,030,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 6,030,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-26 172 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 a AWAVA IdTfOLT&Ia Parks 500,000 90,000 667,500 815,500 618,000 568,000 Trails 26,000 1,775,000 1,565,000 1,500,000 1,225,000 1,225,000 Activity Centers 2,550,000 700,000 0 0 0 0 Jail 4,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 17,000,000 0 Transportation 6,902,000 4,980,000 1,730,000 2,056,666 2,056,667 2,056,667 Stormwater 1,215,000 300,000 712,500 1,570,000 1,577,500 310,000 Flood Protection 485,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 Existing Buildings 2,000,000 3,030,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 Total 17,678,000 14,375,000 13,675,000 15,942,166 22,477,167 4,159,667 3,259,000 7,316,000 3,250,000 41,000,000 19, 782, 000 5,685,000 1,985,000 6,030,000 88, 307, 000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-2 7 173 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Six -Year Capital Improvement Program and Level of Service Amendments FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. The proposal is to amend the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as follows: a. Deleting the level of service standard for maintenance and operation facilities in chapter 4 of the comprehensive plan; b. Adopting the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Whatcom County Facilities 2013-2018; and c. Repealing the existing Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities 2011-2016. 2. Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on August 20, 2012. 3. A determination of non -significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on August 23, 2012. 4. The proposal was posted on the County website on August 9, 2012. 5. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to citizen, media, cities and other groups on the County's e-mail list on August 9, 2012. 6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendments was published in the Bellingham Herald on August 31, 2012. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendments on September 13, 2012. 1 174 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 2 8. Pursuant to WCC 2.160.080, in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendments the County must find all of the following: a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. b. Further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate changed conditions that show need for the amendment. c. The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: i. The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. 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. Amendments that propose the expansion of an urban growth area boundary are required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR sending area, with certain exceptions. Growth Management Act 9. The Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 to guide adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. 10. GMA planning goal # 12 is to "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards" (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). 2 175 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 3 11. The subject amendments include updating the Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities for the 2013-2018 planning period. Updating the CIP is one step in the process of planning regional facilities provided by the County to serve the people of Whatcom County. 12. The GMA, at RCW 36.70A.070(3), requires that a comprehensive plan must include a capital facilities plan element consisting of: a. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. b. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. c. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. d. At least a six -year plan that will 'Finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. e. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. 13. The Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities contains an inventory of existing County owned or operated facilities, a forecast of future needs based upon the level of service standards adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and other factors, proposed expanded or new County capital facilities, costs and funding sources. 14. Existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 4A-4 addresses the GIVIA requirement to reassess the land use element if probable capital facility funding falls short. County -Wide Planning Policies 15. County -Wide Planning Policy K-1 indicates that, as part of the comprehensive planning process, the County must identify appropriate land for public facilities that meets the needs of the community including recreation, transportation and human service facilities. 16. The CIP identifies County park, trail, transportation and other improvements as contemplated by the County Wide Planning Policies. 176 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 4 Interlocal Agreements 17. Existing inter -local agreements between Whatcom County and the cities indicate that the County will consult with the appropriate city in planning new road construction projects within the city's urban growth area. The inter -local agreements also provide joint planning for parks. 18. The County Engineer indicated on July 2, 2012 that the County sends a copy of the six -year transportation improvement program to cities prior to approval, requests comments, and informs cities of the hearing date. The Whatcom County Parks Director stated on July 2, 2012 that the County Parks' staff maintains a consistent working relationship with appropriate staff From cities on joint park projects and planning. Therefore, the type of cooperation envisioned by the inter -local agreements is occurring. Further Studies/Changed Conditions 19. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan calls for an update of the Six - Year Capital Improvement Program for County facilities every other year. Specifically, Policy 413-1 is to: 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. 20. A revised capital improvement program has been formulated for County owned or operated facilities, which presents improvement projects over the new six -year planning period. Public Interest 21. The Six -Year CIP plans for public facilities from 2013 to 2018 based upon anticipated population growth over the six -year planning period and other relevant factors. Therefore, the proposal should complement the County's growth and development plans. 22. The Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities will have a positive impact on the County's ability to provide public facilities by planning ahead for such facilities. Adverse impacts to other service providers have not been identified. M 177 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 5 23. The goal of the Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities is to plan for County owned or operated parks, trails, stormwater facilities, flood protection facilities, government buildings, correction facilities, and transportation improvements to serve the people of Whatcom County. Planning for such County facilities is in the public interest. Spot Zoning 24. The subject proposal does not involve rezoning property. Level of Service Standard Modification 25. A level of service standard for maintenance & operation facilities is set forth in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 26. The "Growth Management Act - Procedural Criteria for Adopting Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations" state that counties are not required to set level of service standards for facilities that are not necessary for development (WAC 365-196-415(2)(b)). 27. Whatcom County will continue to monitor and evaluate the need for maintenance & operation facility improvements. However, such facilities are not related to growth management planning. Therefore, the level of service standard for such facilities may be removed From the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed amendments conform to applicable requirements of the Growth Management Act. 2. The proposed amendments satisfy the approval criteria of WCC 2.160.080. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Whatcom County Planning Commission recommends approval of: 1. Exhibit A, amendments to Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 2. Exhibit B, adoption of the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for Whatcom County Facilities 2013-2018 (Appendix F of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan). The Planning Commission also recommends repealing Exhibit C, which is the Six - Year Capital Improvement Program for Whatcom County Facilities 2011-2016. 5 178 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 6 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Unelle Luke, Chair Date Sam Ryan, Se eta ry /D -,/ a - /oZ Date Commissioners present at the October 11, 2012 meeting when the vote was taken: Ken Bell, Ben Elenbaas, Rod Erickson, Michelle Luke, David Onkels, Jeff Rainey, and Mary Beth Teigrob. Vote: Ayes: 7, Nays: 0, Abstain: 0, Absent: 2. Motion carried to adopt the above amendments. 0 179 NOTE: Exhibits A-C are attached to the proposed Ordinance to be considered by the County Council in order to avoid redundancy. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012 — 318 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 10/9/2012 10/23/2012 Introduction Division Head: 11/07/2012 PWHS Committee/ Council Dept. Head: l Prosecutor: Purchasin Budget: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Resolution approving Water District No. 13 Comp. Sewer Plan ATTACHMENTS: SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) 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.) COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION.• 10/23/2012: 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/council. 181 Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Approval PROPOSED BY: Consent SPONSORED BY: Consent INTRODUCED: October 23, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN FOR WHATCOM COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 13 WHEREAS, on September 4, 2012, Whatcom County Water District No. 13 submitted a proposed Comprehensive Sewer System Plan to Whatcom County for review and approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed plan submitted by the District complies with the criteria set forth in RCW 57.02.040 and RCW 57.16.010(7). WHEREAS, RCW 57.16.010(7) requires that all comprehensive water and sewer system plans be either approved, conditionally approved, or rejected by the legislative authority of the county in which the district is located; and WHEREAS, as required by RCW 57.16.010(7), the Whatcom County Health Department and the Whatcom County Public Works Engineering Division have reviewed the proposed plan and submitted letters of approval to the County Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that the Comprehensive Sewer Plan for Whatcom County Water District No. 13, dated August 2012, is hereby approved as presented. APPROVED this day of , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATC01\1 COUNTY, WASH:INGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council A P VED S TC�F�RM: Civil Deputy rosecutor Kathy Kershner, Council Chair 1 182 Whatcom County Water District No. 13 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN February 2012 Revised August 2012 QHS�.,ENGIN�ERS 11:0 PLAN ON FILE AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNTY COUNCIL OFFICE 183 August 30, 2012 Whatcom County Council 311 Grand Ave. Suite 105 Bellingham, WA 98225 Dear County Council, WNATCOM COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO.13 532 Sprague Valley Drive, Maple Falls, WA 98266 Phone (360) 599-1801 Fax (360) 599-9158 Email: admin@wcwd13.com W E (DE p UU V eF a SEP 0 4 2012 WHAT COUNn, COUNCIL Please find the enclosed final version of Whatcom County Water District # 13 Sewer Comprehensive plan. The initial plan that was sent to you in February has been updated because of comments and recommendations from the Department of Ecology. I have enclosed the latest revised version, along with our resolution adopting the plan. I am also enclosing 2 letters from our Engineer, Rodney Langer from CHS Engineers; those letters explain the differences between the two plans and what revisions were made. Please call if you have any questions. Regards, Brenda Gamache Office Manager BOA RESOLUTION NO. 04-2012 A RESOLUTION of the Board of Commissioners of Whatcom County Water District No. 13, Whatcom County, Washington, adopting a revised Comprehensive Plan for a system of sewers of the District dated August 2012. WHEREAS, the February 2012 Comprehensive Sewer Plan was previously approved and adopted by Whatcom County Water District # 13 Commissioners at a regular meeting on March 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Ecology and Whatcom County Planning Department provided comments and questions following their reviews of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan; and WHEREAS, the District's Engineers have prepared revisions to address comments received and recommends revisions to the existing Comprehensive Plan for the District, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that the revised Comprehensive Sewer Plan proposed by the District's Engineers, dated August 2012, a copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", be and the same is hereby authorized and adopted by this Board. ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners of Whatcom County Water District No. 13, Whatcom County, Washington, at a regular meeting there of this 28th day of August, 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO., 13 Commissioner Commissioner z..-- 185 February 28, 2012 Board of Commissioners Whatcom County Water District No. 13 532 Sprague Valley Drive Maple Falls, WA 98266 Subject: Comprehensive Sewer Plan Revision — February 2012 Dear Board Members: We are in receipt of the following comment letters, and have prepared an updated version of the subject plan. Our revisions are presented as requested, or we offer an explanation as to why alternative or no revisions have been made, as described in the attached annotated versions of each set of comments. • December 14, 2011 — Whatcom County Planning and Development Services • December 20, 2011 — Whatcom County Health Department (approved as presented) • January 6, 2012 — Whatcom County Public Works Department The substantive revisions are summarized as follows: • Forecast Growth and Population — the population in 2008 and forecast for 2029 are now consistent with projections prepared by consultants for the County (with no impact on sewer facility planning, which are based on connections - housing units and other development) • Forecast Growth and Connections — a third growth rate with respect to connections has been added to the Plan, for consistency with the County planning document. The County Plan forecasts approximately 2.9% annual growth in households in the District portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. We have included the results of that forecast along with the previous forecast, now called the District's forecast. We then discuss the impact of the two growth forecasts on the timing of WWTP upgrade. Practically, if growth occurs as anticipated by the County, the WWTP will need to be upgraded by 2020, whereas the alternative forecast indicates completion can be deferred until 2029. • A very general financing plan has been added to address comments by DOE and the County. Two scenarios relating to the timing of the WWTP project are presented, with very general reflection of service charge and general facilities charge needs to support those respective schedules for improvements. The analysis in the plan is not intended to support a rate or charge decision but rather only is an indication of the order of magnitude impacts of the financing needs to support the plan. Rates and charges must be evaluated in much more detail and can be done so without the oversight of DOE or the County, within your authority and responsibilities under RCW 57. The substantive revisions described above are primarily reflected in Chapters 3 and 7. We recommend that that the revised plan be resubmitted to all three commenting parties, for final approval by the County and DOE per RCW 57. The WWTP Engineering should be reviewed and updated for consistency with the revised Comprehensive Sewer Plan. We recommend the District submit the revised WWTP Engineering report to DOE for review, as it is referenced and is the basis for portions of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. We hereby transmit the revised Comprehensive Sewer Plan, both in hard copy and electronic format. The latter is provided in a print -ready PDF (where blank pages have been inserted in the document to facilitate printing and called "double -sided") and a single -sided PDF to facilitate online viewing. Once the plan is adopted by the District, a copy of the adopting resolution should be inserted to complete Appendix A. In the resubmittal to Whatcom County and DOE, please clarify the status of review of the SEPA checklist. The SEPA review process will need to be complete before they each can approve the Plan. The County made reference to the need for a franchise agreement for sewer (and water) facilities in County right-of-ways. 1 am not aware of the status of your franchise agreement(s) but recommend the District review and confirm it is current in this regard. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, CHS Engineers, LLC Rodney Langer, P.E. Project Manager 187 CHS ENGINEERS, LLC August 14, 2012 Board of Commissioners Whatcom County Water District No. 13 532 Sprague Valley Drive Maple Falls, WA 98266 Subject: Comprehensive Sewer Plan Revision — August 2012 Dear Board Members: We are in receipt of the comments prepared by DOE dated June 20, 2012, and have prepared an updated version of the subject plan. I coordinated by email and phone with Steve Hood of DOE prior to finalizing these revisions so I anticipate this version will be ready for DOE approval. I also confirmed by phone that Matt Aamot of Whatcom County had no additional comments following his review of the February version of the plan. The only content revisions are as follows: • Front and inside cover — revision date and current engineer's stamp/signatures. • Page 1-2 (end of first paragraph) — added discussion of County SEPA review and threshold determination with reference to such documents in Appendix C. [DOE general comment] • Section 2.6 — added paragraph to confirm there are no existing or planned outfalls to existing streams. [DOE comment re 3.d.vi] • Figure 2.1 — revised to include labels of two lakes and outflow creek. [DOE comment re: 3.d.v and 3.d.vi] • Figure 5.1 — revised to include callouts for lift stations, force mains and indicate slope and capacity on selected segments [DOE comments re: 3.d.ii and 3.d.iv] • Appendix C — added copy of the May 14, 2012 SEPA DNS by County All report footers have been updated to August 2012 to provide confirmation that the most recent version is at hand. Coordination with Steve Hood resulted in no need for revisions in response to DOE comments 3.h and 3.i. We recommend that 'that the revised plan be resubmitted for final approval by the County and DOE per RCW 57, The WWTP Engineering should be reviewed and updated for consistency with the revised Comprehensive Sewer Plan. We recommend the District submit the revised WWTP Engineering report to DOE for review, as it is referenced and is the basis for portions of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. We hereby transmit the revised Comprehensive Sewer Plan, both in hard copy and electronic format. The latter is provided in a print -ready PDF (where blank pages have been inserted in the document to facilitate printing and called "double -sided") and a single -sided PDF to facilitate online viewing. 12507 BEL-RED ROAD SUITE 101 BELLEVUE, WA 98005-2500 TEL (425) 637-3693 FAX (425) 637�aQ Once the plan is adopted by the District, a copy of the adopting resolution should be inserted to complete Appendix A. As a reminder, the County previously made reference to the need for a franchise agreement for sewer (and water) facilities in County right-of-ways. I am not aware of the status of your franchise agreement(s) but recommend the District review and confirm it is current in this regard. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, CHS Engineers, LLC Rodney Langer,`1 -E. Project Manager C: Mike Jauhola, P.E., Gray & Osborne (Arlington), with CD Kelly Wynn, Water and Wastewater Services, with CD CHS ENG/NEER"C WHATCOM COUNTY pOM C PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT r °ems 3r: Frank M. Abart 0 Director gsy'Nac Memorandum To: Dana Brown -Davis — Clerk of the Council Joseph P. Rutan, P.E. County Engineer/Assistant Director 322 N. Commercial Street, Ste 301 Bellingham, WA 982254042 Phone: (360) 715-7450 ga�fQ.Q)715-7451 �E SEP 2 4 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL From: Joseph P. Rutan, P.E., County Engineer/Assistant Directoryp— Date: September 24, 2012 Re: Whatcom County Water District No. 13 Revised August 2012 Comprehensive Sewer Plan I have reviewed the Whatcom County Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan and have no further comments. cc: Engineering Manager — Development (W/Enclosure) 190 WHATCOM COUNTY Health Department Leading the community in promoting health and preventing disease. September 28, 2012 Elizabeth A. Sterling P.E. Wilson Engineering LLC 805 Dupont Street, Suite #7 Bellingham, WA 98225 Dear. Ms. Sterling, Regina A. Delahunt Director Greg Stern, M.D. Health Officer Irn" E C E I V E D OCT 1- 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Pursuant to RCW 57.16.01(7) the Whatcom County Health Department has reviewed and hereby approves the Comprehensive Sewer Plan-2012 update for the Samish Water District as submitted. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, XW4 I - J-" 4 4'�d ohn J. W61pers III RS Environmental Health Manager CC: Dana Brown -Davis, County Council 509 Girard Street PUBLIC HEALTH 1500 North State Street Bellingham, WA 98225-4005 (360) 676 6724 ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND Bellingham, WA 98225-4551 (360 ) 676 4593 FAX (360) 676-6771 HEALTHIER WHATCOM COUNTY www.whatcomcounty.us/health FAX (360) 676.6772 191 Y From: Matt Aamot To: Dana Brown -Davis CC: Mark Personius; Sam Ryan Date: 9/28/2012 1:10 PM Subject: Water & Sewer District Plans / Review under RCW 57.16.010 Hi Dana: RCW 57.16.010 provides that County Engineering, County Health and the County Council approve water and sewer district plans. This statute does not specify a role for the Planning Department. However, the approval criteria include consistency with land use plans. Additionally, County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies address coordination of special purpose district plans with land use planning (i.e. Goal 4H and Policy 4H-1). Planning & Development Services management provided the following direction for review of water system and comprehensive sewer plans that have been submitted by Water and/or Sewer Districts under RCW 57.16.010: 1. Water/Sewer Plans adopted into County Comp Plan - Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goal 4N is to "Adopt special district and County capital facility plans for unincorporated UGAs into this plan by reference when consistent with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan." This Goal relates to the following urban growth areas: * Columbia Valley, * Birch Bay, and * Cherry Point. When water or sewer plans are submitted for these three UGAs, the process of adopting them into the County Comp Plan is more involved. It includes a Planning Department staff report, Planning Commission hearing and Council review. In these cases we would like, to the extent allowed by the time -lines, to coordinate Council review of the Comp Plan amendment with Council review of the water or sewer plan under RCW 57.16.010. The Council office would still prepare the resolution required by RCW 57.16.010. 2. Water/Sewer Plans not adopted into County Comp Plan - For water and sewer district plans that are not adopted into the County Comp Plan, County Planning will review the water or sewer plan and, if appropriate, provide comments. The Council office would still prepare the resolution required by RCW 57.16.010. If you have any questions or need further clarification about the role of Planning & Development Services in reviewing water and sewer district plans, please contact me. 192 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-328 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assi ned to: Originator: M.A. 1010812012 1012312012 Introduction Matt Aamot � I� n n E C l� 0 V E D Division Head: i0y /1i 11/7/2012 Planning 8 Development Mark Personius OCT 15 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Comm. and Council Dept. Head: Sam Ryan /o18f 1 a Prosecutor: Royce Buckingham Purchasing/Budget: Executive: Jack LOWS ij TITLE OF D T: Comprehensive Plan amendments relating to unincorporated UGA interlocal agreements. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance and Exhibits 2. Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action Other background information is on file at the Council office. SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X') NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date 'The Council Hurst hold a (tearing if they want to change the Planning Commission's recommendation dWCC 2.160. 100(B). 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.) Amending Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Policy 2Q-3 and Land Use Action Plan item # 28. These Comprehensive Plan provisions indicate that the County is to establish interlocal agreements with service providers, including water and sewer districts, serving unincorporated urban growth areas. The proposal would amend these provisions to establish such interlocal agreements only if appropriate. NOTE: Final approval of these amendments would occur as part of concurrent review of comprehensive plan amendments in early 2013. COMMITTEE ACTION. • COUNCIL ACTION. 10/23/2012: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: AB2012-089 and PLN2012-00005 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. 193 WHATCOM COUNTY Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax tWM �o 3rr `ti{ J.E. "Sam" Ryan Director ��ab�Not°r R E C E � V E D OCT 15 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL October 8, 2012 To: Jack Louws, The Honorable Whatcom County Executive The Honorable Whatcom County ouncil From: Matt Aamot, Senior Planner Through: Mark Personius, Long Range Planning Division Manager lop RE: 'Comp Plan Amendments relating to Unincorporated UGA Interlocals The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan contains provisions indicating that the County should establish interlocal agreements with service providers, including water and sewer districts, that serve unincorporated urban growth areas (UGAs). The unincorporated UGAs are the Columbia Valley UGA, Birch Bay UGA and Cherry Point UGA. The subject proposal would modify these Comprehensive Plan provisions to provide flexibility for the County and special purpose districts to enter into interlocal agreements if appropriate. In light of the Growth Management Act provisions that require capital facility and urban service planning for UGAs, we anticipate that such interlocal agreements may not be necessary in many cases. Planning & Development Services is requesting Council consideration of these amendments on Nov. 7. However, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are subject to concurrent review. Therefore, the Council would not render a final decision on the proposal until early 2013. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Office (360) 676-6907 FAX (360) 738-2525 194 10-08-2012 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS RELATING TO UNINCORPORATED UGA INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council initiated the subject amendments for review in 2012; and WHEREAS, Interlocal agreements with service providers serving unincorporated urban growth areas (UGAs) may not be necessary in many cases; and WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission recommended the comprehensive plan amendments on September 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, The County Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT The subject proposal is to amend Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Policy 2Q-3 and Land Use Action Plan item # 28. These existing Comprehensive Plan provisions indicate that the County is to establish interlocal agreements with service providers, including water and sewer districts, serving unincorporated UGAs. The proposal would amend these provisions to establish such interlocal agreements only if appropriate. 2. A determination that the proposal is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as a procedural action was issued by the Deputy SEPA Official on June 6, 2012. 3. The proposal was posted on the County website on July 9, 2012. 4. Notice that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to service provider, citizen, media, and other groups on the County's e-mail list on July 10, 2012. 5. Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on July 30, 2012. 195 6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendments was published in the Bellingham Herald on September 14, 2012. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendments on September 27, 2012. 8. Pursuant to WCC 2.160.080, in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendments the County must find all of the following: a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. b. Further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate changed conditions that show need for the amendment. c. The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: i. The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. ii. The anticipated effect on the ability of the county and/or other service providers, such as cities, schools, water and/or sewer purveyors, fire districts, and others as applicable, to provide adequate services and public facilities including transportation facilities. iii. Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands. d. The amendment does not include or facilitate spot zoning. e. Urban growth area amendments that propose the expansion of an urban growth area boundary are required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR sending area, with certain exceptions. Growth Management Act 9. The Growth Management Act requires capital facility planning. However, it does not require the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan to address interlocal agreements with service providers serving non -city UGAs. 2 196 County -Wide Planning Policies 10. County -Wide Planning Policy E-4 states: The County shall assure that there are plans to provide appropriate levels of urban facilities and services within non -city Urban Growth Areas. These plans should be developed by special purpose districts, water associations and private service providers within each of these Areas, and should be implemented, where appropriate, through interlocal agreements... (Underlining added for emphasis). 11. The subject amendments are consistent with this County -wide Planning Policy. The amendments would change the Comprehensive Plan provisions to establish interlocal agreements with service providers serving non -city UGAs only when deemed appropriate. This will allow greater flexibility for the County and service providers to determine whether an interlocal agreement is needed. Existing Interlocal Agreements 12. There is nothing in the subject amendments that would be inconsistent with the terms of existing interlocal agreements. Further Studies/Changed Conditions 13. Whatcom County has started adopting special purpose district capital facility plans by reference for unincorporated urban growth areas. 14. The Growth Management Act requires capital facility planning for urban growth areas. Therefore, interlocal agreements with special purpose districts may not be necessary, in many cases, to achieve coordination between land use and capital facility planning. Public Interest 15. The public interest will be served by reducing the need for governmental entities to engage in discussions, and devote time and resources, to develop unnecessary interlocal agreements. Spot Zoning 16. The subject amendments do not rezone property. TDRs for UGA Expansions 17. The subject amendments do not expand urban growth areas. 3 197 CONCLUSION The subject comprehensive plan amendments comply with the approval criteria of WCC 2.160.080. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 (Land Use) is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A. Section 2. Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections, clauses, or provisions of this ordinance shall not affect or impair the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. ADOPTED this day of , 2013. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED as to form: Ci rosecutor .19 Kathy Kershner, Chairperson O Approved O Denied Jack Louws, Executive Date: Me Exhibit A Amend Chapter Two of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as follows: Policy 2Q-3: Establish interlocal agreements with each urban service provider located within Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Areas, if appropriate, which include provisions that address coordination and timing of service extensions. Land Use - Action Plan 28. Adopt interlocal agreements with water and sewer districts, if appropriate, 2414 to assure service to county unincorporated urban growth areas andlimit urban levels of service outside Short Term Planning Areas. 199 File # PLN2012-00005 September 27, 2012 Unincorporated UGA Interlocal Agreements Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Comp Plan Amendments relating to Unincorporated UGA Interlocal Agreements FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. The subject proposal is to amend Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Policy 2Q-3 and Land Use Action Plan item # 28. These existing Comprehensive Plan provisions indicate that the County is to establish interlocal agreements with service providers, including water and sewer districts, serving unincorporated UGAs. The proposal would amend these provisions to establish such interlocal agreements only if appropriate. 2. A determination that the proposal is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as a procedural action was issued by the Deputy SEPA Official on June 6, 2012. 3. The proposal was posted on the County website on July 9, 2012. 4. Notice that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to service provider, citizen, media, and other groups on the County's e-mail list on July 10, 2012. 5. Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on July 30, 2012. 6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendments was published in the Bellingham Herald on September 14, 2012. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendments on September 27, 2012. 8. Pursuant to WCC 2.160.080, in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendments the County must find all of the following: a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. 1 200 File # PLN2012-00005 September 27, 2012 Unincorporated UGA Interlocal Agreements Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 2 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 are required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR sending area, with certain exceptions. Growth Management Act 9. The Growth Management Act requires capital facility planning. However, it does not require the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan to address interlocal agreements with service providers serving non -city UGAs. County -Wide Planning Policies 10. County -Wide Planning Policy E-4 states: The County shall assure that there are plans to provide appropriate levels of urban facilities and services within non -city Urban Growth Areas. These plans should be developed by special purpose districts, water associations and private service providers within each of these Areas, and should be implemented, where appropriate, through interlocal agreements... (Underlining added for emphasis). 2 201 File # PLN2012-00005 September 27, 2012 Unincorporated UGA Interlocal Agreements Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 3 11. The subject amendments are consistent with this County -wide Planning Policy. The amendments would change the Comprehensive Plan provisions to establish interlocal agreements with service providers serving non -city UGAs only when deemed appropriate. This will allow greater flexibility for the County and service providers to determine whether an interlocal agreement is needed. Existing Interlocal Agreements 12. There is nothing in the subject amendments that would be inconsistent with the terms of existing interlocal agreements. Further Studies/Changed Conditions 13. Whatcom County has started adopting special purpose district capital facility plans by reference for unincorporated urban growth areas. 14. The Growth Management Act requires capital facility planning for urban growth areas. Therefore, interlocal agreements with special purpose districts may not be necessary, in many cases, to achieve coordination between land use and capital facility planning. Public Interest 15. The public interest will be served by reducing the need for governmental entities to engage in discussions, and devote time and resources, to develop unnecessary interlocal agreements. Spot Zoning 16. The subject amendments do not rezone property. TDRs for UGA Expansions 17. The subject amendments do not expand urban growth areas. 3 202 File # PLN2012-00005 September 27, 2012 Unincorporated UGA Interlocal Agreements Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 4 CONCLUSION The subject comprehensive plan amendments comply with the approval criteria of WCC 2.160.080. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusion, the Whatcom County Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendments as shown on Exhibit A. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Michelle Luke, Chair 0A- 1 Date Sam Ryan, ecretary /P ` 8 '/A Date Commissioners present at the September 27, 2012 meeting when the vote was taken: Ken Bell, Ben Elenbaas, Rod Erickson, John Lesow, Michelle Luke, David Onkels, Jeff Rainey, and Mary Beth Teigrob. Vote: Ayes: 8, Nays: 0, Abstain: 0, Absent: 1. Motion carried to adopt the above amendment. F, 203 File # PLN2012-00005 September 27, 2012 Unincorporated UGA Interlocal Agreements Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 5 Exhibit A Amend Chapter Two of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as follows: Policy 2Q-3: Establish interlocal agreements with each urban service provider located within Unincorporated Residential/Recreational Urban Growth Areas, if appropriate, which include provisions that address coordination and timing of service extensions. Land Use - Action Plan 28. Adopt interlocal agreements with water and sewer districts, if appropriate, b-y 3une ,2914 to assure service to county unincorporated urban growth areas and limit urban levels of service outside Short Term Planning Areas. 204 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 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 27, 2012 Regular Meeting Call To Order: The meeting was called to order, by Whatcom County Planning Commission Chair, Michelle Luke, in the Northwest Annex Conference Room at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Michelle Luke, John Lesow, Ken Bell, Rod Erickson, David Onkels, Jeff Rainey, Mary Beth Teigrob. Ben Elenbaas in attendance at 6:40 p.m. Absent: Gary Honcoop, Staff Present: Sam Ryan, Mark Personius, Matt Aamot, Becky Boxx Department Update Sam Ryan introduced Mark Personius, the new Long Range Planning Division Manager. Mark gave an overview of upcoming events at Council, the Rural Element hearing and items that will be coming to the Planning Commission by the end of the year. Open Session for Public Comment Greg Brown, Whatcom County: Commented on the performance by the staff and legal council at the September 25th County Council meeting regarding slaughterhouses. He hopes that the events that took place never happen again, as it was quite embarrassing. It appeared legal staff did not know what was going on. Commissioner Comments There were no Commissioner comments. Approval of Minutes of August 9, 2012 Lesow made the following change to page 3, line 10-11 to read: Nays-Elenbaas, Erickson, Honcoop, Izesew, Luke Onkels, Teigrob...... Lesow moved to approve as amended. Erickson seconded. The motion carried. Public Hearing File #PLN2012-00004: Amending Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan provisions relating to capital facility planning in the eastern portion of the County. Amendments include adopting by reference and incorporating information from an updated sewer plan serving the Columbia Valley Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a fire capital facilities plan serving the Columbia Valley UGA, Sumas UGA and surrounding areas. Matt Aamot gave a power point presentation which reviewed the following: • The Growth Management Act (GMA) states "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development". • Comprehensive plans must contain a capital facilities element. This must include: o An inventory of existing capital facilities. o Forecast of future needs. 205 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 2 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 27, 2012 Regular Meeting o Proposed new or expanded facilities. o A financing plan. • The County Comprehensive Plan -Goal 4H states: "Coordinate with non -county facility providers such as cities and special purpose districts to support the future land use pattern promoted by this plan". o Regarding the Fire District 14 plan, there was a committee that worked to develop the draft Capital Facilities Plan, which consisted of a fire district commissioner, the fire district chief, a land owner/developer, a former member of the Foothills Subarea Plan Advisory Committee, the Sumas City Planner, and County staff. • The Foothills Subarea Plan -Policy U1-D states: "Encourage and facilitate completion of capital facilities planning by special district, which serve the Columbia Valley UGA, by 2012". • The Water District 13 sewer plan was adopted, by the district, in August 2012. o The district has 2 wells and 4 monitoring wells. o The system was built in 1976-1977. There are 379 connections. • The Fire District 14 plan was approved, by the district, in July 2012. o There are stations in Sumas, Kendall, and Welcome. o In the future plans are a Columbia Valley Satellite station, sleeping quarters at the Kendall Station, and a new Sumas station in approximately 20 years. • Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are: o Adopt the Water District 13 Sewer Plan by reference. o Adopt the Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan by reference. o Delete the statement that impact fees are not available for fire districts. • Proposed Foothills Subarea Plan amendments are: o Indicate that the Water District 13 Sewer Plan has been updated. o Indicate that the Fire District 14 plan has been updated. • Proposed amendments to the County 20 year CFP are: o Acknowledge the Water District 13 Sewer plan to include the inventory of existing facilities and future projects. o Acknowledge the Fire District 14 plan to include the inventory of existing facilities and future projects. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. The hearing was opened to the public. Rob Roy Graham, Whatcom County: Fire District 14 Commissioner. On behalf of the Fire Commissioners he thanked the group of individuals that worked on the Capital Facilities Plan for the district. In particular he thanked Jack Hovenier and Lou Piotrowski. Every investment the district anticipates making was broken down reflecting the impact of the development opposed to normal district requirements. Every attempt was made to make the requested voluntary impact fee truly represent the impact the development will have on the district. The district -has an annual budget, based on 2011 figures, of $530,933.00 per year. It is a struggle to maintain three stations on this amount. Recruitment of volunteers continues to be a struggle. An impact fee will help with some of the staffing needs. If normal revenue and impact fees are inadequate the district will turn to other revenue sources including raising the levy rate. 206 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 27, 2012 ular Meetin 1 Carole McDonald, Whatcom County: Was a member of the Fire District 14 planning 2 committee. She applauded the fire district committee for their hard work. 3 4 Lou Piotrowski, Whatcom County: Named the members of the Fire District 14 committee. 5 Rob Roy Graham, Fire Chief Jerry DeBruin, Whatcom County Fire Marshall -Warner Webb, 6 Jack Hovenier, Rollin Harper -City of Sumas Planner, Matt Aamot-PDS, Wain Harrison-PDS, 7 Denise Christenson -Fire District 14, Angie Cain -Fire District Office Commissioner, Sarah 8 Watt-PDS, Sam Ryan-PDS. He thanked them for their work. 9 10 Blair Murray, Whatcom County: Thanked the Fire District 14 committee for their work. 11 Noticed the per square foot fee for commercial areas. Would like the Commission to 12 discuss whether the fee will prohibit industrial or commercial development which is 13 needed in the Columbia Valley. 14 15 Richard Banel, Whatcom County: Thanked the Fire District 14 committee for their work. 16 17 Jack Hovenier, Whatcom County: Stated he was an intervener in the Urban Growth Area 18 lawsuit as was Fire District 14. It was basically around the issues of capital facilities and 19 fire issues. Because of.the legal happenings he and his partner were not able to develop 20 their property. The lawsuits were dropped. Over a three year period there is now a 21 reasonable plan in place. It considers my needs as a developer as well as the community's 22 needs. Asked the Commission to support the plan. 23 24 The hearing was closed to the public. 25 26 Work Session 27 28 Onkels moved to approve Exhibit A. Lesow seconded. The motion carried. 29 30 Onkels moved to approve Exhibit B. Lesow seconded. The motion carried. 31 32 Onkels moved to approve Exhibit C. Lesow seconded. The motion carried. 33 34 Onkels moved to approve Exhibit D. Bell seconded. The motion carried. 35 36 Lesow moved to recommend approval of the staff report and the findings of 37 facts. 38 Bell seconded. 39 Roll Call Vote: Ayes — Bell, Teigrob, Onkels, Luke, Lesow, Erickson, Rainey, 40 Elenbaas; Nays — 0; Abstain — 0; Absent — Honcoop. The motion carried. 41 42 Public Hearing 43 44 File #PLN2012-00005: Amending Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Policy 2Q-3 and 45 Land Use Action Plan item # 28. These Comprehensive Plan provisions indicate that the 46 County is to establish interlocal agreements with service providers, including water and 47 sewer districts, serving unincorporated urban growth areas. The proposal would amend 48 these provisions to establish such interlocal agreements only if appropriate. 207 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 September 27, 2012 Regular Meetin Matt Aamot presented the staff report. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains a policy and action item indicating that the County should have interlocal agreements with service providers that serve unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). The amendments would apply to Comprehensive Plan Policy 2Q-3, which applies to Birch Bay and the Columbia Valley UGAs. The other amendment would apply to Land Use Action Plan #28 which applies to Birch Bay, Columbia Valley and Cherry Point UGAs. The GMA already requires capital facility planning so the County is incorporating, by reference, water, sewer and fire plans for unincorporated UGAs rather than have the County develop the interlocals. Interlocal agreements must be mutually agreed upon so the County is proposing that they will be incorporated when appropriate.. Staff recommends approval. The hearing was opened to the public. Kathy Berg, Whatcom County: Urged the Commission to approve the staff recommendations. The hearing was closed to the public. Bell moved to recommend approval of the staff report, exhibit A and findings' of fact. Teigrob seconded. Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote: Ayes — Bell, Teigrob, Onkels, Luke, Lesow, Erickson, Rainey, Elenbaas; Nays — 0; Abstain — 0; Absent — Honcoop. The motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Minutes prepared by B. Boxx. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Michelle Luke, Chair J.E. "Sam" Ryan, Secretary WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-329 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council O tce Agenda Date Assigned to: —Originator: M.A. 1010812012 10/23/2012 Introduction Malt Aamol j� �Q E C L� � E D Division Head: 111712011 Planning& Development Mark Personius 11A /8/� lL V Comm. and Council OCT 15 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Dept. Head: Sam Ryan /o fth a Prosecutor: Royce Buckingham Purchasing/Budget: Executive: Jack Louivs TITLE OF D T: Capital Facility ing for the East County. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance and Exhibits 2. Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action Other background information is on file at the Council office. SEPA review required? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes ( X') NO SEPA review completed? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date 'The Council must /told a hearing if they want to change the Planning Commission's recommendation 1WCC 2.160. 1 00(B)]. S UMMA R Y S T4 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 Comprehensive Plan provisions relating to capital facility planning in the eastern portion of the County. Amendments include adopting by reference and incorporating information from an updated sewer plan serving the Columbia Valley Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a fire capital facilities plan serving the Columbia Valley UGA, Sumas UGA and surrounding areas. NOTE: Final approval of these amendments would occur as part of concurrent review of comprehensive plan amendments in early 2013. COMMITTEE ACTION. • COUNCIL ACTION. 10/23/2012: Introduced Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: AB2012-089 and PLN2012-00004 Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing anti printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 209 WHATCOM COUNTY Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax J.E. "Sam" Ryan Director October 8, 2012 To: Jack Louws, The Honorable Whatcom County Executive The Honorable Whatcom County Council From: Matt Aamot, Senior Planner Through: Mark Personius, Long Range Planning Division Manager O RE: Capital Facility Planning for the East County The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan addresses various capital facilities, including those needed to provide sanitary sewer service and fire protection. The following special purpose districts adopted new plans in 2012: • Water District 13 adopted a new comprehensive sewer plan. District 13 serves the Columbia Valley Urban Growth Area (UGA). • Fire District 14 adopted a new capital facilities plan. District 14 serves the Columbia Valley UGA, the City of Sumas, Maple Falls, the Welcome area and surrounding lands within the District. The subject proposal would adopt by reference and incorporate information from these plans into the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, and make other related changes. We would like to thank the Water District 13 Commissioners, Fire District 14 Commissioners, and the working group that developed a draft capital facilities plan for the Fire District. These plans will help ensure that capital facility planning supports adopted land use plans. Planning & Development Services is requesting Council consideration of these amendments on Nov. 7. However, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are subject to concurrent review. Therefore, the Council would not render a final decision on the proposal until early 2013. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Office (360) 676-6907 FAX (360) 738-2525 210 10-08-2012 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS RELATING TO CAPITAL FACILITY PLANNING FOR THE EAST COUNTY WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council initiated the subject amendments for review in 2012; and WHEREAS, Water District 13 approved a comprehensive sewer plan and Fire District 14 approved a capital facilities plan in 2012; and WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission recommended the comprehensive plan amendments on September 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, The County Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT The subject amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan are as follows: a. Amending the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4 Capital Facilities, to adopt the Water District 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan by reference, and make related changes. b. Amending the Foothills Subarea Plan to acknowledge that the Water District 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan have been updated, and make related changes. c. Amending the sewer provisions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan. d. Amending the fire protection provisions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan. 2. A determination of non -significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on May 14, 2012. 211 Whatcom County Fire District 14 Commissioners adopted the Capital Facilities Plan on July 16, 2012. 4. Whatcom County Water District 13 Commissioners adopted the Comprehensive Sewer Plan on August 28, 2012. 5. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and the proposal to amend the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan was posted on the County website on August 21, 2012. 6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to the City of Sumas and citizen, media and other groups on the County's e-mail list on August 22, 2012. 7. Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on September 4, 2012. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendments was published in the Bellingham Herald on September 14, 2012. 9. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendments on September 27, 2012. 10. Pursuant to WCC 2.160.080, in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendments the County must find all of the following: a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. b. Further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate changed conditions that show need for the amendment. c. The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: i. The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. 2 212 ii. The anticipated effect on the ability of the county and/or other service providers, such as cities, schools, water and/or sewer purveyors, fire districts, and others as applicable, to provide adequate services and public facilities including transportation facilities. iii. Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands. d. The amendment does not include or facilitate spot zoning. e. Urban growth area amendments that propose the expansion of an urban growth area boundary are required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR sending area, with certain exceptions. Growth Management Act 11. The Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 to guide adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. 12. GMA Planning Goal 1 is to "Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner" (RCW 36.70A.020(1)). 13. GMA Planning Goal 12 is to "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards" (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). 14. The subject amendments include updating Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Water District 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The District serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. The sewer plan supports planned urban growth in the Columbia Valley UGA. 15. The subject amendments include updating Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan. The Fire District serves the Sumas UGA, Columbia Valley UGA and surrounding areas. The capital facilities plan supports planned urban growth in the Sumas UGA and Columbia Valley UGA. It also plans rural levels of service for areas outside the UGAs. 3 213 16. The GMA, at RCW 36.70A.070(3), requires that a comprehensive plan must include a capital facilities plan element consisting of: a. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. b. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. c. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. d. At least a six -year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. 17. With regard to UGAs, the Growth Management Hearings Board has held that RCW 36.70A.070(3) and RCW 36.70A.110(3), when read together, obligate counties and cities to include in the comprehensive plan's capital facilities element the proposed locations, capacities, and funding for the 20-year planning period covered by the comprehensive plan (Skagit County Growthwatch v. Skagit County, Case No. 07-2-0002, FDO at p. 17, Aug. 6, 2007). 18. The sewer plan and fire capital facilities plan contain inventories, forecasts of future needs, proposed capital facilities, and financing plans as required by the GMA. County -Wide Planning Policies 19. County -Wide Planning Policy E-4 states "The County shall assure that there are plans to provide appropriate levels of urban facilities and services within non -city Urban Growth Areas. These plans should be developed by special purpose districts ..." 20. The Columbia Valley UGA is not associated with a city. The Water District 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan has been formulated to provide sanitary sewer service to the portion of the Columbia Valley UGA within the District's service area. 21. County -Wide Planning Policy D-1 states "... The small cities shall do appropriate planning to ensure adequate distribution of land uses and services at a range of urban densities and zoning classifications." 22. The Sumas City Planner has participated in process of developing the Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan, which serves the City of Sumas and its associated UGA. 4 214 23. The Fire District 14 Capital Facility Plan has been formulated to provide urban levels of service to both the Columbia Valley UGA and the Sumas UGA. Interlocal Agreements 24. An interlocal agreement between the City of Sumas and Whatcom County concerning Planning, Annexation and Development within the Sumas UGA was signed in April 2012. 25. There are no provisions in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan amendments that are inconsistent with this interlocal agreement. Further Studies/Changed Conditions 26. The Foothills Subarea Plan was adopted in May 2011. Foothills Subarea Plan Policy U 1- D, in Chapter 5, is to "Encourage and facilitate completion of capital facilities planning by special districts, which serve -the [Columbia Valley] UGA, by 2012." 27. Water District 13 and Fire District 14 have studied facilities needed to serve existing and planned development and have formulated new capital facility plans. 28. Further study and formulation of capital facility plans by Water District 13 and Fire District 14 constitute changed conditions that warrant amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Public Interest 29. The comprehensive plan amendments will serve the public interest by adopting sewer and fire protection capital facility plans to serve planned growth in the eastern portion of Whatcom County. These special purpose district plans are consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, will enhance provision of public facilities and services, and will not harm resource lands. Spot Zoning 30. The subject proposal does not involve rezoning property. CONCLUSIONS 1. The subject comprehensive plan amendments comply with the provisions of the Growth Management Act. 2. The subject comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the approval criteria of WCC 2.160.080. 215 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 (Capital Facilities) is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A. Section 2. The Foothills Subarea Plan is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit B. Section 3. The sewer provisions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Appendix E of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan) are hereby amended as shown on Exhibit C. Section 4. The fire protection provisions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Appendix E of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan) are hereby amended as shown on Exhibit D. Section 5. Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections, clauses, or provisions of this ordinance shall not affect or impair the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. ADOPTED this day of 52013. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Kershner, Chairperson APPROVED as to form: Civil De P or no () Approved () Denied Jack Louws, Executive Date: 216 Exhibit A - Comp Plan Chapter 4 Amendments Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Draft Exhibit A Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Chapter 4) NOTE: For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes, portions of the Comprehensive Plan that are not being modified by this ordinance are not shown below. The text, goals, policies and maps that are not shown below are retained as previously adopted. 1 217 Exhibit A - Comp Plan Chapter 4 Amendments Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Amend the Capital Facilities Chapter of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 4) as follows: The GMA expressly authorizes cities and counties to impose impact fees on new development to help finance the capital facilities required to serve new development. This authorization applies only to capital facilities owned or operated by government entities: (a) public streets and roads; (b) publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; (c) school facilities; and (d) fire protection facilities in ii iriorlin+inno that are nn+ nor# of a fire distrin+. 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. 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 plan. Policy 4N-3: The Birch Bay Comprehensive Stormwater Plan, dated July 2006, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. Policy 4N-4 The North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Capital Facilities Plan, dated August 2009, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. Policy 4N-5: The Public Utility District No. 1 Comprehensive Water System Plan, dated October 2004, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive Plan. Policy 4N-6: The Evergreen Water -Sewer District Comprehensive Water System Plan, dated June 2004, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. This water system serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. Policy 4N-7: The Water District No. 13 Water System Plan, dated February 2005, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. This water system serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. Policy 4N-8 The Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, dated August 2012, is adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. This sewer system serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. 2 218 Exhibit A - Comp Plan Chapter 4 Amendments Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Policy 4N-99: The public stormwater facilities sections relating to the Columbia Valley UGA in the Water Quantity and Quality Report Foothills Subarea (Aspect Consulting, July 18, 2008, pp. 2-3, 36-39, and 55-56) are adopted by reference into the comprehensive plan. Policy 4N-10: The Whatcom Fire District No. 14 Capital Facilities Plan, dated July 2012, is adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 4N-119: The Whatcom County Fire District No. 7 Capital Facilities Plan, dated May 2011, is adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan (except that the UGA boundaries shown in the Fire District No. 7 Capital Facilities Plan are not adopted by reference). 3 219 Exhibit B - Foothills Subarea Plan Amendments Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Draft Exhibit B Foothills Subarea Plan Amendments NOTE: For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes, portions of the Foothills Subarea Plan that are not being modified by this ordinance are not shown below. The text and maps that are not shown below are retained as previously adopted. 220 Exhibit B - Foothills Subarea Plan Amendments Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Amend the Foothills Subarea Plan, Chapter 2, Land Use as follows: Land Use Planning issues Much of the planning process focused on land use and the issues associated with the way in which the subarea develops. Land use conversations tended to focus on the following issues, in no particular order here: • Many Foothills residents are actually employed outside the subarea, resulting in long morning and evening commutes along SR 542 and SR 547. • Foothills residents believe the urban -style development occurring in the Columbia Valley should be restricted to the UGA, with the balance of the subarea remaining rural in character. • The four Rural Communities each have created their own identities and add to the character and richness of the subarea. • The access and proximity to natural open spaces are vitally important to Foothills residents. • The Foothills population is surprisingly diverse given its relatively small number. • The Nooksack Tribe has acquired more property in Deming, enlarging its holdings and reducing the amount of land available for housing. The Mt. Baker School District has also acquired additional property in Deming. Deming residents wish to encourage more people to live in town, making land availability an issue. • Water and sewer districts may not have adequate sanitary sewer capacity or systems now in place to serve projected urban development in the Columbia Valley UGA. However, an update to the Water District 13 sewer plan, which includes a capital improvement plan, was completed in 2012fs may. • The Growth Management Act imposes requirements on "limited areas of more intense rural development" (LAMIRDs) that will impact how the four Rural Communities may develop in the future. • Forecast population growth will put more pressure on the Columbia Valley, and the four Rural Communities to a lesser degree, to accommodate additional housing. • Land supply and population forecast studies indicate that sufficient land exists to support forecast population. The arrangement and density of land uses impact the feasibility of providing adequate services with scattered or less dense development generally being more expensive to serve. This is especially important in the Columbia Valley, where provision of sanitary sewer will be necessary as population increases. 221 Exhibit B - Foothills Subarea Plan Amendments Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Amend the Foothills Subarea Plan, Chapter 5, Utilities as follows: Sewer Districts Whatcom County Water District No. 13 provides sanitary sewer service to a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. , The District's comprehensive sewer plan was updated in 2012is being .grantea. The sewer plan contains plans to serve new urban growth in the portion of the tJGA that is within the District's boundaries over the 20-year planningperiod. There are no other purveyors that provide sanitary sewer service in the Foothills Subarea as of 2010. 222 Exhibit 8 - Foothills Subarea Plan Amendments Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Amend the Foothills Subarea Plan, Chapter 10, Community Facilities, Schools, Sherff, Fire Protection, Emergency Medical Services and Solid Waste Management as follows: Fire Protection/Emergency Each of the four fare districts that serve portions of the Foothills Medical Services Subarea provide both fire and emergency medical services. Of the four, Fire District 14 serves the largest portion of the subarea. Fire District 1: The fire district indicated that population growth within their district would have very little impact on their ability to provide services and they had no planned facilities or service expansion. Fire District 14: Fire District 14 serves the Columbia Valley UGA. In 2012204-0, the District is Nveir ,�,1%e,-updated its capital facility plan. Fire District 16: Less than 1% of the land in the Foothills Subarea is within District 16 and these lands are planned for rural and forestry land uses. Growth in the portion of the District within the Foothills Subarea should have little impact on their ability to provide service. Fire District 19: The fire district indicated that the large number of aid calls within the neighboring national park and national forest coupled with the lack of available land within their district will limit their ability to collect additional revenue on developed land which, in turn, limits their ability to improve services. The fire district also has and will continue to have a difficult time drawing volunteers from the largely seasonal population in Glacier. 223 Exhibit C - 20-Year CEP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Draft Exhibit C Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan Amendments (Sewer Provisions) NOTE: For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes, portions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan that are not being modified by this ordinance are not shown below. The text and maps that are not shown below are retained as previously adopted. 224 Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Amend the "Executive Summary" ofthe Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows: Sanitary Sewer A review of LOS standards found in individual sewer purveyor's plans in relation to population and employment projections indicate that the City of Bellingham, Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, City of Lynden, City of Sumas, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District have adequate sewage treatment capacity to meet projected demands through 2029. The City of Everson shows a sewage treatment deficit in 2029 and the city's own analysis of sewage treatment capacity indicates that it has available capacity to meet approximately 8 to 12 years of residential growth and that expansion of the sewage treatment plant will be necessary. In addition, the City of Blaine expects to provide an additional 0.7 MGD of sewage treatment capacity when its new wastewater treatment plant starts operation in 2010. With this additional sewage treatment capacity, the City of Blaine is expected to have a sewage treatment capacity reserve in both 2015 and 2029. The City of Nooksack, which shares a sewage treatment plant with City of Everson, is expected to have a sewage treatment deficit in 13 to 15 years. Expansion of the Everson sewage treatment plant would be needed to accommodate growth in City of Nooksack to 2029. Water District 13, serving a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA, has existing capacity and planned improvements to serve growth within its boundaries. 4 Wa4e.. d c.,wei- Disci -jet The Columbia Valley Water District does not provide sewer service at the present time. Additional sewer planning will be needed to serve new urban growth in the undeveloped portion of the Columbia Valley UGA that is not addressed in a comprehensive sewer plan. The City of Ferndale would have sewage treatment deficits in 2029 if no improvements were made to the existing wastewater treatment plan. However, Ferndale adopted a comprehensive sewer plan in 2011 to address needed improvements to serve planned growth over the 20-year planning period. For those service providers without an adopted plan, the Capital Facilities Implementation section of this CFP provides options for addressing any identified deficiencies in their capital planning process. NOTES: "CFP" means capital facilities plan and "LOS" means level of service. 2 February 2012 225 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended version September 27, 2012 Amend the "Sanitary Sewer" chapter of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan Matcom County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows: Sanitary Sewer Overview There are a total of 10 wastewater collection systems and seven wastewater treatment facilities that serve UGAs in Whatcom County. Most of the facilities provide services within city limits with plans for future service to areas designated as UGAs. However, some systems provide service to unincorporated UGAs (Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, Water District 13, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District). Inventory of Current Facilities The following cities and sewer districts (in alphabetical order) provide sanitary sewer services in the County: ■ City of Bellingham maintains a collection system within its city limits and operates wastewater treatment facilities that are also used by Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. The city plans future service within its UGA and for connections to both undeveloped properties and those that are using septic systems within the city limits. ■ Birch Bay Water & Sewer District owns and operates a collection and treatment system that serves the Birch Bay UGA and portions of the Blaine and Cherry Point UGAs. ■ City of Blaine provides a collection and a wastewater treatment system for property within the city limits. There is a second wastewater treatment facility located in Blaine that was constructed in 1986 to treat wastewater from the Port of Bellingham and fish processors that lease from the Port of Bellingham other than T.M. Protein. The city plans to serve portions of its UGA that are not served by Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. ■ The City of Everson maintains a collection system to serve property within the city limits. The city's sewer system also provides wastewater treatment for the City of Nooksack. Both cities provide funding for operation and maintenance of the treatment facility. The city sewer utility plans future service to areas within its UGA. ■ The City of Ferndale provides a sewer collection and treatment facility for property within the city limits as well as future service to the city's UGA. ■ Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly called Water District 10) maintains a sanitary sewer collection system that serves the UGA adjacent to Lake Whatcom, east of the city limits. This special district relies upon the City of Bellingham wastewater system for treatment. ■ The City of Lynden provides sewer collection and treatment facilities for property within the city limits and future collection and treatment to the city's UGA. ■ City of Nooksack constructed a wastewater collection system for property within the city limits in 1989. The city has plans to provide future service to unserved properties within its city 3 February 2012 226 Exhibit C - 20-Year UP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 limits and to properties within its associated UGA. By agreement with the City of Everson, Nooksack pumps its sewage for treatment at the wastewater treatment plant located in Everson. Nooksack also provides funding for the operation and maintenance of the Everson wastewater treatment plant. ■ The City of Sumas provides a wastewater collection system for property within the city limits. Since 1999, the city has had wastewater treatment provided at a large regional treatment facility in Abbotsford, BC owned and operated by Fraser Valley Regional District. The city sanitary sewer utility has plans to extend service to UGA property upon annexation. ■ Whatcom County Water District 13 provides wastewater collection and treatment to a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA in unincorporated Whatcom County. An inventory of existing wastewater facilities located in the County is presented in the table on the following pages. The table summarizes millions of gallons treated per day, the most current existing flow data, and surpluses or deficits for each of the wastewater systems in the County. Existing population served is also noted. 4 February 2012 227 N O Z c6 a m U a) U) C R a C al E R a) F- N r1 O tY Pe PV a� a) d� Q a) O U)i C > O a o L O C (D V c C 0 3 U N u C .� i O m th yam+ 'E m ® E U) O E u U 0 M _e d E N Z w aL C C O E d � y C w C N O U c o a o as 0 3 Z O CO 0. O N a N'- a a) r c w T a) O O w O O m fO c N w v) L) U U „cn C O O a) T O O N a) E >' N m N _ E a) -0 O c O E w H --0 U n > 0 U ~ f0 a)� aa) > o rn m o o m U> O O cn O O U U) .E a) nN000-cAocJ > E �Eo3�0�'°)EUiEowo N N 'O 0 T r0 U m y E 0� 7 C N N p C U) -0 N C E a) U O> N p c U) -0 C [O L -C N a) .E N m 0 Um c m N N 0 N T U C U O C c� O m C CIO Fu m La) 7 'O T m E Qco off-0 moo`0 nO O 'O a) E > .UUm ) n'OO.Ncm9 Va)O 0-0 = OwQ:O EnN �N m 0 0 - mLLc U E� C U m 3 E o o 2-6 to a).4, 8 0 o 0 EoC7o 2 m Hco.S E w.5 o U mcq �N m� Tw 11 C:)E -03 N c m -0 O O N and U) U .MO-. V U) .0 o •w w E QI �U m lL N U U 0)E O N n Cl) O an 0 LD ao c; a0 V I I I � to c m O _ 0) N O N OO w U N E` c C L w > U)'w cca `'3 0 c O C m 0) O TL�...� CI-. n3. m f0 w a) E E O a) ._ � f0 � U)JLd U)O 0 0 w U J O10 m 0. 0) O O .� E.cm ocm � cU O T 2.2 Q) m e U O a) O U O •` a)-00 L a).` O 0 U U N O O N N U) Q O_a� m in-0 'O 'O N co Eo .6 U N U U) m 3 •= cu L m w _j w C) C) o n v C. M O a0 C) U o 0 m `;rn3ca ca L 'N c O O a 0 N U 5 0 Q Td 2D E- cE„0-oµ J Y L » :6a)ccE c c.0 m a) O_t 0 m U u) N a) a a) c T N c U a) U E 0 m c u N U U U a Z E 3 o u,L m.2 a) 0 3 a N N N N N V O) >` m a) U m ma)0~cu c N a)C T C T a)EF oma (Dm -E� H ...ornco one CD V O a) c_ m Um N 228 C O C 0 U a) C In w E w In T U) c O U a) 0 U O O = T �U IN O O O ( N to V 00 °D N a O M O L6 N M r— O OD Q O O O z Vl a) N V N 00 O z C) Cl) N a) a) m O N W _ M CD C) N LO O O c E O to C O a) c U 06 v a) O a) U a) 0 _ O ` .-. E cT Oo�m '�sy Y O �o >,ui InO c�_no �> n 0 '� 0 ENccc y CO L O L >, co H 5, O .S-. O Z -a > R .d n(D a) C 3� n 'OO m co y R rn i4 7 V C V) W O` V-� S C. W.0 O N� n� U O >,O j a) U 01 to 0- C a) 0 3 U Cn C C .0 N nt.. ca -.c U— L w O R 2._ co fn E 3 N a3i a) m _ w 3 E> m.o 3 n to N 3 C to Co O E 'O C a) a) O E no o _ omtna U O C torn_0.Xmo0 > O R O to d1 C CL c`oO N n u) to L U n- E E o o N a) 'O C 'C a) Q) lA LLI O`t'.' ca C E nL N O fn V n d. _ E a) _R :E E� n� Cow g a0 0 `4�-o 0 ��=Q m3 `n nm nazi a) a) "� to C Cn U •. % U 7 U E X (4 CO cc _ a) C a) a0 n N -j - N U N E y N 6 1� maces � y 0 Q) R o'er N fn'� o.� °� n w- a7 O ,.�'m aZ o 3 3 E E to n E E 2 �- S 0 3 0 .0 N R R N> 0 0 w O U L .0 3 UC1 • C "O E N 7 0 C o 01 0 Ic O .Lnnc E a) E a C a) N N 3 nt/O) U cC mL a) nE 0; aa)i n c- C C N O U Q).O : O n a) -O V) N (6 -O w a) a) to a7 N to 3 U -OO `� a N O— X O U cnn .N N U m .tn T O Co -O N N S C -O C U- y `6 a) r aR co o u :E� >ca cc rn E to C-0-a>N N R w n Co c U m to O O o a V a) .toSNMyan1 R0.o aRana0 cUrn25 3 c O m E LL E � 0mmN' 0 N V to a0 LO 00 LO co O T IT] E t N a) O O` N (0 O -O C O O U m O y R _TC m to to a- U W 0 LL U � U Z N 229 y :, 0 Z R a d v CO a) C R a C a) R ra r-1 Q nr U CL E ® CO i c 7 O O � U 9i d 7 r 0 �_ U d U. U � � fl > E b E U e� E (u a+ �_ d T R C Z W A. 3 oLL- c O7 O7 O E Q Old _ E La 3 w o LL. 'O _0 O. U 'O .O '6 -a n O_ E ol Da 0a °�o `ov w 0 oo°D.0'ooi vi U @ EOo ,n0 > O Nu m O 0 a) 0U ESN U @o > LOU Qm_c7 �.S Eve O O d) (h O co p of g rn a) Q M co Z O C> O w m O Z N m Io m U L N N N O 0 i 0 U @ U U cn N@ N C a) c 'O 0@ c Coin x in0@ x �3c-@�xo co CD .2c0 cn N N o E uI @ O a) C o N a�Ei w to n SZ _' -O c : U N O. ao 3 @ N @ ':aCD @ a'��co�=(D prom _ � Z) O a) -O U 0 :3 N @ ._ 0 'r a) -O 2 a) L... N .E _ a) ^ a, O t @ > " X a) o 0 a) O .O 0 E2 .2 U t '>`' 0 I N `9w �'~ 3 c o @ cr � coF- 3 0 w> c c@ 'x E� o-0 @ 0— C) c@ ` a)-0 a) E a) ro 3 w 0 T .-. 0 7 U O 0CY U@ U O p O C N N c> .0 N= O> O_ E O n o O) Cl Cl D E 9) N a) O V O cn .0 N O ��aciIn 7 7 aa))?�c %Nc 0a)x03@ccu3 U 'O fD a) C 7 a) U CO U 7ja o I I� I a) (h N m � 0 @ I a) w D U w Uco a) D(q d o = O O N I L a) N d � 0 N U 0 a) ❑ a E E O a) LL N O C I T 0 C. O E TO C W N ❑ O N d Z ui a) E Z m O a) d N N a) O =O Ov C is C CL O = O d E d W a) a) a o O) C a) @ I U LL C N O L ❑ LL a) @ @ E O. O o � U a 3 T a) C m N > U Z 0 m C a) m 0 L O 0 o a d N r E m o. 00 O E N N O @ a) L @ Mn C C C O O E N a _0 aai 0 Y @ C @ O — O O N CDQ N _ � C 0 Y I a � C 0 co J >_ _0T C T C n '@o R > N O =3 O- N 2 W L > C @ o U) a) @ i w C 0 T O @ -o a m a) 00 L m o f CoN co n N [7 N R 4 G LL 230 m C m C m d E a) ut T Vl 3 a� orn a� o @ 0 N O 0 3 A) T > � a) C � C o m O N co C LL7 a) D 7 m p' 0 N m E C - m m ao p C O m C N l0 > m mm m w O N m C m a) co E a7 'D w a) m m (n N N ca T m N (n E d - W E E m O m z c c cmo °� Q — E C o m C m o U o d U C W 7 C —O E W E m co a) N N > 1� c E w a o a) c o N a O m D a E ) o 7 E L ULU a) W FL a) C EL m O a o C m Z U O � U � C m ` w a O -, w u� in o d (V N o a L j>p C a o > Vl aD o SL o o N LL C N Q E o o o U o N w E m mo a) o d m O o t F 7 N CV Cn d Q U o O V Lfl O (n 231 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Level of Service Capacity Analysis The adequacy of existing sewer facilities to meet present and future needs is based on the estimated gpd of wastewater for the current population and the projected future population. This figure represents the LOS standard for sewer service for sewer providers. Most of the 10 sewer service providers have developed their own LOS standard based upon their local geography and service area demographics. Table 44 outlines LOS standards established by each sewer provider. Table 44. Sewer Level of Service Standards Service Provider LOS Standard City of Bellingham 102 gallons/capita/day' Birch Bay Water and Sewer District 85 gallons/capita/day City of Blaine 300 gallons/household/day City of Everson 300 gallons/household/day City of Ferndale 193 gallons/capita/day 2 Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer (formerly Water 198 gallons/day/connection 3 District 10) City of Lynden 100.7 gallons/capita/day ° City of Nooksack 250-275 gallons/household/day s City of Sumas 300 gallons/household/day a Whatcom County Water District 13 217 ^^"GRG�ho holdlda!• 67 gallons/capita/day 6 1 Section 4.3.2 Per capita flows, page 4-6, City of Bellingham Comprehensive Sewer Plan, June 2009. 2 Derived from City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan, pp. 9 and 11, 2011. The LOS for Ferndale is based upon peak month flow. 3 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Sewer Plan, page 8, September 2007. 4 City of Lynden General Sewer Plan, page 4-1, December 2007. 5 Personal communication from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, Email July 14, 2009, citing communication with Rollin Harper of Sehome Planning. 6 Derived from Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, pp. 3-3 and 6-1. 2012. The LOS for Water District 13 is based upon the peak month flow. F=RyireRme..tal !MPart etateF%14 neGe�be, ao�nno page 80 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 232 Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended version September 27, 2012 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 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 Capacity (MGD) 2015 Treatment Capacity Surplus (Deficit) expressed in MGD Bellingham 20.00 10.44 Birch Bay Water & Sewer 1.28 0.69 Blaine 0.80' 0.06 Everson 2 0.29 (0.01) Ferndale 3.23 0.64 Lynden 2.18 0.85 Nooksack 3 0.15 0.03 Sumas 0.39 0.22 Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly Whatcom County Water District 10) 4.60 3.82 WC Water District 13 0.1259:1-3 0.051See-4 1 City of Blaine anticipates opening anew 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, 20091. 2 Everson's Treatment Plant has a total capacity of 0.44 mgd. However, 2/3 of capacity, or 0.29 mgd are owned by Everson, while 1/3 of capacity or approximately 0.15 mgd is owned by neighboring Nooksack. 3 This analysis uses 275 gallons/household/day as a LOS measure, the upper end of the range provided by the City of Nooksack in communication with Erin Osborn, as communicated in email to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. 4 A. mpFe detailed analysis ef wast&Aeler 61tility seFviGe te the Columbia Valley UGA was pFevided R the FGGthillr, 961baFea �ll�n C�nnl C nnlem eRtal F.RVIF..nmentai Imnart Statement (SEIC) (Dee Mb8F 2008 pages 83 89) Please see diSGUSS R Felated tG Water DistFirA 13 belew fE)F FnoFe detail eR 204Y tG E;epve the GelurAbia UGA with seweF GewlGe il� 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 r isifiet 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 would also experience a sewage treatment capacity deficits in 10 233 Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended version September 27, 2012 2029 if no additional capacity were constructed. However, the City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2011) includes plans to almost double the capacity of the wastewater treatment plan, which will more than accommodate wastewater flows through the year 2029. A eoei- ing t the FeA-fh:n8 cub -a .o., Plan Pinal SEIS (2008), Watej- Dist 13, pj-eviding ser-yiee to a peFtien of the Columbia Valley UGA3 . 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) expressed in MGD Bellingham 20.00 8.86 Birch Bay Water & Sewer 1.28 0.5 Blaine' 0.80 (0.29) Everson 2 0.29 (0.09) Ferndale s 3.23 (0.99) Lynden 2.18 0.49 Nooksack " 0.15 (0.03) Sumas 0.39 0.16 Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly Whatcom County Water District 10) 4.60 3.79 WC Water District 13 0.125 0.018See-a 1 City of Blaine anticipates opening anew wastewater treatment plant in 2010 which will increase treatment capacity to 1.5 MGD. With the anticipated additional treatment capacity, the City will be able to meet the projected sewer flow requirements to 2029. [City of Blaine website: http://www.ci.blaine.wa.us/, accessed April 24, 2009) 2 Everson's Treatment Plan has a total capacity of 0.44 MGD. However, 2/3 of capacity, or 0.29 MGD are owned by Everson, while 1/3 of capacity or approximately 0.15 MGD is owned by neighboring Nooksack. 3 The City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2011) includes planned improvements to increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant from 3.23 MGD to 6.37 MGD (p. 13 and Exhibit H). This will increase the capacity by 3.14 MGD and address the deficit that would occur if no capacity improvements were planned. 4 This analysis uses 275 gallons/household/day as a LOS measure, the upper end of the range provided by the City of Nooksack in communication with Erin Osborn, as communicated in email to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. 5 —A more detailed-ana{ys+s©f wastewatewtility sefvise to the GeWFn62-Valley-t16AN.as-provided n-t#e-Foothills-Sub2rea PlaR Final SupplemeAtal Environmental IrripaGt,Staterrient (8918) (DeGerribei: 2908, pages 83 89). Please see diseussioR felated to WateF DiStFiSt 13 abeve and below foF more detail 9A ability to serve the Columbia UGA with sewep serviee ip, ff 234 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Seeder) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Capital Projects and Funding Population Table 47 below identifies each sewer provider's latest sewer plan's horizon year and population, as well as the populations expected under County's 2029 population projection. This table serves to provide an order of magnitude check with respect to the population that each service provider is planning on serving in comparison to the latest population projections for the 2029 Whatcom County CFP. 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 9,160 Blaine 2025 10,871 9,040 Everson 2024 4,202 3,610 Ferndale 2034 24,600' 21,8272 Lynden 2024 18,235 16,790 Nooksack 2024 2,039 2,080 Sumas 2024 1,625 2,080 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District (formerly Water District 10) 2027 13,936 11,190 W.C. Water District 13 20293 1,5953 1,595 1 The City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (p. 3) uses a 2029 population projection of 20,707 for the Ferndale UGA, consistent with the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. The Sewer Plan extrapolates the population projection to 2034 for consistency with the City's planning horizon date. 2 This projection is higher than the projected UGA population because City sewer currently serves two existing areas east of the City that are outside the UGA. Source: Berk & Associates (2029 population projection). each individual purveyor capital facility plan for horizon year and capital plan population columns. Capital Project Funding Sewer services and capital are funded primarily by the users of the system through service charges and connection fees. These rates are adjusted as needed to fund capital and operational needs. Some grant programs exist for the construction of sewer facilities and upgrades, but, like many grant programs, they are generally very competitive. In addition to this general approach to funding, the following Capital Facilities plans list additional possible funding sources: 12 235 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 ■ The City of Ferndale — The Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan states that the City has various funding sources available for sewer capital projects including (but not limited to) sewer rates and connections fees, bonds, loans, grants, utility local improvement district (ULIDs), and developer extension contracts. ■ The City of Lynden — The City considered using $4,000,000 in capital reserves as well as a bond or Public Works Trust Fund. loan to fund their desired capital improvements. City of Bellingham The City of Bellingham maintains and operates a wastewater collection and treatment system that provides existing service to the city limits as well as sewer service zones within the Bellingham UGA. The existing sewer network is most dense in the central city, and there appear to be portions of the city, particularly in the south that are not yet served by sewer. There are also less extensive sewer networks extending into the city's UGA. The City has established a potential future sewer service area that extends beyond the city limits and encompasses all of the city's UGA not currently sewed by Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District (formerly Water District 10). The city's current Comprehensive Sewer Plan (Carollo Engineers, 2009) indicates that the city's long-range sewer system plan accounts for sewage treatment capacity for approximately 122,007 people by 2026 (Carollo Engineers, 2009). This is a larger population than the 109,200 projected under this CFP. The city's sewer service area and population forecast excludes Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. The city's sewage treatment plant is designated for a two phase expansion to accept future demand. The phase one facilities plan hasjust begun and will be sized to accept future Biological Oxygen Demand as required in the city's Ecology permit. A phase two expansion is expected in the 20 year planning period. This expansion will build on the upcoming facilities plan to adequately size the treatment plant capacity to meet future needs. Birch Bay Water and Weaver Birch Bay Water and Sewer District adopted a Comprehensive Sewer Plan in 2009. The district's plan indicates where current sewer service exists and establishes a future service area that consists of portions of the Birch Bay, Blaine, and Cherry Point UGAs. The plan does not appear to identify future service lines. A review of a GIS layer of existing sewer lines indicates that sewer is concentrated along the coast of the Birch Bay UGA, though there are less extensive networks of sewer lines inland in the Birch Bay UGA. The sewer district's 2009 plan had higher population projections in the 2029 horizon year for the district than the 9,160 anticipated in planning for this CFP. The 2009 Sewer Plan indicates that the district will exceed existing capacity by 2019. However, with the wastewater treatment plant upgrade projects noted in the 2009 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, the District will be able to accommodate the growth anticipated to 2029. (Birch Bay Water and Sewer District and CHS Engineers 2009, pages 6-6 through 6-7) City of Blaine The 2004 City of Blaine General Sewer Plan and its 2005 update shows major existing sewer service lines and some future sewer trunk lines. The City of Blaine Comprehensive Plan includes a map showing future sewer service area as portions of the Blaine and Birch Bay UGAs not served by Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. A GIS layer showing existing sewer lines indicates that large areas of the city east of 13 236 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 I-5 are not served by sewer or close to sewer trunk lines. Table 46 above indicates that the City of Blaine reaches a sewage treatment deficit by 2029 using existing treatment capacity. However, the City of Blaine 2005 General Sewer Plan and 2006 Comprehensive Plan both indicate that the City has plans to upgrade and expand sewage treatment plant capacity to meet future demands for service, Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, and to replace aging infrastructure. The city plans to complete construction on its new wastewater treatment plant and begin operation in 2010 (City of Blaine 2009). The new wastewater treatment plant's design capacity of 1.5 mgd would accommodate projected wastewater flows to the end of the 2029 CFP planning period. Another major component of the city's capital improvement plan is a program for reduction of inflow and infiltration (I&I). City of Everson The City of Everson does not have a sewer comprehensive plan. The sewer system was addressed in the 2004 update of the Everson Comprehensive Plan. Wilson Engineering also provided an analysis of the sewer system in a memorandum prepared in early 2007. Collection & Transmission The Everson sewer system includes a collection and transmission system that serves all of the incorporated portions of the city except for a small number of residential customers and one industrial customer located on Mission Road. The City operates a system of sewer lift stations that direct sewage to the Everson sewage treatment plant. Sewage from the City of Nooksack is also transmitted to the Everson treatment plant through a system of lift stations. Treatment The Everson sewage treatment plant has a capacity of 440,000 gallons per day (gpd). Of this total Everson owns two-thirds or 294,800 gpd. According to the 2007 memorandum prepared by Wilson Engineering, at that time the City had 222 ERUs of capacity available in the treatment plant. Although this amount of capacity is sufficient to serve the majority of growth anticipated within the existing City limits, it is insufficient to meet the anticipated demands to 2029 as seen on Table 46. Depending on the rate of growth, the available capacity is sufficient to accommodate approximately 8 to 12 years of residential growth. Therefore, expansion of the treatment plant will be necessary. The City is beginning work on a sewer comprehensive plan that will address future needs at least through 2029. This plan will be developed in conjunction with the City of Nooksack and will be funded in part through the Community Development Block Grant program. Improvements and Financing All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. The City may participate in constructing a new east -west connector to serve the City's industrial zone and would need to access Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) and Economic Development Initiative (EDI) funding at that time. The City also has planned to extend the sewer system to serve the residential area along Mission Road as part of the Mission Road Phase 3 project. Funding for this project has not yet been identified. It is recognized by the City that expansion of the sewage treatment plant will require the City to secure major sources of funding, primarily low -interest loans. The Everson Comprehensive Plan 14 237 Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 shows the locations of some but not all of the system extensions necessary to serve new development in the Everson UGA. The City has identified creation of a comprehensive sewer plan as a key project in the City's future plans for sewers (personal email communication, Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009). City of Ferndale The City of Ferndale provides sewer service inside the City limits, and plans to provide service to areas within the UGA as they are annexed to the City. The City also serves two areas outside the UGA, east of the City, but has no plans to expand service in these areas. The LOS analysis in Table 45 indicates that the City would experience a sewage treatment capacity surplus in 2015. The LOS analysis in table 46 indicates that the City would experience a sewage treatment deficit by 2029 if no improvements were made to the wastewater treatment plan. However, the City has plans to expand wastewater treatment capacity (City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan, 2011, Exhibit H). Implementation of the Sewer Plan will increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plan from 3.23 MGD to 6.37 MGD (p. 13). This will increase the capacity by 3.14 MGD and address the deficit that would occur if no capacity improvement were planned. Ferndale's Comprehensive Sewer Plan states that the "City's existing sewer collection and treatment systems have sufficient capacity (with planned improvements) to provide sewer service to growth within the City limits and UGA for the next twenty years" (p. 26). City of Lynden The City of Lynden General Sewer Plan (BHC Consultants 2007) indicates that the city provides service to areas within the city limits, and will provide future service to areas within its UGA. The Sewer Plan indicates future sewer trunk lines to serve areas of the city and UGA not currently served (BHC Consultants 2007). The sewer plan provides for a sewer system population of 18,235 people by 2024, which is greater than the 16,790 anticipated by 2029 under this CFP. The LOS analysis in Table 46 above indicates a small sewage treatment reserve in 2029 with existing sewage treatment capacity. The cty's General Sewer Plan anticipates planning for additional sewage treatment capacity in 2019. A series of pump station and force main improvements are planned as part of the city sewer system's capital improvement plans to maintain system capacity within the planning period. City of Nooksack The City of Nooksack does not have a sewer comprehensive plan. The Nooksack sewer system was addressed in the 2004 update of the Nooksack comprehensive plan in the Capital Facilities Element. Wilson Engineering also provided an analysis of the Nooksack sewer system in a memorandum prepared in early 2007. Collection & Transmission The City of Nooksack maintains a system of collection and transmission pipes and four sewer lift stations that direct sewage to the Everson sewage treatment plant. Treatment Capacity The Everson sewage treatment plant has a total capacity of 440,000 gallons per day (gpd). Of this total, Nooksack owns one-third, which equals 145,200 gpd. The 2007 memorandum prepared by Wilson 15 238 Exhibit C - 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Engineering states that the City of Nooksack had 230 additional ERUs available. The available capacity is insufficient to meet the growth anticipated in this CFP. Available ERUs appear to be sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth over the next 13 to 15 years. Expansion of the Everson sewage treatment plant will be necessary to accommodate some of the growth that will occur outside of current city limits. Improvements and Financing All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. It is recognized by the City that expansion of the Everson sewage treatment plant will require the City to secure major sources of funding, primarily low -interest loans. The Nooksack Comprehensive Plan does not show the locations of system extensions necessary to serve new development in the Nooksack UGA. The City has identified creation of a comprehensive sewer plan in conjunction with the City of Everson comprehensive sewer plan project as a key project in the City's future plans for sewers (personal email communication, Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009). City of 'Sumas The City of Sumas does not have a comprehensive sewer plan. The Sumas sewer system was addressed in the 2004 update of the Sumas Comprehensive Plan. The Sumas Comprehensive Plan addresses the 20- year period from 2004 through 2024 including a 2024 population of 1,750. Collection & Transmission The City of Sumas owns and maintains a sewage collection and transmission system that includes gravity sewer lines and a small number of sewer lift stations. The Sumas system directs sewage to a discharge into the City of Abbottsford system in British Columbia, Canada. Treatment The City has an ongoing contract with the City of Abbotsford to receive and treat sewage collected in Sumas. This contract provides for the receipt and treatment of a maximum volume of 400,000 gallons per day through December 31, 2028. Discharges from the Sumas system are metered on a daily basis. A review of City records from February 2009 indicates that typical maximum effluent levels are approximately 270,000 gallons per day total. One-third of the City's total maximum daily discharge is generated by a single industrial customer. Using the conversion factor of 300 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU), the total contract amount equates to 1,333 ERUs. The available capacity of 130,000 gallons per day is equivalent to approximately 433 ERUs. Excluding the one large industrial customer, which generates the equivalent of 300 ERUs, leaves an available capacity of 1,033 ERUs for the remainder of the City. This available capacity equals a 72% increase over the current City typical maximum daily volume of 180,000 gallons per day or 600 ERUs (e.g., maximum daily volume without considering the single large industrial use). This CFP assumes a population increase from 1,279 to 2,080 along with a comparable level of employment, representing a 63% increase through 2029. On this basis it appears that Sumas has sufficient sewer service capacity to meet its needs through 2029. 16 239 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 mprovements and Financing All system extensions necessary to serve new development will be provided by developers. The City has recently completed a sewer lift station that was designed to be deep enough to receive gravity flows from all of the currently designated areas within the Sumas unincorporated UGA1. No additional major City - funded improvements to the sewer system are anticipated at this time. The Sumas Comprehensive Plan shows the locations of sewer main extensions necessary to serve new development in the Sumas UGA. Luke Whatcom Water and Sewer District (Formerly Water District 10) Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District includes areas within Bellingham's UGA and rural areas surrounding Lake Whatcom within its sewer service area. The district relies upon the City of Bellingham's sewer system for treatment capacity. As noted in Tables 46 and 47 above, the sewer district's contract with City of Bellingham provides adequate treatment capacity through both 2015 and 2029. The district plans sewer extensions to newly developing areas on an as -needed basis. The 2007 Lake Whatcom Sewer Plan identifies several future service extensions to serve vested developments, including a handful of vested lots located within the district's boundaries, but outside of the UGA. The 2007 Plan notes a number of collection system improvements, including upgrades to various district pumping stations. Water District 1:3 Water District 13; sex4n� provides sewer service to a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA_, is e��^yea existing of households by r 29, t 13 ill J 1 will need te address expeeted sewage eapaeivy issues based an this GFP's gfewfli pfE�eetjefis. The LUS analysis in Table 45 indicates that the District would experience a sewage treatment capacity surplus in 2015. The LUS analysis in table 46 indicates that the District would also experience a sewage treatment surplus in 2029. However. the District plans to make improvements to the wastewater treatment plant and other components ofthe system over the 20-year planning period ,Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, 2012, pp. 7-10 and 7-11). Evefgg eea Water and co,, of Distrie 49, The Columbia Valley Water District. which provides water service to a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA, currently does not provide sewer service. As noted in the Dfaft-Foothills Subarea Plan (May 201 1,1). 12-50etabeF -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 the Columbia Val ley Water Districfli-vef-gFeen Water- and Se • Dist, et 10 i Refers to the UGA approved by Whatcom County as of the 2004 County Comprehensive Plan. UGA boundaries have decreased with the 2009 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 17 240 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended version September 27, 2012 Sewer System Capital Projects and Financing Sewer providers have identified capital projects as noted in Table 48 below, broken down by service provider, to accommodate the future needs of sewer service in the County. Specific revenue sources are not identified for the non -County service providers included in Table 48 below. Sewer providers obtain their revenue from a variety of sources, including but not limited to service charges, connection fees, and grants, as noted at the beginning of this section. Table 48. Sewer Projects Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase 1 and 2 Improvements Cost 5,990 3,320 16,340 28,250 16,030 69,930 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&1 Improvements Cost 1,286 1,624 1,606 1,838 2,005 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 3,591 241 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Wastewater Treatment Plant — New Flow Split Structures Cost 103 103 Wastewater Treatment Plant — Upgrade Aerobic Digesters Cost 385 385 Wastewater Treatment Plant —Convert to Digestion Cost 309 309 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 19 242 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Wastewater Treatment Plant —Third New Oxidation Ditch Cost 1,978 1,978 Continue 16 and 18 inch force mains from Pump Station #3 to Pump Station #4 Cost 1,066 1,066 Increase Pump Station #2 Capacity Cost 2,850 2,850 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 359 359 243 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Modify pump station and 18" force main (#P-9) Cost 1,252 1,252 Increase Pump Station Capacity (#P-10) Cost 1,834 1,834 Construct submersible pump station north of Semiahmoo Drive near Semiahmoo Dr/Birch Pt Rd (#P-11) Cost 1,750 1,750 Construct submersible pump station west of Semiahmoo Drive (#P-12) Cost 638 638 Construct submersible pump station south of Hall/Blaine Rd. (#P-13) Cost 1,169 1,169 Construct submersible pump station south of Lincoln Rd and wet of Harbor View Rd. (#P-14) Cost 711 711 Construct submersible pump station at intersection of Harbor View Rd and Drayton Harbor (#P-15) Cost 1,775 1,775 244 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended 'version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Continue evaluation of sewer system (Collection-1) Cost 350 350 Install parallel gravity sewer between Pump Stations #5 and #4 (Collection-2) Cost 1,305 1,305 Install parallel gravity sewers between pump stations #6 and #5 (Collection-3) Cost 1,272 1,272 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 1,218 245 Exhibit C — 20-Fear CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Construct 10" sewer north of Birch Pt Rd to receive discharge from Pump Station A force main. (Collection- 8) Cost 891 891 Construct 18" sewer north of intersection of Semiahmoo Dr/Birch Point Rd north along Semiahmoo Dr. (Collection-9) Cost 1,000 1,000 Construct 15" sewer from Semiahmoo Dr/Birch Pt Rd north along Semiahmoo Dr. (Collection-10) Cost 1,410 1,410 Construct parallel 10" sewer and 8" sewer (Collection-11) Cost 288 288 Construct 24" parallel sewer beginning east of Birch Bay Drive/Alderson Rd east along Alderson Rd. (Collection-12) Cost 649 649 Construct 15" parallel sewer from west of Blaine Rd /Alderson Rd along Alderson Rd. (Collection- 13) Cost 576 576 246 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project CostslRevenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Construct 10" sewer from Birch Bay Dr/East Golf Course Dr east along East Golf Course Dr. — replace 8" sewer (Collection-14) Cost 367 367 Construct 18" parallel sewer from Harbor View Rd/Birch Bay Dr north along Harbor View Rd and associated construction (Collection-15) Cost 750 750 Construct 12" sewer beginning at Harbor View Rd. (Collection- 16) Cost 442 442 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 525 525 247 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Construct 10" sewer from north of Shintaffer/ Anderson Rds north to Lincoln Rd. (Collection- 20) Cost 545 545 Construct 18" sewer at intersection Drayton Harbor/Harbor View Rds. (Collection-21) Cost 1,126 1,126 Construct 12" sewer at Harbor View Rd/Drayton Harbor Rd northward (Collection-22) Cost 498 498 Construct 18" sewer from south of Blaine Rd/Birch Bay — Lynden Rd south along Blaine Rd (Collection-23) Cost 522 522 Construct 12" sewer from intersection of Blaine Rd/Arnie Rd, south along Blaine Rd (Collection-24) Cost 442 442 Construct 12" sewer beginning south of intersection of Blaine Rd/ Birch Bay-Lynden Rd east (Collection- 25) Cost 986 986 2r, Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Construct parallel 15" and 18" sewer (Collection-26) Cost 784 784 Construct parallel 10"12"and 15" sewer through Anchor Manor (Collection-27) Cost 960 960 Construct 10" sewer from Blaine Rd/Loomis Trail Rd north along Blaine Rd to Drayton Harbor Rd (Collection-28) Cost 990 990 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 60 249 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update (0-6) Cost 80 80 Water Reclamation Engineering Report (0-7) Cost 60 60 (timing TBD) Construct New Wastewater Treatment Facility for West Blaine or convey to Birch Bay (T-3) Cost 500 4,012 4,512 Proposed New Sewer Sub -Main Extensions (locations unspecified) (P-3 through P-5 & P- 8) Cost 860 860 Proposed new Sewer Sub -Main Extension along Jerome Street (P- 6) Cost 400 400 Proposed Sewer Sub -Main Extension along Harvey Road (P- 7) Cost 390 390 Proposed Sewer Sub -Main Extension along Old Mill Road (P- 9) Cost 380 380 27 250 General Planning, Telemetry and Programs Cost 25.0 278.1 217.5 5.5 5.6 635.2 1,166.9 Misc. and Maintenance Cost 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.6 99.0 125.6 Sewer Collection Projects Cost 887.5 903.9 554.3 426.6 401.7 6,738.9 9,912.9 Sewer Pump Station Projects Cost 95.0 566.5 1,060.9 437.1 562.8 3,710.6 6.342.9 Vehicle and Heavy Mobile Equipment Cost 55.0 20.6 21.2 21.9 61.9 756.0 936.6 Wastewater Treatment Plan Improvements Cost 97.0 453.2 461.5 92.9 377.0 5,916.4 7,398.0 Pump Station 3 & FM Cost 120 120 Pump Station 9 Cost 30 120 150 Pipe Replacements 28 251 Exhibit C — 20-Fear CFP (Severer) Planning Commission Recommended version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue (thousands $) 2010 2011 , 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 Total Cost 100 100 100 100 400 Infiltration/ Inflow Study Cost 100 100 Asset Management Update Cost 100 100 200 Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Study Cost 20 20 TV Pipe Inspection Cost 10 10 10 10 40 Treatment Outfall Improvements Cost 350 350 Biosolids Dryer Cost 80 160 2,060 2,300 Compost Screen Cost 100 100 New Front Loader Cost 150 150 Everson Treatment Plant Cost 76 76 Comprehensive Sewer Plan 3 Cost TBD No Projects Noted 29 252 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total 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 297 297 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 30 253 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total 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 `; i ,' 9ii� Ater 1�►tnt� •. BEN , �' '� 4'l 'i i g�R,� 1 _';s,� �,�f+�"f �"..�' a aiF.ii� , TTR �, Replace Influent Pump Station Equipment (WWTP) Cost 169 169 Replace Comminutor (WWTP) Cost 81 81 Install New Floating Surface Aerator (WWTP) Cost 18 18 Purchase Additional Drainfield Property Cost 40 40 Reserves for Annual Maintenance Fund 254 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 Total Cost 5 5 5 5 25 45 NW Service Area New Pipe Cost 347 347 NE Service Area New Pipe Cost 250 250 Easements for Existing Facilities Cost 10 10 Developer Extension Manual Cost 5 5 Easements for Future Facilities Cost 10 10 Infiltration and Inflow Study Cost 10 10 Discharge Permit: Required Studies Cost 20 20 10 50 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Cost 65 65 Reline Lagoon No. 2 (WWTP) Cost 98 98 Replace Influent Pump Station Force Main NWVTP) Cost 121 121 Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP Upgrade Cost 7,822 7.822 32 255 Exhibit C — 20-Year CFP (Sewer) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue 2016- (thousands $) 2010 20111 2012 2013 2014 2015 2029 Total Reline Laqoon No. 3 (WWTP) Cost 98 98 Refurbish Chlorination Equipment (WWTP) Cost 20 20 2nd Phase NW Service Area New Pipe Cost 809 809 2°0 Phase NE Service Area New Pipe Cost 1.617 1.617 1 Collection system improvements includes: remote wet weather facility and priority 1, 2, 3 collection system improvements. 2 City of Blaine 2005 Sewer System Plan. Note: Plan only shows projects in individual years from 2005-2010, and in a lumped group 2011-2025. All projects shown in 2011 are projects included in the 2011-2025 timeframe. 3 Source: Personal communication (email) from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. 4 See the City of Ferndale Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2011) for more detailed information on these projects. 5 No projects noted per personal communication (email) from Erin Osborn to Matt Aamot, July 14, 2009. 6 See the Water District No. 13 Comprehensive Server Plan (2012) for more detailed information on these proiectg-Ofater Dis# ^' 13 ^ 33 256 Exhibit D — 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection' Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Draft Exhibit D Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan Amendments (Fire Protection Provisions) NOTE: For brevity and ease in viewing the proposed changes, portions of the Whatcom County 20- Year Capital Facilities Plan that are not being modified by this ordinance are not shown below. The text and maps that are not shown below are retained as previously adopted. 257 Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Amend the "Executive Summary" of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows: Fire Protection Most fire districts in Whatcom County do not have their own adopted capital facility plans. In some cases, districts have recently been reorganized or consolidated into fire protection authorities. However, the cities of Bellingham and Lynden fire departments both have adopted capital facilities plans, and North Whatcom Fire and Rescue, Fire District 7 and Fire District 14 have recently adopted CFPs addressing their facility needs. Whatcom County adopted a level of service standard in 2011 based upon response times and fire ratings. There will necessarily be a transition period in which the County will work with the fire districts to develop or amend CFPs in accordance with the new county -wide LOS standards. For capital facility planning purposes, fire districts that have not yet developed or amended CFPs in accordance with the County's adopted LOS standards are evaluated under a square feet per emergency incident method of calculating LOS. The square feet per emergency incident method is utilized for fire protection LOS analysis in this CFP for fire districts that have not yet developed or updated their plans to address the county -wide LOS standards adopted by the County in 2011. Based upon information provided by the County Fire Marshal's Office, all fivesi* fire districts serving urban areas that were evaluated under the incident per square foot method are expecting to have a future deficit in capital facilities by 2029. Most fire districts serving rural areas are also expected to have capital facility deficits by 2029 based on this analysis. The exceptions are Fire District 18 and Fire District 5 both of which show small facility surpluses in 2029. The County adopted county -wide fire level of service standards based upon response times and fire ratings in 2011. The Fire District 7 and Fire District 14 CFPs werewas developed to meet the new LOS standards. The County may incorporate by reference fire district CFPs as they are adopted or amended in accordance with the new county -wide LOS standards. The Capital Facilities Implementation section of this CFP identifies measures that service providers without adopted or amended CFPs can take to address any identified deficiencies. NOTES: "CFP" means capital facilities plan and "LOS" means level of service. 258 Exhibit D — 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Amend the "Fire Protection " chapter of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) as follows: Fire Protection Overview The County is served by 15 different fire departments or districts, 13 of which serve unincorporated portions of the County: ■ City of Bellingham ■ Fire District 7 ■ Fire District 17 ■ City of Lynden ■ Fire District 8 ■ Fire District 18 ■ Fire District 1 ■ Fire District 11 ■ Glacier Fire District 19 ■ Fire District 4 ■ Fire District 14 ■ North Whatcom Fire and Rescue (Fire District 21) ■ Fire District 5 ■ Fire District 16 0 South Whatcom Fire Authority The cities of Bellingham and Lynden have their own fire departments. Fire District 7 serves the City of Ferndale and the Cherry Point UGA. North Whatcom Fire and Rescue (Fire District 21) serves the City of Blaine and the Birch Bay UGA. Fire District 14 serves the City of Sumas and the Columbia Valley UGA. Fire District 1 serves the cities of Everson and Nooksack. Each city and fire protection district is assigned a numeric fire protection rating (a Class 1 rating is considered best) by the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau. Insurance companies fund the Bureau to perform on -site inspections of fire districts to determine the rating. The Bureau analyzes five areas: average response time, water supply, communication network, schedule of fire inspections, and existing conditions of fire stations. Fire station evaluations focus on the age of vehicles, amount of personnel training, and whether the facilities are staffed or not. Insurance companies use the fire protection rating to help determine insurance rates on all fire insurance policies. Quality of fire service can have a significant impact on fire insurance rates with the greatest impact experienced by commercial occupancies. In addition to fire protection services, the agencies listed here provide responses to medical emergencies. In fact, EMS calls account for 75% of the responses by most fire protection agencies. A countywide 911 dispatch system is jointly operated by the City of Bellingham Fire and Police Departments and administered by a countywide governmental board called "What -Comm Administrative Board" (Boyd pers. comm.). 259 Exhibit D — 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection` Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Inventory of Current Facilities Table 74 summarizes the capital facilities for each fire district. It also includes each district's fire rating and service population. Unless otherwise stated, the 2008 population is based on estimates prepared for the CFP update process. Table 74. Fire Facilities Inventory Fire Protection Number Fire Fire Units 2 EMS Service Area Serves UGA Provider of Rating 1 Services Population (Y/N) Stations (Y/N) (2008) City of Bellingham 8 3 3 22 Y 78,500 Y City of Lynden 1 5 6 Y 11,350 Y North Whatcom Fire & 104 N/A 32 Y 28,2465 Y Rescue (District 21) Fire District 1 2 8T 6 107 Y 8,460 Y Fire District 4 3 6 13 Y 8,60 06 Y Fire District 5 2 6 6 Y 1,370 N Fire District 7 6 6/5 9 24 Y 19,530 Y Fire District 8 4 N/A N/A Y 6,240 Y Fire District 11 1 8 5 Y 1,610 N Fire District 14 3 6-101.06 224-5 Y 9_8307-,��4 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 11 South Whatcom Fire 6 N/A 12 26 Y 13,00013 Y Authority N/A = Not Available; Y/N = Yes or No 1 Fire rating is based upon the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau WSRB . Insurance companies use the Bureau's ratings to help determine insurance rates on all fire insurance policies. 2 Fire units include fire and/or emergency response units such as fire engines, water tenders, and medic units. 3 Two of the 8 stations are medic stations that serve unincorporated areas of the County, one serving northwest and the other north and east of the Bellingham city limits. Station 1 also houses the countywide fire/EMS dispatch center. (Boyd, Bill, Fir a 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 The WSRB ratings vary within Fire District 14 from 6 (in Sumas) to 10 (in outlying areas), depending on location and type of structure. 11 Although Glacier Fire District 19 does not specifically serve the Columbia Valley UGA, it is part of a mutual aid agreement that would provide back-up to Fire District 14 which does include the Columbia Valley UGA within its service area. 4 260 Exhibit D — 20-Year UP Amendments (Fire Protection` Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 20i2 12 At time of inventory, the South Whatcom Fire Authority has not received a rating for the whole agency. Agency was formed in January 2009. Currently, Geneva and Sudden Valley communities are rated Class 5; Yew Street Road and Chuckanut Drive areas are rated a Class 6; and the Lake Samish Area is rated Class 8. 13 Personal communication, Email from Bill Hewitt to Matt Aamot, on March 10, 2009. Source: Individual district plans and district communications with County staff. Level of Service Capacity Analysis Methods that can be used to determine LOS for fire districts include square feet per emergency incident, response time and fire ratings. Whatcom County adopted a LOS standard tied to response time and fire ratings in 2011. Fire district capital facility plans submitted in 2011 or later will be reviewed against the new county -wide LOS standards. For capital facility planning purposes, a method that ties fire and EMS response incidents to projected population, employment, and/or land use (square feet per incident) is being utilized for fire districts until they develop new capital facility plans that meet the adopted County LOS standard. Whatcom County will consider adoption of fire district capital facility plans by reference into the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, as they are approved by the districts. Square Feet per Incident This Capital Facilities Plan will rely on analysis based on a square feet per incident for fire districts that have not yet adopted or revised their capital facility plans to meet the County LOS standard. The methodology in the plan is based upon review of records received from the Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office for Fire Districts. These records include 2008 existing square feet of fire district facilities, and calls for fire and aid service for the years 2006-2008 were used to provide average annual calls for service per district. This information and a LOS methodology are outlined in Table 75 below. A review of the Fire District LOS analysis provided in Table 76a below indicates that all districts serving urban growth areas that were evaluated under the square feet per incident method would have a fire facility deficit by 2029, if new facilities were not added. 261 Exhibit D — 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Table 75. Level of Service Standard for Fire Districts: Square Feet per Incident Fire District Total Facility Size (2008) (Square Feet) Average Annual Calls For Fire and Aid Service (2006-2008) Square Feet Per Incident to � Fire District 1 17,008 682.3 24.93 Fire District 4 25,314 531.3 47.64 Fire District 8 28,460 1,025.3 27.76 For h;tr6G 4 19,499 7-47-.0 2463 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue 72,422 2,362.3 30.66' South Whatcom Fire Authority 35,418 734 48.25 N Fire District 5 8,250 134.0 61.57 Fire District 11 4,200 60.67 69.23 Fire District 16 9,100 121.3 75.0 Fire District 17 6,892 89.7 76.86 Fire District 18 5,400 118.7 45.51 Fire District 19 3,600 84.0 42.86 1 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue prepared a draft capital Facilities Plan (undated) that was reviewed and evaluated as part of the preparation of the Capital Facilities Plan. This undated version of the District's draft CFP included a square foot per incident measurement as one of many factors reviewed in evaluating the District's ability to respond to emergency incidents, whether fire or medical (Square feet per incident for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue was listed as 35.64 in the undated draft). Since that time, North Whatcom Fire and Rescue has prepared and adopted an updated Capital Facilities Plan (dated August 15, 2009) which does not utilize a square footage per incident analysis. The updated methodology relies on response time and fire station geographic coverage to arrive at a number of stations and apparatus needed to maintain recent ratios to existing development. Most fire districts in Whatcom County do not currently have this information. For this reason, and to ensure consistency of analysis, the North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Square Feet per Incident in Table 75 utilizes the information obtained from the Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office. Source: Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office, Warner Webb, email to Matt Aamot, April 23, 2009. Table 76a indicates that all fire districts serving urban growth areas that were evaluated under the square feet per incident method are projected to experience deficits in 2029. With the exception of Fire District 4, all fire districts serving urban areas also have higher fire facility deficits than their rural counterparts in 2029. All rural fire districts, with the exception of Fire Districts 5, and 18 are expected to have facility deficits in 2029. All fire districts can reduce these anticipated fire facility deficits with capital facility projects that maintain or replace facilities and equipment in the 2009-2029 planning period. Response Time/Fire Rating Whatcom County adopted the following level of service standards in 2011: Urban levels of service for fire protection shall be a response time of 8 minutes 80% of the time when the department covering the urban area has staffed the fire station. When the fire station is not staffed the response time shall be 10 minutes 80% of the time, or a W SRB Rating of a 6. 6 262 Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Rural levels of service for fire protection shall be a response time of 12 minutes 80% of the time when the department covering the urban area has staffed the fire station. When the fire station is not staffed the response time shall be 14 minutes 80% of the time, or a WSRB Rating of an 8. Staffed stations shall be a fire station that is staffed 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year. Staff may be paid, volunteer, or combination of the two. There will necessarily be a transition period in which the County will work with fire districts to develop capital facility plans that meet the adopted LOS standards. Fire district capital facility plans that have been developed utilizing the County LOS are shown in Table 76b below. Table 76a. Fire District Level of Service Analysis -Square Feet Per Incident' 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 (2006-20088) capita (2008) (Square Feet) Incident Feet of Facilities WIN' 'P,��."2. �€ u�.. £k ✓,;90"' S.s G<.,. 1 � id: �l 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 8 1,025.3 0.17 28,460 27.76 (8,421) Fire Distr r4 14 4 777.0 9-.97- 4 8.4 QQ 24.63 (4,369) North Whatcom 2,362.3 0.102 72,422 30.66 3 (37,498) 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 Fire District 11 60.67 0.04 4,200 69.23 (1,164) Fire District 16 121.3 0.12 9,100 75.0 (1,853) Fire District 17 89.7 0.06 6,892 76.86 (2,865) Fire District 18 118.7 0.05 5,400 45.51 85 Fire District 19 84.0 0.05 3,600 42.86 (380) 1 Fire districts that have not developed capital facility plans that incorporate the county -wide level of service standard for fire protection, adopted in 2011, are included in Table 76a. The steps used to calculate the results are as follows: a) Determine incidents per capita: Average calls for service 2006-2008 supplied by Whatcom County Fire Marshal / 2008 estimated population (Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 10-Year Urban Growth Area Review, May 2009, Appendix D) b) Determine square feet per incident: Current square footage of fire stations supplied by Whatcom County Fire Marshal / Average calls for service 2006-2008 c) Calculate 2029 incidents: Future 2029 population of each district (Appendix D) x incidents per capita d) Calculate square footage required: 2029 estimated incidents x Square feet per incident e) Compare to square footage available: 2008 inventory of fire station square footage supplied by Whatcom County Fire Marshal 0 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 7 263 Exhibit D — 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection` Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 the CFP analysis indicate a lower population including Blaine of 23,570. If assuming the higher population, the incident per capita would be 0.08. For a conservative analysis the higher 0.10 rate was applied to the future growth numbers. If using the Districts 2008 population as a base and the net increase of each alternative, the results would be 15% lower than the square footage estimates above. 3 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue prepared a draft Capital Facilities Plan (undated) that was reviewed and evaluated as part of the preparation of the Capital Facilities Plan. This undated version of the District's draft CFP included a square foot per incident measurement as one of many factors reviewed in evaluating the District's ability to respond to emergency incidents, whether fire or medical (Square feet per incident for North Whatcom Fire and Rescue was listed as 35.64 in the undated draft). Since that time, North 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 10 ensure consistency of analysis, the North Whatcom Fire and Rescue Square Feet Per Incident in Tables 75 and 76 utilizes the information obtained from the Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office. 4 If using these Districts own 2008 population estimates, the incidents per capita would be higher (incidents per capita divided by smaller population). The facility deficits would be approximately 16% higher for Fire District 4, 28% higher °nr ripe DistFiet' ^, and 6% higher for the South Whatcom Fire Authority. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes, Berk & Associates, and Whatcom County Fire Marshal's Office (2008). Table 76b. Fire District Level of Service Analysis — Response Time/Fire Rating' WSRB Rating Response Time Meets Fire District Standard Standard Adopted LOS? Fire District 7 6 for the 8 minutes 80% of the Yes2 Cherry Point UGA time for the Ferndale UGA Fire District 14 6 for UGAs and 10 minutes 80% of 8 for rural areas the time for the Yes3 Columbia Valley & Sumas UGAs and 14 minutes 80% of the time for rural areas 1 Fire districts that have developed capital facility plans that incorporate the county -wide level of service for fire protection, adopted in May 2011, are included in Table 76b. 2 Table 74 and Whatcom County Fire District No. 7 Capital Facility Plan 2011-2029. 3 Table 74 and Whatcom County Fire District # 14 Capital Facilities Plan (2012). Capital Projects and Funding Ui pittti Pi-oject Funding City Fire Departments and Regional Fire Districts usually fund needed capital improvements through a combination of revenue sources. These can include General Fund revenues, excess property tax levies, sales taxes, capital bonds, fire benefit charges, and fire impact fees. The State of Washington authorizes cities and regional fire districts to levy both "regular" and "special" property taxes to support their operational and capital needs. As part of the regular property tax levy, a fire service provider is authorized to levy a property tax at a total maximum rate of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value. However, the total maximum aggregate "regular" property tax levy by all taxing agencies in an area may not exceed $5.60.Occasionally, all local levies will total more than this limit. In this case, "junior" taxing districts, including fire districts, must follow state statute to lower their levy rate so that the total aggregate rate does not exceed the statutory limit, Fire districts may also pass "special" property tax levies for short-term periods without a statutory maximum levy limit. 264 Exhibit © - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 An Emergency Medical Service property tax may be levied at a total maximum rate of $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed value. This levy must pass by at least 60% of the vote and must be renewed every six years. These funds can be charged by city fire departments, but not by fire districts. Fire impact fees may be collected on new residential and commercial development to fund facility improvements necessary to serve that development. These fees WO USHallyshagged ^ call pet:eentage4mw,.AdditionaI comments on capital funding strategies of note are discussed below: ■ Bellingham Fire Department - The Bellingham Fire Department receives capital dollars from the Medic One Fund, which is funded by a 1% sales tax that can be used for operations or capital; from the first 0.25% of Real Estate Excise Taxes, and from general fund revenues. ■ Lynden Fire Department - The City of Lynden Fire Department receives capital funding from the general fund and from impact fees. Impact fees for the fire department are project driven, and are expected to pay a set portion of the costs of needed expansion due to growth. Capital Projects Capital projects for the Bellingham Fire Department, Lynden Fire Department, North Whatcom Fire and Rescue (which serves the Birch Bay and Blaine UGAs), Fire District 7 and Fire District 14 are provided below. The following fire districts do not have approved capital facility plans: ■ Fire District I (serving the Everson and Nooksack UGAs). As these districts approve capital facility plans, they will be incorporated by reference into the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Table 77. Fire District/Department Capital Projects Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- Total Costs/Revenue 2029 (thousands $) Boat House Cost 150 150 Revenue REET (1st Quarter) 150 150 Classroom/Office Cost 1,000 1,000 Revenue REET (1st Quarter) 1,000 1,000 Broadway Fire Station Upstairs Carpet Cost 9 9 Revenue REET (1st Quarter) 9 9 Cardiac Monitor/ 9 265 Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments ;Fire Protection; Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 Total Defibrilator Cost 24 24 Revenue Medic 1 Fund 24 24 Field Computers Cost 11 12 23 Revenue Medic 1 Fund 11 12 23 Medic Unit Cost 158 158 Revenue Medic 1 Fund 158 158 Rechassis Medic Unit Cost 111 111 Revenue Medic 1 Fund 111 111 Thermal Imaging Camera Cost 12 12 24 Revenue General Fund 12 12 I 24 �� 1 AREu P �; �j( »� Ladder Truck Purchase Cost 950 950 Fire Station Remodel - Sleeper Cost 380 380 New Ambulance Cost 130 130 New Pumper Truck Cost 600 600 New Station A with engine and aid vehicle (location TBD, but 14 266 Exhibit D — 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 Total likely northwest area of district) Cost 5,723.1 New Station B 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 Skin Replacement Cost 121.8 Station 68 Seismic Upgrade Cost 223.8 Station 68 Site Paving Overlay Cost 97.5 Station 69 Seismic Upgrade 267 Exhibit D — 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection` Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project CostslRevenue (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 Total Cost 279.9 Station 69 Site Paving Overlay Cost 126.2 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 eO"M"lY.- New Maintenance Vehicle �'.k,, r3*' ' �x_R E�•a `Ef' s. Cost 40 40 Reserves 40 40 New Medic Unit Cost 150 150 Reserves 150 150 New Tender Cost 320 320 Reserves 320 320 Finalize Short Plat Cost 35 35 Property Tax Funds 35 35 Station 43 - Carpet & Repairs Cost 50 50 Reserves 50 50 Station 45 - New Water Service Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project CostslRevenue (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 Total Cost 25 25 Property Tax Funds 25 25 New Staff Vehicle Cost 40 40 Reserves 40 40 Refurbish Medic Unit Cost 75 75 Reserves 75 75 Station 42 - Remodel Cost 1,500 1,500 Voted Bond Issue or impact fees 1,500 1,500 New Staff Vehicle Cost 40 40 Property Tax Funds 40 40 New Engine Unit Cost 375 375 Reserves 375 375 Replace Two Engines Cost 900 900 Reserves 900 900 Station 44 - Improvements Cost 300 300 Reserves 300 300 Station 2 - Fiber Connection Cost 30 30 Reserves 30 30 Station 42 - Remodel Cost 108 108 269 Exhibit D — 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 Total Reserves 108 108 Station 44 — Fiber Connection Cost 35 35 Station 43 — Improvements Cost 77 77 New Ambulance Unit Cost 165 165 Data Terminals for Apparatus and Stations Cost 90 90 Department Training Center Cost 2,000 2,000 Station 45 — Improvements Cost 245 245 Station 46 — Improvements Cost 75 75 Station 41 — Support Facility Cost 500 500 Sumas Land Payment Cost 13.2 13.2 13.2 1 13.2 184.8 237.6 Replace Tender 93 Cost 200 200 Replace Command Vehicle Cost 20 20 Replace Ambulance Cost 125 125 14 270 Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments !Fire Protection` Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 Total New Command Vehicle Cost 45 45 Columbia Valley Station Cost 945 945 Equipment Cost 11.5 11.5 New Fire Engine Cost 450 450 New Ambulance Cost 125 125 Air Station Cost 40 40 Kendall Station Addition Cost 380.475 380.475 Replace Ambulance Cost 125 125 Replace Command Vehicle Cost 45 45 Replace Fire Engine Cost 250 250 Replace Tender Cost 300 300 Refurbish Fire Engine Cost 50 50 Sumas Station Architectural & Engineerinq costs Cost 207 207 Tondp.r Q�_n Re. laGeMeRt 271 Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments 'Fire Protection` Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 Total G85t 249 Tender 93 Rep ;# am (VchiGl ) cost 240 Ren/�� SBst 440 T-e-AderW Ren^9plaeern # (V C aSt 249 Utility 91 R�Ren;+ GGet 49 Utility 93 R/`e'plaserAEN# (T Goat 49 Aid 91 02 (°9''� Q4t 4-55 ERgine Ren^-cpla Ge e4# >98t v�d Utility (V9hiG'e) G8st 49 #Rep!aeeFneat west 440 Aid-9c3 �Ast 450 a 9� 272 Exhibit D - 20-Year CFP Amendments (Fire Protection) Planning Commission Recommended Version September 27, 2012 Project Costs/Revenue (thousands $) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2029 Total (V best 4146 Aid 94 Replaeoe„e+ SesE 4aa deader--91 (VehiGle) SASE 2-Q 249 gRgiRe 93 ReplaGennaf# SASE 3a9 3a9 G @i 93 oe •' e-Rt ( ) SASE 40 40 ERgine 2 (VehiGle) SASE 350 3W Wtial A#26k-93 oti P aGeMeA (de) SesE 449 44G 1 Specific revenue sources in Table 77 are only provided where identified within the service provider's individual plans. 2 City of Bellingham 2008 Adopted Budget includes Fire Department projects through 2013, while the City of Bellingham Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities element (Chapter 5) only include fire department projects through 2011 _ Locations are not provided for projects- 3 City of Lynden Fire Department 2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan shows projects through 2014. Locations are not provided for projects. 4 North Whatcom Fire and Rescue's August 15, 2009 Capital Facilities Plan identifies cost but does not identify year of funding. Therefore, all project costs are noted only in the Total column. Locations are not provided for new stations, and locations of projects at existing stations are associated with the station number per August 15, 2009 Capital Facilities Plan (page 25). 5 rare Pustriet ! 4's September 2009 Capital PSGI.1it"AS PIaR id-P-Atifies Gest but does RGt identify year Of fWRdiRq fer all Veh'Gle FelplaeemeRtS. TheFefeFe, pFejeGt Gests that de Rat have a speG& date aSSOGiated Wth them ep aFe, rhev.�R 21; OVINAGII-IP 2FP AGN-d eRly ill the Tetal nL FRR (Fire. Dist FiGt 14 Gapital FaGilitiec_Dlan September 2009 Fig a 2) 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 7: Whatcom County Fire District No. 7 Capital Facility Plan 2011-2029 (May 2011) For Fire District 14: Whatcom County Fire District # 14 Capital Facilities Plan (2012)FiFe and EMS (`apit .l FaGil t eo Plan pFepaFed by Reef 273 File # PLN2012-00004 September 27, 2012 Capital Facility Planning for the East County Planning Commission Recommendations, Page l WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Capital Facility Planning for the East County FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. The subject amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan are as follows: a. Amending the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4 Capital Facilities, to adopt the Water District 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan by reference, and make related changes. b. Amending the Foothills Subarea Plan to acknowledge that the Water District 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan have been updated, and make related changes. c. Amending the sewer provisions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan. d. Amending the fire protection provisions of the Whatcom County 20- Year Capital Facilities Plan. 2. A determination of non -significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on May 14, 2012. 3. Whatcom County Fire District 14 Commissioners adopted the Capital Facilities Plan on July 16, 2012. 4. Whatcom County Water District 13 Commissioners adopted the Comprehensive Sewer Plan on August 28, 2012. 5. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and the proposal to amend the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan was posted on the County website on August 21, 2012. 6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to the City of Sumas and citizen, media and other groups on the County's e-mail list on August 22, 2012. 7. Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on September 4, 2012. 274 File # PLN2012-00004 September 27, 2012 Capital Facility Planning for the East County Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 2 8. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendments was published in the Bellingham Herald on September 14, 2012. 9. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendments on September 27, 2012. 10. Pursuant to WCC 2.160.080, in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendments the County must find all of the following: a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. b. Further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate changed conditions that show need for the amendment. c. The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: i. The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. ii. The anticipated effect on the ability of the county and/or other service providers, such as cities, schools, water and/or sewer purveyors, fire districts, and others as applicable, to provide adequate services and public facilities including transportation facilities. iii. Anticipated impact upon designated agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands. d. The amendment does not include. or facilitate spot zoning. e. Urban growth area amendments that propose the expansion of an urban growth area boundary are required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR sending area, with certain exceptions. 2 275 File # PLN2012-00004 September 27, 2012 Capital Facility Planning for the East County Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 3 Growth Management Act 11. The Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 to guide adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. 12. GMA Planning Goal 1 is to "Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner" (RCW 36.70A.020(1)). 13. GMA Planning Goal 12 is to "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards" (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). 14. The subject amendments include updating Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Water District 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The District serves a portion of the Columbia Valley UGA. The sewer plan supports planned urban growth in the Columbia Valley UGA. 15. The subject amendments include updating Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan. The Fire District serves the Sumas UGA, Columbia Valley UGA and surrounding areas. The capital facilities plan supports planned urban growth in the Sumas UGA and Columbia Valley UGA. It also plans rural levels of service for areas outside the UGAs. 16. The GMA, at RCW 36.70A.070(3), requires that a comprehensive plan must include a capital facilities plan element consisting of: a. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. b. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. c. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. d. At least a six -year plan that will projected funding capacities any money for such purposes. finance such capital facilities within clearly identifies sources of public e. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. 276 File # PLN2012-00004 September 27, 2012 Capital Facility Planning for the East County Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 4 17. With regard to UGAs, the Growth Management Hearings Board has held that RCW 36.70A.070(3) and RCW 36.70A.110(3), when read together, obligate counties and cities to include in the comprehensive plan's capital facilities element the proposed locations, capacities; and funding for the 20-year planning period covered by the comprehensive plan (Skagit County Growthwatch v. Skagit County, Case No. 07-2-0002, FDO at p. 17, Aug. 6, 2007). 18. The sewer plan and fire capital facilities plan contain inventories, forecasts of future needs, proposed capital facilities, and financing plans as required by the GMA. County -Wide Planning Policies 19. County -Wide Planning Policy E-4 states "The County shall assure that there are plans to provide appropriate levels of urban facilities and services within non -city Urban Growth Areas. These plans should be developed by special purpose districts ..." 20. The Columbia Valley UGA is not associated with a city. The Water District 13 Comprehensive Sewer Plan has been formulated to provide sanitary sewer service to the portion of the Columbia Valley UGA within the District's service area. 21. County -Wide Planning Policy D-1 states "... The small cities shall do appropriate planning to ensure adequate distribution of land uses and services at a range of urban densities and zoning classifications." 22. The Sumas City Planner has participated in process of developing the Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan, which serves the City of Sumas and its associated UGA. 23. The Fire District 14 Capital Facility Plan has been formulated to provide urban levels of service to both the Columbia Valley UGA and the Sumas UGA. Interlocal Agreements 24. An interlocal agreement between the City of Sumas and Whatcom County concerning Planning, Annexation and Development within the Sumas UGA was signed in April 2012. 25. There are no provisions in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan amendments that are inconsistent with this interlocal agreement. El 277 File # PLN2012-00004 September 27, 2012 Capital Facility Planning for the East County Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 5 Further Studies/Changed Conditions 26. The Foothills Subarea Plan was adopted in May 2011. Foothills Subarea Plan Policy U1-D, in Chapter 5, is to "Encourage and facilitate completion of capital facilities planning by special districts, which serve the [Columbia Valley] UGA, by 2012." 27. Water District 13 and Fire District 14 have studied facilities needed to serve existing and planned development and have formulated new capital facility plans. 28. Further study and formulation of capital facility plans by Water District 13 and Fire District 14 constitute changed conditions that warrant amendments to the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. Public Interest 29. The comprehensive plan amendments will serve the public interest by adopting sewer and fire protection capital facility plans to serve planned growth in the eastern portion of Whatcom County. These special purpose district plans are consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, will enhance provision of public facilities and services, and will not harm resource lands. Spot Zoning 30. The subject proposal does not involve rezoning property. CONCLUSIONS 1. The subject comprehensive plan amendments comply with the provisions of the Growth Management Act. 2. The subject comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the approval criteria of WCC 2.160.080. 278 File # PLN2012-00004 September 27, 2012 Capital Facility Planning for the East County Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Whatcom County Planning Commission recommends approval of: 1. Exhibit A, amendments to Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 (Capital Facilities). 2. Exhibit B, amendments to the Foothills Subarea Plan. 3. Exhibit C, amendments to the sewer provisions of the Whatcom County 20- Year Capital Facilities Plan (Appendix E of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan). 4. Exhibit D, amendments to the fire protection provisions of the Whatcom County 20-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Appendix E of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan). WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Luke, Chair In. 4- 11 Date Sam Ryan, SeCretary /d - 9 -/ i-- Date Commissioners present at the September 27, 2012 meeting when the vote was taken: Ken Bell, Ben Elenbaas, Rod Erickson, John Lesow, Michelle Luke, David Onkels, Jeff Rainey, and Mary Beth Teigrob. Vote: Ayes: 8, Nays: 0, Abstain: 0, Absent: 1. Motion carried to adopt the above amendments. 0 279 NOTE: Exhibits A-D, which were recommended by the Planning Commission, are attached to the proposed Ordinance to be considered by the County Council in order to avoid redundancy. I 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 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 27, 2012 Regular Meeting Call To Order: The meeting was called to order, by Whatcom County Planning Commission Chair, Michelle Luke, in the Northwest Annex Conference Room at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Michelle Luke, John Lesow, Ken Bell, Rod Erickson, David Onkels, Jeff Rainey, Mary Beth Teigrob. Ben Elenbaas in attendance at 6:40 p.m. Absent: Gary Honcoop, Staff Present: Sam Ryan, Mark Personius, Matt Aamot, Becky Boxx Department Update Sam Ryan introduced Mark Personius, the new Long Range Planning Division Manager. Mark gave an overview of upcoming events at Council, the Rural Element hearing and items that will be coming to the Planning Commission by the end of the year. Open Session for Public Comment Greg Brown, Whatcom County: Commented on the performance by the staff and legal council at the September 25th County Council meeting regarding slaughterhouses. He hopes that the events that took place never happen again, as it was quite embarrassing. It appeared legal staff did not know what was going on. Commissioner Comments There were no Commissioner comments. Approval of Minutes of August 9, 2012 Lesow made the following change to page 3, line 10-11 to read: Nays-Elenbaas, Erickson, Honcoop, Lesew, Luke Onkels, Teigrob...... Lesow moved to approve as amended. Erickson seconded. The motion carried. Public Hearing File #PLN2012-00004: Amending Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan provisions relating to capital facility planning in the eastern portion of the County. Amendments include adopting by reference and incorporating information from an updated sewer plan serving the Columbia Valley Urban Growth Area (UGA) and a fire capital facilities plan serving the Columbia Valley UGA, Sumas UGA and surrounding areas. Matt Aamot gave a power point presentation which reviewed the following: • The Growth Management Act (GMA) states "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development". • Comprehensive plans must contain a capital facilities element. This must include: o An inventory of existing capital facilities. o Forecast of future needs. 281 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 27, 2012 Regular Meetin 1 o Proposed new or expanded facilities. 2 o A financing plan. 3 The County Comprehensive Plan -Goal 4H states: "Coordinate with non -county 4 facility providers such as cities and special purpose districts to support the future 5 land use pattern promoted by this plan". 6 o Regarding the Fire District 14 plan, there was a committee that worked to 7 develop the draft Capital Facilities Plan, which consisted of a fire district 8 commissioner, the fire district chief, a land owner/developer, a former 9 member of the Foothills Subarea Plan Advisory Committee, the Sumas City 10 Planner, and County staff. 11 The Foothills Subarea Plan -Policy U1-D states: "Encourage and facilitate completion 12 of capital facilities planning by special district, which serve the Columbia Valley 13 UGA, by 2012". 14 • The Water District 13 sewer plan was adopted, by the district, in August 2012. 15 o The district has 2 wells and 4 monitoring wells. 16 o The system was built in 1976-1977. There are 379 connections. 17 • The Fire District 14 plan was approved, by the district, in July 2012. 18 o There are stations in Sumas, Kendall, and Welcome. 19 o In the future plans are a Columbia Valley Satellite station, sleeping quarters 20 at the Kendall Station, and a new Sumas station in approximately 20 years. 21 • Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are: 22 o Adopt the Water District 13 Sewer Plan by reference. 23 o Adopt the Fire District 14 Capital Facilities Plan by reference. 24 o Delete the statement that impact fees are not available for fire districts. 25 • Proposed Foothills Subarea Plan amendments are: 26 o Indicate that the Water District 13 Sewer Plan has been updated. 27 o Indicate that the Fire District 14 plan has been updated. 28 • Proposed amendments to the County 20 year CFP are: 29 o Acknowledge the Water District 13 Sewer plan to include the inventory of 30 existing facilities and future projects. 31 o Acknowledge the Fire District 14 plan to include the inventory of existing 32 facilities and future projects. 33 34 Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. 35 36 The hearing was opened to the public. 37 38 Rob Roy Graham, Whatcom County: Fire District 14 Commissioner. On behalf of the Fire 39 Commissioners he thanked the group of individuals that worked on the Capital Facilities 40 Plan for the district. In particular he thanked Jack Hovenier and Lou Piotrowski. Every 41 investment the district anticipates making was broken down reflecting the impact of the 42 development opposed to normal district requirements. Every attempt was made to make 43 the requested voluntary impact fee truly represent the impact the development will have 44 on the district. The district has an annual budget, based on 2011 figures, of $530,933.00 45 per year. It is a struggle to maintain three stations on this amount. Recruitment of 46 volunteers continues to be a struggle. An impact fee will help with some of the staffing 47 needs. If normal revenue and impact fees are inadequate the district will turn to other 48 revenue sources including raising the levy rate. 282 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 27, 2012 Regular Meeting 1 Carole McDonald, Whatcom County: Was a member of the Fire District 14 planning 2 committee. She applauded the fire district committee for their hard work. 3 4 Lou Piotrowski, Whatcom County: Named the members of the Fire District 14 committee. 5 Rob Roy Graham, Fire Chief Jerry DeBruin, Whatcom County Fire Marshall -Warner Webb, 6 Jack Hovenier, Rollin Harper -City of Sumas Planner, Matt Aamot-PDS, Wain Harrison-PDS, 7 Denise Christenson -Fire District 14, Angie Cain -Fire District Office Commissioner, Sarah 8 Watt-PDS, Sam Ryan-PDS. He thanked them for their work. 9 10 Blair Murray, Whatcom County: Thanked the Fire District 14 committee for their work. 11 Noticed the per square foot fee for commercial areas. Would like the Commission to 12 discuss whether the fee will prohibit industrial or commercial development which is 13 needed in the Columbia Valley. 14 15 Richard Banel, Whatcom County: Thanked the Fire District 14 committee for their work. 16 17 Jack Hovenier, Whatcom County: Stated he was an intervener in the Urban Growth Area 18 lawsuit as was Fire District 14. It was basically around the issues of capital facilities and 19 fire issues. Because of the legal happenings he and his partner were not able to develop 20 their property. The lawsuits were dropped. Over a three year period there is now a 21 reasonable plan in place. It considers my needs as a developer as well as the community's 22 needs. Asked the Commission to support the plan. 23 24 The hearing was closed to the public. 25 26 Work Session 27 28 Onkels moved to approve Exhibit A. Lesow seconded. The motion carried. 29 30 Onkels moved to approve Exhibit B. Lesow seconded. The motion carried. 31 32 Onkels moved to approve Exhibit C. Lesow seconded. The motion carried. 33 34 Onkels moved to approve Exhibit D. Bell seconded. The motion carried. 35 36 Lesow moved to recommend approval of the staff report and the findings of 37 facts. 38 Bell seconded. 39 Roll Call Vote: Ayes — Bell, Teigrob, Onkels, Luke, Lesow, Erickson, Rainey, 40 Elenbaas; Nays — 0; Abstain — 0; Absent — Honcoop. The motion carried. 41 42 Public Hearing 43 44 File #PLN2012-00005: Amending Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Policy 2Q-3 and 45 Land Use Action Plan item # 28. These Comprehensive Plan provisions indicate that the 46 County is to establish interlocal agreements with service providers, including water and 47 sewer districts, serving unincorporated urban growth areas. The proposal would amend 48 these provisions to establish such interlocal agreements only if appropriate. 283 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 September 27, 2012 Regular Meeting Matt Aamot presented the staff report. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains a policy and action item indicating that the County should have interlocal agreements with service providers that serve unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). The amendments would apply to Comprehensive Plan Policy 2Q-3, which applies to Birch Bay and the Columbia Valley UGAs. The other amendment would apply to Land Use Action Plan #28 which applies to Birch Bay, Columbia Valley and Cherry Point UGAs. The GMA already requires capital facility planning so the County is incorporating, by reference, water, sewer and fire plans for unincorporated UGAs rather than have the County develop the interlocals. Interlocal agreements must be mutually agreed upon so the County is proposing that they will be incorporated when appropriate. Staff recommends approval. The hearing was opened to the public. Kathy Berg, Whatcom County: Urged the Commission to approve the staff recommendations. The hearing was closed to the public. Bell moved to recommend approval of the staff report, exhibit A and findings of fact. Teigrob seconded. Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote: Ayes — Bell, Teigrob, Onkels, Luke, Lesow, Erickson, Rainey, Elenbaas; Nays — 0; Abstain — 0; Absent — Honcoop. The motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Minutes prepared by B. Boxx. WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Michelle Luke, Chair J.E. "Sam" Ryan, Secretary NO WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-01 s - CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council O zce Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: A 10124112 E C E MED OCT 3 0 2012 W H ATC O M COUNTY COUNCIL 1117172 SessiExecutive Session Division Head.' Dept. (lead: Prosecutor: Purchasing/Budget: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Discussion on potential property acquisition. 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.) Discuss potential property acquisition with County Executive Jack Louws and Sheriff Bill Elfo. 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 285 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL No. AB2012-018 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: hZ EC En p n 11 jj U V EDDivision OCT 3 0 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 11-7-12 WN/Executive Session Head: /'9`o7S1t Z Dept Head: a Prosecutor- �U�Z Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Discussion regarding potential property acquisition for the Flood Control Zone District ATTACHMENTS: None SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) 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.) COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.waus/council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL No. AB2012-342 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: AD 10/22/72 G[C �MCDDivision OCT 3 0, 2012 11/7/12 Council Head: 1022/I2 Dept. Head: jA�D� Prosecutor: WHATCOM COUNTY ICOUNCIL Purchasin /Bud et: Executive: TITLE OF DO MENT.• Behavioral Revenue Advisory Committee 2012 third quarterly report to County Council ATTACHMENTS: Memo to Executive, Nurse -Family Partnership Information Sheet, Summary of Benefits and Costs Table SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes (X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) Behavioral Revenue Advisory Committee 2012 third quarterly report to County Council. 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 287 WHATCOM COUNTY Health Department Leading the community in promoting health and preventing disease. Memorandum TO: Jack louws, Executive FROM: Jack Hovenier, BHRAC Chair DATE: October 25, 2012 Regina A. Delahunt D i recto r Greg Stern, M.D. Health Officer RECEIVED OCT 25 2012 JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE RE: Third Quarterly Report to County Council from the Behavioral Health Revenue Advisory Committee (BHRAC) On November 7th, the Behavioral Health Revenue Advisory Committee will present its quarterly report of the Behavioral Health Fund, collected by the 1/10th of 1 % sales tax, to the County Council. The focus of this quarter's report is on two programs soon to be initiated that are aimed at preventing or ameliorating future behavioral health problems in our citizens. The Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) and the Building Communities pilot project are briefly outlined below. Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) is an evidence -based program that provides home visits by Health Department nursing staff to First-time mothers. The focus on maternal support and child health and development enables mothers to have a healthy pregnancy, become knowledgeable and responsible parents, and provide their babies with the best possible start in life. Women who are at risk for substance abuse and mental health issues will have priority for services. While services are delivered pre -natal through the age of two, the benefits are long lived. Outcomes From this program have shown significant reductions in criminal activity, child abuse and neglect, intellectual problems by age six, and visits to the emergency room. Increases in school readiness and employment among mothers are also significant. In addition to these program outcomes, use of local funds to support NFP has leveraged $175,000 in annual grant funding. The `Building Communities' (BC) pilot project coordinates targeted prevention services in areas that have demonstrated heightened levels of substance abuse, gang activity, poverty, child abuse, and related risk factors. The project targets youth who are particularly vulnerable to anti -social behaviors and are at risk of developing mental health or substance abuse problems. 509 Girard Street PUBLIC HEALTH 1500 North State Street Bellingham, WA 98225-4005 ALWAYS WORKING FOR AS AFER AND Bellingham, WA 98225-4551 (360) 676-6724 HEALTHIER WHATCOM COUNTY (360) 676-4593 FAX (360) 676-6771 www.Whatcomcounty.us/health FAX (360) 676-6772 Nurse -Family �o Partnershi P Helping First -Time Parents Succeed© `This is what we can really stand behind The program reduces injuries to children. It he ps families plan future pregnancies and create better spaczng between the birth of the first and second child. It he ps women find employment. It helps improve prenatal health. " DAVID OLDS, PhD Program Founder, Nurse -Family Partnership RESEARCH TRIALS AND OUTCOMES A CORNERSTONE OF NURSE -FAMILY PARTNERSHIP Nurse -Family Partnership° (NFP) is an evidence -based community health program that helps transform the lives of vulnerable, low-income mothers pregnant with their first children. Built upon the pioneering work of David Olds, P.h.D, Nurse -Family Partnership's model is based on more than 30 years of evidence from randomized, controlled trials that prove it works. Beginning in the early 1970s, Dr. Olds initiated the development of a nurse home visitation program for first-time mothers and their children. Over the next three decades, he and his colleagues continued to test the program in three separate, randomized, controlled trials with three different populations in Elmira, N.Y.., Memphis, Tenn., and Denver, Colo. (see below). The trials were designed to study the effects of the Nurse -Family Partnership model on maternal and child health, and child development, by comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of mothers and children enrolled in the Nurse - Family Partnership program to those of a control group of mothers and children not participating in the program. Trials of the Program YEAR 1977 1988 1994 LOCATION Elmira, NY Memphis, TN Denver, CO PARTICIPANTS 400 1,139 735 POPULATION Low-income whites Low-income blacks Large proportion of Hispanics STUDIED Semi -rural area Urban area Nurses and paraprofessionals A LASTING IMPACT Today, Olds and his team at the Prevention Research Center for Family and Child Health at the University of Colorado continue to study the model's long-term effects and lead research to continuously improve the Nurse -Family Partnership program model. Since 1979,14 follow-up studies tracking program participants' outcomes across the three trials have been (and continue to be) conducted. The implementation of longitudinal studies enables Nurse -Family Partnership to measure the short- and long-term outcomes of the program. Although the Nurse -Family Partnership National Service Office maintains a close association with the Prevention Research Center, the two remain professionally independent. RESEARCH TRIALS AND OUTCOMES "7t is not just empirical evidence [that Nurse Family Partnership has] that, important; it$ a certain type of empirical evidence, namely evidence from random assignment experiments Because that' thegold standard of research and we have learned over and over again that any other kind of study is likely to produce an incorrect answer. So not only is there good evidence from the study, but the evidence is from the very best kind of research. " RON HASKINS, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies Co -Director, Center on Children and Families Brookings Institution O Nurse -Family 9� Partnership �../ Helq Kw-r s P . S—edo igoo Grant Street, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80203-4304 www.nursefamilypartnership.org 866.864.5226 TRIAL OUTCOMES Trial outcomes demonstrate that Nurse -Family Partnership delivers against its three primary goals of better pregnancy outcomes, improved child health and development and increased economic self-sufficiency — making a measurable impact on the lives of children, families and the communities in which they live. For example, the following outcomes have been observed among participants in at least one of the trials of the program: Improved Pregnancy Outcomes: • Improvement in women's prenatal health 79% reduction in preterm delivery for women who smoke, and reductions in high -risk pregnancies as a result of greater intervals between first and subsequent births Improved Child Health and Development: • Reduction in criminal activity 59% reduction in child arrests at age 15 • Reduction in injuries 39% fewer injuries among children 56% reduction in emergency room visits for accidents and poisonings 48% reduction in child abuse and neglect • Increase in children's school readiness 50% reduction in language delays of child age 21 months; 67% reduction in behavioral/ intellectual problems at age six Increased Economic Self -Sufficiency: • Fewer unintended subsequent pregnancies 32% fewer subsequent pregnancies • Increase in maternal employment 82% increase in months employed • Reduction in welfare use 20% reduction in months on welfare • Increase in father involvement 46% increase in father's presence in household • Reduction in criminal activity 6o% fewer arrests of the mother; 72% fewer convictions of the mother ADHERENCE TO THE NURSE -FAMILY PARTNERSHIP MODEL Today, Nurse -Family Partnership maintains fidelity to its model by using a web -based performance management system designed specifically to collect and report Nurse -Family Partnership family characteristics, needs, services provided and progress toward accomplishing program goals as recorded by NFP Nurse Home Visitors. This process is fundamental to ensuring successful program implementation and beneficial outcomes that are comparable to those from the randomized, controlled trials. A BASIS FOR EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS -rhe evidentiary foundations of the Nurse -Family Partnership model are among the strongest available for preventive interventions offered for public investment. Given that the original trials were relatively large, resulted in outcomes of public health importance, and were conducted with nearly entire populations of at -risk families in local community health settings, these findings are relevant to communities throughout the United States. Nurse -Family Partnership's emphasis on randomized, controlled trials is consistent with the approach promoted by a growing chorus of evidence -based policy groups including the Coalition for Evidence -Based Policy, Blueprints for Violence Prevention, the RAND Corporation, and the Brookings Institution, which seek to Provide policymakers and practitioners with clear, actionable information on programs that work — and are demonstrated in scientifically valid studies. © Copyright 2o„ Nurse -Family Partnership. All rights reserved. 29QOVEMBER 2011 Early Childhood Education for Low Income 3- and 4-Year-Olds* $17,202 $7,301 $2.36 $9,901 HIPPY (Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters) $3,313 $1,837 $1.80 $1,476 Parents as Teachers $4,300 $3,500 $1.23 $800 Parent -Child Home Program $0 $3,890 $0.00 -$3,890 Even Start $0 $4,863 $0.00 -$4,863 Early Head Start $4,768 $20,972 $0.23 -$16,203 Nurse Family Partnership for Low Income Women $26,298 $9,118 $2.88 $17,180 Home Visiting Programs for At -risk Mothers and Children* $10,969 $4,892 $2.24 $6,077 Parent -Child Interaction Therapy $4,724 $1,296 $3.64 $3,427 Healthy Families America $2,052 $3,314 $0.62 -$1,263 Systems of Care/Wraparound Programs* $0 $1,914 $0.00 -$1,914 Family Preservation Services (excluding Washington)* $0 $2,531 $0.00 -$2,531 Comprehensive Child Development Program -$9 $37,388 $0.00 -$37,397 The Infant Health and Development Program $0 $49,021 $0.00 -$49,021 _ v. .x.: _ a"' " "`, .. �Yj ,��-$''`- a': .w-` F ice''g u-re�, ilS41w+. t g ash Development Programs .: _._.' Seattle Social Development Project $14,426 $4,590 $3.14 $9,837 n Guiding Good Choices (formerly PDFY) $7,605 $687 $11.07 $6,918 Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth 10-14 $6,656 $851 $7.82 $5,805 Child Development Project $ $448 $16 $28.42 $432 Good Behavior Game $ $204 $8 $25.92 $196 CASASTART (Striving Together to Achieve Rewarding Tomorrows) $4,949 $5,559 $0.89 -$610 �� • �. �� � fix,, r .. �_, ���;� �. �� � -.?�i :e. onng Programs r$,..k:i"v' f s'`aY.it L.r'�. s.n.�.�.r .. ... . , ._ ,. �?�..'� .�.3. r: .""b.'`".�y-.. Big Brothers/Big Sisters (taxpayer cost only) $4,058 $1,236 $3.28 $2,822 Quantum Opportunities Program $10,900 $25,921 $0.42 -$15,022 Adolescent Transitions Program $ $2,420 $482 $5.02 $1,938 Project Northland $ $1,575 $152 $10.39 $1,423 Family Matters $1,247 $156 $8.02 $1,092 Life Skills Training (LST) $ $746 $29 $25.61 $717 Project STAR (Students Taught Awareness and Resistance) $ $856 $162 $5.29 $694 Minnesota Smoking Prevention Program $ $511 $5 $102.29 $506 Other Social Influence/Skills Building Substance Prevention Programs $492 $7 $70.34 $485 Project Towards No Tobacco Use (TNT) $ $279 $5 $55.84 $274 Source: S. Aos, R. Lieb, J. Mayfield, M. Miller, A. Pennucci. (2004) Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, available at <http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901.pdf>. More detail is presented in the Appendix to this report, available at <http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901a.pdf>. The values on this table are estimates of present -valued benefits and costs of each program with statistically significant results with respect to crime, education, substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, teen pregnancy, and public assistance. Many of these programs have achieved outcomes in addition to those for which we are currently able to estimate monetary benefits. $ Cost estimates for these programs do not include the costs incurred by teachers who might otherwise be engaged in other productive teaching activities. Estimates of these opportunity costs will be included in future revisions. * Programs marked with an asterisk are the average effects for a group of programs; programs without an asterisk refer to individual programs. 291 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council September 25, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL (7:02:49 PM) Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen. Absent: None. FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS (7:03:24 PM) 1. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2012, (SUBMITTED BY PHILIP BURI, ATTORNEY FOR CONCERNED NEIGHBORS OF LAKE SAMISH), REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SLEEPY HOLLOW SUBDIVISION (FILED BY BRAD SWANSON, ATTORNEY FOR PEACHWOOD INVESTMENTS, LLC; MERCEDES HOLDINGS, INC.) (AB2012-275) Crawford moved to dismiss the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) (Clerk's Note: this item continued later in the meeting.) 2. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION, DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2012, (SUBMITTED BY BRAD SWANSON, ATTORNEY FOR MERCEDES HOLDINGS, INC. AND PEACHWOOD INVESTMENTS, LLC) REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SLEEPY HOLLOW SUBDIVISION (AB2012-275) Kershner reported for the Committee of the Whole and stated the Council will not grant the time extension because the appeal was dismissed. (Clerk's Note: this item continued later in the meeting.) Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 1 292 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 3. DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR KAREN FRAKES REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION, FUTUREWISE AND CITY OF BELLINGHAM V. WHATCOM COUNTY (CAITAC PROPERTY) (AB2012-018) Kershner reported for the Committee of the Whole and moved to approve the settlement agreement. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (6) Nays: Kershner (1) SPECIAL PRESENTATION 1. UPDATE FROM THE WHATCOM VOLUNTEER CENTER (AB2012-017) (7:06:17 PM) Kris Palmerton, Whatcom Volunteer Center Board of Directors President, gave a presentation of what the Volunteer Center does for the community. They provide volunteers for community businesses, government, and nonprofits. Whatcom County government supports the Volunteer Center with money and in -kind services, and the Center provides volunteers to the County, in the amount of 37,000 hours in 2011. He described different agencies for which the Volunteer Center provides volunteers. Sue Ellen Heflin, Whatcom Volunteer Center Executive Director, concluded the presentation regarding Volunteer Center programs, including the Volunteer Chore Program, Project Warm Up, House to Home Network, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), Northwest Youth Services' Youth Grown Program, Homeless Connect, the Human Race, an awards celebration, Make A Difference Day, museum docents, and programs with the Sheriff's Office and Emergency Management Division. Kremen stated he's worked with Ms. Hefflen for years, and is proud of the Volunteer Center. For every dollar invested in the Center, the community receives at least $7 in value. The Center enables senior citizens to have self worth and uses their experience and expertise to provide a fulfilling life. ANNOUNCEMENTS (7:03:24 PM) 1. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2012, (SUBMITTED BY PHILIP BURI, ATTORNEY FOR CONCERNED NEIGHBORS OF LAKE SAMISH), REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SLEEPY HOLLOW SUBDIVISION (FILED BY BRAD SWANSON, ATTORNEY FOR PEACHWOOD INVESTMENTS, LLC; MERCEDES HOLDINGS, INC.) (AB2012-275) Kershner reported that the Council voted unanimously to dismiss the appeal. Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 2 293 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION, DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2012, (SUBMITTED BY BRAD SWANSON, ATTORNEY FOR MERCEDES HOLDINGS, INC. AND PEACHWOOD INVESTMENTS, LLC) REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SLEEPY HOLLOW SUBDIVISION (AB2012-275) Kershner moved to deny the time extension because the appeal is dismissed. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR OPEN SPACE CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT (AB2012-273) (7:26:09 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke: Michelle Luke stated the Planning Commission recommended denying most of the non -forest open space applications, even though they met the criteria set by the Planning Department, because the public benefit was not worth the tax shift. The criteria were established in the early 1980's, and need to be revisited. There must be an inventory assessment. Have a clear and current understanding of what they want, what they have, what it costs, and how often these issues should be revisited. Establish a moratorium on open space applications until the County can complete its 2016 update. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. Brenner moved to approve the Planning Commission recommendations. The Council has talked about reviewing the criteria and classifications. Make sure the open space/open space has a big public benefit. Send the open space/open space criteria to the Planning Commission for review. Mann stated he used to vote against all these because he found the criteria outdated. He encourages a staff review of the criteria. He supports the recommendations. Kershner stated she supports the motion. She looks for a public benefit when approving an application because the tax burden is shifted to the neighbors. Make sure the public gets access to these areas. She agrees with reviewing and revising the criteria. Brenner stated the open space/timber applications require a timber management plan, which is difficult. The open space/open space designation is most troubling because it doesn't always allow full and open public access. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 3 294 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner moved to request the Executive and Planning Commission to review and amend open space taxation categories. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he would like time to work on this in the context of the 2016 update workload. Crawford stated the Council has worked on the criteria since the 1980's. This Council worked on it in the last decade. A previous Council worked on it in the 1990's. This is not the first time since the 1980's that the criteria have been considered. However, this gets very complicated very fast. Kershner stated she would be in favor of a moratorium on open space until the Council makes the criteria less complicated. Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the open space designations are a State tax law, and the County can't establish a moratorium on them. Brenner stated she doesn't agree. They could adopt a moratorium as an emergency action. Crawford stated that if the Council is serious about wanting to change this, they must engage the Planning Staff and the Assessor. There are many implications to a moratorium. The Assessor has discussed with the Council the pros and cons of different aspects of this. Have a committee meeting to talk about this with the right people. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Brenner, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5) Nays: Crawford and Knutzen (2) Crawford stated he understands this is important, but it needs to be prioritized with many other things. He's not ready to ask Planning staff and the administration to start working on this. 2. ORDINANCE PREVENTING THE RELEASE AND SPREAD OF NON -INDIGENOUS AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES IN THE WATERS OF WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2012-042A) (7:39:49 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: Larry Helm stated consider that Canada geese carry this stuff around before passing laws against boaters. Wendy Harris stated she is disappointed with the lack of action and the content of the ordinance proposed. They discovered an Asian clam infestation a year ago. They haven't tried to develop a management plan. The population can explode unexpectedly. The response to this substantial problem is underwhelming. The City and County engage in actions that increase the risk of aquatic invasive species, such as allowing development in the lake watershed and allowing seaplanes. This isn't a serious attempt. They must do better. Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 4 295 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. John Hutchings, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and stated the scope is a work in progress. These species can cause high -cost problems for utilities and can foul beaches. This ordinance means to clarify the County's possible enforcement actions. They will develop a program as they estimate costs and determine needs based on cost estimates. That work is underway, based on the inventory work done by Ms. Baldwin and City staff, including the boater surveys. There are a lot of unknown factors. This is likely to be a serious issue. The incidents of the invasive clams have been isolated. They are still determining nationwide how to deal with them. Today, the ordinance will clearly state the County's interest in prohibiting certain activities in the watershed related to these invasive species as a whole. The existing bodies of law are focused on invasive weeds. Another body of State law has to do with aquatic animals such as mollusks that enter the water body. Manage the introduction of those species. Determine what State laws already exist and format those laws so they can be administered by the County. The information in the ordinance already exists in law, with the exception of where enforcement occurs in the county. A portion of the responsibility and enforcement will be in the hands of Weed Control Officer Laurel Baldwin and existing law enforcement. Many concerns from councilmembers have been discussed during committee. They will have to deal with the issue of administering this ordinance to managing sea plane traffic. There are many administrative questions to answer, such as how aggressively they must pursue non -motorized craft, the extent of the County's presence at the access points, and how the County and City integrate their program administrations. Brenner asked if algae blooms can cause mollusk eruptions, and vice versa. Hutchings stated he suspects there is some interaction, but he doesn't know. He doesn't know if there has been research on the effect of increased algal blooms on invasive clam populations. There is some evidence that these invasive clams do cycle nutrients. In locations where there is a high density of the clams, they could potentially move nutrients out of the sediments and into the water body. Brenner stated she's said for years that Lake Whatcom needs aerators, at least in the lowest basin. People complain about water quality, but it seems like they don't want to fix it because there would be more development. She asked how to justify that money coming out of the flood control fund. Hutchings stated the main fund available to forward program development is the Flood Control Zone District tax. In the 2013 budget, he proposes to include $10,000 each year for the development of this program. The guidance staff received from Council is that this program should be principally or completely funded through boater user fees. Before they can scope the entire program, it will be necessary to have an idea of the kind of revenue they can expect to receive. The funds earmarked from the flood fund now for years 2013 and 2014 are for program development activity. Brenner stated this doesn't have anything to do with flooding. Hutchings stated the flood control zone district fund can be used for a broad cross-section of water resource activities. In the end, the Council gets to debate the appropriate source of funding. Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 5 296 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. She moved to amend the ordinance to remove the authority to use the Flood Control Zone District budget authority. The Council keeps expanding the use of that money. People supported the flood fee, which turned into a tax. Stick to using the funds for flooding issues. This ordinance is a good start. Instead, use existing grants and the general fund. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he finalized the budget proposal and forwarded it to the Finance Division for compilation and printing. In his proposal, the flood funds are allocated for this. If the Council chooses, he recommends taking action on the ordinance tonight, and then bring it up during the budget discussions. Brenner amended her motion and moved to use existing state grants and other funds as deemed appropriate by the County Council. Kershner stated the sentence Councilmember Brenner is trying to amend is actually part of the memo attached, not the ordinance. Brenner stated the memo goes with the ordinance. She can't support the ordinance if the funds come from the flood fund. Mann stated it's appropriate to use the flood funds. The County uses those funds for many surface water -related activities. Kremen stated a reason why the Council and County decided to use flood funds was because 40 percent of the County's constituents reside in the city of Bellingham. They are assessed the flood fee, but there are no real flood issues in the city. For years, the City of Bellingham informed the County that they would like to use flood funds to deal with Lake Whatcom issues, because it was the only way they would be able to benefit from the flood fund. Brenner stated people all over the county, no matter where they live, benefit from the County preventing and fixing flood problems so people can get in and out of their cities. It has morphed into a pot for almost anything. Many people don't live in the Lake Whatcom watershed or benefit from it, but everyone benefits from flood repairs. She supports the ordinance, but doesn't want to fund it from the flood fund. The motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner and Knutzen (2) Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5) Kershner stated she thanks everyone. As the program develops, they will see more and more. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6) Nays: Brenner (1) 3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2013 ANNUAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB2012-299) (8:01:13 PM) Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 6 297 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and stated this program is the same as the first year of the six -year road program, with two exceptions. He referenced the two items in the staff report on Council packet page 178. Crawford moved to approve the resolution. Knutzen asked if item three in the staff report includes the berm at Birch Bay. Rutan stated it does. This will get the County one-third of the way through the design process, to the point when he can provide more details on the design. Knutzen asked if there is potential for more funding for this project. Rutan stated he hopes there is a lot more funding. Mann stated he's had problems voting for the Potter Road $10 million bridge. He's happy to find that the Nooksack Tribe agreed to submit for over $1 million of funds, which would be 100 percent applicable to the local match. Rutan stated that is correct. He hears that federal funding source is going away. Mann stated he will vote for the resolution, but still isn't happy about the project. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 4. ORDINANCE FOR ZONING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AGRICULTURAL SLAUGHTERING FACILITIES IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2012-300) (8:05:20 PM) Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke: Kate Blystone, Futurewise Whatcom Director, stated Whatcom County needs additional slaughtering facilities to support farmers. It will help keep farm dollars here. She shares concerns with County staff about Growth Management Act (GMA) compliance. Talk to staff about this issue. Remember the original intent of the application, and consider the next step for this ordinance. The applicant asked for an amendment to allow small scale slaughtering facilities on agricultural land, using the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act as a model to limit the size of the facility to ten employees or $2.5 million in annual sales. The proposed ordinance doesn't meet the intent of the original application. As proposed, the ordinance could allow large scale facilities. Other counties allow such facilities as a conditional use. Amend the ordinance to allow the use as a conditional use, not as an outright permitted use. Require that the conditional use permit application be reviewed for adequate water and septic facilities, and adopt a limit of ten employees and ten -acre lot size. Allow slaughterhouses as an accessory to an existing permitted use. Gabriel Claycamp, applicant, stated Whatcom County has the most depressed price for animals in the state. They also have the highest price for slaughter. There is only one slaughterhouse. It costs more than anywhere else in the state, by 50 percent. Whatcom County needs a local, sustainable slaughterhouse. His application asked for a limit of ten Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 7 298 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. employees, as a starting space. Since working with the local farmers and understanding their needs, he's learned that farmers must trust that the slaughterhouse will be there in the future. It takes 18 months at a minimum to increase herd size, and it's a massive amount of risk. The Planning Commission has made changes to make it a more viable alternative. It's necessary to use the whole animal. To support the farmers, they need the most value-added options possible. Don't split hairs to determine the difference between slaughter, value-added, and rendering. He supports the ordinance. John Lesow stated he urges the Council to reject the proposal. The public hearings were inconsequential. The Planning Commission didn't hear enough from the agricultural community. The staff proposal was ignored. It may not be compliant with GMA. It is not an innovative zoning technique. If challenged, the County would lose. The County is zoned for slaughtering in the rural industrial areas and light industrial areas. Vote against the ordinance. Jerry Blankers stated he is a small farm beef owner. They are starving for a processing plant for their product, similar to a berry processing plant. There isn't any difference. He understands the existing facility is out of compliance. The next closest facility is in Moses Lake. The cattle farmers can't be profitable without a local facility. Roger Bajema stated he is a small herd dairyman. There is no facility and no way to market their meat. Dairy farmers are leaving. He asked what is going to happen to the land if people can't make money on beef land. There are 50,000 dairy slaughter cows. Don't make it hard for someone to help the farmers. Michelle Luke stated the majority of the Planning Commissioners believed that the proposal made butchers out of farmers and used up too much acreage. Therefore, the Planning Commission came up with a different recommendation. There was enough data to support the need for the agricultural business, and that it should be a stand alone business. There was good input at the public hearing about costs, equipment, and staffing from the owners of the only local existing USDA operator. When asked whether the changes were legal, legal counsel didn't have an opinion. The majority of the Commissioners believe that small scale slaughterhouses are an agricultural related business. Ellen Baker stated she used to raise a 300-head herd of cattle. She supports comments from Mr. Bajema. Slaughter activities are a part of agriculture. There is no public purpose for the requirement that 50 percent of the animals be locally raised. There is no reason to remove the use from the agricultural district. Any restrictions should be meaningful. Dave Onkles stated the proposal fixes a defect in Title 20. No one raises livestock for pets. Since no allowance is made for the harvest of this crop, the code is defective as written. The staff report suggests that permitting the use outright would violate the Washington Administrative Code because it would convert natural resource land to other uses. Instead, it converts the land to a more intensive agricultural use, and is wholly compliant with the Growth Management Act. It serves to adopt the conservation of agricultural lands, since it makes raising livestock more economically viable in Whatcom County. This proposal maintains enhanced natural resource -based industries. This proposal meets policies 8B-2 and 8B-4. The County should allow this use of any size and scale as a permitted use. Consider an amendment to not include rendering facilities. Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 8 299 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Larry Helms stated he is a small farmer. It takes four to five hours to butcher a cow completely. It's necessary to have support facilities for the industry. The County should have more revenue come in from other sources besides property tax. Wendy Harris stated the proposal exceeds existing demand in Whatcom County. The proposal will result in environmental consequences and external costs borne by the public. Neither the staff nor Planning Commission reviewed these environmental costs. These uses are resource intensive, particularly with water use. Slaughterhouses would be limited to 5,000 gallons per day under the groundwater permit exemption and would compete for water with existing farmers, who already complain about not having an adequate water supply. A slaughterhouse facility will handle all the contaminated, diseased, and infectious animal byproducts and the carcinogenic chemicals produced by slaughterhouse operations. They have not analyzed whether rural septic systems can handle additional waste and manure. The proposal will have water quality impacts from pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones. Deny the proposal. Emily Weaver stated she was the farmer's market manager for four years. It's a shame that the small scale beef producer who sells at the market is from Skagit County. She has confidence in the County Health Department to regulate the use. This doesn't open a floodgate for big producers in Whatcom County. This is a value-added service. There will be impacts, but the County will be able to regulate the industry. It's important to connect people with their food. A ten -employee limit is ridiculous. These are opportunities for people to finish their product and make some money. Shane Roth stated the Planning Commission disregarded staff recommendation. The last time that happened, the result was an invalidity order. Consider how much they should trust the judgment of this Planning Commission. Often, the staff presents the Planning Commission with an ordinance to provide the tools the agricultural community needs, but the Planning Commission would make decisions their own way. He doesn't doubt the sincerity or beliefs of Planning Commission members, but he doubts their judgment. They shouldn't wholesale ignore what staff says. Send the proposal back to the Planning Commission to do better. Kris Halterman stated there were many slaughterhouses in the community in the 1950s. Nothing is more rural than the ability to raise cattle and slaughter it sustainably nearby. Don't limit the employees to ten. The Growth Management Act doesn't ask the Council to stop growth. It asks the Council to design growth so it retains rural elements. Allow local, sustainable slaughterhouses. It will grow the agricultural industry and related businesses. They can manage the industry so it's safe for the public. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. Mann moved to adopt the ordinance as presented by the Planning Commission. (Clerk's Note: The Council did not vote on this motion.) Crawford asked about sending it to Planning and Development Committee. The Planning Commission recommendation changes completely the staff proposal. The Council Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 9 300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. should spend some time working on this. He is not ready to vote on any version or modifications. Mann asked if the 50 percent rule is no longer in the ordinance. Josh Fleischmann, Planning and Development Services Department, stated it is no longer in the ordinance. Mann asked about legal opinions from staff regarding the Growth Management Act (GMA). Fleischmann stated he was on leave, and did not get a legal opinion to staff at the Planning Commission meeting. The County Codes accessory uses are parcel -specific. Growth Management speaks more to accessory uses supporting the agricultural industry. The staff's original proposed language was that the use must be accessory to a primary permitted use on the parcel. The Planning Commission changed that. Mann asked if the 50 percent rule is practically enforceable. Fleischmann stated berry processing plants have that type of a rule. Mann stated he would support the ordinance tonight if the 50 percent rule is left in the ordinance. That is the check necessary to prevent the use from becoming an industrial scale slaughter facility on prime agricultural land. Some protection against that is in order. Kershner moved to amend to allow complete processing and rendering of the animal at the facility in section 20.97.010.2, "...Agricultural slaughtering facilities de net may include rendering facilities." She doesn't know why they would have a 50 percent rule. She can't imaging out -of -area farmers bringing their cows or berries here to process. (Clerk's Note: The Council did not vote on this motion.) Brenner stated anything about rendering should be done in a separate ordinance. She respects the Planning Commission. A ten -employee limit is ridiculous. It's about slaughtering and packaging. She's not yet convinced about rendering. There shouldn't be a minimal lot size. It's not financially feasible for this use to be an accessory to farming. It will be a full-time job. At least 50 percent of the product will be local. They should have this facility locally. She supports the ordinance. Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she is concerned about the statement that this hasn't had legal review. She asked the Council to send the ordinance to committee so legal staff has a chance to do a legal review. Her signature indicates that the ordinance was reviewed as to form only. She has not reviewed the legal content. Kremen stated this is very frustrating. They've been lobbied for years about having a viable agriculture industry in Whatcom County. He agrees with the comments that they need a processing plan to make farming viable. If there is a problem with the Growth Management Act, which encourages the preservation of agricultural land and open space, there is no way to win. It's prudent to get a legal review and to send it to committee. He has a feeling they will run afoul of the GMA, which is frustrating. Knutzen stated the frustrating part for him is that the unemployment rate in the county is going up, and this is the third business this month that has asked to resolve an Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 10 301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. issue, but regulations and red tape have gotten in the way. There is such a culture against economic development in this community. There must be a simpler way to cure the problem. All they're doing is putting up road blocks. Kershner stated she is frustrated that this has been with the Planning Department and Planning Commission, but it hasn't been reviewed for legal GMA compliance. She is of the mind to remove all the regulations and let the applicant build the slaughterhouse. The system doesn't seem to be working. Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated staff has a potential fix to address the Growth Management Act (GMA) concerns and concerns about rendering. Many of the uses are allowed in the County Code, just not in the agricultural zone. Staff needs the time to work through the committee and with legal staff. Staff will have it ready in two weeks. Brenner stated they are not running afoul of GMA. They can't operate in fear of this all the time. The Hearings Board isn't always correct. She's tired of the bullying to keep the Council from making local decisions. Personious asked if the Council would like a recommendation in two weeks. Knutzen stated he would like to see a recommendation in the Planning and Development Committee in two weeks. Mann stated the Planning Commission is supposed to make recommendations. The 50 percent rule should be a part of the regulation. A giant meat -packing plant can open on industrial land. He's annoyed this is happening right now. Weimer moved to refer to the Planning and Development Committee in two weeks. Brenner stated she doesn't want the Planning staff to come back with a proposal. Staff should come to the committee with a recommendation the Council wants. Mann stated that is what the Planning Commission is for. They do an incredible amount of research. Their recommendation should still come forward with four or five options from staff and a legal analysis. Staff should not bring forward the recommendation they presented in the first place. Kershner stated she would like to have a thorough review of compliance with the GMA. Kremen stated he would like staff to make a recommendation that is consistent with the goals, objectives, and intent of what the Planning Commission provided. Kershner stated staff should be prepared to explain why regulations are recommended. Personious stated staff surveyed almost all the other counties in the state. Almost all require a conditional use permit for slaughterhouse facilities because of the potential unknown about scale, noise impacts, traffic impacts, whether there is rendering, and water and wastewater needs. Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 11 302 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Kershner stated the County has code that addresses all that. Personious stated all those conditions are a condition of the permit. All the information is all there, which makes it convenient for permitting an application. If allowed as a permitted use, a neighbor wouldn't have an opportunity to be noticed or comment. Kershner stated she is going to ask about the purpose for all the regulations recommended. She wants to know that the purpose is for issues and reasons that are bigger than addressing the unknown factor. Brenner stated those factors mentioned still have to be addressed if the use is permitted. Personious stated there is no limit on size in the current recommendation, which was in the original application. If a facility becomes much larger, there will be larger impacts, and the potential is for adverse impacts. That's where they run afoul of the GMA. Brenner stated a 20-acre threshold is not massive compared to ten acres. The Planning Commission really went through the issues. The motion to refer to the Planning and Development Committee carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) OPEN SESSION (9:02:43 PM) The following people spoke: • Larry Helm spoke about water rights and septic system program fees. • Mike Kaufman spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. • Delaine Klisbe spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. • Arrent Ayers spoke about large jet noise at the airport. • Greg Brown submitted his testimony (on file) and spoke on the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. • Lisa Newlicht submitted handouts (on file) and spoke about increased large jet noise at the airport. • Matt Paskus spoke about the large jet noise at the airport. • Carl Uppiano spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. • Karen Brown spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. • Shane Roth spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance and the ordinance regarding Ethics Commission. • Max Perry spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. • Chet Dow spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. • Kris Halterman spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. • Peggy Uppiano spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. • Arthur Uppiano spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. • Carol Perry spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance. Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 12 303 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. CONSENT AGENDA (9:42:48 PM) Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one, two, and three. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND RMS CONSULTING SERVICES TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE RMS REPLACEMENT PROJECT FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,600, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,200 (AB2012-303) 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND GARY DOLIN FOR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT SERVICES, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT THAT IS VARIABLE DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF SERVICES PROVIDED AND WILL BE AUTHORIZED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT (AB2012-304) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MATTHEW MEYER FOR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT SERVICES, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT THAT IS VARIABLE DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF SERVICES PROVIDED AND WILL BE AUTHORIZED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AS PER THE ATTACHED REIMBURSEMENT RATES (AB2012-305) OTHER ITEMS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, TWELFTH REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $108,908 (AB2012-298) (9:43:25 PM) Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.104, CODE OF ETHICS (AB2012-158) (9:44:08 PM) Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to adopt the ordinance with one amendment, as suggested by the Committee, to section 2.104.020, "No elected county official shall knowingly participate in the decision -making process." A member of the public brought up the question of a practicing attorney or a Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 13 304 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. retired attorney. He asked if there is a definition of a practicing attorney. He asked if the Council wants to be more flexible and allow retired attorneys. Brenner stated attorneys can't practice without being active members of the Washington State Bar. The Commission should include a current attorney, who is more up- to-date with the law. Kershner asked why the Ethics Board recommended adding language about designating an appointed member who is a practicing attorney. Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she's not aware of the background of the recommendation. She agrees that a practicing attorney is someone who is an active member of the Bar. Mann rescinded his original motion, and moved to adopt the ordinance in the packet. He moved to amend the ordinance, as suggested by the Committee, to section 2.104.020, "No elected county official shall knowingly participate in the decision -making process...." The motion to amend carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) Mann moved to amend language in section 2.104.080, "One of the five appointed members shall be an active member of the Washington State Bar Association." The motion to amend carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 3. ORDINANCE REVOKING ORDINANCE 2005-044, WHICH ESTABLISHED A $50.00 PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND FOR JUVENILE COURT ADMINISTRATION (AB2012-297) (9:50:46 PM) Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 4. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON WHATCOM COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ALTERNATE AT -LARGE REPRESENTATIVE, PARTIAL TERM. APPLICANT(S): EMILY WEAVER (AB2012-302) (9:51:46 PM) Knutzen moved to nominate and appoint Emily Weaver. Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 14 305 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS (AB2012-307) (9:52:31 PM) Brenner moved to confirm the appointments. Kremen stated one of the appointees, Wendy Eickmeyer, appears to have a conflict of interest. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he is aware of the appearance, but there is no conflict since she has retired. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6) Nays: Kremen (1) INTRODUCTION ITEM 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 9.32.160 TO CLARIFY THE AREA COVERED BY NO -SHOOTING ZONE NUMBER 5 (AB2012-301) Crawford moved to accept the Introduction Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) OTHER BUSINESS (10:12:17 PM) Crawford moved to accept the recommendations from the County Executive's memo dated September 17, 2012 regarding the Lake Whatcom reconveyance. Refer to the Natural Resources Committee to work with staff on forestry management issues, a park plan, and other items. The Executive proposes to work on these items in the next four to six months. That is a manageable plan. Brenner stated she would like to also discuss the item in the Planning and Development Committee. Crawford stated don't pick the committee in which it will be discussed just yet. He suggested the Natural Resources Committee because it might be a home for most of the issues. However, if the staff feels there is a planning issue, that might be an appropriate time to deal with it. They will wait and see what specific issues come up, and how to adjust the committee schedules accordingly. Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 15 306 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Kremen stated he supports the intent of the Executive's memo. It doesn't hurt to have more scrutiny and information about the plan. He's not sure if the Council needs four to six months. The Council doesn't need to set a time specific. As long as the issues raised in the memo are adequately addressed, they will have fulfilled the intent of the Executive's request. Crawford stated his comment about the timeframe wasn't meant to be time -specific. He simply wanted to contrast it with his very time -specific proposal of two weeks ago, which was to take it up in four weeks. His motion tonight would preclude what he said two weeks ago. The Executive's letter indicates he is willing to devote staff resources and his time to help with this. Mann stated he supports the motion. This is a good idea due to the outpouring of questions and misinformation on both sides of the discussion. Folks expressed concerns because they just learned about it. The Council should take the time necessary to answer the questions in the memo for the public. Most of the questions in that memo have already been answered for him. They can compile the information and have an agreed -upon set of facts from which to make a decision. Brenner stated the concerns raised are legitimate, and she doesn't have the answer to most of them. She would like those answers. It might take longer than four to six months. Kershner stated the Council should also look at alternatives, such as working with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on a recreation plan or leaving the property as it is. Mann stated DNR is so understaffed that no one may be available to work with the County. He doesn't believe the DNR can come up with a recreation plan. Kershner stated it's an option, and she would like to look at that option. Knutzen stated the County could have used the money invested in this reconveyance to develop a first class DNR recreation facility already in place. The DNR is more than willing to explore options if the County funded a recreation plan. The County would get more benefit for it's investment than from the $1.2 million or $1.6 million they are throwing at this right now. They left that meeting with totally different opinions. He left there knowing that the DNR was willing to work with the County if the County gave the DNR the resources. Brenner stated the Lake Whatcom landscape plan includes language about developing a recreation easement with the DNR. They can consider a recreation easement for the North Fork park, also. Kershner stated she wants to clarify the reason and purpose for the reconveyance. Mann stated he agrees with Councilmember Knutzen. If the County throws money at the DNR, the DNR would have the resources to hire outside consultants and produce a recreational plan. His point was that the DNR doesn't have a lot of resources itself. Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 16 307 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6) Nays: Weimer (1) Crawford stated he formally resigns from the Council of Government (COG) and Bellingham International Airport Advisory Committee (BIAAC) due to scheduling conflicts, and moved to appoint Councilmember Kremen to the COG and Councilmember Mann to the BIAAC. time. Mann stated he would accept the appointment if it doesn't take too much time. Kremen stated he would accept the appointment, especially if it takes too much The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) Kershner referenced the request confirmation of the County Executive's appointments to the Whatcom County Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials (AB2012-307) and stated she also paid WayComm for graphic design services on October 26, 2009. However, she doesn't think that disqualifies her. She paid Sunshine Printing for printing brochures and mailers, also. Brenner stated she attended the Blaine City Council meeting last night. The City Council is close to declaring eminent domain on residents who have owned their property for over 100 years, to obtain an 80-foot easement for a road and bike path for a development that doesn't exist yet. She understands the City wants to go the cheapest route. According to the property owners, there is a stream on the property. She would like to convey a County easement on H street to the City of Blaine so the City won't have to go through the middle of the property owner's property. There is little reason to ever do eminent domain. There are other options to go on the sides of the property. It wouldn't be as direct and may cost the City more, but government should not do eminent domain unless there is an issue of life and death. The owners need to be compensated for the loss of the property. There has been no press on this issue, and it's a big deal. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he would be happy to call the Blaine City Manager to see if there is anything the County can do to help the situation. Kershner asked if the airport noise is germane to County business. Kremen stated the County doesn't have purview over the issue, but the County can express a collective opinion or position and send it to the Port of Bellingham. The issue is in the jurisdiction of the Port and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Brenner stated that issue has been brought up quite a few times. It's a federal issue. The FAA makes a rule. The County can't tell the FAA what to do. Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 17 308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated there have been emails from a resident to the County Sheriff regarding the location of sex offenders near schools. That should be a decision that is made locally. She was surprised to find out it isn't. The Sheriff sent the Council a copy of his response. The Sheriff wants it to be a local issue. The Council should add it's voice to the debate. She read a letter she drafted to support an amendment to State law to allow local jurisdictions to mandate the proximity of sex offender housing and schools. She moved to send the letter. The County used to have that authority. Kershner stated she is against the letter because the sex offenders are managed through the State Department of Corrections. The guidelines are set statewide. It would be very complex for the State to manage the program if each locality set its own rules for how it would work. Look at the problem and lobby the legislators to change the State law so location is more restrictive. Brenner stated the County can always make things more restrictive than the State. All the sheriffs in Washington State are frustrated with the leniency accorded many sex offenders, and are in contact with the legislature on this issue. She doesn't trust the State to do a good job. The State is keeping the authority, but does not have the ability to do a decentjob. Kershner asked how much it costs to manage that program. Brenner stated it wouldn't cost anything. It would be part of the Comprehensive Plan. They do it with jails and other things. However the State took away the County's ability to do that. Mann stated he is against sending the letter right now because he doesn't yet know what the issues are. He needs more information before registering a formal opinion with the State. Brenner stated housing is permanent, and kids don't have a choice to not go to school. It's a burden on the school. It's a problem the Sheriff identified. Mann stated he's not prepared to debate the merits right now. Brenner withdrew the motion and agreed to discuss the letter in the Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee. Kershner asked if Councilmember Weimer is willing to host the reconveyance discussion in the Natural Resources Committee. Weimer stated he is willing. There are good questions. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS There were no reports or other items. ADJOURN Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 18 309 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. The Council approved these minutes on , 2012. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Kathy Kershner, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 19 310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special Committee Of The Whole October 9, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen. Absent: None. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.14, WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (AB2011-223A) (9:32:46 AM) Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, referenced his memo dated September 24, 2012. Brenner stated the Council never had a blanket moratorium on wind energy systems. It had a partial moratorium in certain zones. In section 20.14.030(2), they should define the term significant' in the phrase "significantly increases its output." Harrison stated determining a significant increase is a judgment of the administrator. If making modifications or repairs to certain parts, it would not be significant unless they are changing the height, unit, or upgrading the kilowatt output. Brenner stated it should be defined. She referenced section 20.14..061(1), "no infrasound... adjacent to HII zones." The sentence should be, "within HII zones," not adjacent to heavy impact industrial (HII) zones. Harrison stated this was discussed in earlier work sessions. Activities within HII zones may produce more infrasound than would be warranted to evaluate a system. Crawford stated this is for zones outside HII for small systems. They are not required to do studies. Mann referenced section 20.14.052(1), the section greater than 50 kW in the table. Make it a mile from any property line of any property in a non-HII zone, whether or not the neighboring property is in the HII zone. The use of the word "unless" will cause confusion. He moved to amend 20.14.052(1), "...a non-HII zone;. Unless If the neighboring property is an HII zone, in which ease the setback from that property line is 1.2 times...." The motion carried by the following vote: Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 1 311 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7) Nays: None (0) Crawford stated have a less restrictive setback in HII zone, because the rural properties around there are sparse and not as impacted. They've really shut down an opportunity for wind energy systems (WES) to only several square miles of places they can go. They hug the coastline at Cherry Point because of the mile setback. Have a one-half or one -quarter mile setback from the outer boundary of the HII zone. The proponents of wind energy stated this is a burgeoning industry. Give them every opportunity to do this in those areas. A one -mile setback is excessive. Brenner asked if there are setbacks in heavy industrial zones. Alex Cleanthus, Planning and Development Services Department, stated setbacks are based on road types. He's not sure about other uses without looking at the code. Crawford moved to amend the setback in 20.14.052(1), for greater than 50 kW to one -quarter mile, "5280 feet ;=g= mi'=; One -quarter mile from a property line...." Brenner stated she would abstain because she can't visualize it. Weimer stated he supports the motion. However, they're starting to set preferential treatment on where WES are located, first at Lake Whatcom and now at Point Whitehorn where there are residences. It doesn't seem to be based on science. Crawford stated they are playing favorites because it's a heavy impact industrial zone. The residents who live there are already near the heavy impact industrial zone. They already allow industrial impacts in those areas. That's the nature of the HII zone for those residences. Kremen stated he supports the motion for reasons Councilmember Crawford stated. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (6) Nays: None (0) Abstains: Brenner (1) Brenner referenced section 20.14.071(2) and moved to amend, "...such as barrie� fencing, equipment cabinetry, or similar barriers..." for grammatical purposes. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7) Nays: None (0) Knutzen referenced section 20.14.075(2) and moved to amend per a suggestion from Wendy Harris, Other species: epeFatien plan shall be designed te pFevent WES fFern having a significant/adveFse impact, The WES project shall be sited, designed, operated and monitored to prevent significant/adverse impact on County wildlife, including migratory birds, raptors and bats." Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 2 312 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated the reference to county wildlife could include all kinds of things, including things they don't care about. Specify just migratory birds, raptors, and bats instead of county wildlife. Wildlife could refer to anything. Kershner asked if the measures in place would protect raptors and bats. Harrison stated they would. The County would submit any large WES project plans to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to review and meet their standards, beyond just the critical areas ordinance (CAO). The WDFW has wind energy system standards already in place. Kremen asked why subsection 20.14.075(2) is in the ordinance if WDFW does a review. Harrison stated it's so the County can ask for a study if necessary. Kremen stated the motion makes sense and clarifies language. He supports it. Kershner asked if the language refers to burrowing county wildlife. She asked if the language is designed to stop any project. She's interested in protecting bats and raptors, but not earthworms, for instance. She asked if that kind of language is in any other ordinance. Harrison stated it is not. If a particular ground -dwelling species becomes threatened, it would be protected by the CAO and WDFW. Brenner suggested an amendment, "...designed to prevent significant/,adverse impact on County migratory birds, raptors, and bats." She doesn't like specifying county wildlife. Knutzen stated they have to determine if it will affect other things besides migratory birds. There are other things to take into account. Brenner stated that is covered in section 20.14.075(1). Harrison stated if they are going to evaluate a project under a proposal that broad, they have to know on what to base the criteria and proposal. They have to know how to determine the limits. That would be difficult to administer. Kremen suggested a friendly amendment, "...designed to prevent significant/,adverse impact on traditionally -protected Geunty wildlife." Harrison stated staff would use the list of endangered and protected species. There is no other list. Knutzen accepted the friendly amendment, even though it's covered in item one. Weimer asked if they traditionally protect bats. If not, they're eliminated from protection again. He prefers getting rid of the reference to wildlife and using migratory birds, raptors, and bats. Knutzen accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. He restated the motion, Other species: shall be designed to prevent WES freng having a signifleant/adveFse ornpaet en n9igFateFy Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 3 313 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. bird speei The WES project shall be sited, designed, operated and monitored to prevent significant/adverse impact on Geunty wildlife, ineluding migratory birds, raptors and bats." The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7) Nays: None (0) Brenner stated correct a grammatical error in section 20.14.102, "When a SWES (Whose with a total height that exceeds the height of the underlying zone) or a WES is scheduled...." Harrison stated that at the last work session, the Council asked staff to work on flicker. He referenced page two of his memo. In other jurisdictions, flicker is generally evaluated on a case -by -case basis. An evaluation requires sophisticated software the County doesn't own. He suggests an alternative, as shown in his memo, "If a SWES owner receives a complaint... when flicker affects any building." If an adjacent property owner reports a nuisance, the WES owner needs to provide an analysis. If the nuisance is demonstrated, the WES owner must adjust the system to meet requirements or adjust the system to a degree that is satisfactory to the neighbor, whichever is less. Knutzen stated a concern with a complaint -driven process is if this happens late in the process rather than studied before installation. Harrison stated there is some reason to be concerned, but mitigation measures can be done to the system based on time of operation, such as the reduction of time of operation, that would potentially and in most cases mitigate a flicker problem. There are ways to mitigate the problem once a system is installed. His intent is to limit installation costs when installing a SWES. There wasn't much information on flicker nuisance with SWES because SWES produce less of an nuisance. Most software is designed for large scale and wind farm applications, where most instances of nuisance arise. Crawford asked the blade size on a small system of 50 kW. Harrison stated it is about 27 feet. Crawford stated that is compared to 150-foot blades on a large WES. The long blade of a WES causes that flicker to a much greater degree than a 27-foot blade. It's not surprising there wasn't much information on flicker analysis. It isn't a problem. Encourage SWES. He prefers to not have this language. Those issues should be vetted in the permitting process. Kremen stated he agrees with Councilmember Crawford. If it becomes a problem regarding the SWES, the Council can revise the code. For the time being, don't include the language. Brenner stated that if someone experiences a genuine flicker of any size for more than 30 hours per year, they would feel an impact. The ordinance ought to have something for protection. Flicker is a big -enough issue to have a protection. She moved to amend the ordinance, "20.14.076 If an SWES causes flicker on an neighboring residence for more than 30 hours per year, there must be mitigation to bring it to 30 or fewer hours per year." Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 4 314 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Mann stated he wants to be more permissive overall, but this is the one medical claim he found to be persuasive, regardless of WES size. He supports the motion. Crawford asked the setback on SWES. Harrison stated the setback is 1.2 times the tower height, to a maximum of 120 feet. One hundred feet is the total height. Crawford stated he disagrees this is a problem. Write the language so any impacts are reviewed at the time of permitting. One can get an SWES as permitted, without going through a conditional use process. Regardless, 120 feet is sufficient. Mann stated just call it at 30 hours, and it's up to the owner to perform to the standard. It's a little bit of protection for the neighbors. Brenner stated that if Councilmember Crawford is right, this section isn't needed and there is no big deal with including it. Crawford stated that rule should be studied at the time of the permit, not after. Harrison stated that at some point staff could ask for a study if that language is included. Brenner stated a property with a SWES north of the neighbor won't produce a flicker. Don't require a study when it's not necessary. Mann asked if they require noise studies. Harrison stated they don't, but the system has to meet the requirements and the complaint process. Mann stated flicker is the same as noise. Knutzen stated include language for flicker that is similar to the noise language. It would be simpler, and it's the way they handle the noise. Harrison stated it's appropriate to amend the complaint process to include flicker, so that concern is addressed. Brenner stated if only one neighbor is to the southwest, there shouldn't have to be two complaints. Kershner stated there has not been a moratorium on SWES. She asked if Whatcom County has ever received a complaint about flicker. Brenner stated there are only two SWES in the County. Harrison stated he is unaware of any complaints. Kershner stated this hasn't been a problem or concern so far, and this concern came from a discussion about separating WES and SWES. They don't need to start meddling at this point. She doesn't support the motion. Crawford asked the size of the system at Alpha Tech. Harrison stated it is 7.5 kW and may be close to a height of 100 feet. The motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Knutzen and Mann (3) Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 5 315 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Nays: Crawford, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (4) Crawford moved to add 20.14.074 as presented in the previous version and as deleted at the last meeting, "20.14.074 Flicker Analysis for WES 1. A flicker analysis is required for all WES. The analysis shall include the duration and location of flicker potential for all buildings and for roadways within a one (1) mile radius of each turbine within a project. The applicant shall provide a site map identifying the locations of shadow flicker that may be caused by the project and the expected durations of the flicker at these locations from sunrise to sunset over the course of a year. The analysis shall account for topography but not for obstacles such as accessory structures and trees. Flicker at any building shall not exceed thirty (30) hours per year within the analysis area. Flicker in excess of the limits established in this ordnance shall be grounds for the County or his/her designee to order operational adjustments, which may include mitigation measures requiring cessation of operation during periods when flicker effects any building, for all non- compliant WES." Flicker has shown to be a problem with large WES, and it's appropriate for WES. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann and Kremen (6) Nays: None (0) Absent: Weimer (out of the room) (1) Mann stated he would not vote for this ordinance as it is. The ordinance fails to meet his intent. It lacks vision, leadership, and principles. They have deferred to flimsy medical claims and aesthetic concerns instead of standing up for alternative energy potential and entrepreneurial investments. It's too restrictive. They eliminated larger wind turbines in much of the county. It's disappointing. He hopes that as wind energy technology improves, the Council revisits the ordinance. They eliminated the potential completely from agriculture and commercial forestry zones. Kershner moved to introduce as amended. Brenner asked about upper limit on noise. At some point, have different upper limits for noise in different zones for large SWES. Kershner stated those will all be in HII zones. Harrison stated he recommends not introducing this ordinance until the Council is done with it. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen and Kremen (5) Nays: Mann and Weimer (2) 2. REQUEST CLARIFICATION OF A MOTION APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2012, REGARDING THE LAKE WHATCOM RECONVEYANCE AND DISCUSSION OF FUTURE SCHEDULING (AB2012-066D) (10:42:38 AM) Jack Louws, County Executive, referenced his memo and stated the administration suggests the Council and administration have three meetings to discuss: 1. the Parks and Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 6 316 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Recreation Plan, 2. a forest management plan and Councilmember Crawford's suggestion on a property swap, and 3. a budget. During those meetings, review the work done over the years by the Parks Department, Park and Recreation Commission, and community. He hopes to achieve a Council consensus to move forward a vote. It doesn't matter whether those meetings occur in a specific committee or Committee of the Whole (COTW). Crawford asked the timeframe of the three meetings. Louws stated it would be late November or December, after they get through the budget. Crawford stated have the first of the three meetings in December, then the others in January, to be done at the end of January. Brenner stated discuss it in COTW. This issue is controversial, and all councilmembers should be part of the discussion. Crawford stated meeting in COTW is fine with him. Kershner stated the Council concurs on scheduling the meetings in COTW. Weimer asked if the first meeting to talk about the Parks Plan would actually amend the plan, or just produce input from the Council about what the Council wants for this property, which could change with a different Council. Louws stated bring forward the plan that was vetted three years ago. If the Council agrees with the plan, there would be no amendments. He wants to revisit the parameters in which the plan was written. Ask to what degree recreation would exist on that property, and where it would exist. Give the administration an idea of the Council's direction. He understands this Council can't put anything in place to prohibit decisions of future Councils, but they need a way to start planning. Brenner stated this meeting is about clarifying the motion the Council approved at the last meeting. This discussion wasn't advertised. Mann asked if the Council would review the plan for that potential park or all county parks. Louws stated review the plan for the potential reconveyance property. Knutzen moved to discuss it in COTW for three meetings, as Executive Louws proposes. Karen Brown asked where a land swap comes into the picture, and if the public can speak during the three meetings. Louws stated they would discuss Councilmember Crawford's proposal for land swap at the second meeting. He would like to have a discussion with the Council, based on community testimony. It's up to the Council whether the public would participate in the three meetings. Brenner stated don't say there will be three meetings only, but approve a minimum of three meetings. At some point, she would like to hear the County Executive's recommendation. Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 7 317 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Knutzen asked if a forest management discussion will include geologic and stability concerns. Louws stated it's up to the Council. Clayton Petree stated the original motion included analyses of the no -action alternative and State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recreation plan alternative. He asked when a catastrophic risk assessment for the park or other use related to landslides would be done. Something like that can take a long time. Kershner stated the first meeting about the park plan should include a conversation about requesting a DNR recreational easement. The second meeting about timber management could include information about other natural resource issues such as landslides. Ellen Baker stated the Council never initiated the request for the park to begin with. The former Executive and Parks Department initiated the request. It doesn't make sense for the Council to define a need for the park. It is the Executive's responsibility and the Parks Department's responsibility to say the need exists. A need for the park or its future has never been quantified. She doesn't know why the Council would do the Executive's job or Parks Department job. She's concerned the process has been backwards. This was an Executive -driven project from the beginning. Kershner stated they are creating a mechanism to consider public dialog received on September 11. This is one of several good approaches to talk about this at the Council level. Baker stated another approach is to go through the strict planning process. Kershner stated the Council will talk about that process during its discussion. Shane Roth stated this should not die in committee. The Council should fix a point when there will be an official vote at a Council meeting. If there is an unlimited number of meetings, it suggests the clock is being run out. They've had five years to get this information. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7) Nays: None (0) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 8 318 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. The Council approved these minutes on , 2012. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Kathy Kershner, Council Chair Special Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 9 319 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Committee Of The Whole October 9, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Council Vice -Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann, Pete Kremen and Carl Weimer Absent: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. STRATEGY PLANNING DISCUSSION AND POSITIONS TO BE TAKEN REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (AB2012-306) Knutzen stated discussion of agenda item one may take place in executive session pursuant to RCW42.30.140(4)(a). Executive session will conclude no later than 7:00 p.m. If the meeting extends beyond the stated conclusion time, he will step out of the meeting to make a public announcement. Kremen moved to go into executive session until no later than 7:00 p.m. to discuss the agenda item pursuant to RCW citations as announced by the Council Chair. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Mann, Kremen and Weimer (6) Nays: None(0) Absent: Kershner (out of the room) (1) OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m. The Council approved these minutes on , 2012. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 1 320 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Bill Knutzen, Council Vice -Chair Committee of the Whole, 10/9/2012, Page 2 321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council October 9, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL (7: 01: 05 PM) Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen. Absent: None. FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS (7: 01: 30 PM) Kershner reported for the Special Committee of the Whole meeting and stated there was discussion of proposed amendments to Whatcom County Code 20.14, Wind Energy Systems (AB2011-223A). The Committee approved a recommendation to introduce the ordinance at the next meeting. Kershner also reported for the Special Committee of the Whole meeting and stated there was discussion regarding a request clarification of a motion approved on September 25, 2012, regarding the Lake Whatcom Reconveyance and discussion of future scheduling (AB2012-066D). The Council will have three meetings regarding a park plan, timber management, and cost proposals. Those meetings will occur on the regular meeting days in December and January. Kershner finally reported for the Committee of the Whole meeting and stated there was a strategy planning discussion and positions to be taken regarding collective bargaining (AB2012-306) in executive session. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 9.32.160 TO CLARIFY THE AREA COVERED BY NO -SHOOTING ZONE NUMBER 5 (AB2012-301) (7:04:06 PM) Whatcom County Council, 10/9/2012, Page 1 322 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke: Leonard Lindstrom spoke about riot control and whether anger, hate, and pain are all there is. Church people won't let him talk. His personality is positive. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. Kremen moved to adopt the ordinance. Knutzen asked why this ordinance is brought forward. Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated a citizen brought to the Council's attention that part of the legal description inadvertently omitted the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) portion of the easement underneath the power lines. This corrects the legal description. There are other instances where the description in the code doesn't match the actual legal description. County staff is working on them. Brenner stated these are open areas. It's not like being in the woods. Kremen stated this in the North Shore Road area. A citizen was concerned because there was a lot of shooting going on very close to a residential area. There were conflicting documents. This ordinance rectifies the original intent. Knutzen asked if this area is in the urban growth area (UGA). Kremen stated he didn't think it is in the UGA. Knutzen stated some of this area is accessible for hunting currently. He asked if they are going to tell people they can't hunt in this area. Kremen stated this is a very small sliver of land. Knutzen asked if a deer hunter is breaking the law if he shoots a deer in that area. Brown -Davis stated he doesn't believe that BPA allows shooting in that zone, anyway. They just need to correct the code to match the existing practice. Brenner moved to reopen the public hearing. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) Donna Clark stated she owns the property, and she allows hunting there if people ask her permission. It was never posted until this year on the Y Road and on Agate Bay Lane. It's new ground that's been moved. There is a lot of deer and shooting out there, up above her. It's target practice, not deer hunting. Those are the people who have been causing all the ruckus. It's near the old gravel pit. Whatcom County Council, 10/9/2012, Page 2 323 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner asked if Ms. Clark wants the property to be a no shooting zone. Clark stated she has had two deer hit her, and it's cost her money. There are too many deer, and they are killing people. She doesn't care if people hunt if they ask her permission first. Kremen stated the area in the ordinance is further south than Ms. Clark's property. It's right underneath the power lines. Brenner stated BPA has an easement across Ms. Clark's property. Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing. Knutzen stated a majority of the ground above the easement is wooded. A deer hunter is going to shoot a deer in the open area. That clearing is where there will be an opportunity to shoot a deer. He is concerned a deer hunter will suddenly do something that is illegal. Kershner asked if BPA allows shooting underneath its power lines. Brown -Davis stated it does not. Kershner stated hunting isn't allowed already. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (6) Nays: Knutzen (1) OPEN SESSION (7:19: 39 PM) The following people spoke: • Yoshi Revelle spoke about political issues of war and abortion and of private and public property. • Gary Lysne submitted handouts (on file) and spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed land reconveyance. • Donna Clark spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed land reconveyance. • Carl Olson spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed land reconveyance. CONSENT AGENDA (7: 27:16 PM) Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through three. Knutzen stated he thanks the County's Department of Information Technology (DoIT), including Perry Rice, for the quick response to his questions. Whatcom County Council, 10/9/2012, Page 3 324 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A TWO YEAR CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND QWEST CORPORATION D/B/A CENTURYLINK QC FOR T1 TELECOMMUNICATION TRUNK LINES FOR INBOUND AND OUTBOUND CALLS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,880 (AB2012-308) 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORSTAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., D/B/A BLACK BOX NETWORK SERVICES FOR TWO YEAR CONTINUATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE PLAN FOR ERICSSON MX ONE TELEPHONE AND VOICE MAIL SYSTEMS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $127,512, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $395,646 (AB2012-309) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO PROVIDE A WASHINGTON CONSERVATION CORPS CREW TO IMPLEMENT NEW WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECTS, MAINTAIN EXISTING RESTORATION PROJECTS, AND ASSIST WITH WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 (AB2012-310) OTHER ITEMS 1. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF RAY WOLPOW TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD (AB2012-311) (7:28:23 PM) Kremen moved to confirm the appointment. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 2. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF BRENAN FILIPPINI TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY APPEALS BOARD (AB2012- 312) (7:28:50 PM) Mann moved to confirm the appointment. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) Whatcom County Council, 10/9/2012, Page 4 325 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. 3. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENTS TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR BUSINESS/INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE - APPLICANT(S): AMBER JONES, AND CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE - APPLICANT(S): CASEY HEINLE (AB2012- 092C) (7: 29:19 PM) Knutzen moved to nominate and appoint the two applicants. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) INTRODUCTION ITEMS (7:30:30 PM) Crawford moved to accept the Introduction Items. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7) Nays: None (0) 1. ORDINANCE FOR 2012 PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST #2, CIVIC CENTER EXTERIOR REPAIRS PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $204,662 (AB2012-313) 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, THIRTEENTH REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $212,411 (AB2012-316) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (7: 31: 21 PM) Crawford reported that Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Alcoa Intalco are close to reaching a ten-year power deal. That's good news. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m. The Council approved these minutes on , 2012. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Whatcom County Council, 10/9/2012, Page 5 326 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kathy Kershner, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 10/9/2012, Page 6 327 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session October 16, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Garden Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann, Pete Kremen and Carl Weimer Absent: None SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2012-024) Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he thanks Dr. Jon Hutchings for his work at Whatcom County over the past nine years. He is sorry to lose Dr. Hutchings to the City of Bellingham, but wishes him well. Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated he also thanks Dr. Hutchings for his work at Whatcom County. He appreciates his service. The administration is going to appoint Chris Brueske to Dr. Hutchings' position. He thanked and congratulated Mr. Brueske. Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, thanked Mr. Abart and described his background in the private sector and with Whatcom County. Louws stated they all met last Friday to talk about the County's challenges and opportunities. This is an important position that requires a specific skill set to work with the community, staff, and the Council. Knutzen asked the status on replacing another vacant position. Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated they are in the process of hiring a candidate. They are also in the process of filling a vacant stormwater position. Brenner stated she's upset Dr. Hutchings is leaving, but she really likes Mr. Brueske. Weimer asked what position Dr. Hutchings will fill at the City. Hutchings stated the City has been doing some restructuring and reprioritizing. The City has plans to develop a program similar to the County's coordinated water resource inventory program (CWRIP). He will manage certain programs at the City. The new position will give him exposure to Surface Water Work Session, 10/16/2012, Page 1 328 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. utility services, which the County doesn't provide. It's an experience necessary to move up in the field of Public Works. He described today's agenda items. 1. UPDATE ON COUNTY RURAL WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS The purpose of rural water quality programs is because of human health concerns about shellfish and elevated fecal coliform concentrations in certain creeks and streams around Whatcom County, many of which are in rural areas. Creeks and streams in urban areas are handled in the County's stormwater program, as mandated by the national pollutant discharge and elimination system (NPDES) permit. Regarding efforts in rural parts of the county, it's clear that it takes a team effort to deal with water quality, due to jurisdictional issues. Any effort must be accomplished with the community. The County can't force people to deal with the problems. The County has worked with that focus. With the help of Health Department staff and the Conservation District, they've created a good local team. Last spring, the Governor created a shellfish initiative to focus on areas with fecal col iform-related shellfish problems and to clean up the waters so shellfish would become harvestable. The State began its initiative with Skagit County, and have now moved to Whatcom County. There is a federal and Tribal connection to the State's efforts. The County administration is willing to participate in the State's programs within the goals the County already set in Whatcom County. A program must be done in a way that the results are persistent and long-lasting. The County needs a model that the community will buy into. The County is willing to align programs and leverage efforts, but is not willing to take on the State's responsibility regarding the Clean Water Act. Crawford asked if this is about dairies and manure management. Hutchings stated it is about dairies, septic systems, small farm management, and wildlife. Crawford asked if they assume that dairy operations are the biggest problem. Erika Stroebel, Public Works Department, stated they don't necessarily make that assumption. The approach is to look at all the sources. Dairies are already in the nutrient management program. There are other livestock operations. Crawford stated he doesn't recall the Department of Ecology (Ecology) inspecting anything but dairies. Stroebel stated Ecology will go site -by -site and look at all potential sources. They are focusing on potential sources of bacteria on a parcel and defining how to deal with them. Kershner asked if Ecology is doing this. Stroebel stated it is Ecology's approach in its shellfish initiative. Stroebel described the water quality problems in Whatcom County and what the County plans to do. Different isolated monitoring programs focus on specific areas and projects. There hasn't been a comprehensive look at the biggest bacteria sources. The community wants the County to take its programs to the areas with the problems. Staff began to look at how other county programs were structured and found that the Kitsap Surface Water Work Session, 10/16/2012, Page 2 329 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. County model is the best out there. Kitsap County will annually review and rank their data. The rank drives where they put their efforts for the year. Whatcom County needs to look at things more comprehensively. There are 90 monitoring stations checked monthly. She described the areas being monitored that aren't meeting or are partially meeting water quality standards. The County's process for chasing contamination spikes wasn't effective or consistent. There wasn't a lot of success in improving water quality. Now they are going to focus on one smaller drainage area at a time for one year, including working with the community members. Knutzen asked about monitoring stations on Lake Whatcom. Stroebel stated there are monitoring stations on Lake Whatcom. Today, she is focusing on coastal drainages, driven by recreational uses of marine waters. Lake Whatcom is a different system. They are planning to continue routine monitoring and will continue to annually review and rank priorities. She submitted and read from a presentation (on file) about planned solutions. Brenner stated she's surprised to see there are still problems in the Ten Mile watershed. Stroebel stated that, to engage the community, they will begin to survey community members to find the messages that will resonate with the members of a particular neighborhood and compel them to become invested in the County's efforts. The County will identify community leaders and host technical workshops. They will identify best management practices for each site and provide financial incentives. She described the plan for implementing a regulatory backstop for egregious, uncooperative offenders. This is about community engagement to identify problems and solutions. Kershner asked if this effort is concurrent with Ecology's parcel -by -parcel review, and if it would undermine the County's process. She asked if they can get Ecology off a property owner's back while working with the County. Stroebel stated Ecology's focus will be on other efforts. Knutzen asked about Ecology's efforts regarding the dairy nutrient management program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also inspected dairies, and hasn't found any problems. Stroebel stated she hasn't heard that they have found problems. Knutzen asked how they justify giving them funding to do this when there isn't evidence to support claims of dairy contamination. Stroebel stated this program doesn't focus just on dairies. The dairy industry has much better management practices that are working. However, there are other large livestock operations and septic problems. They aren't looking just at dairies. Knutzen stated it seems like they're throwing good money after bad. Hutchings stated the point about the Ecology's presence in the County for inspection and enforcement is a good point. The County is aligned with the Conservation District and others to not allow that conflict to happen. There have been a lot of conversations about that very point. If the County and Conservation District take action, they know their efforts won't work with Surface Water Work Session, 10/16/2012, Page 3 330 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. the community if that conflict exists. It will undermine their credibility. They don't want that to happen. Stroebel stated it's important to have solid data to guide the various efforts. The County is investing in solid protocols and will continue comprehensive monitoring and refocus existing segmented monitoring to ensure efforts go to areas with the biggest problems. Brenner asked if they will promote septic system classes in the Dakota Creek area. People in that area should be encouraged to take the classes. Stroebel stated they will provide comprehensive information on all the resources available to people in a drainage. If people are interested in septic systems, the County will provide the information. Brenner stated people may not be interested because they don't understand how much it contributes to the equity of their home. The County isn't getting that message out to the community. She asked about bacteria from geese and other wildlife. Stroebel stated they will look at it as they work in each drainage. Each drainage has different sources and different levels of each source. The community members must understand what those sources are in their watershed and how to deal with them. It's about microbial source tracking, which is costly and difficult to quantify because of the different sources. Instead, they look at land uses to get a general idea the land uses in the watershed and the resulting sources, including wildlife. Kremen asked if things are generally getting better, worse, or staying static. Stroebel stated it depends on the area. Kremen asked if County efforts are bearing fruit. Stroebel stated they are. However, there are rapid increases in bacteria in the main stem of the Nooksack. Kremen stated it's frustrating. The County has made aggressive efforts to attack and reduce the contaminant levels, even in Lake Whatcom. It seems they don't make much progress, no matter what they do. Stroebel stated they have seen improvements in some areas, such as Drayton Harbor. There is reason for optimism. Mann stated a challenge is that a lot of people don't think there are any problems. The Council recently discussed whether failing septic systems are a problem. Mr. Knutzen said that there are no recent dairy infractions. They want to blame the geese. People in Lynden got angry for suggesting there were contaminated streams in the area. There is a lot of denial. The first thing the County needs to do is show there is scientific proof of contamination. Hutchings stated they can't be successful in the long-term and change peoples' minds unless the people understand their connection to the creek or water source. Kremen stated most farmers have used better practices over the last several years. It has to be demoralizing for these farmers to have made efforts and investments that haven't been successful. Stroebel stated that's why they need to focus on one drainage at a time. Rather than have just a few farmers make efforts in a drainage, get the majority of folks in one drainage on board, and they'll see improvements resulting in a success story. Then the County can move to the next area. Surface Water Work Session, 10/16/2012, Page 4 331 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated set up a system to help defend farmers from frivolous lawsuits. That's one reason farmers don't trust government. No matter what they do, the government sets up private parties to file lawsuits. A lot of that is just someone wanting to get money. The farmers end up settling without making changes, just to pay someone off. Ecology shouldn't promote these frivolous lawsuits. George Boggs, Conservation District, stated there are 120 dairies in 145,000 acres that have made significant progress. There are 1,200 other livestock operations, many hobby farms, and onsite septic systems. He shares the frustration. Give credit for the accomplishments. His staff are focused on other things because they don't have funding. The County must have a program commensurate with challenges. A program based on monitoring, education, and technical assistance will be the most sustainable program for the farmer. Kyle Dodd, Health Department, stated the Health Department plans to lead with education first. Treat referrals from Ecology as if they were regular complaints. If Ecology believes there are bacterial sources from septic systems, the County will inspect on a site - by -site basis. Hutchings stated one issue is about using land use regulation to enforce Clean Water Act violations. There is administrative leeway in how aggressively one pursues it. Find out if a creek is fouled, then find the likely cause. If the connection is clear between the violation and the transgression on the land, it can be enforced under the Clean Water Act, which promotes a better connection than the County trying to enforce buffers. Hopefully, that balance will be better. Knutzen asked if the acceptable levels have gotten more stringent. Stroebel stated the acceptable levels are the same. They are seeing changing water quality. The County has been monitoring to respond more proactively than waiting for a ten-year closure. They are at a threatened level at some of the sites. People are trying to be proactive before it results in another long-term closure. 2. UPDATE ON PROGRESS RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF SEDIMENTS AT SWIFT CREEK Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated the issue with Swift Creek evolved slowly over time. There have been State and federal hurdles preventing the County from keeping the creek open. The level of actual sediment management diminishes from year to year. There is nowhere to put the material without risking regulation by superfund laws and bearing an enormous amount of liability. A team of County staff and others have discussed the real implications for human health and safety. The Health Department keeps track of information from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and understands what the sampling means. For example, a recent report suggests that the chrysotile asbestos from Sumas Mountain is more toxic than the asbestos in other areas. The role of the Planning Department will evolve in terms of what they do in areas up the Sumas River and if there are best management practices that should be put in place. The Public Works Department deals with sediment management and water. The Prosecutor's Office and other government levels are also involved. Surface Water Work Session, 10/16/2012, Page 5 332 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Recently there have been focused conversations about liability. It comes down to whether or not the principal parties, which are the County, State, and federal government, can agree on how to manage the material into the future via a friendly lawsuit and decision by a judge so the State and federal government agree not to sue the County. That doesn't do anything about third -party liability from someone who may have suffered health issues. They can spread out the liability among the three governments and others. That puts the State and federal government in front of any lawsuit because they have deeper pockets. Dealing with the Department of Justice is tough. Prosecuting Attorney Dan Gibson is still working on it. Staff recognize that the County must get this figured out. In the end, the County government will be called if there is a flood and the stuff is spreading across people's yards. Roads and bridges may also be inundated with the material. The County must deal with those situations. There is an impetus for the County to participate and force the State and federal governments forward. Taking on this responsibility will be a legislative decision. The question, through an environmental impact statement (EIS), will lay out alternatives for the administration to consider and the Council to make a decision. An EIS has a beginning and end with a decision point when it's done. There will be a recommendation. Therefore, the State and federal government will have to deal with the situation. If there is no agreement pending and they can't get over the liability hurdle, the EIS can be amended to acknowledge those changes. That's the direction of the County's plan. The EIS is underway. A draft may come out in January. Jeff Hegedus, Dan Gibson , and Chris Brueske will be the team members involved. Brenner stated the County isn't eligible for superfund money because the asbestos source is natural. Hutchings stated that is correct. The EPA wants it in the superfund program to regulate it, but the EPA isn't allowed to spend money on it unless there is an emergency situation. Brenner stated she hasn't seen any science that proves the material is toxic. She wants to see the science. They did a bunch of health surveys of people in the area, and didn't find one case with health impacts. Hutchings stated the level of risk hasn't been adequately explored. Most people accept that being near this asbestos may cause someone to get sick. Jeff Hegedus, stated chrysotile is hazardous and regulated. There is risk from breathing chrysotile. The risk is significant. It may be more toxic that the types of asbestos in Libby, Montana or El Dorado Hills, California. Brenner asked who is doing the study. Hegedus stated a consortium of academic scientists are doing the study, which is in the process of being peer reviewed. They don't know the toxicity level, but they know the level is not zero. The question of toxicity is not something people can have their own personal opinions about. It's well -established. They can't assume it's zero. Kershner asked for information on the study. Hegedus stated he can provide that information. They don't see people getting sick at Swift Creek because there is a very small population statistically. He's glad they don't have statistical or anecdotal evidence, but that doesn't mean people may not be getting sick. Surface Water Work Session, 10/16/2012, Page 6 333 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Brenner stated she doesn't know how significant the risk is. Hegedus stated the current recommendation is that people should stay away from the material. Hutchings stated the County's role is to get the information out to the people. People have personal choice about how they respond on their own property. The County must understand these questions because the liability is about those risk management questions. Knutzen stated it seems like there is no evidence to support the claims being made about it being a health hazard. It's something they've dealt with for 50 or 100 years that wasn't a problem until someone pointed it out, even though no one could provide evidence of a problem. It's frustrating. Property owners can't sell their properties. Farm fields can't drain because they can't dig out the ditch. A Canadian neighbor is upset because sediment is going into the Frasier River. He asked what has to happen for someone to finally address this. Hutchings stated they have to change federal law. Knutzen stated there will be a new federal representative for that district. Talk to the candidates about the issue. Hutchings stated they can talk about that approach. The staff have talked about whether that will be successful in a reasonable amount of time. Kremen stated it's on been their top priority list for at least eight years. It doesn't even get the light of day at the federal government. The federal government totally ignores any financial responsibility at all. Crawford stated Congressman Rick Larson was not receptive to talking about Swift Creek. Kremen stated he agrees. Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell have also ignored it. The federal government isn't willing to put one penny into managing something that naturally occurs. Knutzen stated the County has used the material on the roads and in other projects over the last 50 years. If it was an issue, someone would have found it. Kremen stated he doesn't know why the County must absorb the financial responsibility. It's a federal law, not a County law. Much of the material comes from State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land. He doesn't know why the County ends up having to deal with such a huge issue. The people in the county don't have the financial wherewithal to deal with the problem. Mann stated he shares this frustration. He studied asbestos, and is less afraid of it than before he knew anything about it. He is willing to accept the peer reviewed studies from the scientists. The risk isn't zero, but he's not worried about it. He asked how many people in Libby, Montana who worked in the mines got sick or died. Hegedus described the Swift creek study and the situation in Libby, Montana. People who didn't work there got sick and died. Surface Water Work Session, 10/16/2012, Page 7 334 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Kremen stated the EPA did their own study of 11 simulated activities. Nine of them were found to be at acceptable levels. The most important of the 11 simulated activities was kids playing for two hours per day for 350 days per year in this material from Swift Creek, in a sandbox filled with the material. The level of contaminant was acceptable. The two tests in the study that weren't within acceptable levels were just barely over the limit. The EPA spokesperson compared the risk level to breathing the air in downtown Seattle. That said, the County shouldn't turn it's back and say nothing is wrong, but Whatcom County shouldn't take the lead to address the issue, which would cost $100 million to resolve. Hutchings stated they agree. The County must force the other governments to participate. The County government can't just accept this liability from third parties and be sued under environmental laws by higher levels of governments, just because they want to. There has got to be a framework. Mann asked where the County put the material it dredged this year. Hutchings stated the County piled the material on property it has historically used to pile the material. When the County unburies its road, it will need a place for the material. That property was acquired for that purpose. It was not acquired to become an asbestos repository. It's an interim option. .14101Ad1f]►F--il1u1514:7:J:Zs}Jx41&t Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated the summer projects included a small repair project on the Abbott levee and other projects along the river. A project was at the Cedarville landfill. They wrapped up the Silver Beach Creek pilot project. Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, described the Silver Beach project. He described the process and cost for replacing stormwater vault filter cartridges. Brenner asked how many miles of swales they need to prevent runoff. Hutchings stated he will look into that answer. They'll get it done. It's a matter of choosing the best projects given the money. Mann stated he would like to tour these facilities. Knutzen asked if there are two of these facilities for which they're getting results. Christensen stated the County gets results at Lahti Drive, which gets 89 percent, and Cable Street, which gets 50 percent. Knutzen asked if the City is doing similar work. Christensen stated it is. Brenner stated she would like to see the City's results. 4. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED 2013 AND 2014 BUDGETS FOR PUBLIC WORKS SURFACE WATER DIVISION Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted handouts (on file). Revenues are stable through 2013, and drop in 2014, based on whether grant funds and real estate excise tax (REET) funds will be available. The decrease in money available in 2014 will be about 10 percent, or $600,000. Surface Water Work Session, 10/16/2012, Page 8 335 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. Regarding expenditures, the proposed budget is balanced, with the exception of the Deming levee improvement project. Another capital project ready for construction is the Canyon Creek levee. Three-quarters of the money is from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for a levee setback and habitat improvement. The three capital projects are Canyon Creek, Deming, and the pre-engineering/alternatives analysis for Jones Creek. There is no money in the budget for construction at Jones Creek. Knutzen asked if there is money dedicated to Swift Creek. Hutchings stated there is not. Money for Swift Creek is budgeted in 2012 and carried into 2013. There is no new money. Brenner asked about less REET money being available. Hutchings stated there are fewer qualifying projects, not less money. They have steadily increasing reporting and inspection requirements under these stormwater regulations. Those requirements can't be financed from REET. The financing must come from the flood fund. Mann asked about balancing the budget. Hutchings stated the budget is balanced with the exception of a couple of capital projects over the last couple of years. One example is the Deming levee improvement project. REET money was available and put into a fund, which is reflected in the fund balance. The fund balance goes up and down over the course of time, depending on whether REET money is available for a capital improvement project, which can draw down the fund balance over a couple of years. That is the reason for periods of increases and decreases in the fund balance. They don't spend the same amount of money from year to year. They develop and construct big capital projects over a couple of years. A big project is built every five or six years. Brenner stated REET can be used for stormwater. She asked why stormwater project funding can't come from REET. Hutchings stated there is up to $1 million from REET for water resource capital projects. They can have more REET funds, but there has to be an administrative investment that can't all come from REET. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. The Council approved these minutes on , 2012. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Kathy Kershner, Council Chair Surface Water Work Session, 10/16/2012, Page 9 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DISCLAIMER: This document is a draft and is provided as a courtesy. This document is not to be considered as the final minutes. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review and approval by the Whatcom County Council. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Committee Of The Whole October 23, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. ROLL CALL Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann, Pete Kremen and Carl Weimer Absent: None 1. DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR KAREN FRAKES REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION, HIRST ET AL V. WHATCOM COUNTY, GMHB CASE NO. 12-2-0013 (AB2012-018) Attorneys present: Dave McEachran and Karen Frakes 2. DISCUSSION WITH CHIEF CIVIL DEPUTY PROSECUTOR RANDALL WATTS REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION, MCDANIELS V. WHATCOM COUNTY ET AL (AB2012-018) Attorneys present: Randall Watts Kershner stated that discussion of agenda items one and two may take place in executive session pursuant to RCW42.30.110 (1)(i). Executive session will conclude no later than 7:00 p.m. If the meeting extends beyond the stated conclusion time, she will step out of the meeting to make a public announcement. Mann moved to go into executive session until no later than 7:00 p.m. to discuss the agenda items, pursuant to the RCW citations as announced by the Council Chair. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Kremen and Weimer (7) Nays: None (0) OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. The Council approved these minutes on , 2012. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Committee of the Whole, 10/23/2012, Page 1 337 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kathy Kershner, Council Chair Committee of the Whole, 10/23/2012, Page 2 338 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2011-223D CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: Alex Cleanthous A c ( o/to//,)--_ j[ E C E� nV E D If-1j 10123/2012 Introduction Division Head: Wain Harrison 111712012 Public Hearing /10447- OCT J 2012 Dept. Head: \r >FV& Sam Ryan -Towi 1 I WHATCOM COUNTY Prosecutor: �-" Royce Buckingham COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget.• Brad Bennett Executive: Jack Lows TITLE OF D C NT. Wind Energy Systems ATTACHMENTS: (1) Council's Ordinance SEPA review required? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? (X) Yes () NO SEPA review completed? ( x ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: November 7, 2012 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.) Amendments to Whatcom County Code 20.14 Wind Energy Systems. The proposal allows for a range of Wind Energy System (WES) sizes with regulations pertaining to setbacks, appearance, sound levels and measurement, abandonment and complaint issues. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: 10/23/2012: 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/council. L\Planning Division\Long Range Planning\PLN-CP-Code Amendments\2010\PLN-2010 Files\PLN2010-00026 -Wind Energy\Council\October 23, 2012\pIn2010-00026- agendabill-20121023.doex 339 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING WCC TITLE 20.14, WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS WHEREAS, ORD2008-043 adopted development regulations for Wind Energy Systems in unincorporated Whatcom County. WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council adopted emergency ordinance 2010-015 prohibiting the application for wind energy systems greater than 500 kw and the application for multiple wind energy systems with a cumulative rated output greater than 100 kw. WHEREAS, ORD2010-018 established a moratorium on wind energy systems greater than 500 kw and the application for multiple wind energy systems with a cumulative rated output greater than 100 kw. WHEREAS, In accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 Whatcom County Planning and Development Services notified the Department of Commerce of proposed amendments to WCC 20.14 on Nov 3, 2010. WHEREAS, The Whatcom County SEPA official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on April 13, 2011. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 26, 2011 and voted 6-1 for a recommendation of approval for the proposed amendments to WCC 20.14, Wind Energy Systems. WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council held a number of work sessions between 2011 and 2012 as well as public hearings on May 8 and November 7, 2012 regarding revisions to the Wind Energy chapter of the Whatcom County Code. FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. The Whatcom County Council in response to the moratorium organized a Wind Energy Work Group. The work group was comprised of citizens, renewable energy professionals, Whatcom County staff and elected officials. 2. The Wind Energy Work Group met twice, May 4 and 14, 2010. 3. The Wind Energy Work Group discussed issues such as setbacks, noise, shadow flicker and siting of windmills near residential development. 1 CM 1 4. The results of the Wind Energy Work Group were two proposed ordinances, one From Councilmember Brenner and one from Council member Mann. The Whatcom County Council was unable to reach consensus on an ordinance and requested the Whatcom Planning Commission to review the proposals and make a recommendation. 5. The Whatcom County Planning Commission held work sessions on and a public hearing on the results of the Wind Energy Work group on November 18, 2010, and December 9, 2010 respectively. 6. At the December 9, 2010 hearing the Planning Commission was unable to find consensus between Councilmember Brenner and Mann's proposals. The Planning Commission requested that staff begin to re-evaluate the current ordinance and make improvements based on concerns raised by the public and discussion at the Planning Commission work session and public hearing. 7. Planning staff held two more work sessions on updating WCC 20.14. Those work sessions were held on January 13 and March 24, 2011. 8. Citizens and Planning Commissioners identified the following as issues to be addressed during the work sessions; permitting and zoning, setback requirements, pre and post monitoring of sound, height limitations, blade throw, shadow flicker, animal habitat impacts, and decommissioning. 9. The Whatcom County Planning Commission held public hearings on proposed changes to WCC 20.14 on April 28 and May 26, 2011. 10. A legal notice for the May 26, 2011 Whatcom County Planning Commission public hearing was publishing on May 15, 2011 11. The Whatcom County Planning Commission at the May 26, 2011 public hearing voted 6-1 to recommend approval to the Whatcom County Council on amendments to Whatcom County Code 20.14. 12.The Whatcom County Council has held a number sessions between 2011 and 2012 on the proposed ordinance to amend WCC 20.14 Wind Energy Systems. 13. At the work sessions issues such as, permits, zoning, setback requirement, sound level measurement, height limitations, general safety, blade tip height requirements, ice throw, blade throw, flicker analysis, establishing a complaint process, and abandonment of the systems were discussed. 14.The Whatcom County Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to WCC 20.14 on November 7, 2012. CONCLUSION The proposal meets all of the legal requirements as noted within the 2 341 Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action. The proposed amendment is compatible with the Growth Management Act, Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, along with policies within Whatcom County's County Wide Planning Policies. Approval of this amendment is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20) is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of 12012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED as to form: Civil Deputy Prosecutor Kathy Kershner, Council Chairperson ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date: Jack Louws, Executive 3 342 EXHIBIT A 343 Chapter 20.14 Wind Energy Systems Sections 20.14.010 Purpose 20.14.020 Definitions 20.14.030 Applicability 20.14.040 Regulatory Framework 20.14.050 General Requirements 20.14.060 Sound Levels and Measurement 20.14.070 Safety 20.14.080 Sound measurement protocol for assessment of proposed and existing wind energy systems with a cumulative rated output over 100 kW 20.14.090 Complaint Process 20.14.100 Abandonment, insurance, and decommissioning for WES 20.14.110 Federal, State and Local Requirements 20.14.010 PURPOSE The purpose of the Ordinance is to regulate the installation and operation of wind energy conversion systems in Whatcom County for private landowners, subject to reasonable restrictions. 20.14.020 DEFINITIONS As used in this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: County shall mean Whatcom County government. 1. County shall mean the Whatcom County government. 2. Decibel — A unit of measure of sound pressure. 3. dB(A) — A -weighted sound pressure scale. 4. dB(C) — C-weighted sound pressure scale. 5. FAA shall mean the Federal Aviation Administration. 6. Flicker or Shadow Flicker — The moving shadow cast by the rotating blades of a SWES/WES, or any intermittent, repetitive, or rhythmic lighting effect that is a direct result of rotating SWES/WES blades. 7. Flicker Analysis — A study showing the duration and location of flicker potential. 8. Hub Height — The distance from the ground to the center axis if the rotor. C.. 9. Qualified Independent Acoustical Consultant — A private, third -party individual with full membership in the Institute of Noise Control Engineers (INCE) or other demonstrated acoustical en in�eering_certification. 10. MET Tower or "Meteorological tower" - a structure designed to support the gathering of wind energy resource data, and includes the tower, base plate, anchors, guy cables and hardware, anemometers (wind speed indicators), wind direction vanes, booms to hold equipment anemometers and vanes, data logger, instrument wiring, and any telemetry devices that are used to monitor or transmit wind speed and wind flow characteristics over a period of time for either instantaneous wind information or to characterize the wind resource at a given location. 11. Rotor — A system of airfoils designed ,provide a reaction force relative to the movement of the surrounding air. The rotor is connected to a hub that rotates around an axis. 12. Small Wind Energy System (SWES) - A wind energy conversion system, with a rated output up to and including 50 kW, consisting of: wind turbine, tower, base and associated control or conversion electronics, as well as all anchors, guy cables and hardware. 13. Total Height — The distance measured from the rg ade plane. (WCC 20.97.162) to the tip of the SWES/WES rotor blade extended to its highest point. The support tower structure may be freestanding, guyed, or a monopole. 14. Tower Height - The distance measured from the grade plane (WCC 20.97.162) to the hub height of the wind turbine. This structure may be freestanding, guyed, or a monopole. 15. Upwind Turbine Design — A SWES/WES that has rotors and towers aligned such that the wind encounters the rotors before the tower. The tower will always be downwind of the rotors. 16. Wind Turbine - The parts of the wind energy conversion system including the blades, generator and tail. IT Wind Energy ystem (WES) - A wind energy conversion system with a rated output greater than 50 kW consisting of: wind turbine, tower, base and associated control or conversion electronics, as well as anchors, guy cables, and hardware. 20.14.030 APPLICABILITY 1. The requirements set forth in this Ordinance shall govern the siting of wind energy conversion systems used to generate mechanical or electrical energy to perform work, and which may be connected to the utility rid pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 80.60, Net Metering; of Electricity, and serve as an independent source of energy, or serve as part of a hybridsystem. 2. The requirements of this Ordinance shall apply to all Small Wind Energy Systems (SWES) and Wind Energy Systems (WES) proposed after the effective date of this Ordinance. Any SWES/WES for which a required permit has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall not be required to meet the requirements of this Ordinance; provided, however, that any such pre-existing SWES/WES that is not producing energy for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall meet the requirements of this Ordinance prior to recommencing` production of energy. 345 modification that increases the height of the system or increases the system outlut more than 25% shall be allowed without full compliance with this Ordinance. 20.14.040 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .041 PERMITS AND ZONING S stem Type Re uired Permit Zones MET Tower. Outright permitted All — for up to 24 months One or multiple SWES with a Outright permitted All cumulative rated output up to and including 50 M. One WES with a rated output Administrative permie HII greater than 50 kW up to and including 500 M. One or multiple WES with a Conditional Use permit HII rated output greater than 500 Me Multiple WES per parcel with Conditional Use pen-nit3 HII a cumulative rated output greater than 50 M. SWES/WES Not permitted Within and 1000 feet beyond the boundaries of the Lake Whatcom Watershed that are recognized and approved by Whatcom County, except that roof mounted SWES that do not exceed a total height of five (5) feet above the highest roof peak of the building on which they are mounted are allowed. 1 — SWES, WES and MET towers are required to be in compliance with but not limited to Whatcom County Code, Title15, Buildings and Construction, and acquire the necessary building permits. 2 — Administrative Permit WCC 20.84.235 3 - Conditional Use Permit WCC 20.84.200 .042 PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY USE A SWES/WES may be considered either as a principal or accessory use. A different existing use or an existing structure on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of a SWES/WES or a part of such facility on such lot. Any SWES/WES that is constructed and installed in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall not be deemed to constitute the expansion of a nonconforming use or structure. 346 20.14.050 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SWES AND WES .051 VISUAL APPEARANCE; LIGHTING; POWER LINES 1) Wind Turbines shall be painted a non -reflective, non -obtrusive color such as the manufacturer's default color option or a color that conforms to the environment and architecture of the community, unless FAA standards require otherwise. The zoning administrator may require a photo of a SWES/WES, of the same model as that proposed in the landowner's application, adjacent to a building or some other object illustratingsale (e.g., manufacturer's photo). 2) At SWES/WES sites, the design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent reasonably possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the SWES/WES to the natural setting and the existing environment. 3) No SWES/WES shall be artificially lighted, except to the extent required by the FAA or other applicable authority_ 4) No SWES/WES shall be used for displaying any advertising except for reasonable identification of the manufacturer or operator of the wind turbine. 5) Electrical controls, control wiring and power lines shall be wireless or underground, except where SWES/WES wiring is brought together for connection to the transmission or distribution network adjacent to that network, and except that in the Agricultural Zone the minimum installation depth for electrical controls, control wiring and power lines is 48 (forty- eight) inches below finish grade. 6) The road access to the proposed site must be rated to carry an axle load sufficient to bear the weight of all materials, vehicles, and equipment delivered to the site. 7) The compatibility of the foundation, tower, and generating unit (including rotor and rotor - related equipment) shall be certified in writing by professional engineer licensed in Washington State. The engineer shall certify compliance with established engineering practices and compliance with all applicable adopted codes and regulations. For all SWES/WES, the manufacturer's engineer or another qualified engineer shall certify that the turbine, foundation and tower design of the SWES/WES are compatible and within accepted professional standards, given local design criteria per Whatcom County Code, Chapter 15. 8) The electrical system design shall be certified in writing by an electrical engineer licensed in Washington State unless waived by the Building Official. All SWES/WES electricals stems shall comply with requirements per the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries and the current adopted edition of the National Electrical Code when and where applicable. 9) All SWES/WES shall meet requirements per the applicable sections of WCC 20.80.634, 20.80.635, and 20.80.636 for erosion control and stormwater management. 10) Violation of any part of this chapter of the code (WCC 20.14) shall be subject to the provisions of WCC 15.04.050. .052 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The following setback requirements shall apply to all SWES/WES and MET Towers. All setbacks are measured from the property lines of the property on which the project is located: 347 1) Setbacks table System Size Setback Requirement Up to and including5 1.2 times total height, to a maximum of total height plus 20 feet' Greater than 50 kW 1320 feet (one quarter mile) from a property line of any property in a non-HII zone. If the neighboring property is an HII zone the setback is 1.2 times the total height from the property line.' Footnote 1. A reduction in setbacks may be approved if appropriate easements from neighboring property owners or appropriate mitigation acceptable to neighboring propeM owners are approved by the Zoning Administrator or Hearing Examiner and recorded against the applicable deed(s). 2) Communication and electrical lines: Each SWES/WES shall be set back from the nearest above -ground public or private non -participating utility a distance no less than 1.2 times its Tower Height, up to a maximum of Tower Height plus 20 feet, determined from the existing power line or telephone line. 3) Setbacks shall be measured to the outer edge of the base of the SWES/WES structure towers. Guy cables and other accessory support structures may be located within setback areas. 4) Setback to other WES: A WES may not be placed such that it substantiallv disturbs the wind flow into another WES. A new WES may not be placed such that another non -participating WES falls within an egg shaped exclusion zone around the new WES defined by an axis along the primary wind direction. In the upwind direction the exclusion zone shall have a semi -circular shape with a radius three times the rotor diameter of the new WES. In the downwind direction the exclusion zone shall have a semi -elliptical shape extending eight times the rotor diameter of the new WES along the axis downwind and extending; three times the rotor diameter of the new WES in a direction perpendicular to the axis. In this way the new WES will be at least three of its rotor diameters behind, three to the side of, and eight in front of a pre-existing WES. .053 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 1) The total height of a WES shall not exceed 500 feet. MET Towers cannot exceed a maximum height of 100 feet except in the Agricultural, Rural Forestry and Commercial Forestry zones. 2) SWES with a total height taller than 100 feet must obtain an Administrative Permit, except within the AG, CF and HII zones. a). All SWES with a total height greater than 100 feet must provide in writing that the height requested is the minimum height necessary for the SWES to operate efficiently, and provide approved justification for the proposed height and analysis according to recognized industry standards.. 20.14.060 SOUND LEVELS AND MEASUREMENT .061 SWES Sound levels, performance, and measurement standards 1. Audible sound is not to exceed 20 dB(a) above ambient background noise or 45 dB(a), whichever is greater, at any point beyond the project property line. Detectable infrasound or C- weighted sound pressure is not to exceed 20 dB(c) above ambient background noise or a maximum of 45 dB(c), whichever is greater, except that there is no infrasound or C-weighted sound pressure requirements at property lines adjacent to HII zones. .062 WES with a cumulative output greater than 50 kW sound level, performance, and measurement standards 1. Audible sound is to not exceed 10 dB(a) above ambient background noise or 45 dB(a), whichever is greater, at any point beyond the project property line. Detectable infrasound or C- weighted sound pressure is not to exceed 20 dB(c) above ambient background noise or a maximum of 45 dB(c), whichever is greater, except that there is not infrasound or C-weighted sound pressure requirements at property lines adjacent to HII zones. .063 Upwind design shall be used on all WES greater than 50 kW, unless it can be demonstrated that no detectable infrasound or C-weighted sound pressure is generated above 20 dB(c) and A -weighted hg ted sound pressure standard can be met, as required per 20.14.061 and 20.14.062. 20.14.070 SAFETY .071 General Provisions for SWES/WES 1. Wind Turbine towers shall not provide step bolts or a ladder readily accessible to the public and shall be a minimum height of 10 feet above ground level. 2. All electrical equipment shall be safely and appropriately enclosed from unintentional access by means such as barrier fencing, equipment cabinetry or similar approved barriers. All access doors to Wind Turbine towers and electrical equipment shall remain locked except when access is necessary. 3. Appropriate warning si nage (e.g., electrical hazards) shall be placed on Wind Turbine towers, electrical equipment, and SWES/WES. 4. Any SWES/WES found to be unsafe by the building official shall be repaired by the landowner and/or project owner to meet federal, state and local safety standards, accordingto o the regulatory authority of the Building Official and applicable provisions per WCC Chapter 15. .072 Blade Tip Height 1. The blade tip of any SWES with a cumulative rated output up to and including50 kW shall, at its lowest point, have ground clearance of no less than twep1y (20) feet, as measured at the lowest point of the arc of the blades. 2. WES with a cumulative rated output greater than 50 kW shall, at its lowest point, have ground clearance of no less than thirty (30) feet, as measured at the lowest point of the arc of the blades. .073 Over -speed Controls 10 349 All SWES/WES shall be equipped with over -speed controls to limit rotation of blades to speed below the desig?ped limits of the system. No changes or alterations from the certified design shall be permitted unless accompanied by a licensed professional engineer's statement of certification .074 Flicker Analysis for WES 1. A flicker analysis is required for all WES. The analysis shall include the duration and location of flicker potential for all buildings and for roadways within a one (1) mile radius of each turbine within a project. The applicant shall provide a site map identifying the locations of shadow flicker that may be caused by the project and the expected durations of the flicker at these locations from sun -rise to sun -set over the course of a year. The analysis shall account for topography but not for obstacles such as accessory structures and trees. Flicker at any building; shall not exceed thirty (30) hours per year within the analysis area. Flicker in excess of the limits established in this ordinance shall be grounds for the County or his/her designee to order operational adjustments, which may include mitigation measures requiring cessation of operation during periods when flicker effects any building, for all non compliant WES. .075 Wildlife Protection for WES Prior to permit approval provide documentation from a qualified professional wildlife biologist (WCC Section 16.16, Article 8, Definitions) verifying the following: 1. Endangered or Threatened Species: Development and operation of a WES shall not have a significant adverse impact on endangered or threatened fish, wildlife, plant species, their critical habitats, or other significant habitats identified in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and/or other current studies or plans relevant to the region and recognizedy the County. 2. Other Species: The project development and/or operation plan shall be sited, designed, operated and monitored to prevent WES from having a significant adverse impact on migratory birds, raptors and bats. 20.14.080 Sound modeling and measurements. .081 Sound Modeling As part of the conditional use permit process, all WES proponents shall provide a report by a qualified independent acoustical consultant approved by Whatcom County PDS and in accordance with standard industry best practices, that models the sound transmission of the proposed WES at the project property lines and indicates that the WES, when operated properly, will conform to the sound performance requirements of this ordinance. 20.14.090 Complaint process: 11 350 If two or more complaints from different households are received with 2 weeks of each other, and documented at a particular site, a sound measurement will be conducted within ten (l0) business days by qualified consultant approved by Whatcom County. The cost of the sound measurement shall be the responsibility of the WES owner/operator. The operator shall reimburse the County for the expense within ten (10) days of billing_ Measurements shall be conducted where the complaints were documented. If an evaluation shows that the WES is operating outside of its permitted sound performance standards, the operator will have thirty (30) daysjust the systems) or terminate operations. To avoid frivolous complaints, any household(s) that registers a complaint against a WES that is proven to be in compliance shall be responsible for the costs of any future complaints originating from the same household(s) for two years unless the WES project has expanded and/or proven to be in violation of the sound performance standards. At the discretion of Whatcom County PDS, if it appears residents are abusing the complaint process, complaints may be compiled for three (3) months at a time and then a sound study conducted at all of the locations. No WES project shall be required to conduct more than two (2) sound measurements at any one adjacent property per year unless the WES project has expanded and/or proven to be in violation of the sound performance standards. Complaints originating from properties located farther than 1 mile from a WES project do not trigger the complaint process. 20.14.100 Abandonment, insurance, and decommissionin! for WES .101 Abandonment: Absent notice of a proposed date of decommissioning,project shall be considered abandoned when the project fails to operate for more than one year without the written approval of the Director or designee. The Director or designee shall determine in its decision what proportion of the project is inoperable for the project to be considered abandoned and shall notify the property owner. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of receipt of Notice of Abandonment or within one hundred and twenty (120) days of providing Notice of Termination of Operations to the County, the owner of a wind energy system must comply with the removal requirements in Section 20.14.102 below. If the property owner/project owner fails to remove the WES in accordance with the requirements of this section within one hundred and twenty (120) days of Notice of Abandonment, the County shall have the authority to enter the property and physically remove the WES. Financial Surety funds shall be used to pay for removal and restoration. .102 Removal requirements: When a SWES (with a total height that exceeds the height of the underlying zone) or a WES is scheduled to be decommissioned, the project owner/property owner shall notify the County by certified mail of the proposed date of discontinued operations and plans for removal. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of receipt of Notice of Abandonment or within one hundred and twenty (120) days of providing Notice of Termination of Operations, the owner of a wind energy 12 351 system must: 1) Remove all wind turbines, above -ground improvements, and outdoor storage. Property owners of WES in the HII zone, and SWES in the AG and CF zones, may choose to leave foundations in place and intact, partially or in whole, for approved, permitted reuse, except that in the AG zone foundations left in place must be located such that the distance between SWES foundations and foundations of existing buildings shall not exceed 50 (fifty) feet. 2) Remove all hazardous material from the property and dispose of the hazardous material in accordance with federal, state and local law. 3) In addition to removing the wind turbine generator, the owner shall restore the site by planting native or other approved vegetation to minimize erosion. .103 Insurance: Proof of continuous liabilitv insurance shall be submitted to Whatcom Countv indicatin coverage for potential damages or injury to landowners, occupants, or other third parties. For WES with a rated output greater than 50 kW the required insurance is two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) aggregate and one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Whatcom County shall be named on the liability_ policy as additional insured. The insurance carrier shall be instructed to notify all applicable governmental authorities of any delinquency in payment of premiums. The liability policy shall be endorsed to notify the County of any cancellation thirty (30) days in advance. Failure to provide such insurances shall be considered abandonment and full and sufficient erounds for termination of the hermit and disposal of the eauipment and appurtenances as stated herein. .104 Financial surety: As a condition of WES hermit approval, the applicant shall be reauired to provide a form of surety (i.e., post a bond, or establish an escrow account or other means) at the amount of 150% of the estimated full cost of project decommissioning less the approved, documented salvage value of any applicable project materials and equipment, naming Whatcom County as the beneficiary, with fifty percent (50%) due prior to final project approval, twen -five percent (25%) due within twelve (12) months of the date of final project approval, and twenty-five percent (25%) due within twenty-four (24) months of the date of final project approval, to cover costs of WES removal in the event the County must remove the facility. Nothing may prevent the County from seeking reimbursement from the WES project owner. The project owner is responsible to the County for any costs related to decommissioning that exceed the amount of financial surety_ As part of the Decommissioning Plan, the Applicant shall submit a fullv inclusive estimate of the costs associated with removal, accounting for reasonable salvage value of any applicable project materials and equipment, prepared by a qualified professional. The decommissioning plan shall provide that the decommissioning funds shall be reevaluated every five years from the date of substantial completion of the WES to ensure sufficient funds for decommissioning and, upon mutual aereement by the Applicant and the Countv at that time, the amount of decommissionine funds shall be adjusted accordin Prior to permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide the County with a copy of the Financial Surety device or another approved mechanism. .105 Decommissioning plan: 13 352 As part of the permit approval process, a decommissioning plan shall outline the anticipated means and cost of removing WES at the end of their serviceable life or upon becoming a discontinued use. The cost estimates shall be made by a competent party; such as a Professional Engineer, a licensed contractor capable of decommissioning or a person, firm, partnership, corporation or other entity with suitable expertise or experience with decommissioning, as determined by the Building Official or designee. The plan shall also identify Financial Surety to pay for the decommissioning and removal of the WES and accessory facilities. The plan shall also address road maintenance during and after the decommissioning_ 20.14.110 FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS 1) SWES/WES shall comply with all current adopted Whatcom County Codes & Ordinances, including but not limited to Whatcom County Code, Title 15, Title 16, and Title 23. 2) SWES/WES must comply with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), along with requirements within WCC 20.80.675 "Height Limitations Surrounding Airports". a) If necessary an applicant may be required to submit the following information for analysis of airspace obstructions in relation to WCC 20.80.675: Mean Sea Level (MSL) of adjacent airports; MSL of proposed site; Euclidean distance from adjacent airports to proposed site, total elevation/height of SWES/WES structure. 3) All SWES/WES electrical systems shall comply with requirements per the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries and the current adopted edition of the National Electrical Code (NEC) when and where applicable. 4) All SWES/WES with the intention to tie to their respective utility provider's grid system, shall meet the requirements of Chapter 80.60 of the Revised Code of Washington, Net Metering of Electricity. 14 353 15 354 (L hrinht ncrmit-Fori} All — fnr up to 'JA FR6RthS Arlminiotratik norm� LRuFal, AG, GF, R , i-- 4 Administrative ncrmih' I A4 � � i . fGT.T.7-7R\tF7. ►dl�T�i�i7 z Administrative permit, WGG20.84.2-3-&-. 16 355 17 356 IN 357 19 358 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-343 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 2 C E �1 V D 11107112 Introduction 11/20/12 Hearing Division Head: I� �J LC, OCT 3 0 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasing/Budget: /b 2e- iz Executive: , ',//� ��/moo / TITLE OF DOCUMENT. Ordinance authorizing the 2013 Whatcom County Unified Fee Schedule. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance, Appendix A — Unified Fee Schedule, Appendix B Whatcom County Planning & Development Services 2013 Unified Fee Schedule Policy, Appendix C Whatcom County Public Works Unified Fee Schedule Addenda SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( x ) 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 proposed ordinance authorizes the 2013 Unified Fee 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. 359 INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: County Executive DATE: November 7, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2013 WHATCOM COUNTY UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, fees set by Washington State law will not be listed in the adopted fee schedule due to various timing and consistency conflicts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the Whatcom County Unified Fee Schedule is hereby adopted as of January 1, 2013, as detailed in Appendix A, Unified Fee Schedule, Appendix B, Policy for Planning and Development Services Fees and Appendix C Whatcom County Public Works Unified Fee Schedule Addenda.. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that department directors may propose to the County Executive a reasonable charge or fee for providing services, privileges or products if the charge is not listed in the adopted Unified Fee Schedule. The fee may include the cost for the use (by any person) of any departmental equipment necessary to provide the service, privilege or product. Fees shall not exceed the amount necessary to reimburse the department for its actual costs incident to such service, privilege or product. During the year, upon a showing of sufficient justification, the County Executive may add new fees or adjust fees set by the Unified Fee Schedule by way of Executive Order. If the fee is an ongoing standard charge, it shall be included in the next annually -proposed unified fee schedule ordinance as a new fee. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that these fees shall remain in effect until amended, rescinded or superseded. BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that, if any portion of this ordinance is found to be unlawful, all remaining portions shall remain in effect. ADOPTED this day of , 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APP �RO ED as to fo Civil Deputy Prosecutor Kathy Kershner, Chair () Approved () Denied Jack Louws, Executive Date: 360 to u.•i ■E- ■K.., D N W W O -n ;o ' 'f O Oa 0 3 0 m v o- K � (D G XCD 3 CD T N CD (D 0 a O v 3 n CDn O N N Z n 0 7' N O T to fA O W O O O O m m m 0o c,3 O N � X Z Z O O n 0 N N 7 7 m D] N CD EA vi O W O (n O O O-"O m d doQo 0 n 0 7 N 7 X 0 o. D 13) Z a O 0 7 W N 0� �C CD a n ■UF MIN W W N Cl O m 2 0 c c n (OD cn 0 n_ O a 7 N 7 O N �I C 3 v fD N O c 0 CD N V W Gm i3 u - 0 i m v P � �n 3 v � c D Q U 61 7' �r o_ D 7 N D D Z) D 7 n (O D D (fl V1 O O O m v W N N O. n 7' D) (D fA O) O O O N CD m D) a vn m 3CD m 0 w M m 63 CDom Ov f (D 7 O (D _. D O N 7 n 7' D) N A O O O Om CD. 3 7 O � D) COD 7 - CD O U ry ID m I m n m a <m 0 3 m - 0 CD CD N D) 7nQQ. v Q 7 0 D) 7 fA O O Cl CD 3C m v 0�m �CD3 CD o. Ov 7 O N _. -0 N O D) 7 n 7' D) (D Om CD. 3 7 O � D) N 7 CD OR U ry 0 I A IDm m mn 0 0 m OD < rr 6 3 m -O 0 m v � D) N 7 Z a Z is 7 0 Z D) 7 3 UCD m O ?n, rr m63 v CD o.0 Ov FCD 7 O O) � !D O N 7 7 D) OZ CD. 3 7 CD D 7 CD O - q 0 m z ID OEM] ■u�l NEW] ■UF 0 0 N OD OEM O) Q a c Q a T P.O. O CD O rt a rt (DCl) cn ? �• (D �3 N O J d d W C1 N IA O 0 S Zd f0 N O J J X d m d m W m N N D c O N Cf O 7 4. 361 Z O 0 DO ID ID N O O v (D CD fU C J TI CD _a O a n w 0 CD C d N N a O a 2 n ■[r) ■o . R. mu, ■u,, co co co co O O O W (Il W C m m m m O O N (D 0) 7 (D N = O N D) cr D) �0 N O o m 7 0 (D 0 a m 0 o C, N O O 0 O O 7 O C Op_ C (D a ER ER ER ER (D W CD O O O o 0 0 O O D) (D @ D) w a ? O 5 ? 0 c O m O 0 n CD O c w N a m m 7' (D 8CL O C O (D 7 O N O O N 7' O O 7' 2) O O CD m m m CD (D 169 <A <± <�q O W O O O O O O O Dmi m m Dmi S O. S S fU � T1 < 0 TI c o c o m o °o m 0 O j O N 0 N N � N D7 N N C C X J J o. a T TI N N W O N c W O 0 0 O rn m C C 7 7 a a TI TI N N n n cl 7 O. O. 71:11 1:11 El Ell C W N W W W r* m m xcn D KC) D7 N N O Q N a) N a)(D . (D 0 O. (D N Cn N N N CD CD(n (D 7 J 0 7 CD j C 3 J J N D) N ZJ N a- m m °�° No D v ( n 7 D O m m 3 w 3 m m CD X c CD CD fn CDv (D O C 3 C J a (D O CD 3 J N C > O 3 m CD 0 N CD (D (D O (2 EH ER ffl (A ER O N N N 00 O O O W O O O O O O O N O -a T TI TI 99 TI . (D 7 (D (D p (D a 3 r r - m W m CD m m ZI cn c cn c w (O O I(o I(o I(o I(o C (D cl CD cn 0 a c CD 11❑ Z (D F to O �m D O 1 n n Tl C v 0 (D Et T) C N [1 fU C J TI CD CD cn d O a 5 m 0 CD Z (D F O �m (D O O n N � n T1 C T1 n CD T) C N CI fU C d N N d O a D) J 3 rr (D O O n fU .u, D O O C N can A cn N c O C N N CDn 1 N X (D o N N N O N 0' 7 fA N N 0 O o CD (DO �J K CD (D (D C/ D O m a W p: N O N 7 O O O0 n. O O Z C) CD f CD CD m N Hi N 0 o O CD CDO -� O �J K CD m m X O CD N a3 N 0 N C) J C — S 01 CD O A CD= K A O o a 7 O a J 362 v fA 0 W X DO n (OD N O O 90 o p m N <_ M. m Dw m <m 0 aCD °' O (D m m N N N N 3 X N (D Z O n 7' N 7 (D D EA v PO N m DO TI 7 m m fA IL 69 n n (D CD (OD CD m m m m f GD W O O a a N 7 7' D) w n n (D (D 11 n O n CD ■ Cr7 ■u. ■rI O (T A W m m 0 0 O m n n 3co N N O O O 7 7 o (n N N a v N D CN N n N N 7 co 69 EA EA lfl (n W N O O O N O O O O O O m W m m n v D D w a CD w c c m m 0 0 7 7 O O 7 O i) C) 7 i) 7 7 co 7 > > N co co (D (D (D EA EA EA EA cn w O O N O O �o N O O N N (7N a D D w -j a a (D O O 7 7 C n n n n T w OCD N N 0 N O O _n O a 7 7 7❑❑Ell ❑ MR, I ■ EVM VAM L•7 VOME-1 ■U.] I n C O c _ v CD — cn n 'O 0 7 coI coI coI co a O c0 co V D m N N �. N `$. N D y m y O y co y m �' m c m m 7 p J J J n n a a D 0 1 O (D O (D O y 5 D 5 �L 5 a 5 CD _ m ((�; m ((�; m m O m j m j m 3 m m m m J J J 7 m m m m 7 N+ a a c ? D D J m m D m — m m m m a n m a am m m m a n 7 7 a n rn A (T (T N (T O O O O O O O O O m m m m 3 3 33 v v v v N N N N O O O o N m m o O O O O n n n a 0 0 0 0 n n n n m m m m cc cc cc cc CD m 0 m rn A m cn (T N p O O O O O 00 O m m m m 3 3 3 3 'o v -o -o N N N N O O O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O n n n n X X X X O n n n < < < < m m m m O O O O a a a a m m m m N N N N Cl O O O O O Cl O V V V V O O O O m O m O ❑I ❑I ❑ ❑ co 122� 12 Lo Lo 12 N O (O Do ) fm o m Do N 5 o mw O c m m a J (Q J (p J (Q J (Q J CD CD CD n a a T m j 0 O O O O O O CCD'- O CD (D 1@ < m O m O m O m O m N m J J J J J m m m m m m N N N N N m m A W N � fpl N y Er a 7 m n D D D D D m m m m a a a (D a m m m m m n a n cl a EA EA EA EA fA fA fA A m A N cn p O (It (T (T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N m m m m m N N N N N O O O O o N N m m m O O O O O a a a a a z z z z z z z o o o o o o o m m m m m m m 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 m m m m m m m A Obi A N c�69ii (T O (T (Jt (T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl m m m m o m m 3 3 3 3 3 m v = �< N N N N N oo O O O o o o o o O O O O O n n n n n X X X X X X X CD o o o O O O < < < < < < < m m m m m m m O O O O O O O a a a a a a a m m m m m m m N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V V V V V V V O O O O O O O m m m M m m m ■000L•70Lr- ;WWWW O N O O r r ou pp pp m m v m v 7 7 a a a CD m 5 (j (j TI TI 'o m m m m T (D (D fp (D m (1) C m z w (D 7 � O» �_ ID a D N m O m f a N m < o m .T1 f N O m o c 0o (Do O m CD m J (D m N 3 m D m 3 m O O O O O O O O O O O O O m m N N m D D C O C 7 7 m m m 3 3 < < < m m o o o o o n n n n n m Doi Doi D7i Doi cc cc m m m m m O O O O O O O O O O O O O m m m m m D D 7 J m m m 3 3 < < < m m D D N N N N A A 2 2 X X X X X o o o o o < < < < < m m m m m O O O O O a a a a a m m m m m N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O V V m m m m m V V V ]❑I❑❑❑❑ m X 3 fA O O m D CD N 3 m 7 z O n v CD CD V O O m D CD N CD J N O OT N 01 (D 01 W 01 N N o 0 1 S Z d mD N Cl J M D] M N N N CD co D] N N ■E,-] ■uo co m 3 O_ 3 CD - N (o < CD N O x n N (n O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 n Z O C) J' (O CD EA N (r O O a m 3 a N 3 0 a m 0 n m x CD 0 c m O m N O O V O m co w 3 O O_ 3 CD r' N to CD CD N O 0 N N O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 a Z O 0 J' (� CD 1W V O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 O. m x CD 0 c CCD O m N O O V O m m CD mn m a 7 CD CD cl O O O O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 a Z O 0 J' (� CD 2 O O O O a m 3 a N 3 0 a m 0 n m x CD 0 c CCD O m N O O V O m m co m x CD 0 c <' CD O m N O O V O m m O o m� J N N CD N Jn cl m (D m D o. CD CD CL O CD a O O O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 n Z O n J' (a CD 2 O O O O a _N 3 a N 3 O a m 0 Q. m x CD 0 c CCD O m N O O V O m 0 0 m � J N m a a m Ico VW V (o a0 N N A W c � J _ N m (u o. o. m O J J OL iz :E i y m ?. ill to 0 m 73 i N .Ji m W 7 N CD to to V O O O O O O O a a m m 3 3 a a N N 3 3 O O a a m m 0 0 a n Z Z O O J" S 7 7 CD a CD m 2 t V O O O O O O O a a m m 3 3 a_ a N N 3 3 0 O a a m m 0 0 cl a m m x x CD m 0 0 c c CD m O O o. a _m m N N O O O O V V O O ma) ■C] ■o m A 0 o m o J N N A + cl D (D (D D cl CD CD cl O m n' a is O O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 a Z 0 ei J to CD 2 V O O O a m 3 a N 3 0 a m 0 O. m x CD 0 c < CD O m Na O O V O m 0i o m o J � N N CD W a a m N O o m a J N N CD N o_ D CD CL CD D c cl CD (D cl O f m to 0 O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 n Z O 0 7' (a CD EH m O O O a m a N 3 O a m 0 n m x CD 0 c CD O m N O O V O m O o m� 7 N N a m O o 0 A + cl CL (D (D CD 7 a c J N m (n O O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 n Z O 0 7' (a m Efl in O O O a m 3 a N 3 0 a m 0 Cl. m x m 0 c <' m O m N O O V O m m I a m DI (D m ao (o N N W N a 21 D D m m CD N Cl Cl m m 7 J n n m m m W 7 a co O 0 c CD p O 7 m N J mCD co P O O O O O O a a m m a a N N 3 3 O O a a m m 0 0 n n Z Z O O 0 C', J' 7' N N (0 (0 m m Efl Efl co m O O O O O O a a m m 3 3 a a N N 3 3 0 0 a a m m 0 o Cl.n m rr x x m m 0 0 c c < m m O O n m m N N O O O O V v O O m m o fN O N 7 N 7 N m N O J O J .c.. O 7 .c.. O J w.C-. an nn n0- an (D 0 m 0 m o m 0 D 7 5 J EP 7 S 7 a m ==(.R m aCD =CD n D) D) D) D) J 7 7 J m m m v n3i 0 0 0 N ■rwm���� m N m m ill to J m a J G c,0 m O J CD CD 2. 3 o O 7 2) 3 A C J (D n Jn N O O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 n Z O 0 7' (70 (D 2 N O O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 n m x CD 0 c CD O m N O O V O m m rn CO O O a m 3 a N 3 O a m 0 n Z O n 7' (a (D EA m in O O a m 3 a N 3 0 a m 0 n N O N C. m D x C CD '. 0 S c O CD N O m a o q O N O O V O m 1NL�u�■_ 1L■ ❑II 365 to O z 0 n Sr 70 ID 69 0 O O (D 0 S, El W W O 0 0 N z 0 n N fD fA O O O y 0 D c m 0 N z 0 n N (D D c N n f0/0 ■uWmu•ML7L1L•1L•10E.-- A O C N c 7 N m C m m to c n N N N 0 a O a m mmmmmmmmmmmm n O 3 3 c (D A tD 'G 0 c v O 7 3 a rn A O O m 0 O �cn �1 O 3 z 0 n Sr f0 N O A O O m 0 0 3 c O 3 m n O 3 3 c n 6 a) N 90 m OL C Cn W W W co cil cn A W o D D v x x N cNi cNi cNi tl N N N N C C C m m m to to to to W W N N O O O O O O O O m w m m m an) om m =T m m m N N N m v � fD 3 3 � . m n 0 w � o 0 0 0 0 � � � � 7 7 7 7 (D N N N 69 (A EA EA W W N N O O O O O O O O m o v v to 0 m 0 CD m w 0 > > m 3 3 � 0 n 0. 0. w � o W rn 0 c c C c n n a a N N N N lD (D (D fD (n n U U L CL D- CL o. a o. n O O O O a a a a N N N N m m m m ❑ ❑ F-11 ❑ 0 m N N a= 3 7 a T O N c 0 D. N 3 °i 0 cl a _. CD � N fD O' n� 0. co ^ 0 n c' D CD CD 8N Cy 0 m 0 a z 0 N O 0 0 m CD CD Cy 0 0 N a r =m fm N ■L•1L•10tr 1L1Ll O co 3 O n 3 CD N 3 r N a a m O O O m 3 a 3 m 0 n z 0 n N JO fD 69 03 O O O m 3 a N 0 a 0 0' a m c x n CD n C CD a O 3 N O O M d m N d N W G) N N O0 m 3 CD N O Gt M d< CD t si < 0 N O m n m �r.�. N N N 7 m N D1 7 m o n D D = c 0 O -o -o D - m m a m a 3 m 5 (D v r O (D vi U) 2 N c O m (D 3 x U) z z z z z 0 c� c O O O 0 0 7 ■KIF NEE A A (v0 A OVD A V A m A A A O 0 � � 7 m CD 3 o coo m o 7- 0 0 0 3 av (D cD C _ m Q N 7 N N (D Cn �' �' y N m fn o co 7m Q. a m G 7 o D v m o 0 0 (0 N m C G O 7 �3 oa :? y N a A NK 7 ED m O. c A � O 0 d o n CA 0 C cr CD G N 0 � N cn (D fn W O V fn Vt fA CD a a fA 0 CD Ut En N En O En CD O O O N CDCDO O O O m O O I O O N O O O N O O O N 0 O O m m ID D D (D 3D _ y m v v m (o Ny m = (o N O 7 O 7 O C N 7 x = 0 � � � 0 > c n > > o n co m m m m wn (n W w O En o� N CD vi O O <n 0 co O <n rn N va O m va N O O O O N O O O N O O X O O O O O O O O O O v m A m D D cn a. - N (D V V f0 N � N j j O 7 2 C C C C C C C 7� a 7 a 7 a 7 a 7 a 7 a 7 s m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 n n 0 0 a o a O a a O s a O a a O a a O a C- O a _a 7 m 7 m 7 m 7 m 7 m 7 m 7 m 7 m 7' m 7 m 7 w 7 m 7 w 7 m 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 01010 ■" ■U-1 EEO] en CD O O O m m m c 0 z O O Sr v2 0 O O CD m c _0 C a m m O a O a 0 m MEN m 7 C O 3 (D N 2 N ry co Ico ICD N O D c c c c c c Q Q Q o 0' 0' x x x m m m N N N z z z c c c m m m m m O _ 0 m 3 < N m (A co 0 7 3 m 3 c C 7 V N O 7 En fn En N W (0 O N O O O O O O N N N T. T. N 0 0 0 O 0 O w w m n n n m m m N W 0 O) N O O O N N o G G G T. (n C C C U) U) U) SOM ■«I ■000� n = C O CD n 3 w cn 3 rr W 0 n = N O 7 � O n 1 = Z D) CD t� O N 0 X 61 K DI E 03 DJ Vl 0 ■UR mf�- Fill W $ CD O O O O (gyp O O a a a 0a a ^ a w N N N _0y N N N N CD J C 0 CT J C C C ? r- N m m m 3 m ti ,J» ,J» —. til 3 O o 0 o o a m m m -n w Z o 0 0 a m fD m m 0 m 0 0 m m m m c CD 3 3 n a - � m CD (D J' c m' f <n to <n to <n <n <n (NTI (On V O m Cnn ID O O O O 0n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N m m co co N N d d v 3 3 3 m m 3 0 m 5 0 0 _ 0)0)(D O N JO O N N N N O O J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N w N N N N m m m m m m m <n <n C9 <n <n <n <» rn a (o w m m o W W A (T A O O O O O O O O O O CD CD O O v v v v 3 m o 00i m m m m m� w v 3 3 _3 - m -0 nm CD 0 N^ m f n m c) 3 $ rn o x - N J. ° 3 (D O -0 N (p (p (O O O c J m �_ W n T w < a m o f m N 3 3 m N c c c c c c c J J J J J J J a a a a a a a m m m m m m m CD m m m m m m n n n n n n n = = J' J' J' J' J' a a a a_ a_ a_ a O O O O O O O a aa a a a a a > w w w w w w w J J J J J J J CD mm m 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■0Eol w 0 O W CD 'D CD Ci N (� (D _w O 03 CD -o CD 3 c J a CD CD U) O a_ O a m HE CD 'o CD x 49 CD O v CD 'D 3 Ci N (� m <n N O v v 3 Z O O a c a m CD U) 0 a O EL 5' 0 m ❑I v 0 cl CD CD CD 3 a a 0 W 2 CD <n O O v W CD 2 m Ci N (� m <n v 0 v W 2 m c a m CD W O a_ O EL 0 m El <n Im n CD III (a CD m 0 0 0 O O O co �l CP O O O cn (n U) O 0 o m N O 3 z O » � N r f m m O J c. m m ( _ m d' m Jm m <n <n <n N A O -4 'n O 0 O O O N N N r m 0 $ J O J m 7c (D m (D m m O O O C7 C7 C7 N w w m m m 69 <R <R O V O (n O O O m m m r co J m N N m CD N N c c c J J J a a a T -n -n m m m W n 0 a a a O O O a a a a a a w w w J J J m m �' _1 ❑ ❑ ❑ W O cn cn X CD f <n m = c CD iv cn 0 rh o 3 N fD C7 O 7 CD N N O O X N N X m N co N N N O 0 CZ m G � A N O X N CD X 0) (D co N N N uJ u1 368 ■u.. T m w F N Cn (n 7 y CO z CD w v 7 O0 A A co CO W A m a�i r w w < C v. a v N CT m <0 CD O 0 w N 5 � O O, n 6_9 69 O O O O O O O O w w O O � O O O 0 0 I (O f0 f0 = S (O (O S = S (O (O ID m m m w w m m w w w m m In I CD m <n <n O CDO O O O O O m m � = O c c a a m m CD m 0 0 C7 COL a 7 ❑ ❑ o- o a, a N m A to °0 n 3 3 c '. 0 CL CD 2, N m fA O O 0 m w m< Z 0 C� m <n O O F w m< c m Et m CD w 0 _a O a w i ■u.. ■U1 ■ u, ■0000� ■L Cn (n Cn Cn Cn V W COn A W r r r r r m m m m m G G G G G w LU LU w w N F x x x o �_ �_ 3 3 CD (n O - f0 O O N 3 3 (n a 3 =. ,c3 0 In 0 < CD y a w CD O N �+ 0 m m m 3 CD -O CD 0 41 6L9 W N -0 6L9 co N V O cn Cn Cn Cn O O O O O O O O O O O m m m m m y m m m m O Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci N N N N N m m m CD CD m m m m m �! w w <0 to m W 00 ID W O O O O O O O O O m m m m m y m m m m m 3 3 3 3 o - - - - O c c c c c a a a n n m m m m m m m m m m 0 chi 0 0 0 =r =r =r = a a a a a O O O O O a a a a a 5' w w w w w O m s m CD m ■u.. mu-mu-mu-m r.. ■V., m = W W N c Cn w N -n �. 0 rh r m m 3 m O 0 O m n n tp (D _ Ci =3 CD CD 0 'O 'O a p CD � o a) a < 2 � O c <. m EN 69 69 A9 cn O O O 00 O O w CD m m � 7 d 3 3. m W n n n O 0 > > > Z w m m m fD to m <n in Cfl N ? � O V O CDO O O O O w CD m Co C'o d 3 3 < 00 - - m w 7 y > j C n a a S m m m o0 m m m N Chi o o O O O O a a a w w w m m m 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ 369 l to m V V O co a N, N, O CD CL (D :E N m O ID a to Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 O O O O O O m m 0 0 0 o o c N N N N N N N N N to to to to to to f0 f0 f0 fA O O O N n Cl a i m O 8 R a m , n- m to m Q 7 N l7 c c =i d 0 N (D <D m to O 0 n m C m � DO DI 7 8 ■ V- r� 69 c 7 0. m CD U) 0 o. O a m N 7 0 m GIRD ■w' MU- N N Ch Ch A W O 91 m w N to (D to m 0 CD 3 CD V! to is O O n N m T - (D (D N CD to m Z7 m cD O O O O N N � 7 CD m (T O O m m 0 m T m m N m m m cD v m CD n CnC G rn rn W W O O A A 0 0 "O 11 DI ❑ rn c 7 0. m CD U) 0 o. O a 7 N 7 0 CD is O O O m GS m a CD 7 tD Z O O w N m 0 O O O m D m 7 N n CD in 3 cn CD 0 CD cn N N N CD CD Q 3 0 3 CD om > (D CD 0 c C2 m m C 7 to O V m N x3 CD N c � (D 0 - o 0 33 to m X C CD 7 C C a 0 w tz to m a m A O O O O 'O N m 3 n 7 m A N O O O m m m 3 c n O a F3 SU 0 CD N O J O M D] m D] CD co N W O n Z N CD 0 N O J J N m w cD W N N W 370 3 3 N �0 K u ( ( (D O N D O y � m 3 fD y N x d O (D a O N cr y m 3 N a 3 0 (D 7 N (D a o -n T (( OD OD n n (D 7 (D (D d O C_ C_ (D (D ■r--. ■r--. N N N O V O W 0 --EFp (nK (n a (nK (n (n O (n 3 ° m x m o m X m CD o m (D m O p O 0 �T. O 7 ID "O 7 y ID K 7 (D (D J�C N CD F (D (D F 0 (D a (D (D y J4' -O (D v O SDQ 7 N N (D 2 (p 7 y SD y Q N _D' O' y O' 03 O' O' SD O" » N (D 7 J — CD O y J (p y J y N 7 y 7 7 y Q 7 � y a x » ;u X st st z st at -n 0 N y CD W C N 0 V z W Cl. /D J CD ;u - (D W y CD 00 (D 7 CDC y Q CD to y m ao 0 m o oCL m O. M.n Sk N O. 0 O 7 C. Q O 7 OvCL a Q o 0- G O O 0 O n O C CD 0 n X CL O C 0)N fA O D y 7 O- » En O O X m � (D O O 'ER(n co O O O X 9 ID O O O ry N N O N N Cl Cl. (gyp Cl Cl (gyp Cl Cl -UO. O -U-U O. O. O. N N X v N X v 0 X v N X v 0 X v N N CD N N CD Hi (CD "4 N Efi N Efi N En N �O' T �O'-n �O'-n �O' T CD m oom 07 oom m oo('o m oom m CD CD O O - O- O� ' ' 7 m (o 7m (o' (7o' m 7m (o 7O m (o m m a) m m m J m CD m J m m m J m m m J m m m 7 m m m J m m (n m J m m (n ao O O (D 7' N O V) (n O 00 7 (D -U fp' (D (n co tD O O 2. (D -U (O X (D (n J Oo O O 7 (D -U Co X (D N 00 7 (D - Co (D v) D D O O 7 (D X (D VD (X N .�. N (X(77 .=. (D CD .�. N (D 0 0 v (D v a`OG O v a`OG O v d`�G O v d`�G O v d`�G cn j (D Sm7 n (D �(a - O (p �m -u O (p m 5-u O (p 0m 2 n (D � m p. N y` N N CO w 3 CD N y w 3 (D D) Co 3 (D D) y d 3 (D D) y d 3 X f / f Cl. - N O.`< y Q - a) O. `< SUy OO. `< O. - D) O. `< . - ELL y D) O.;Z- CD CD0 y N y y y y 3 7 7 N N n J D) w SU O 7 N SU SU (� 7 N N 2 (� 7 N 0) D) O 7' X X X X X 69 X 69D) �N Cl. �N CL �N .n Ut N O C O C O C O C O C X CD CD (D (D (D (D N c J C CD c J C c J C c J F c J C c J C c J T N a T CD (D a T N a -n N a -n N a T N a T N O n n O O O O (D Cl. C_ (D (D O. C_ (D (D O. C_ (D (D O. C_ (D (D O. C_ (D (D O. S. (D (D O. C_ (D 7❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � U m X N (D T. 0 � o �- 7 � y Q a 7 (D y Q V z O x a CD w N 7 (D Z o N (D '(D D p T D - D) o D) 0 o. D o- �G n O rr 7 N J N l7 ( 69 7 � N O C o :, N El W ID 0 M O m ■EMEE O CD O 0 w d 0 n N m 3 O Hf O O T (D v 0 O 0 z 0 C) m J m m 69 0 O J W N O O N J Co N < C o > j 4U (D (<D o v m x d (O N N O. 3 m 3 N N C (D c c CD 7 7 o. - CD o (D p (D 0 Q (D O n C Q (D D7 O 7 Q n (D 7 N J I ❑ ❑l i N O J O r� C) (D C) CD co N y N O n d Z O N O J J 01 (D a) [D d y N D c O N N O m 71 m m m m T T T T N N N N 1 w m -o O (Dm 0 y 0 ;o y J f0 (DJ 0 fD O m CD O Z7 Z CD N y 7 wm fo y = 0 0 0 j n n c ID > j w c x m 0 C 0 CT (o co V (b V V V N (A V rn (n A N co (n V A V A fA A W A A O W co CI)N co �] x U) x -0 O r r (p 0 0 2 2 Z 2 J' 2 2 2 x 2 Z 2 v m m m "o O (D (a Q x CD CD o o 0 o 0 0 Q o 0 0 m 0 O O 7 7 7 m (� m (D am a < w < m 7< m < am < a v y< m 7< v CD m Sp m 3 O O r '< y r y 7 '< a d 7 '�, a ii 7 m a O 7 V 0. a 7 �< a 7 a ZJ 7 m a CD m Om m y�m �m N 4mi 0 N K m O 5 5 S T) -n r _ N E m a C) a)7 O Gj O` J N CD` y a) ty O al J m a)i a) a) w w w C 7 a) al �c Z7c CD v �5 y m m 3 3 j' .Z7m - c ? C (D m �� -0 N� (D 0 N 0 0 T O m 0 - (D J 7 J rL U) U) (D CD is is 7 2. CD m D D D m m u, m j CD (� (� � � o v w w D D z CD m m cJ 3 3 m m 7 T w w CD ' m CD N (D CD N 3 �m A Z c c --I --I y Ul � y (O N 7 7 7 X y C C J J 3 O O m 0 x Qp = w w 90 90 m CD y CD 0 m X x C Si d o 0 O — O — m m J CD m N m -0 m a a w a w m x - N y U 69 Ui Ui EA IA 69 fA 59 (A EA 69 fA 69 fA N O coN O N O O V Cn O O O O Cn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O < < v (n a) cn m d w -0m (n a) cn m m m m w m m m 0 m o Oa(D n.� Oa(D a cram oa v Cl- oa cram oa Oa(D a Oa(D a TI -n (o Z Z O O N a) (D y y CD (D O O O O O O O 3 3 0 3 3 c c w o m� a7� w� m� w� a7� xfx 82 OO69 O69 O 690 69 CCD O 69 Cn 3 3 moa m < 0 < 1< o� oo m m O� mom UO m Oo Um-m c c CD CD (D J 7 m 0 a) m O a) _ (D m _-m m m (D m (D O a) m O a) O O < 0 < 0 O N O a() O a) < 0 < 0 m m � Z Z 0 Z Z n 0 0 0 0 O Z 0 0 0 O O 7' m O O 7 w 7' v w w J' w J' m J' m O � m S w 7' v a) N (o m 0 0 U3 m (o m m m m m m m m m (o m a) m m (c m (o m (o (o (o (Jo (o CD m m m m to to w is is to C12 v> (n w w w N O O O N O N O O C V Cn O o O O O O O O CD o O O O O O O O o O o O O O o C. O o o O O w << 3 3 a U a-0 8-0 m m m m o -0 a-u m m xm w w dm mR m m o(R oT o(D mom moT o� o� T T -0 m (D x Z x Z O O a to ato -o to 3'0(R 3a9 an a n a) m M y y _ � _ � O l0 m o m o m o - (D O � m 0 CD O CD p 3 3 n C) J 0 7 �.r. c c O c O c o c U o c 'a o c U O c < O c .� .� 7 U) C a a � U � U a CD m a m a m < a m w m Cl a N N O 69 O O 69 (gyp N y N 3 N 3 (n OCn (n oCn N 0 O < o (n 00 (n (fin 00 < G X 0 0 m CD N N (<p O O O -0 N N y _ y `� `< y y �'O cn m �'O N m CD y y - r y r CD C y m C y v CD v m O O O v m d m CD 2, 2. X X CD m a) m m m m a) m m x o x o y 0 I y 0 1) a) (n 0 (D N7• a) y 0 0 0 c 0 0 °' m m a) xQ a) xn a) � mw °) � m w )(n a n c 'a '0 3 3 (D n (D n and y Cl. y Cl. (D 0) 0 a xa a (D a N m y N U CD �. CD o N �: �- 9- m p CD p' y y y O O 3 J 3 J x 0 w 0 w 0 CD J 3 J N N (D (D 'O N 'O N CD x N x N 33 a) 'o N y CD CD Cn Cn D7i m - - - (n (n m y o O 3 O o X X TO c c c c c c c c c m m c c c m m J J J J J J 7 7 J x x 7 7 J x x n n CD n n CD ((DD CD CD 0 0 CD n CD 0 0 T CD T CD a T m T m a m n m a m a m S m ,c-. m a m T m a m 5c m .c+ m y cn CD CD y y m m m m O 0 m N m O O U) U) U) U) U) a a U) � U) a a a s 0 a s 0 0 0 0 m m 0 a 0 CD (D O_J OJ CD OO d cl p O n N N aa _ a _ a OO m CD m m (D O T m m CD O (n J 0 J 0 J 0 0 0 J 0 m m m m (D co 8 8 8 A W N O (D (D (D (D ((DD 0) 0) W W m v a v y y y (D m m m m n n f i z v m m m o 3 3 3 ' a ti 0— .o 3 3 G 0 0 0) 0) x z y O x z y 3 y x CD N N N A A W V N N V 0 0 0 0 0 -0@v -0 -0 00 O '�O 3 'az z z vz gz NO. m f0 fD t0 N.tO (O 03 3 0033 77 � n � 3 X x X N y' 9 N Gl ii) x CD 0) 3 3 3 °D '0 OD m -o c c c v o 3 7 3 .0 0 0 o v m rn rn rn m � s s = CD m m m CD N N N A A W J N N V O O O O O O O O O O 0) 0) 0) O O xz xz xz nz nz 51, W t0 CD (n CD (O o 0 O 7" y y y y d ' O. O. m ID 4 m N m 4 y x CDx 0 3 0 3 y 3 X y co y S W N co Xm X o top 3 N 7 N ID 3 p O a D x X D X m m O O 00 0) CD m (D '0 a y y. (D (D CD CD CD C CD n n n n n T T TI TI T CD CD (D (D (D 0 0 0 cn 0 0 S =r n n n n n c c c c c m (D m m m ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ m T 2 O C 1� N N N W � A B Cl- C, 0 CD O co co O O 0 CD CD CD m � 3 m w N N (D Cn omi w (D (D 69 69 69 W W O in 0 it 0 0 0 0 w 0 c c O c � � � w w w CD m m 6699 -A , O O O O O O N N m 0 m 0 C w C O C n n C C n n. 40 n CD C N (D N m w m y y to tl) X (D X xX c c c 3 3 3 n n n N N m m m m 0 cn cn 0 0 nnn c c c m m m ] Ell ❑❑ ■[(-I ■[r-1 N x fD 69 0 v 0 c cD CD 69 O O V 0 c C CL W m 91 X c CD n CD m cn m c m 3 3 (D 7 y O 0 n (D Z. O a K W O) 3 69 co O 0 0 'a (D 0 (D 0 O 5 f) w 3n ID co O O O T fD `Dlr. 0) fD y X X (D 3 R C M n m CD cn S. ■[t-1 W n m m V1 0 0 c 0 ID O V 0 c cl CD (D xX m m c CD O a m 0 0 rn N =� 0 o rim 0 n' co O m 3 3 CD d. 5 -0 T 3 0 0 o Z7 3 (D ' y � C CD n '00 W 0 O v 2 0 N 9' 3 3 cD m W O O X CD C) _ N S O 3 3 3 cn CD y X c CD n cL m cn 0 CD S. =z O o n n 0l m N coo w 3 3 CD a T 3 O x O N 3 3 X CD 'O c c z O n: _3 3 9 3 3 C ID V. n: C C X CD 0 0 t\: 3 O 3 3 0) N X c n CD CD U. 0 n_ C n m Mom(-1 NONE.] y Z 0) m N C XXCD N cn m m. T m CD cn CD 0 m z 3 CD 69 In (. 6 O v CD CD 3 z O n m 69 V1 Vt O O (D m V m O 3 C cl (D (D y x c n m CD cn 0 a O a m 0 m A cn z CD 0 Wm 0T CD CD � y 2 C 7 C 0 y C m 0) m 3 � (D z m 3 (C C CD 3 y 3 C (D y C c T CD CD 0 z (D Ef C C N Z X CD T 0 O T Zn .n C n CD fp 0) CD y c 3 CD n m CD n 3 c CD CD v W ri O N c W a a v 90 y T CD m m m /V (D CD m (D (D (D O ((D ((D 0 w 0 w T m n w 0 n n (p a z z ;o3 3 CD OZ V) (yD CD X ■v,, 69 0 0 0 x 0 c N z 0 n s CD 69 N O O O 0 CL (n CL m N m xX c n m CD cn 0 n_ O n 0 m 11❑ N v N v N v N v N v N v N v N v N v N v N -4 N -4O 8 8 W w W v W O W A W W W N N 10 N CD N A N W N N O (l) (l) O (l) A O A Q7 .Z7 (n X 0 0 2 (n 2 (n (n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 co (n (n f 0 Vl N d 0< O < O <' <' O O O O O O O O O O < <' o (D 00 C < C CL CL 0 CL a) CL a) CL a) CL a) CL a) 0 T 0 (D c �0 0 CL 0 N M N '< r p) `G r r d 7 `G N 7 N 7 "< N 7 N 7 "< (a (D N C 7 (D (D 0 m N N N Cl N N CL N Cl M N CL CL M r r 7 r CL N O co O JC Z (Dco JC x 0 JC (D Z Z7 Z7 _ Z 0 _ z 0 _ Z7 0 C CL (D N w (p O (D M d d0 Gi y Gi D_ 7 Q N M N = 2 O C y Z co O O — 7 0 7 0 O (j O O O N N :D .Z7 O O .Z7 N .Z7 N N N N F N p) d C C N "O _0 D) � N N N O. N y Q a 0 0 (D CT Q (/) r 0 0 � � W W CD co co � -n -n N 0O 7 O 0 �' o m m 3 3 3 3 v 3 m N m N < 0 M 0 c7i (n (n (n Q O v v X z 7 F N p) 7 7 7 (D O — (p 7 0 r N N O O Cn Cn Cn N 7 (p O � C C N (D N (n (n 7 7 7 Zo N 5 0 N 0 (A O TI - -n 7 N (D (D N .-. N .-. (D .-• (D (n 7 0 0_ (� N N C N _ T -n C _ _ 0 0 7 7 7 c c 3 CL N N 90 90 QO QO 7 7 _00 O N 0 x c QO 90 =" Y'' 0 N_ go x a)Z p �7 (fi C)0 7 ID� G En W O O En W (n O c o _ _ o O O 0 0 0 7' O z CL 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 n 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 N N SU N N N 69 4 69 69 -4(l) 69 69 69 6) (0 69 -4 69 69 69 ODW 69 69 A O O A N O (n N Cn O O O O O O O O O O N O O O C) O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O Cn SU SU p)^ SU 3 C C D S N N N 0 N N SU 0 x Q ((R x ELL 0 0 O Cn 0 0 ID x 7- 0 x XW 0 0 O o v 2 2 C o y C C X 3 N -� 3 a) '� n) S M N N �` O 7 (n (n _0 _0 0� X 'O — ... (n 0 "O ... (ll N 7 A O C O C 0 0 0 (n m 0 a) 0 cn (n 0 N N (n SU N (D (n a) N y SU N N 0 SU (D O N (D O N c Cn (n 0 (Da) y (p x O N69N m X X X 7 O N O N Cn N N X x X O X 0 0 3 X X v 0 "O 0 N "O 0 � a)X X 0 7 3 m 0 3 0 3 ono Ono y v x x 0 33 0 33 c ~� 0 3 ° ° ° `m m 3 x 0 (ns cn� a 3 r v m m -o 0 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C C 7 C C C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 Op_ CL CL =. CL M CL CL d TI CL TI d TI CL TI CL TI d TI M CL M CL M op_ (D C (D 0 N 0 N 0 N (D N 0 (D 0 0 Cn ( Cn ( Cn ( Cn (n (n 0 N 0 N (D 0 (n Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl � S S S S = (n (n (n 0, 0, 0, S 0, 0, CL CL CL CL CL CL S S CL CL CL CL o. CL O a O p. O p_ O p_ O O a o. o. o. N N N S. (D C_ (D C (D 7 7 7 7 CL 7 7 C_ (D C_ N C_ (D N a) SU N N a) D (D 0 N 0 N (O D (p O O O A A W N O (O Vl Vl Vl N N N r r r N N N N N N Z O C) O m N -Cp r CL a)m 3 3 a a z N N 7 N N Z7 y (D N A N O w o 0 C) o 0 0 -0 - c 3 0 o z 0 3 c n 10 7 T r » 7. n a (n (n m �c Q 7 7 0 �� n =_=r y 7 co n) n) n) N N N � A N -I O (0 w O O O O O O 0 -u Vl 0 0 X N C Q)ID N cC z "O 0 'a Qo 7 7 py n 0 O C N N X S0U C). N �. x n cozr a) W N C .p O N 7 co N N 3 C N (n X j' 7 �. C C C 7 7 7 0 0 0 CL CL CL -n -n -n 0 0 0 0 0 n M M C. CL C. C C c 0 0 0 J 7 7 (n 7 )(o (Wn N N 0 �^^ N 7 (� 3 rt 0 N � N � O o O O N (D ID O m _Z (p N ' O W 3 0)x CO x 3 N c 7 O Q1 = O (p 7 0 to (D Ef N � O O O N M N 3 N x Z N (7) ? W C L NN C SU m 3 N N �7. O O x � 0 m 7 C o. O T 1 0 N 0 O CL C N 7 ❑ 374 -„ i 0 co N co O m 3 3� ID N o 3 �cn rn m 0 0 D a X m $ m O (p m 0 o V) 3 w N O O m m S 0 3 3 3 O o N N_ O O m� 199 c_ N 0 3 3 3 m xX C: C a N m Cl) 0 a c m 0 W --I co = m C 5 mQ 0X 3 m 3 = m 0 Qo D) m_ 0 (T < 3 7 N � m D 3 c Z a O m 3 N 0 w A N C) 0 m m c 3 3 0 N S9 A O O CD m me om c N 0 3 3 3 m m X C: C a N CD 0 a c m Cr --i a = m C _ m(o X W 0 N m 3 m o � a D) m o Cn < 3 0 N � m D 3 c m o C 3 3 u (w V c Z m c ti _7 3 3 C: U3 N u cc C C X -Cm m 3 = a 0 c N 0- O 3 3 3 w CD X c m n N CD U. 0 n c m 0 O x O N CD CD m cn CD w O 0 O m 0 1< z c� 7 C) CD v� O O O 0 a) a c a CD N m X m m c m< O m N O O rn 0 O X2 0 N D) � n 0 o C1 w m a �s Z W M m X -0 0 F. cn CD K 0 3 N e+ rn 0 O 0 m -0 CD n m I C1 0 N a, a 5 0 m n D) (n rn O� 0 N m 0 N v) rn O O -0 cn o '0-. m'A O N V m O m 0 �a CD N m m c N O N 0 O rn 0 O a) X2 0 N D) � n O � CD wa W 2. CD c cn CD K 0 3 N S9 A 0V1 O O m -0 <m 0 10 0 m a,< a � 0 m n D) (n rn o� 0 N CD C) N S9 A O O m m c N O a N O O rn 0 O 3 3 oS= (D 0ID r ID TI cn c 90 x O m au 3 In W O O O O m m 0 `m< C) N v9 W O O O m v a) cn a) m N w x CD 3 a c C a N CD cn 0 a c m CC C a 3 w � 3 3 C `OG zo 0 �to .o m CD 3 4 o C x c �o O a 64 N N v c c z m C `OG C', N v N N c c Z C 1< U. fD w x X m 3 a c CD CD n m CD U. 0 C c m N N OD a O c m A cn w V N m 3 m r r CD o m 2 � C N 0 m 0 n 7 0 m C(o 3 y m a 3 cn 0 m m Z 0 m x N "2 n m � u rn O a o O c c m Z m m 0 C m m C) C w w > o N 6e is m O a O C O C c T m m 0 C `m< m< (n U. w m N lmn X X m m 3 3 a a m c X CD 0 (D c o mCD CD O m n c/ m 0 CD N m C,n o CD rn m W O O m. 3 r Z a, O m 7 C O CD °' r f0 CD cn 90 x O Ca co N 3 EA _N Vn 0 O m v a) 0 N EA N_ O1 O O 0 a) cn m CD N xx m 3 a C: 2. a N CD 0 a S. INS v A a) 3 m a Lm 3 0 xm m cn 3 a) z f fn O O O O ER v _ 1< cn m m 41 N x m m 3 a c 2. a N CD cn 0 a S. ■■EN N v V) W N v Ct N N v V C S D O O O O z O O CD CI.a Q D a < CI.a m d m m a m m c rn A O 30 . 0 3C O �CD 0 3CD cn cn n D) D) x 3 - 7 3 -030 30 o-nm 30 O D 3 0 o 3 a) m° (D co In T o o m m m 41 3 < i cn (! f c $ a) a - 3 C2 X a x COD 0 "C 3 z f w O O O n- D 3 - y0 c N 0 O 3 3 3 cn CD X c 2. N CD cn 0 a c m N O O Xm m 3 0 -0 0 c N 0 3 3 3 m C: 2. m a N CD cn 0 a S. z f v� (r O O O C1 cn w CD N m 3 a C: 2. a N CD cn 0 a c m V to ;p ;p D O. x 3 m w TI O_ T In fN x O fD N Z O z ur W O O O m C1 K w m N N x m m 3 S c p a N m 0 a c ID v A al < m 7 0 d K CD z f <D $D X n CD 3 N N o C n. 0 4F a w � Q. 0 m �W m(D a cf)c m3 m � N 0 X c 2. a N CD cn 0 a 9. v v m m ID 3 m CD cn CD D n m m w t0 c C. m z f fA Cr O O m v cn w m 0 m X 3 c 2. N CD cn 0 a c m v W mm 3 (n w C m 4o cp m x ?. 0 0 a D m m < D) 3 m N 3 T 3 z f ve N O O O v cn w m 0 N x m 3 Ti c 2. N CD cn 0 a S. v CC i m ]3 u w -0 T N -o D A z <: 7 A N D n 0 n c m CD a z f S9 w O O D D (D 3 = 3 c_ N 0 O 3 3 3 cn CD xX c a N CD cn 0 a S. v O z cn 7 N m0 CD 7 N N C0 0 N O r c N m m z f 69 O O O O cn CD O cn m m m CD 3 C: a N CD cn 0 a c CD Ell Ell Ell Ell Ell* 375 co co O co O co O co O 03 O co O C _O O O (O O W O V O 0) O to O A O O O O Oo V co m A N A h cc D D x 0 0 A x 00 x v x 30 v x 30 n o v TI a 3�� N N c0i 0 v 0 N 0) '% j 3o 0) j O 0 O j 3 'O 3 V Z, M m 4 °.3 m c m c CD 3 v o w c x tom N N Om T TI N n N N �= N �a N N ((D N Cr vg CD m 3 �a 0 °= o o 0) CD N CD ' S v N N O N ro °' N .�. 3 O �-N n N •gym CD N i D m ? 2 m N 3 ° m> > N< v O 0 o O j C C C kb N CD y3 N ro X X X O (D 0 2 n p. Cr. -2 a T% 3 v m 0 0 = x o m v m A 0 ri 0 n C- 3 z 0 C N D N N —0 ,3 ro OUR ■m 0) N O (n O O O O m m 0 x o x 7 In n ifl H9 O (r O c O O ID ro < ro 00 v (roil ro x ro c cl to �n � v 00 0 (D c Cl v n� v (D ro CD c C o n� m C C 7 T N a O -n _n (D v [n 0 0 m CD Q. ro N m N m ro N N C way a X 'o O p < ro ro n o Z CD a- m 0. C o c (DZ CD ro �. 0 to2. n ((DD C c n. nw ro 0 N 0 v' N w N O O m v 0 m y v N m x m 0 C ro O m N 0 rn C) N w N O O m v n m m (D Si x c a cL (D CL ro to I (O I co I to -00`20 m C---o C (o N N 0 c (D to mmi ^� N 3 ro 0 0 (7 m ro ro z 0 C' v m� In N V N m N (n N N O 3 -n a) -.m a) �ro a)x �m m 0 St 2 ."0 co m o8 -`n> > > 0m a0 a3� Vro1 3 0 '( N n d N (n N N cn N 3 3 cD 3 c o 3 c o 3 ^, to to to 3 to' to D) C 3 O CD O CD O D 7 o-np. no v oo. v N-o D c C) �ro C) �ro v O' D 3a N to D vv am am Z ��` C-) 3 to 3 to o 0 NC7 ro NC) go j ' 3 ' 3 A d N 0 o� N 2 ^'m 7 ro N3m 7 3� m� v 30 �3 N vz Z0 o �o �,G7 �G) 01 3 CD tn° N°: 3 N N N a :rJ O c O 0 i O CD0 N? OJ 3 3 N 0 fA O Efl Efl 6'l cn fA W O O O O O O O O m m m m m v v x o 0 o o v (D v N 3 N 3 c c 3 3 n n n 0 0 v to ro 69 O v to ro EA _N v to ro ffl _ v to ro d9 n v (o ro fA W cn O O -p ro O O (D 'p m O O ro 'p C ro V O O m N O O ro p o 3= 3 o 0 v c oO - c -00 - c to v N 0 0 N 0 0 N v N (D m w x Si 3 Sim 3 m x m w x -3' c c N 3 ,5 3 3 (xD 3 a (DD 3 o m nNi (D x x (D v x c m x C > c > c > a CD C a M a M a m m m m ro O 0 0 0 to n to 0 to (n CD n m C� CID n �' m a a m a c ro O c (D c ro c (D C O W � 0 o = 3 3 5 M Z CD 0 (n N :303 CI) (D 0) CD 3 CD 0 o 1T Q (D X ro o C ro v � �0 C-n 3 3 (� N W O d O O T ro ro � x (D W N � N co 3 3' 3 3 ? o 0 Z m c(D m (A N _W O_ O � O M Q1 K ro N N m a � m N W 0 y, c to 3 3 3 (N (D xx C D � c 7 a O -n 1. (D m O (D n (D Ell 376 co co 0 0 O (T) �C �CD 3 3 3 v 3 u � 7 D O O D Cal v 0 0 d d co fn CD m T T C/) CI) C C 90 90 2 2 O O N N O O 3 3 EA 64 � N O O O O O O N m w w S S CD m EA ro j N O O O O O O m m v O w w N (D x x x x 3 3 Ti Ti c c CD C C O. C. T T CD m cf) C() 0 0 C. d C C CD m J` J7 U 3 3. = D3 3 00 Z � 1 � Do n rn L4 00 00 00 00 o O o 0 CO A co 00 c') D n 2 q) m O O O 3 3 0 n = C CD T m 0 m O O_ 3 O (a N N m w m 2 1 K O o v <w f0 (p O. CD m m o m C m CD TL O O. w N N O O �n N O O Cn O O v, m 0 0 N wo 3 y N m m N � N � N � � N � O � w fO/) GZ 0 N ID J ID =t S s O s n s CD m m CD 69 _ O 9) CN O O m N 0 N Dmj N N. 0 N N ID m my 0 w m��n 0 @ J d 1 (0 m N - w N m 0 w � x N 3 0 w N X w n w N m m 0 3 o N ' x � p) A D x 3 w m w n n N O w � c c m m m m m O O C. Q C C m m m m CD m 0 0 cn co a a O O. O NO C C O O m m rn rn ] ❑ ❑ Ell ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 rn CN A W N co w D 0 0 w 3 F CD m N (D o s 0 F0 0 o Q F m w B F w m < CD c CD ° CD r N ww F " m Q N o o CCDD CD CD v m 3 o 3 c n f0 7 m C C 0 C � 3 v O p N fn ■EMUi N CD CD CD < (19 v CD CD ffl N O O w m Q D_ w w cD C 'O C N m w N j O 3 m O m m C CD 0 C O CD O El m G O ID o �•� ca D m (D j0 ? Ei �' m E m?� a < w y c < o CD 0 CD 0 -� w v 5 X 0 n Di co 00 00 O O O N N O t0 A D0 00 Dm3 33 N fD O m w 0 w O O D = Z m O O< j j O o _ m 3 0 3 D<) om vm 0. -o v, CD m' X < (7 < `D CD 3 a CD w O C N X m CD O 0 T m O. 69 fA EA O N O N A O O O O O O O O m m m O. d O. m �1 m O O OZ 0 0 0 a) w w w > > CD m m m N O N A O O O O O O O O 'a a a CL Q a O. w- O Cl' O Cl. N m po O O F � n w CD � � m 0 � � c n CD mn C m m m m m m 0 0 0 < < < m m m 0 0 0 a a a m m m N N N O O O O O O T T Ip O O O ]❑ ❑ ❑ 2 n O 3 3 O. (D � n O 3 m' "0 m x _ co 00 co co O D o- n 0 0 0 O O w o w 3 3 3 v 3 3 Nm N N N N = n n A O Di C. N N N N 0 C C x C C O N N N N � o 0 0 0 X m O a w 0 0 w N C S � w O. O O W 0 _ C D 0 CD N S J 0 N CD O O N m w O O. m w EA EA (fl EA A O CD 0) O O O O O O O O O O O O m m m m m w w w O O O O n n n n w w w w CD m m m EA EA (fi EA A 0) co 6N O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N O. O. O. 0. 0 F CD Q m m 0 a d m m m m 0 0 0 0 < < < < CD m m m 0 0 0 0 a a a a m m m m N N N N O O O O O O O O Gn T T T O O O O ] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑I _0 N O o ;. (D C)' 3 N 0 O O 3 3 CD F FD CL w G 7 m O m m O Z O n m m' m EA O f�D m m 8 C 0 a CD N O N O O_ O w K M w CD w W_ th ,1 uj 377 OD I a W G N tv (D 3 (D 0 i3 ' 3 0 N !R 3 w D m 0 3 c J O d (U D n 3 Ocl C o U) n CD � O p O D ' c (D n = X O a)(D 3 X X U. ( OD O O) p 0. J a) O N � (n v O C O C O (n I T (D y O O i (n f 0 7 � 3 > 5 3 c 3 � r � J w m 7 7 CD m m v, is V O C O C O D Cn m T D (xD N 3 m Yo 0 0 � c y n y O O_ C 3 U 3 m U. CD a) N CD x v x C C 7 7 a a O O CD CD U) 0 CD J N O) a n c c CD m CO CD (D CD 7 0 7 in OD co w 7 co CD CD U) O 0 a) CL N O O 0 7' a a N 0 w a J CD fn N O 0 y CD a N v Cl. 7 d CD m CD xx C 7 a O CD U) 0 J a c CD m (D CD rr Z m N r) OD OD N_ v T (n (D D;u D; X co C IDC O SU O (D,a .Z7 T - 7 -0 7 O 7 w (o a) (o a) m CDy 0 y 0 0 CD L 0 y 7 d a a. Z o. p O O 0 0 Z 0 a 0 7 0 T Z fD O (D iJ m0 4U C n C y C 3 z n a o (On O O O CD 7 7 7 ^� y (n y N N (D m m m m O) (D N CD 0 CD N(D @ O) W N N A O N O (n O (n O O -0 m CD E CD a) n a =r 0 v J N 7 (D Cn 0 CD z c> 0 O a a w a J O) N N CD vi Fn En fn W W N (n O O O O -o m CD rn v (� 0 a) a) (D a On Cn aa)) a� a) X y 0 (D m (� (D N y X 3 7 o x x c x m m X n. CD 0 X° 3 m C 3 -0 O CD CD a) w 3 3 m O 7 7 7 J n n CD m CD m n. CD CD-n O U U m (D J 0 rn rn n. n. � a a a _a c c J J (D o w w m 11 ❑❑❑❑ w z 0)CD w 4 U) (D y � xx = ID (n x 3 a 0 0 CD CD 01 (o _N v mS. '0 O a1 O) O' N y m (n O O CD I�I z 0 n w J m rn O O v CL C 0 U) (n w X C J a m (D U) a_ 0 R. m J (D LI o (D — 7 w N v co a) 3 m c (D 3 w a7 7 O T y O O 7 -1 C c7 a 7 m <n O O O O v a 1c N x CD (D 3 -o c 7 a O CD 0 S a c m El O N ] r D (p n � ] S 3 O 3 C U y K N 3 w 3 9' (D Z ] x I) D CD J U) O) (D m O O O (D 0 w z O n J CD CD En O O O N a) (D (n x X 3 a C 7 n m CD U) 0 a 0 a. m 7 IT El A '0 r (D (& O S ' O 3 c a) (D X (D 3 a a) 3 CD ;a (D N y � v CD J U) O) (D cn A O O O 0 0 z n J CD CD A O O O CA 0 O) y X X ID 3 -0 C 7 n m CD U) La- 0 0 a. J w J LI O O O X O �. O) a n' m v O m 3 =. O) 3 3 CD w' 0 C d O z n 7 w 7 m -4 Cn O O v 0. 0 c 0 (D a) X C J n m (D U) a_ 0 a w 0 m El O CND - r (o a =r 05 O c a) CD 3 m 3 (D Z O N 7 F X m CD C C) 3 (D O Efi N O O O N z n a J (D v� N O O O v 7 C CD N y X c 7 n. CD CD U) a_ 0 a J w J m El OD W � r �Co W J5 O Nc CD 3 a) 3 ID Ll -0 a x cn Ci (D O y: O O O O v z co, z n a) J m <n O O O O Z C CL CD y CD X C 7 a m O 0 a 0 a w 7 m W v -0 r Q Co J S 0 xX ((DD . � 3� 3 �' , Z O N J x X A 0 C C7 3 (D A W m O O (�D z z O n J CD CD cn to 01 O O N z C CD U) m N x C: 7 a m CD U) 0 a 0 a 5' N 7 m OD T D r D (a 7 5 O �c U 0 CD 3 m 3 m D D N n x C C7 3 (D A W O O O z z O n J CD CD <n OD O O v N z C (D CL CD X C 7 a m CD U) 0 a 0 a S' N 7 m gz O (D O) (D a OD CD 2 N J n r v ID ID c N N (D C N O (a W N (fl O O O (D Q z n w n In CD to (n O O v (D m m C v Cn X 0 n. a c 7 T (D CD U) a_ 0 a J v J m OD O 0 N J a 0 (D m co co z O n J m 0 m vi (n O O (D 57 0 C OL (D N Ii CD X M OD O a0 c O 7 � xv v' m N n a) (� CD O y O J v (D O W O O v N 0 C O) z O n J J (D m cn p O O v O) C O) d OD W 0 N J D. o f m CD O) 0 N 07 ID fo 3 O W O O N 0 m N z O n J n to CD w Lo Cn O O 0 C O) 0 `OG U) (n X m CD 3 a ❑ ❑J 378 'n o 10 o A CZ ODD O O O N O 0 x CD O CD m O N a m CT O N N (D T CD N w w (D c O c 0 c CD N 0 0 y Q. N CD m CD m C N C p ID 7 O T 0 U to G% N O O C z K O N o O 7 7 7 CD' N � � CD CD -o to to 6s O V cn O O O O O O O O a v v S .Oi O. `c' 3 d O n 0 z a 0 > > 0 c 7• CD CD o � eo CD a CD d d m -4 � f o o O O O O O O s Ch 0 7- O O O c c � m N a O O N N fU fU CD CD N N (U N x x CD x 3 3 a v C C C 7 7 7 CD CD (D n n a -n -n -n CD CD CD CD CD CD n n n On On On c c c CD m m m m m 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ O 3 CD CDN 0 N = 3 3 U w CD 0 c D 7 .0.. N � Q° C: = CD O CD d � °' D V. Q W - m o 3 c _ 3 N T w 7 3 v A W m 3 m y i _ 7 N O 3 3 Cn c d 00' cn c > 7 Z 2'7 o n d O N � N CD WD m c 3 0 N C' 3 N . 3 M. Cn N 01 O O O a `G A j m (n N N O N N O 7 C c 7 7 c N a G CD N CD CD n n =r 7' CD CD a a c IS, m ❑1 CI A m u) m to A O O a 0 ((% 7 z d CD 6 O CD CD N 7 c 7 O. CD CD U) O CD CD n c CD A A 0 0 3 3 3 fD O O. 7 N �m C-Cm $ K x 'x O 0 ID CD O CD c 0 2 c,'-O OG CD (n w 3 m w 3 n N N "O N 3 N O O O N x C N S 3 3 3 n co 0 O O mm N N 3 o O C 7 C 3 7 3 C 3 Cn m N fU x c 7 C. CD CD Cn O CD fD C. c CD A I A O co -n (7 O O_ O 3 3 q! S N Q. c O. mow�m Q. m m 2 Cp [xi N O CD Q. a - 0)0 =0 0 d O CD D CD Dd 3 o o 3 co 3 CD N D 7 K 3 LD. �. T -D O 3 O <n rn CA cn O O O O O O O N I N o� S 3 3 3 n n v v 7 7 co ED CD m m cn O O O O O O O CD N N CD p 3 = m a O (n N m CD O N � d 3 X CD 3 CD c 3 3 a m N 4D X C c 7 7 CD CD Q. 0. -n -n CD CD CD CD Chi n 7 CD (D CD n n c c CD m A W Cn CAoo /D (D O a 0a3 U p D 3 3 ) Cn O N 3 N O coCD N $ 0 3 `m Nor 0� _ n N O CD N N N CO D N = 3 n Z O cn O 7 a 3 7 3 jo (n c C CD N f 7 N n O CD o-O a v !n ss to W O O O O O O 0. O � CD to N n n v v 7 7 co co CD CD fA b9 O O O O O O CD (n fD fD 3 C a N `wG O fCn D N (Nn m N O 7 X X C CD 3 a Cn m m 4D X C c 2. 7 0. 0. -n -n CD CD CD CD O n 7 CD CD fD C. n c c m I ❑ W W A o_mo 3>0 a 7 3 3 w 3 , 7 3 v (n CD N (D 3 L 'D03 cn a) m 3 7 m' 3 m c m < CD -�� N O C3 CD_ c 3 N CD OD O co 2 3 O 7 O - N d CD Cn N O CD Co 7 W 7 CD O (U cn (O S O CD a 3 :N Cn CD d 3 T Ut O 69 to N m O ? O O O (D � 2 d O N S 3 3 3 n n N (U CD CD 7 7 69 69 N N N A O O O O CD -0 2 N ( fD 3 p 0 o D N Cn N O m � N 3 E ]' x (D c CD 3 3 a cn m N (U X C c 7 7 CD CD Q. a -n -n CD CD CD CD Cf) cn O O 7 7 (D (D C. a c c m m W V 0 3 N G (D A (D (D �. 0 m a�<D w m �u N (r O O O O 33� ;o CD N 00 co d 3 3�m N a)0 3 rnU) CD 0 0 A N O O N 2 C N S 3 3 3 n co N O O X � p fD 3 0 0 C O C 3 7 3 C 3 m 200 O CD O a, 3 0' 3 (D W C n, (ll C1 N 3 o m c' CD N 3 a (D T C 3 0 cn CD 'O O 3 W CD N N � 3v 3 NCn CD 7 Cn 0 c 7 w� �7 A N O O O N a n CD Cfi 0 O O W (D SD CD x CD 3 a c 7 CD Q. CD CD cn O CD (D Q. c CD cn u N CD O d fD CD N ti C Z,< 0 r 0 m� 0 CD cc OD to Ln to 0 <. O D C t� r O N CD N ON O CD r d CD 7 x CD d to O O O O N N N n CD O O O 7 O m O (NP ch N (D 0 x x N N 3 a c 7 N a N CD Yj O CD (D Q. c m � U C C) 0 3 O n c N fU N � Z 0 O o 7 (O m 'D 3 , O co 00 V 0 CD N 3. O O N � N - r o CD a N (O 0 7 c CD CD O cn O cn O O cn N N N n CD cn O O 0 O O N cn fU CD N x x N (D 3 v c 7 CD n CD CD cn O CD n c CD 11 ❑l - 379 tto (D w 42 U to to Ito Ito Ito N N N tP tP (n (n J O O c (D m ('D m ID J o. 0)m m J J (Q 00 0 3 O C C N (D (D Cl (Jj n .J.. .J+ N — �J o m a o m m J N = N O O N J O O J N a 0 n -0 j. fD N O 0 D w n N 0 (D (D n f f J CD CD En En O � 0 0 0 0 o O 0 � m m c� � m � o N 0 m N O C J CD O J c J n n CD n n n -n (n T N _ Ncn A N rn rn J (D 0 0 0 c_ (D N N W W ]❑ CI❑ N N v N v N v N v N v ta IQv o A w N ° O V V w n m to n n � n - n to x to O N N N O 0 -0 v 0 N (DN J O J N CDN N (D CD 0 N — o o �' �' m m 3 (a�' > >' v o m -Don COL to O t0 O t0 f0 '� J N N go CDj X. _0 J 0 N .N. J v =(a N -0 tU -0 O 0 J C (D 0. i N (AN N N p] a iU �R O N N N (D cn 0 Z J cn N CD O J C ' `L X w N N CD 3 R (D O co X n N 0 0 O X W _0 v N 7N En Es o c o c c0 o m ■W- IQ O A O 2 CD �m x 3 N 371 J m D _0 w N D 3 I7 CD 0 N 69 v 0 0 0 N go c n 0 (A c C (D n (D n J- fD c 69 0 0 0 69 0 0 o 3' 0 3 + c D� 3 N N O O a 3 N (D N� fA N c (D n (D C (D c (D D Q 3 O m O 0 N 0C'n r �0 -o o D D 0 D D n O CD 0 O C (D (0D T 69 N 0 0 0 c N 0 Si 3 3 3 C 3 n J N N 0 Cn 0 n- D 3 y0 c N c 3 J_ 3 3 cn SU fD N N X c C CD n (D C N c (D T m m cl (n fU C N J go U. x= O p 0- D 2) 0 N � ao ,�, d 3 m (D T 3 J v N N =1 t0 O N x CD J D �i 0 J N N 0 0 D CR SU O J Z 0 n J- 0 (D 69 Cn 0 v N D a J L (O (O to 0 0 0 O to 0 ((DD = ((DD = ((DD J O J O J c J a J a J n N N d N m N g ( 3 ( 3 ( 7 2 _ m 2 C C C O T - K - K N O Zm ;o_m (p .J. j J N J T T N ID O 0 `L IDO O J _ � T T N (n cn Cr C c � J J Skt Skt (D J C- 69 69 69 o v cn 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m n J N 69 0 0 v cn (D N X (D X N 3 T c (D n (D cn CD CL c (D n J N 69 0 0 CD N X N X (D 3 Ti c CD CD n (D CL (D n J N 69 0 0 v cn (D XX (D X (D 3 T c J (D n (D cn (D c (D N O O X N (D X m m W N N N O 0 1 S Z Iv (D 3 N N O X m (o X m (o W N N N JI " 380 (n Z (D p a d v c O Oc n o O N C N QO S' (D (D (D N (D 3 O co w w W N cco K co K CD co S S J J 0 C) n n m m co co o O (u (o 3 3 m m O O C � a � o g w w 8 O („ 0 0 o O o O O O 0 0 S S 41 [D 7 J D D (D (D N I � N O) 0 0 _ID N a N u>_> me (D (D 3 c 3 a D) a 0 a C N C N -' O -' O a= n= m D m (DU Na 3 (D 3 CCD CD (SD 7 7 C) C) C) C) CT CT ❑ ❑ ='S'T 0 (n CD--0 a N CD _7 o c, 7 a�0, n (D o (DJ (D N N �-0 O -+ N = � (D (D 2 O C' 7 0 Z ID (p N m � O = 3 c D) Cl C (n- O a= 5 CD (D j 0 N D N 3' o =' S. T o N - a ro»c Cam^ . 7 j a S C CD N D 7 CD (D (n (n 3, m »Wm (D N T (D (D N m O = 3 c N N C (n-. O n = (D (D j 0 N (D N 3' o S. I C CDa= a2 (D N U m CD 7 nn O N m � N � 3$ x m o' J C_ N l n D D � �a O � 7 F) _3 CD (D D = N � m = c Cl O (D 3 N O N 7 3 Z 7 N c 0 3 $ C <s am C, 7 c c 0 a N C, N (D o � c c a o N J 'o N g. -C7 c o 3 $ Mt1-1 ■ [I.1 OD W CD5. Dl (D i 0 ca CD c_ O C n 0 v) O 0 0 a S N nCDC 0 0 2' u N N � m c O -0 c � o O N N S 0 c N Z O Ci S D (D En N 0 0 CT OD N DT (D fD Q y (D 03 -co m m a 7 c J O N = CD m p ». to O ^ N � OD m (D 0 x C 0 3 r. w OD c c 3 (D CD » J CD CD ei O 0 0 J (D 7 Z O C) S (D (D 69 O 0 7 N N 0 J W co -0 OD Q y Q f� f� °' _a C, n fD N fD J N 7 :� 0 co {� 0 N j N (D 'O iD v 3 D (n7 (n CD v m o CD m ---o o 0 0 N 3 Z CD O '^ 0 cn O n� d CD N O O N N 41 m N N N CD (D i f CZ N G � fD � � N O O O O O 0 0 N (D D en 7 <n A U O w O o N N N=r N CD W = C O Q [D N J a O .CD a N p� (D = G = 3 a CD (D o o o l o m 3 T. J N N � N � a J 7 C r� S CD o. O -n T 2. N N SU n O O S S (D(Doa c c m m ❑ ❑ 381 co I co I(D I(D I(D I co I co 3 S. (DO !m N O moo^ 7 C (D CD C U 7 N N N m 0 (D (D 2 O co N Z (D p c m � m o 3 Cc w a Qo C N CL n 9' (D (o (D 0 3 (D B. m aN w<DC Q o c � E CO (D p N 0 N D O K Co CD CD (D N Z (D (p a c o 3 c w Cl Cr 0 c O nw (0 3 N m0 3 � ■L1L1i-1� Ism ' C' n c C -, w C, w o N � m O C a o S O N 0 = C Z O co v 3 cr (D f Da O w v m C (D FD ffl O O 0 O 3-0 5 m 3 o 3 CD 0 C Z O D) (D L9 O 0 0 0 2 O O (D 0 si _3 3 3 0 0 VI r� 0 o 2 3 CD U CD (D Z CD T (D z CD CD D) ff v C c c Z U Z O J D7 (D g D: c c c c T U c: V ■E2l co 0 0 (D 2 3 CD 'O (D C (D v w O a O T. _L9 N O 0 O o m 3 NG C CD 9 m Z O D) co (D fA N 0O O m N 9 O (D 2 3 (D 0 0 (P co N Oo N Q O. (D ID �L. O w 3 r- (D o � (D C (D v w O a (A EA N O O O o m 3 mG C m 9 (D Z O 0 co (D [A N O O 0 O N m N 9 Q m 2 3 (D 0 0 (P 0. c 0 3 O CD CY 3 v (O CD (D T CD T CD ti a 7 D) 0 u C c c T CD 0 2 O C 00 (D EA u v c c c T N u 0 C. c: v ■L ■ff co ca 0 Q (D 2 3 (D (n (O CD C cl (D CD 0 D7 EA O O O O O N 3 (D L (D C m 0 cr (D Z O D7 (D ffl O 0 Cl 0 N CD N Q CD 2 3 CD 0 0 VI m 69 co ca o0 Q (D 2 3 0 Q G C CL CD CD CD 3 (D x (D N D) 69 N O O O ((DD N Z O D) (D EA N O 0 0 0 (D co ca 0 Q (D 2 3 0 Q CD C CD CD CL 3 (D CD 69 A O O O ((DD N 0 co 0 N (D i ((DD o T N Q D a (D L K 2 D O D r- (D J O O c S Q D (D E i n D (D U D :2 u w 7 7 r, o a D O D N A 1 69 � O O D O °I i o J Q D (D S � D N Z Z 7 O D D) 7 o D ((DD A EA D V D o 0 D O D N D o O CD i Q D ((DD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co v w C w m O oa) o21 co W (D 0 O 3 (D 0 0 (D 69 O O O 3 N' m (D m (oi c, 5 C o m C c U 2 N CD N N EA (D A 0 O N (D (D w c w � m o 3 c D aQ Qo C N O. j 5 (o to 0 -No n f C CD 0 C) 0 v �r��or■�nnr■�� co V O EA N O O 3 N m a CD c 5 0 (D ((DD C U N CD N N 0 0 (D N Z O D) co (D EA N v 0 O N (D (D m c w � m o 3 c v a QN C a. j 5 m (o 0 -No n f C CD 0 0 v ul 382 w 03 W W A W o 0 < N D Cl. _ (D O CD N < O O CD 7 6e N O O 0 Cl w (n C� Cl. CD cz 0 �(D O V-0 -n O N Cl) 0D D � ? c -0 O # (D O = a pOj % c 3 cn z z o O C) n w w CC) CC) CD m N O O O O CD beW T (D 00 V cn -nO_ N (D D m CD O O. O x C Qf �0 $ v m v�i = c � T O O 0 � O O C n n C-) n D o. (T (T T (D (D cn 0 7 (D Cl. c m D a (D m 7 o. X aI ❑ ❑ CD T -CX0 O (D (D D n -a w o0 c c O D O O O C -CW (D w. -0 ovCD J O O C X 4 (D a no O2 82 ■ M!.'. (D3wz 9 = C N a= 69S('O-O_ 'D O N 0 O O (D p O= 0-- 0 C N O C 1� 94 o 7 � W fD CD 3 J J 0 U (D 0 0 3 m N Vi Cl Cl Cl Cl 7• w v+ C ''O O O v 5. fD 0 3 3 3 N z O n m (a (D ei O O O O 3 !' 7 O O C o 3 m ,=T N C 7 ,0 C N �i C n N (D 0 7 (D a c CD -D > 0 O O CD V A D = C T o # X C,N Dw = c -0-7-0 O N C C it T T N cn O C, J w J EA V O h O V 72 W N 3 1p CD (D EA N O O -D C) cn(D a 'D V O ^ D : J 7 7' Q (O CD C (D (D N �• lD z O n w (o CD O O N (D D c 2. O m a Q N C N d 0. S' m J ma 3 (Di 11 ❑ co 2! 3 OT CD of 0 0 O F T < CD 7 O C7 (D EA Cl Cl O m (D p fD 7' C c fA O O 7' O N z 0 n m (o CD O O N c 2. 69 0 O m CD 0 C n n cn W O 3 O N CD 7 m c 3 CD N d (D 7 Dl T O O O 0 cn N COD C 7 Q O Cl. a � n (o (CD C CD , =Cl (D N (n w 0 (D (D z O 0 w (o CD 69 O O O D I C D� C N J (D a w a Q0 c N a0 m (0 my (D (D � O 7 7 n n W co W W W ((DD tn W V 0) � 3 3 Q Q O' O' V G� Q T 0 Q3 CD (D O _ = _ O w O P W, O O 0 O C 69 _. (D 0 v O O N 7 C EA O N 7 60 O C N z 0 0 v (a CD O O O O VI z O w L v d 7 (D 0 3� G Q O' N C N O. j o ((D 3�o � -C N (D (OD C _ Q O C = CL J 7 7' Q O (D C 7 (D N NN _3 v 0 (D N lD N Z (D (p ° c N 7 (D O 0 m o Cr (DC N d 0 7 9' (D ca Ei my z 0 n w (o CD (A N (D ry a c N 7 CD a m a U (D C N Qo 7 (D to s my 3(D 0 (D 7C n cn Vi O O Cl z O n w CD en O O O N (D (D a O C N J /D a- w o. Qo C N CL 5 m (D 5. m -0 3 CD r 0. (D 7C n n cn C: �. C Q � C cn v C N (D CC n v CD C CD O CD r VI I• CD N O .J C X F (D N CD W m N N O n Z m (D :3 N C .J .J N m (D 2 v N N �I 383 n C, � O 0 =Ov � O N m p ? c 0 O � 0 (D w � O c z 0 0 m 6, n (D n n c c a m m m o N m N 0 ? C N l U 3 + 0 EA N N N O U 0 W W CD m v m c 3 O- N nN 0 O C m = O O C + C N = m m_ � a u ID O N Q nm '. o m 3 C c CD 'c0 -c (D 3 T CD CD c c c c T U 0 z 0 m z c c C c Z U O c c a OD N 0 Q 3 (D 0 c n 'c0 (D 3 T7 (D CD D� x 69 a, O O 0 O W 0 z 0 0 m 69 rn O O O O v CD W O OD 0 Q 0 3 CD i� c n a (D m _ x r 0 V 0 0 0 0 (o 0 O 3 (D z 0 0 Z) m V O O v 0 C m 0 O N u, a,. OD OD OD lD CL D 3 m m N v c X CD 169 v, O O O N p m c C T cn z 0 c� w ID ID CD O O O n Tcn (D O CD F i rn N C D (D =n cn v p n n L" OD J = T a (D a -n 0 a a 0 n 0 T m D 0 m c. X 0 n to 0 O 0 O (D 0' _ z O su (D 1, 0 O O O v _ N 70 _ n n L" CD Z D (D -a>0 c+ O a =r O 0 CD0io � m ik n T N (n X' (D N (D 0 p (D C T u3' � cn 07 z 0 0 m u W o (D mo C T (D cn a a m j O a= X � W D= W C c7 T ((DD cn v (' o T m c _ C n T CD CD W 0 (D CL (D m n co a a X' co 0 o -o OO �(3a (DD o x' m 9 co N fD vD (n n T coo to (D o O C c n (D WE; > m vo (D y _ O. O x' O W C �n �3 C: y 3 o .. z 0 W cno CD (D o CO T ^ cn 0 a = (D � = W X C. W j O U)(D c3 T .z cnT v (D o (D c -p -o T a Cn O � I v 0T cCD0 - n �m a D C c 0 n N(� cn9 _n DO X -O N W f N _ O X v co z z 0 0 0 c (=0 (=0 m m xt D a N m a v ao C T = O cn D x a � Wo (D �� (D p (O n cn Z co (D c 3 p 0co (D "N C 0 (Tn ik ((DD �0 c o T v c We 2. _ - m n 0 T T CD m CD m cn N 0 on o m c_ N (D = m n = D 0 a = CD a = CD n _ X O_ W X 1.9 O O 0 O w w O D a n =r a a C w 3 m a(Do �_ (D 2 ^' 3 ((DD 0 a = v, o 0 N n O(D N O O ? N O pj 3 (O, 3 CD D F 3 (D 0 Sr (D 69 3-0 S cD ((DD a- n 3 0 (D N N 3 0 a 0 m?c'30 = -0 n 7 N �(D3�w 3_ ID O N = (D0 - j 0 N (D to S ao=�FCD tn El -- 384 A A co O 0 A Wc a a a 0 O co @ @ @ 3 3 3 N N N Cn N O O (11 O ' O O O o 69 69 cn <n o 0 0 Cl 0 0 Cl 0 0 49 bs 65 07 (T W N N o tD V Gn w W m CO W 69 69 69 !!3 69 w 0 V 0 W O co O 0 DD W a 7 cr a O' O' 3. 0) 3. 0) o. m i N a N n N + < + < + D69 d(A N69 A C Cn C V J O W O co J 7 N 7 N 0 0 0 0 n 0 7 7 7 J (O (O O 69 (0 69 co U co N N O O V (n (A co m co w J 69 a 69 a 69 G (NO (D NJ (D (Oi( to P» bu ,0» a) cr 00 <ca < m m c m yN y N » N (Dct@ . @ 7 + 7 + 7 + 64 a •cp v (AA w (°Do N W N 6a ftr vj O O O 0 0 0 0 n C) 0 n C) w L" Ln (O I ■KIW ■[I- n 0 7m 0 Op -C O @ m z O O < m (o 0 �� n =ra N a 51 CD �L @ C' N (O A co 00 O m m 0 0 > j 0 0 N N 0 O 3 N 7 @ ci of w o x a @ O 0. to O O O O X O O 0 (.R 203 ac O O 7' @ 0 @ N 7 0 C O < O c � ID as m O 41 ... 0 0 S S N N CD O @ @ 69 O O O < O O ((DD d. C m ^. 3 c j CD 7 O 0 ~ l X N n �. N a ma� @m CD �� O 7 < 0 7 a o p n m O 7 0 7 N 7 � 0 n n 0 0 81, 1� U3 Qf inxv-0 00 vco o0U-00 @ N ((D 7 � N � - (D 'o N N a s 7 m� @ a7 a N N T+ O :E @ 7 (DS 3 @ @ j :E O T o -a S . @ n Q@rn0� O y ((DD a N (u nD D a o3�+a @ j 3. ID ;O O n o y <-.� @v m m -o (n Oo 7. @ n o C m (D a � m o a 7 co cn n 2 oa @ N X CD La. Cl. d D 0 m 0 69 O O C O p 7 (CD a @ a 0A a 5--a O O 3•0-6=» (O a —. O @ N = O CD C @ C 7 (@/1 69 co O O a F @ N 3 7 @C 7 0 7. o o o m c C. Q CD OD 0 . ('- C OM @ N Q v_ o c @ N - (n ao 9 ,2 (n n n co A CD 0 o. @ 2 @ d v 3 a 69 N O O N @ (o m C 0 0 7 7 � a (D @ 7 CD .0. @ N O O 7 N 69 N (CD N7 N (0 2NN (om� C z 0 7 NCD . n CD a a CD N 3.0 7 CD z 0 n 7 co co l :3• T 7 , co ■ENIF-I ■� W 10 nD CD @ v D� a 0 @ O < 7 N. 7 Q . a o n m m (u f (D CD CD a C O 7 . @ m m CD N N < 7' a N, m � �. 3 -R @ go�c) j @ O N @ Z O 0 7 0 @ O N O N co C C. Cn 91 U : v C ( CD �Q 90 CD v C O 3 CD m e-+ CA CD 0 CD N O J O X @ v (D W N N N O 0 S Z N (D G N O J fll @ N CD W m N N ❑1 . 385 T (D 'C T O V 2-0 co (D CD co O A A 00 A A A W A W N N co U3 n m w 3 S. 6 S. S. m m a m a a n 7 (O (p (O (0 y 7 m o m �- m D 3 3 m 3 o u N _� < D 7 m C1 ( Z m w LI o w 7 7 > > w cc 69 N O 0 O 69 0 O c 7 m a CD m CD O 7 CD CL c CD v U C N N m ac a 0 0 = N N 7� o O c 69 N cn 0 O 69 N Un O O Go m W o 3 O) CD X CD K 0 7 3 o- 0 n n cn 4) N O N N W to0m m c OT O=� a�Ej (o ((DD CI 7 N CD w CD 0 3W ' N m (D 2 O C 7 m 0 7 CD m N O� 7 m o 0 3a w (D Q 0 S. O a(D m N m D m 3, o 00 N W �K �CD g0 N 0 O CL cn a m co c 3 D ni 0 CD O (n N 0 O 0 N m n 7 u O E (D CD 7 N 0 3D0 2) = m (D 69 N O O N CD (p U N (D o = 3 c w 0- CT N 9.0 a= m cc _. N m 3 m ^' O 0 n 0 cn T 3(Dc m a7 C r a:0 n U m 7 m N 3D0 —. D) 7 m (D Z O C: _ w N Z CD (D U N (D o 3 0c w 0 CT 0 9.0 a= m ro 5 N m (D (D 3 2 O C 7 m N U N (D o = n 3 c w a Cr 0 S. O a= 9 m ro 9 w m mD 32 O N CD N -C (D cr03 _-- (O7 N 0 7 O m (D 3�0 N O Oi = (D m 2 O r _ w Cm CD = (D I m - 3 w r. w m (7i c O N 3u w O 7 CT m Cl N 7 CD (p � O m o 3 = OD N N m n (D O < = CD C (D 3 C CD CL n v m D m 0 7 69 N cn O 0 O mUOJ O.cDN o; cn (D O ac9D0w °' CD co r C U o,0 cn cn m C=2 11) 0 6 T C C T O c 69 N cn O O D 669 U - N U m � (D O new X N Inc o 0 o cb O) C n V) c O O (nCD y CD N # C 7 1 T W c 0 c 7 C CD n T N cn O 7 CD CL c (D 411 7 O. D a a CD 7 a X co 69 O O 0 O 0 O) Q 0) 3a(n00o X m -0 SU (D m Cma n= » w i, o 3.(0�91� flj m O m 7 CD n 3 7 n 7 w 7 CD (n O O O 3 N �7' m 0 O< N N (D m N 3 m X m mn-o30» � :E Eno O m na)mmw 3,<30m w v ^ � =o o o 7 N N O m co N Q. = O N 0. (o w a (D n 0 n n co N O U3 S. 3 69 CD 0 O v a 'c0 69 A 00 A OO N69 A Z9 00 O W O A O OO oQ a w O n (D m + 69 < < N C v v v O 7 Z O n CD CD 69 A OO O A co 69 O A m' OO w W 411 OO c o- m w O 0 7 + 69 Co 69 co 6�9 A A O A oN C, N O (n (D m + < � A C O 7 2 O C 7 < A m N c o m m O 0 7 � co A_ OO U3 S. CD co 69 cNn 0 (n 0 O 0 O 69 10 cn rn 69 69 (D cD O O U acr 0 m N 69 C Cn (� O N N Z O 0 CD CD 69 O U) W 69 INUN A v U3 CD 3 69 0 0 (n Pi 0 0 O 69 OO A A 69 � 0 cO O A CD U A acr co m N 69 C A• 0 N �C Z O n CD CD 69 co co A A U 69 O OO (D A a— < A N O C 0 »'m 0 + co69 cn 69 W 'fl C Q (D� z 1• a N v C (D ert 0 (D N O O d SO K 2 d f�9 co m N N O 0 � s Z d m M (D N O 01 (D 01 co m N N Ell - 386 g U) g U) (A to f± S S N S 7 0 N O 0 p 0 O fD (T (D 0 0 N CD N O 7 0 7 0 7 0(D oO �O ON O 00 U) U)C + C CT N N O r CT N w w 0 d �» �» 0 �. N N 00 ^ 4) ■ [r.� w� �r.� �r.� �r.� �wt (O p 6q O O C W � C O O -n N D. V 0 S O 0 U. =r _ < O O (p N N Z 0 r W m to ■oi ■oi OD Oo « W N � < < O (D (D > > 0 to to o (D (D m m m CD n n a) co < G <' CD N CD CD (o n 0 N C 4) O (A fA (A N A u co A N 0 o v 0 o c 0 O c 69 (n to w cn m w v V S N S Op A v nn IDIDJN 0= Co 0 j ID g VO O co0 a o a ~ N N a) CODN N N CODon U O p) C U C N -co 0 � p Q N (D a O (j 0 (D c 0 O c N m n . -0o "c O v 0 Ero� m° o c p p 0 O (p c V N O O n n � w w (o > > m D7 (D CD (D H) (A (A N A V co A N O O V O O c O O O N 64 tonW T O OODD O� A fD0 OCO 0QQ o � N O a N (D N� c N @ ! -0 (D 0 o E c ma 0 0 0 69 0 7 C. o m u o CD0 m w m 7 O N co c 7 O (7 n (oD C (7 n N C: N N O O O N « co con N O O c O O O O O O j 0 0 N N O W O A Q O (O f2C O � t0D O O n co N 7 C 1� ■oi co A 'I Z Si Z7 N (D 0 CD N o' FD _W 0 m p) O 7 n Sr m _w V) O m 7 N 0 CD l n c_ 8 (D O) O N W fk C 7 (D n N CD In U. (D (D O 10 I(Q N = C: CD l C 01 (D ■ ul m c E3 X cn 0 c� oDi v �. -0 N CD ?>>m n v ?S D CD W n' O. Z Q 0 N CD Cm� _n (D N N C U) Z O n Sr N (n O O d n N U_ X O Q � � � N # � 7 0 O Z7 c na fn c DNa m f np X' W cn N C) n cn D 0 N a co C <n 9- .� # 7 cn 0 (n .� C O 0. v �D O 3 r,. cn nCID N O O X d m N CD W 0 co r O n Z 0) N N O J N lD CD W 0 co r l " 387 to ■Un co V rn m D m C CD Sll NEW co A CD m m y a=7 o. v� (D m< 3 CD 3 3 A Sll _ d Efl N N V O O (D z O n (D m v, N N Ut O O N a c� (m = 6, O 1-1: c o: in N W � co m m 3 -o (D m rn 3 N O_ O O co N Q v z CD m m 3 m m C, 'm ( a D N y O o c J v (D o' n J 0 CD < (D CD �9 � U Ut O O 0 O O O v O 3m (D . o C Q (O O O 7 N1 y N NO N (D 7 � y < (0 (D »l W Owl O J O O O m m m m (o m CD m m u� u, U Ut O O o O O O o O0 C 0 7 (A O N N .y.. O � N J < N U � N O 3 c N O n n n 0 0 0 O O O m m m N N O � N W N W (n 7 = (D O CD Dz 7 < (D D y (m m o y' 7 ■EMER ■MMUF a a M. (D0 S v v (D X (D D fD S y 3.� D � Doi o m j N J (D o y J Q C (D RIM n n n n O O 2 O C y T Z ON (D CD n N N N - y O (D _ 3- 2) R U. m' c: O U. O CD . N C (D y T 68 cr (a. O O. O (NT �l y = N O N O D) I 41 O O. O O O. 0 O C O O O C y moD=ia cn O < N D O N 0 N O Q m 3. O y yO N' c = = O' (D n 7 co ffl W O O O =.+',9 c j O N O Efl c O � O O O (p NN E; O c � y n m (D e» W CD O O z � c:' n It ch (D N O C v 0 3 rf V• 3� I• N N O O L1 K (D a) N L1 N N O 0 Z v (n CD N O J X a) M (D Ll CD L1 y (n 11= 11 ❑I* 388 co co co O O O N N N W N O � fn fn O fn c c c D as a d N CD -3o CD a) � D0 v a (D C CD D � N o m CD 6 7 '— 5' 0 c_n O ca � N N :2 7 _ C (D ^� N m m a O = (D 7 � 69 69 1 0 o O O O O O O O O O O N N (gyp m m r a a p �i 0' 0 7 7 3 O O CD a) a) f0 ca (D (D fA 69 ffl cn cn N O O (Tt O O O O O O O O N N (D m w �i 0 O 7 7 Ci Ci (7 (7 N j ❑ Ell ❑ a) o a C = 0 0 p w 3 N � mm ca Ica Ica Ica I ca co a N 1� co C W C a Sr Cy N (D o' < 7 N v'C v m 7 m S (o (D N m m w 3 CD (D 7 m 3 m7 EA EI N G O CDc C O C O C N � m m �i O O 7 = O O c� c 7' 7 4D 4D (o (70 (D (D 69 ff N G o CDc C O C O C w m O O 7 = (7 (7 O Co O O 11n a tj 7 m 0 CD 0 3 CD CD N C) �i 0 7 En O O N a 0 J Z O c� N (D fA W O O N m 7 (7 (7 0 O A O O O O O O N co W 3 Q r C, -o m m O 7 m O O D a w Z O c� N (D O O D a N (7 (7 O N a) O O u D 7 D D n n 7 D i U 7 7 7 J J ■ J co co N N Oco <DD O p = 3 = a v? (D C) O 7 = O. N (D o' 7 � w m c = N CD a 0 D 3 (D CL 7 69 69 N V o COV O (T O O O O N N m m �i O O 7 7 O 0 c� c� m m 7 7 (D (D 69 69 N V co O V O Cn O O O O N N m m a� a fU N N 0 0 0 0 N N O O m iD A O cn N O 0 0 W N O N O O A O O A (D O O O O O O O O O _ O N Ell ❑I 69 A O O O N a �i 7 Z O c� Ca CD (D m O O O N w 0 G El a) co c _ a 0 7 O. 3 7 N Ca CD 12 O O O N a a �i 7 Z 0 c� N CD (D vi O O N �i O 7 co 0) n to D C D2. a cy <. 0' W. (D G) CD 7 CD a) 7 O En O O O O N a 0 7 Z O c� N CD (D 0 O O N a �i 0 7 a) co c a 0 0 v m N N O O N a �i Z O c� N (D N N O O N �i O 7 (7 (7 (7 (7 (7 O o aD o O O N A O O n El o cn (D Q (D O. N O =. 0 7 r oCD C 0 a 0 O 0 aQi 0 A 0 O O A 0 CD (p O A A A O O - w o o dao N x CDm 3 w m a a o m (D o' A CO .CD ooCD N A (D � o F o o c a O. O C CD a N O 7 OC G (7 (7 O N C n cn (D N Cf M a� v CD O CD CD I• CD N O O 0) 0) (D W a) N CA O 0 3 cZ a) G to m N O i D) (D D) m c a) CA M ❑I * 389 N N N I N 7 7 7 co co N to S CD v o a m -0 v 8 CD 3 X m 2 ` N =' U m� 0 7 N (D T CD 3 a 0 D w n 3. x_ 7 N V N (D (D (D O O (n O O O O O O O O O O O N N f N N -0 7 7' o (D O O O (� O 03°3 0 M 7 ^ O D F c n N 7 N ^` D' E; 7 0 m 8� N N Z Z (7 Z O O > O n n =3 n N N N N cc cc cc m m m EA !9 A N 8 8 O O O CD O O O O O a a Da a (D (D 0 q q (D N 0 C C C 0 0 8 (D 3 3 O (D 7+ O D y 00 m N N [fl a cn C O N "O � D) c o — O 7 N C C O C � � a � O O w O a a o a W N D) W D 7 7 7 N N N ]IF-] Ell Ell El m m (COD � m m m m cn u� Fn E,a �n E.a u N N N N N W W W W W O O O a) cn N O Vl O1 Vl 0mom aa T T N a p (p O (p N N (n w-0 N N cn N D D DD N cn N N O 7 O j 7 n 0 3 3 3 �_CD CD C 3 (D z � (D i n cn cn cn N (D N C C O E (D Q O. cy (D CD N�. s '0 fn N 0 N O O _0 7 7 cn CL (n V W a N O f N O O' O O in O N W W A A N '0 O 0 A O V 0 O (n O O (D (D N (D 0 0 0 0 o a N_ J J 7 00 O 7 0 N O O O 7 O n n n n N N N O N m to to to m m m m W W A A N O 0o O O A O V O O O (n O O 0 m m m 0 0 0 0 o n fD (D < N 7 7 7 00 7 _N N O O N n m to a t to to ^^N \C^Y (P^^ 69 O EA O � O a O a O O n T T o 6 cn cn In O O O cn cn a a a SD co 7 7 7 D Q) N V V N N (D (D (D co O co 7El Ell Ell ❑ 0 (NJ D n m N mmyQ T. 7 3° W cnD n n m ( V 7 CD N W D n (D N co3 7 CD » CD CD — :' D _a C O co W O � N o N LCIi C r cr N � V O y CD 0 i D O C T w v W n 7 C� C r cr v V Ml O y CD 0 i D O CD C CDCD CD CD CD cn cn %< %< ■ENEW] W O O (D O. n m m Z 0 n d m 69 O O 0 on n (D N Z7 0 V N O ON N O O O n fJ Z n d m N O O O m n m N 9 El N O O N (D N (D W d N N ;o d (D W d N N I, * 390 ID v z O Cn CD 2 CD 69 co O N O to 7 D] C CD m N z O 0 d CD CD 0 O a 7 N N to 7 C m W N C Cn v O O A O I .•i 0 0 0 N co O 0 O O D CD 0 pm v o o O � 7 O -0 nm n. SUy O � o co E w N Cl. 7 aS m C <7 0 � CJ d°lm J SDm v CD 0 7 3 CD m n 3 N CD 7 7 to _^ 69 4 O O N C 69 O 3 7 z n v O O O m O C 00 O V O Q m N fU S 3 CD m 0 O 0) to W O O O N N O J m w O O O a ro C � N � 'A O W 7 O X 0 O nn N M 0 W 0 N O ;Il 0 CA O CD j N v N v N v N v N W W 10 N -1 0, v ID v co v -1 v O V ._ A f-2 n C N m .Z -'-00 N x N -9 N -O CD(O CD 3CD x J Z :U 3 D CD 7 4 � CD n con 2, N Q O O O a p> > 0 o w to CD O N N N co N O d C, a m a m a m a m D -o m m D -o m m O CD C Q N N d 7 9 7 p co n N CD CD 0° 0° N � . N 5 . -n 0 7 O O CD CD O O N tb 7 7 41 to (70 [p to m m CD CP �» n Hi N N O O n O m C a o N C N n-n C n TI TI T Cn 0 rn Cn Cn V O a N N N 9) co N 0)O :3 O O O A A O CD m N c N di O Vt N O O O z O 0 d ro m 69 W CD CD O V C. A A A co v a N N N m m rr 0 0 0 � � Z 3 3 3 NU) U. CD o 0 m 3 3 _C 0 C N 0 O N W O O O O O O O O tr A CD O a O O CD O» O m cn WO O O O � m z z z O O O 0 0 C] m Doi D7i m m ro m m m to to to O N W O O O O O O O a a m A CD O V S O 0 0 O N C. O C. O N ■CA O io N O O W O z O 0 m Co CD 0 O a m O O W .Z' P HI O O A Ln z O 0 m m CD O 0 A O A N) w CD N < m M :O G7 N m CD n 3 3 c 19 W O O A O O z O 0 m m CD w O O A W O O D 0 0 n 0 0 K n 0 n 0 0 G O O O T T N K O O O O O IN nno��o�oo����oo 11-0 INS El it us 391 m (D ;2 %" U O 0 X, CD co co O N N CCO, N D v m 0. m S �. o ffo 0 r ff o m .z J 0 0CD 0 (D <' O y o o J n J 3 CD C � 0 a < a < o c m N m o 3 a (D S. (D y C `G En EA EA Cn m O v O O cn o O O O m m m y 0 S O a C C (p s o � � n � (D w (D J m CD Fn 0) v� 0 m 0 O cn O 0 cn o o O 0 m m m m to o CD c C a A (D Cn (D c t0 O. 3 n O. (D (D n w c 0 3 Cn V7 C C J -n C a T Cn m (D CD n D J m n O _a J m 0 (D CI CI ❑ M&. ■«. ■U.: v m V m 3' c m a c o 0 3 J F Z m o m m v y (A o � o w m O 3 CD (D Cn O C O c O C c c a + a m G9 m O OD fD (D' O (D a a 0 J s m m J J CD m G9 vE o C O c O c c c m 0 m CO m(D J O� a TB Oo (O a. (D y (O m i v CD w 0 J (D J + y 0 O a O y J J a, < o m m > > a y �' .y.. O.CD <. c n 0 �o•onc J c N N D 0 J . O OT O C O 0 J (D C y y < G N J O m C O Q m 0 a n CD w J C9 A O O O v� c O 0 O (D O N (D A 0 O O W 3 S' O-0 050090 (R O00 a.'a N ((DD y 0 3 CD f. m (D (D (D 7 J— y N 0 O. N- y J J , -0 @a (D J J (D =r .y-. O. <. N f (D Q: C y. fn a �o o J o aJ3<0 (D O 0 0 (D O O 0 0 C y 0. CD y yC G n n N m ;0 Z CD (D 3 MEMO] 69 N O O m O n S (D N 0 0 a m a N' m m m m cn co m 0 (n O 0 CD D y 3 m ao_2 m -00 CD o' J 4jl j � w (D (D U J m (D m < (D O � U3 cn c 3 w < CD (D L9 L9 L9 T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m m m 0 O O O O S� C C S� 69 fn 69 Cn n cn 0 0 3 0 3 o 3 5' n n n n w w m w J J J J CD m m m m m m m 99 69 Fn T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 3•X70 070 m m 0 a0 m n c 3 J <, qaj S S S (D S 0 (aD j N. N C C n J 0 C 3 3J3. 3 a. en (D N. 3 (D 9 o (D N. (p 3 .(DD J G9 3CDo,0 �c Cn can 0 9'a�a m no 0 3 0 ID (O O J O a J J fU J — ( �mvCal) 0c0. CD m /D N O O foil ur Ja C (D (D _ 0 0 3 0' S N N a J n C T cn N N 0 O co A A O O CD O o � o m cD - O O CD N N CI CI ❑ ❑ OUR ■Un I cn cn v 3 J n Ln� J D o' J 0 CD N J O O O O O (D (a SU O n w m En 0 0 0 O a N a D O. a m 0. 3 n n O 0 O m CD CD cQ u C (D O 3 (D Z 0 0 a CD EA O O O (D z 0 n m J m m En 0 0 CD C cn m -0 -n 0 v 0 t� Q 0 o 3 N N O O X 41 CD fD d CD W 41 N N N m ❑I - 392 V V V A A O V m W N m T T 0 0 0 0 O. O_ o Q 0 w a G 0 N N OrL m m CD 1] _N CD < fD fD pi p CD O n CD O y. CD = 0 3 J CD CD O O O EA EA EA EA N (T N 00 N O CSa O O O O co O O O N a fD (D 2 0 m :7 c 'O < N CD CD 0000 w w w w N (D N (D fA fA fA di O O N O Ut O O O O O O O O O O O O "0 =r 'O "0 p N c (D N fD (D ID < 690 a CD CD ^ CD 0 F CD N o °1 3 c < 3 co 0 CL O~ N No fD = N CD i N (D w o' O y S N n n a a n a m m �p -nm m N D CD Cn in CDn in � � W 0 Q Q CL m O O C7 C CL 0 0 o in N 7 J CD w w d O J J 0 J D CD N J J = W C1 n CAN q [:]I Ell CI❑ N N co a N 'O c < C n fD w w m. �s CD g -o � y N CD J_ (D 0 (D 00 c °1 w N `C y y V 0 CL C N CD CL V C C N z 0 n w 0 (D N Cv71 O O (D -o' c C7 N m C) C) O W A O a w m N O O O A ow--] z 0 n w (D _W O O 0 0 a 0 n n w A O J na) N N _O O 6 A ■c• z 0 n w CD N fA O O O 0 0 a 0 n n w A O O_ O O A ■0� z O n w CD N N O O 0 0 a T3 n n w A O w N O O 6 A N CD m fD CD J Q O 0 fn ZZ oa w CD N 0 G CD J 0 On CD G fD V V NJ <c OD coo V r -0 z 3 m m 3 = O y U3 `ow O Q n < O A � — O a w n J N 3 3 N m CD v In a CL N CD 7 N J 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w w co Ico Ic0 I<0 I<0 I<0 I<0 co <o t0 I <0 CD CD fD fA (A fA O N O W V O O O O O TI N N O Ut Cr 0 0 0 w c c y J J y O. n CD J � N •N O C) n n n n o o n A A O W A O O O a a n, w Jw 'w J J 7 N CD fOD O_ IQ O_ O O O O 6 6 6 A A A _-11 CI Ell ❑ CD OCD y C Q O (D c 0 J () CD 0 CO O 0 z O n w CD N fA O 0 0 a 0 n n kA O 5 w m O_ O A um N N V V O O A W N N CD CD J J U3 co CD CD C CD CD (D N CD N N J J C O. CD 0 0 0 0 w w J J N N A A O CD O O N lJt X O 0 c c J a 0 �. a y n n n _n o O ? A O O a a > > w w m m N N O_ _O O O O O A A -n -� C cn 4MM rr CD O C tll 7c O .a• cn � 0 N N O O w CD N w CD W w y N O 0 Z w D N O J X w CD ;a w CD co w N y L-11 L-11 393 ■«. co cn A O 0 3 O S co m CD ro 0 ro 0 O 0 O V CD 69 O O O v 0 Z O 0 S. CD ro 69 O O O O v ro 0 n Z O cn ro CD CL x c C -n N (D a 9 H 0 3 Cy' (D ro o va N O QN F ro (n N ° (D ro O (OD N �. 3 � m (o = m a ro < (o c D) 6 w CD m 0 co DD O o m ccoo 0 m 0 CD 3 7 0 c CD o' m A N 00 ° � o7 fD CD o m n � m ro 0 CY o o (D ti N 0 Q cr ro (D N H 69 !09 69 (7 O O O O O O m m m m 3 0 croi m � � O 7 N c n N N c c c c w ro CD m O O O � � � N N N !A j EA Cn O O O O O O O mm mm mm ?m =r :� aID am a0 0 O wa �j N > c ,0 w� M do c C D O CD 8 (D ro w o = g + o wro 69ID O IDcn m ni J G w (a m ro ro c c c > > > CD m m a a a 'n 'n -n N (DN cn cn n n O ro ro ro a a °. S. c c m (D (D O O O a a a 7 > > n 7 N N N :I v N A O co A m v cn o ° 0 o a a O ro m IDa IDm CD CD N o O O (n a. w m 0 w o x w Q ro _ W m o' ro d s N (D N N O O O O 0 O CD N o � to o O � 7 O O O 0 0 0 m m m N Oho O m O O O O ro -o w m ro o 0 3 3 c 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ao ao �o N N N O a co 0 A ❑❑❑ 3 !n � c 3 T ■o A A W rn rn Cn � O c0 0 0 o 0 0 3 W— m a Q Q � w w c n O W w m x co Q � CDn N CL 2 m 4A 69 69 O O O O O O cn W O o v 0 c c 7 C a a Z Z Z O O o n n n m m w ro ro ro EA 69 69 O O O O O O M W O m m a 0 o o c c � C n a 69 EA (A N O O 3 3 �. 3 3 3 m O n N a n c W (D 0 N (DA O ro N 0 9D O N ]CI❑❑ cn O Q ch N N Z A A A A A N A O O W W (D (D -II O(D X m V m (JT A co O c a* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a a n (roil Cron 0(roil (n Ca-7' W N O O O ro O A O x N N N CC X X �3 d ° TI ro ro A O -n a ro y ro m aNi S ro ti N 7 W N W N O O O O O m N O O O O U1 O m m m m m m 0 0000 o O Oo O. o N 0 o o n o F w a'i 'o to co (o cc ro ro ro ro ro ro eA v (A W N O O O O O O O U1 01 O m m m m m m Q m n 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c c c c c c > > > > = = = a a a a a a -n (('ppn ((-ppn -n -n -n n N (D (D N N N m CD (n W W (A m a a a a a a C O O O O O O ro a a a a a a a c > > > > > > m 7 > > > W _o CDN ID ID° J J ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑ c� D n c 0 ? O N O co O ;Ll � CD ro O 7 X N W O N m O O m O fp N 3 > f0 ■00000U [rr-m +: N N m 0 si m 0 N v O (�D m o_ W N CD 69 O O O m m 0 z 0 2 Mimi N A m 0 w 0 CD r N fA CD N O 0 0 m N D a w 0 z 0 A w 0 CD 69 O1 O O O m m 0 CD CD D v 0 0 A A N) N w W m 0 0 3 CD CD O 69 N N Ol v N N v W CD W C. 0 CD m r CD n 0 . 69 65 O N o v o c 0 0 m m m � 1 00 A C w m ro ro m m 69 69 m N o v O c O c m�0 c :* 2. C CD a v -n N 01 cn 0 C. m O a T 2 ■OOU OU rF N N N N N O V C) C) N O1 O 100 co M. A m w o 3 a. 3 v m m = O � CCD, O � N � 0 m O < o O. CD CD a 0 O O N 3 fD N W -J W O O o O C) C) C:) O O N m N N N 0 CD m < m v w m O 3 0 0 0 0 0 A A A A A m w w v d ED n ED Q Q m m m m m N 69 (A W O O o O 0 0 o O O m m 0 TTT CD m < m v w m O 3 0 � � A cL ID T -nN 0)) (n O Vl C) CD O GL C C CD m O O a a m w ■OE LEomr N N O O � O v v 0 m D O w J N CD T y CD Vl m 3 T m O � N fU 0 3 0 69 69 N N o p C) 0 0 0 m m v w V y A m D o m � 3 00 A A a a n a) 0 to CD m N N o p o O o O ER m o d O y D 0� 3 c � � A a A C In CD 00 N O O. O a 7 0 m 7❑I❑ FWMM00v--- * Im� Im� Ia Ia D (D D) D) J J U 3 3 N N (D . G � � N N D m m Z c J Ca < N N - 2 c n J CD 2 (D n EA EA EA EA EA O O cn O (n O O O O O O O O O O D) N w w w S S S S S O O O O O n n n n n m Doi m Doi Doi N N (D N N (A 69 (A (A EA W W m O O U� O Ui O O O O O O O O O O w w w w w 0 n n n n C C C C C J J J J J aaaaa N N N N N (D cD (D N N n n n n n (D (D (D (D (D n n n n a c c c c c (D N (D (D !D O O O O O a a a a a J J J J J m w m w w m �' 2 $ 2 111:11 Ell Ell DI El O O O O O CD (D N N N (D O O c N Q j W W O O O O O O w w w =r S S O O O 0 0 0 Ica I<a Ica Ica Ica (a to Ito Ico I(a I(a I(a 10 I(a 0 (D (D to EA (A W W O O O O O O N N D) 7 S C C C J J J m c m o. n n -n -n -n fD (D (D n n n (D !D (D cl n n c c c (D <D N O O O a a a w w m > > J 2 12 12 ■u� N N N N N N A A j A W W CO N O tD OD c)-nm m m m ° o o m m N p O (D C C x o 0 m w > 3 Tl Tl x CD a m m m O c c Q cr O N 0 N :L1 � (D Z c O � n (D EA EA fA EA EA EA m N N O O O O n O (1 O O O O O O O O O O N (D ,ID Dl -� D) N O S' 0 CD m N N w n (D O O D m cD O O O O O O n n n n n n Dl D) D) Dl Dl Dl ((D f( fm fm {m c0 (D N cD cD cD W EA EA fA b9 b9 EA (n N N O O O O O O O O O O -0 m(D (D Dl '(1 N D) { { ? 0 0 CD CD D N n N n (D _+ N O D) N (D O n N_ 0 O C C C C n n J� J� J-i J n n -i a a a CL T1 T TI TI CD O N N N O (D n n n n J' 7 7 = M CD o. a a a c c c c m m m m O O O O a a a a m w w w J J J J m m m 7❑❑ ❑❑❑❑I ■EA W T3. CD m p CD CD O O < N O � O O O d CD (D � O CD C co N 0 o n S 0 Z d m ( tQ N (D m N O � O C1 O fD 2 � O C CO 41 J C =. S o. O (D M. (D d chi O (D c lD O a w J 2 7 ❑ 396 0 c O -1 7 =r 90 C D N CD Ca (7 Er D) C w TI N x O O m 0 C N O 7 Z 0 0 c m (A O O O m N O J D0 0 c 3 7 � 90 C CD m a A SU O C N T N 0 CD CD m n C c m 0 C_ O 7 Z 0 C: J CD In O O 0 m 0 N N 0 7 N N N V/ tD 0 co j A W CEO V CD W N CD r N 7 m C N co w m r N Jc2i, m C N fD N O c y O N m CD0 0 O fA 03 < o N O N U CD N N n 0 T m N< 7 I ■[T7[T7u-MV7. O O m (D O n N m Z 0 n Sr D7 m f9 N O O 0 m —i m m n N (D 0 Iu to N O O 0 O c 7 a N N 0 7 a c m El O O m SO C) 0 0 Z 0 0 7' 7 CD O O m 0 n v V 7 CD N 0 m a m co (O co ED V D c m C) 0 O_ 0 N w CD CD c 7 a CD CD N O 7 CD C CD O a 9 T m 7 (O (O w 1 N N 0 X 0 m <. CD N —i Tf D Doi j 0, 7 �O SC: () 7• m < m Z O O O 00 O� 7 m m(3D mN 7 N (D 7 (D m N O. O. N N Cr C O � (p =. O 0 O CL 7 m CD 3 N EA to W m O O O O O O m T m m 7 T O 0 0 0 7' 7 SU SU O O N m to to W 07 O O O O 0 0 m T 0 (o >• T c c 7 7 CD m a a TI T CD N m 0 0 7 a a c c (D m O O a a to w 7 7 CD m ■IR ■�700�Esl ■M. C 0 N m A co T _3 C) O m ID Zl y rr Q N 3 7 7 CD m m z_ z CD NC O � 5c N D N m N � N 7 N N 0 m � Cp - N O O O p K CD v m T m 00 y O _ ID C 0 Go N C d 7 N N Z Z Z O O O 0 ' S C) C) C) ZEa N N N N (CD 7 D m m m 69 fA N N CT V p O O O O O O O O O tu (D v m m N to o 7' � o clCD C W N 7 7 7 C m a a O (mD m TI N N 0) cn a o 0 O 7 7 7 CD m n a a c c S. m O O m a a 9 11 to m ❑ ❑ ❑ # 397 ! IN 69 2 El ƒ+ G 164 2 2 / ❑ � ) B @ c e m oCD o § i CD & \ k § CD 0 0 \ � & \ \ \ j » 2 m ._ ._ \|� ] 1:1|» 398 Appendix A WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION 2013 UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE POLICY The Unified Fee Schedule Policy is a supplemental extension of the Unified Fee Schedule (UFS) and shall be adopted by Whatcom County as an integral part of, and not separate from, the UFS. The UFS Policy is a practical mechanism intended to provide additional information and clarification regarding individual fees and any of their associated details and foundation. DEFINITIONS: Certificate of Occupancy — As defined and required per the current adopted editions of the International Building Code (IBC), Section 111 and the International Residential Code (IRC), Section R110. Outside Plan Review — A discretionary program available through the Whatcom County Building Services Division, which allows an approved private service provider to perform the plan check/review phase of the permit application review process. Pre -application Review — A program available to applicants with large and/or complicated project proposals. The program allows the applicant to submit approved preliminary information, which is then pre -reviewed by appropriate staff. The applicants and their consultants then attend a scheduled meeting where information related to their project and pending application submittal is exchanged and discussed. Project Valuation — A square foot value established for a respective portion of a building according to its proposed use. See UFS Policy, Addendum A. All applicable values are tabulated to determine one total project valuation. The total project valuation is then used to determine the applicable Building Permit Fee according to UFS #8412 through #8420 and Plan Check Fee according to UFS #8243. Repeat Plan — A set of plans for a specific building, which the applicant intends to build multiple times, with no or substantially minor changes, and under the same design criteria. The plans and related information are submitted for review and Repeat Plan File Setup prior to application for a permit to construct the specific building on a given site. See UFS Policy, Building Services Division, Repeat Plan Permit Applications, Addendum C. 1 399 Appendix A Reuse Plan — A set of plans for a specific building for which the applicant has already received a building permit. Now the applicant intends to build the same building again, with no or substantially minor changes, and under the same design criteria. Clearly legible copies of the reviewed/approved plans and related information are submitted for application to build the same building on a new site. See UFS Policy, Building Services Division, Code Interpretation #2002-01, Addendum D. Unified Fee Schedule (UFS) — The schedule format document approved by the governing authority of Whatcom County, which lists and categorizes all fees the County is authorized to charge for the services it is mandated to provide. GENERAL POLICY: The establishment and assessment of fees is per Whatcom County as the governing authority and per the code editions published by the International Code Council and currently adopted by Whatcom County, with particular reference to the code sections related to fees (example: 2012 IBC Section 109). Fees shall be collected for any nonexempt work (IBC Section105.2) commenced without first obtaining a permit and/or for work by Whatcom County staff related to a permit application or to a project, whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. SPECIFIC POLICIES: 1. #8379 Building Permits Repeat Plan File Setup Rate Basis: 65% of Building Permit (UFS #8412 through 8420). Repeat Plan File Setup is a substantially similar process to typical plan submittal and plan check review. It involves all the same processes, which are intended to be compensated through the Plan Check Fee (UFS #8243). The Plan Check Fee is 65% of Building Permits (UFS #8412 through 8420), respective to project valuation. See UFS Policy, Building Services Division, Construction Fee Schedule, Addendum A (residential/accessory) or Square Foot Construction Costs, Addendum B (commercial) for project valuation and Repeat Plan Permit Applications, Addendum C, for a basic explanation of the repeat plan file setup program. 2. #8381 Building Permits: Commercial Rate Basis: Per UFS Building Permit Fee, #8412 thru 8420 according to in-house calculation of valuation or approved bid documentation, and Plan Check Fee, #8243. 2 400 Appendix A Project valuation to establish permit fees for commercial projects is derived from the Square Foot Construction Costs table, listed and updated approximately biannually, in the Building Safety Journal published by the International Code Council. See UFS Policy, Building Services Division, Square Foot Construction Costs example, Addendum B. Applicants have complained on occasion that their projects don't -Fit the table and can be completed for less than the value established by the table. There is some case -by -case merit to this argument. The table is somewhat general and does not adequately address certain specific types of projects. IBC Section 109.3 allows the Building Official to accept detailed estimates to establish valuation. The estimate documentation must meet the approval of the Building Official. Final building permit valuation shall be set by the Building Official. 3. #8382 Building Permit: Reinstatement Rate Basis: 50% of original Building Permit Fee (UFS #8412 thru 8420) within 12 months of issuance and no code change. The rate amount is based on the language in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), Section 106.4.4, except that the Building Official has determined that -the fee shall be one half (50%) of the original Building Permit Fee per the current UFS #8412 thru 8420. No changes shall have been made or will be made in the original plans and specification for such work, and provided that suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one year (12 months), and further provided that there has been no change in the applicable adopted code editions. The policy assumes all work to be inspected is accessible and includes an average of one reinspection per inspection category. Under the terms of the policy, as described herein, this includes the service through Final inspection and issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 4. #8383 Building Permit: Work Started Without a Permit Rate Basis: UFS Building Permit Fee (#8412 thru 8420) multiplied by two. The rate amount is based on the language in the 1997 UBC, Section 107.5.2, except that the Building Official has determined that the investigation fee shall be equal to -the amount of the Building Permit Fee, UFS #8412 thru 8420. The purpose and intent of the fee is to recover some of the miscellaneous extra staff costs related to the enforcement actions associated with such issues. The investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collectable, whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of the current adopted codes nor from any penalty prescribed by law. 3 401 Appendix A 5. #8384 Building Permit: Repeat/Reuse Application Rate Basis: 50% less than the original Plan Check Fee, per UFS #8243. The discounted rate applies to 1.) Applications made on projects that have completed -the Repeat Plan File Setup process, see UFS Policy, item #1 previous, or 2.) Reuse applications that meet the criteria per Building Services Division, Code Interpretation #2002-01, included in this Policy as Addendum D. The intent of the discount is to more accurately reflect the cost of providing the service, including not charging applicants for work not preformed. While some related administrative and follow-up staff time is required for such applications, little or no additional plan review is required. 6. #8388 Fire: Administrative/Miscellaneous Review Rate Basis: $50.00 per review This fee is to more accurately reflect the cost of providing this service and recover Fire Marshal staff time not previously charged. The fee is for review of administrative, discretionary and similar types or applications, such as subdivision, conditional use, variances, cottage industries and the like. 7. A. #8366 Construction Permit: Pre -application Review Rate Basis: $525.00 base plus $100.00 per hour after the first 1.5 hours. In general, Pre -application Review meetings are limited to a maximum 1.5 hours (90 minutes) and are scheduled accordingly. Historically, this pattern has been sufficient with minor exceptions where individual staff members agree to follow up with applicants at a later time for issues which require additional research. On rare occasions, a complicated project or complicated issue related to a project warrants a longer meeting or extensive additional research by one or more staff members. Such issues may not have been anticipated by the applicant or may have been unanticipated by staff due to inaccurate or incomplete information. The inclusion of an hourly rate, in addition to the base fee, allows staff some flexibility in extending a meeting when conditions allow or to continue additional research. It provides a mechanism for recovering some service costs for such unanticipated additional work. Neither the base fee nor the hourly rate is intended to recover all such cost for this service. B. #8422 Construction Permit: Reduced Pre -application Review Rate Basis: $250.00 base plus $100.00 per hour after the first 1.5 hours. Pre -application meetings at a reduced rate basis are reserved for commercial projects and, to a lesser degree, residential and/or accessory projects that have chosen to or have been required to go through a 4 402 Appendix A discretionary permit review. Discretionary permit applications are generally expensive. They receive staff review and comment and usually include conditions of approval. However, the review, comments and conditions are typically general in nature, since the information provided for review is typically preliminary in scope at the discretionary review phase. Through experience, staff has learned that certain types of projects benefit from additional and more detailed preliminary review typical of pre -application meetings, including the opportunity to ask and answer questions specific to the project. Such projects are often complicated in scope, involve inexperienced or volunteer applicants, involve multiple natural resource issues or combination of these and other factors. Because significant expense and review has already occurred, these meetings involve a reduced number of staff participants, thus the reduced rate basis. 8. #8373 Outside Plan Review Rate Basis: Less 25% of Building Permit Plan Check Fee, UFS #8243, according to the conditions of the Unified Fee Schedule Policy. Whatcom County's work load, as it relates to building permit applications, has historically been subject to fluctuations of undetermined duration due to uncontrollable forces, such as seasonal or weather related, economic, regulatory changes and the like. Such forces may occur simultaneously or overlap and may occasionally be severe. Whatcom County, like other jurisdictions, has limited resources and options to respond to such fluctuations in a timely manner. Workload backlogs occur as a result. Outside Plan Review has been successfully utilized by Whatcom County as one mechanism to respond to work load backlogs. However, because the private plans examiner who performs the outside plan review is paid by the applicant, there is potential for issues related to conflict -of -interest and the Public Service Inspector must be extra vigilant when performing inspections on these projects. In addition, the private plans examiner is not as accessible as County staff when problems or question arise. Therefore, it is recognized, potentially, as less than optimal. Outside Plan Review (OSR) will be available to applicants as an option. However, the Building Official has latitude whether to maintain the availability of this option. The applicant must request OSR at the time of the application submittal appointment. The application file will be "marked" OSR at that time. However, marking the file is no guarantee, implied or otherwise, that the specific project application or any given project application will be eligible for OSR. Marked application files will only be routed to OSR if the internal backlog for plan review exceeds the timeline goal of the Building Services Division. It is the goal of the Division to review each plan within a four week or less time frame, starting From the date that the application is determined to be complete and ready for plan 5 403 Appendix A review. The time frame goal may be subject to adjustment or modification according to work load, operation and/or management needs of the Building Services Division. The plan review phase is typically the last major review before the application is approved for permit issuance, usually followed only by final review. All other required reviews applicable to the project must be completed before an application will be routed to OSR unless approved otherwise by the Building Official. The intent of the discount is to more accurately reflect the cost of providing the service, including not charging applicants for work not performed. The OSR program requires more administrative and follow-up staff time than the Repeat/Reuse Application program, but there is still little or no additional plan review required. 9. #8349 Plumbing: Complex Systems and #9010 Mechanical Code: Complex Systems Rate Basis: UFS Building Permit Fee (#8412 thru #8420) and Plan Check Fee (#8243) The Building Services Division reserves the flexibility to base fees for complex plumbing and/or mechanical systems on the valuation of the project instead of the typical per -appliance provisions currently in the Unified Fee Schedule. It is increasingly cornmon for new innovative solutions to residential, commercial and industrial plumbing and mechanical problems to involve complex, integrated systems utilizing multiple appliances. Two possible examples are an integrated solar and geothermal residential heating system or an industrial grade flash freezing system for a berry processing plant. Both systems are easily described as complex and do not fit the usual review and inspection mode. They typically require extensive plan review, communication with consultants, multiple site inspections and, in some cases, extensive testing protocols developed by licensed design professionals. Reviewed and Approved: J.E. Ryan, Director Planning & Development Services Dated: Wain Harrison, Manager Building Services Division Dated: Appendix A UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE POLICY BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION ADDENDUM A PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION CONSTRUCTIONN FEE SCHEDULE ADDENDUM (Revised July, 2012) TYPE_ C€NSTRUCTON:::.:::.:::..'.' :FOOT: � SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE: Lruong Space - All Fkooas $100.00 RernodellRenovation (whichever is less) Valuation per approved bid documentation or $50.00 Bonus Room - upper fkooclopen fnnlunfnshd $40.00 Basement - open franrelunfinished $40.00 GARAGE: AtmchedtDetached with insulation $ drywaill $40.00 Detached- interior frame ex $30.00 CARPORT $20.00 COVERED PORCH/DECK $25.00 UNCOVERED PORCHIDECK S18.00 CCESSORWAGRICULTURAL STORAGE: Wood Framelunfnished $30.00 Wood FrameffinL-Med $35.00 Pole T $18.00 FIREPLACES: MASONRY Single $2.D00_00 Double $2.50 D.00 GREENHOUSES: CornmerciaL soft skin $15.00 CommerciaL hard sidn (percurierrk UFS Addendum B) Residential, soft skin $15.00 Residential, hard skin $30.00 MISC_ CONSTRUCTIONIDOCKS, ETC: Fresh Water Salt Water Floating Docks $15A0 $18.00 Ong Supported Docks $15.00 $18.00 Ramps $15A0 $18.00 f ewidual Piles $200.00 250.01) MISC. CONSTRUCTIONIADDITIONS: Sun Room $80.00 Retaining Walls (per square foot) $25.00 Foundations (per linear foot) $100.00 MOBIL HOMES INSTALLATION: Mobile Horne Plan Review Fee $125.00 Single Wide (in Mobile Park) $150.D0 Single Wide (on Residential Lot) $200.00 Double Wide (in Mobile Park) $200-00 Double Wide (on Residential Lot) $275.00 Triple Wide (n Mobile Park) $225.00 Triple Wide (on Residential Lot) $300.00 Quadruple Wide (in Mobile Park) $250.00 Quadruple Wide an Residential Lot $325.00 Note- Construction Fee Schedule updated per market and/or junsdiational comparison. 405 Appendix A UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE POLICY BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION ADDENDUM B (SAMPLE TABLE) Square Foot Construction Costs'.°. Group _ (2003 International Building Code) Type of Construction IA IB IIA 1113 IIIA 11113 IV VA VB A-1 Assembly theaters, with stage 176.86 171.15 166.88 159.97 148.38 147.66 154.79 137.22 132.12 Asse..mbly, theaters, without stage _ 163_20 _ 157.49 153.22 146.31 134.72 i34.00 141.12 123.56 118.45 A-2 Assembly, nightclubs 137.74 133.48 130.10 125.03 116.08 115,77 120.68 106.71 103.11 A-2 Assembly, restaurants. bars, banquet halls 136.74 132.48 128.10 124.03 114.08 114.77 119.68 104.71 102,11 A-3 Assemb.ly, churches --- __ .... ............ - 163.64 157.92 - - 153.66 - - 146.75 --- 135.13 - - 134 40 141.56 123.97 - - - 118.86 --- A-3 Assembly, general, community halls, 139.33 133.62 128.35 122.44 109.81 110.09 117.26 98.65 94.55 libraries, museums A-4 Assembly, arenas 136.74 132.48 128.10 124.03 114.08 114.77 119.68 104.71 102.11 B Business 140.02 - 134.95 130.65 124.54 111.53 110.82_ 119.78 99.60 95.75 E Educational 149.11 144.06 139.93 133.69 123.37 120.45 129.32 110.19 106.00 F-1 Factory and industrial, moderate hazard _ 85.02 81.11_ 76.36 73.96 - 63.99 64.99 - 70.93 54.57 51.74 F-2 Factory and industrial, low hazard 84.02 80.11 76.36 72.96 63.99 63.99 69.93 54.57 50.74 H-1 HI h Hazard, ex losives 79.75 _ 75,84 72.09 68.68 59.88 59.88 65.66 50.46 N.P. H234 - High Hazard - - --- 79.75 75.84 72.09 --- ...._.. 68 68 59.88 . ...... 59.88 65.66 _...... 50 46 46.63 ...., _. ..... H-5 . ........................ HPM ... ........ ... . .._......... 140.02 _.,......._,__-_._-._. 134.95 130.65 124.54 111.53 .... ._� 110.82 119.78 _._ 99.60 95.75 1-1 Institutional, supervised environment -- -- - 138.30 133.59 130.04 124.80 --- 114.56 - 114.52 - - - 123.94 -- - 105.39 - .. 101.21 --- 1-2 Institutional, incnpacilated 233.04 227.97 223 67 217.56 204.05 N.P. 212.80 192.13 N.P. 1.3 Institutional, restrained 159.07 154,00 149.70 143.59 131.82 130.11 138.83 119.89 114.03 1.4 Institutional, day care- facilities 138.30 133.59 130.04 124.80 114.56 114.52 123.94 105.39 101.21 M Mercantile 102.58 98.32 93.94 89.87 80.45 81.15 85.52 71.08 68.48 R-1 . _ ........ Residential, hotels _ --- --- 138.69 - ..- 133.98 - 130.43 - -- 125.19 115.04 115.00 -- -- 124.42 - 105.87 .. ----- 101.68 R-2 Residential, multiple family - 116_34 111.63 108.08 102.84 92.80 92.76- 102.18 83.63 79.45 R-3 Residential, one- and two-family _ __ 11.51 108.46 105.79 102.87 98.15 97.91 101.12 93.50 88.03 R-4 Residential, care7assisted living facilities 138.30 133.59 130.04 124.80 114.56 114.52 123.94 105,39 101.21 S-1 Storage, moderate hazard 78.75 74.84 70.09 667.68 57.88 58.88 64.66 48.46 45.63 S-2 Storage Iow hazard 77.75 __..._.,__. 73 84 .._._ 70.09 _... 66 68 .. ........... 57.88 .. .... 57.88 63.66 48 46 44.63 U Utility. miscellaneous; 59.54 56.30 52.95 50.29 43.72 43.72 46.94 35.89 34.18 (Note: Building Safety Journal Square Foot Construction Costs table in effect at time of submittal of 2009- 2010 UFS Schedule, January -February 2008, and including an internally adjusted fee for S-1, Type II-B, steel frame or steel stud rental storage buildings and steel storage container structures. The most current available table will be referenced) MO Appendix A UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE POLICY BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION ADDENDUM C REPEAT PLAN PERMIT APPLICATIONS Thank you for participating in our Repeat Plan Permit program. The intent of this program is to substantially reduce the time necessary to obtain a building permit by eliminating the waiting period in plan review. Since your plans are "pre -approved", they will not be required to go through the normal plan review process (they're already approved!). To help expedite your permit you will need to supply sufficient information for all departments to perform their reviews. INITIAL REPEAT PLAN APPLICATION 1. Make appointment with a Plans Examiner to submit Repeat Plans. 2. Bring 2 complete sets of plans including floor plans and elevations, energy compliance forms and engineering (if required) to appointment. 3. A file will be set up for your Repeat Permit. Every effort will be made to review repeat plans and related information within two weeks of the date submitted. 4. You will be notified by a Plans Examiner when the repeat plans are ready to pick up. The balance of the plan review fee will be paid at this time. 5. You will receive two sets of approved plans, energy compliance forms, and engineering (if required). You will also receive a partially completed permit application form, which is part of your repeat permit. PULLING PERMIT APPLICATIONS OFF REPEAT PLANS When you are ready to pull a permit from your pre -approved repeat plans, you will need to bring the following information to your application appointment: 1. Photocopy of your partially completed repeat permit application form. You will need to fill in the site -specific information at the top of the application (parcel number, site address, etc.) and sign the bottom of the application. 9 407 Appendix A 2. Two complete copies of your pre -approved repeat plans with all plan review comments and corrections. 3. Two copies of your pre -approved energy compliance forms and engineering calculations (if required). 4. Other applicable documents normally required to apply for a building permit. (See the checklist of required information in the Residential Structures application packet.) All other departmental reviews such as zoning, land disturbance, and Health Dept. will be completed prior to permit issuance. Your construction plans are valid for sites meeting design criteria indicated on plans (i.e. 25 psf snow load region, 1500 psf assumed soil bearing capacity, etc.). If your proposed site conditions do not meet design criteria indicated on plans, plans will not be valid and additional review by this department will be required. Fees are required for additional review. Your repeat plans are valid until the next applicable code changes. At that time, if you wish to re -instate your repeat permit, a supplementary plan review and additional fees ($100.00 minimum) will be required. W.- Appendix A UNIFIED FEE SCHEDULE POLICY BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION ADDENDUM D CODE INTERPRETATIONS WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION NUMBER: 2002-01 EFFECTIVE DATE: 2/15/02 REVISION DATE: 11/1/07 SUBJECT: Conditions of discounted plan review fee for Reuse Plans. Current adopted edition of the International Residential Code CODE: (IRC), Sections R106 & R108 SUBMITTED BY: Wain Harrison APPROVED BY: J.E. "Sam" STATEMENT OF INTERPRETATION: Whatcom County Building Services Division will discount 50% of the plan review fee for specific individual permit applications on a case -by -case basis, subject to the Building Official's discretion. A review fee discount will apply for reuse residential plans, based on the current adopted Unified Fee Schedule, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plan in question must have been previously reviewed by Building Services within one year of the date of the current application for the reuse plan submittal. 2. The applicant must provide the most recent previous permit number associated with the reuse plan; submit two clear, legible copies of the previously reviewed plan drawings with all the Plan Examiner notes, conditions and labels visible; provide copies of all relevant documents, such as engineer calculations, energy code forms, truss layout/engineering and the like. 11 409 Appendix A 3. The current application for the reuse plan submittal shall have no more than minor nonstructural changes with no alterations or expansion of the original building footprint. All changes must be clearly indicated on the plan drawings. 4. Engineered reuse plans must be accompanied by a letter from the engineer of record approving the use of the engineering for the specific plans at the new proposed building site. Any proposed changes to the plan drawings, minor or otherwise, must be reviewed and approved in writing by the engineer of record. The written documentation must be stamped and signed by the engineer. Any applications submitted, which do not meet all of the above applicable conditions, will not be considered a reuse plan submittal. The application will be subject to the full plan review fee, based on the current adopted Unified Fee Schedule. 12 410 Appendix B Unified Fee Schedule Addenda UFS No 2755 Addendum Includes: one Preliminary Traffic and Concurrency Information Form review, one Preliminary Stormwater Proposal Form review, one TRC meeting attendance, one development impact mitigation determination; original Staff Report preparation, one Public Hearing attendance; two Traffic Impact Analysis submittal reviews; two Stormwater Design Report reviews. Excludes: all services related to minor changes to preliminary approval; ingress/egress review; stormwater management review; construction inspection. UFS No 2756 Addendum Includes: one Preliminary Traffic and Concurrency Information Form review; one Preliminary Stormwater Proposal Form review; one TRC meeting attendance; one preliminary approval conditions or Notice of Additional Requirements preparation effort; one original and revision review of ingress/egress and/or stormwater management; one development impact mitigation determination; four construction inspections; two Short Plat checkprint reviews; record drawing review. UFS No 2758 Addendum Includes: one Preliminary Traffic and Concurrency Information Form review, one Preliminary Stormwater Proposal Form review, one TRC meeting attendance, one development impact mitigation determination; original Staff Report preparation; one Public Hearing attendance; two Traffic Impact Analysis submittal reviews; two Stormwater Design Report reviews. Excludes: all services related to minor changes to preliminary approval; ingress/egress review; stormwater management review; construction inspection. UFS No 7166 Addendum Includes, but not limited to: ingress/egress review; stormwater management review; Staff Report preparation; TRC Meeting attendance; Public Hearing Attendance, preliminary approval conditions preparation; Notice of Additional Requirements preparation; development impact mitigation determination; Exempt Land Division application processing; Boundary Line Adjustment application processing; third or more Short Plat checkprint review; third or more Final Plat checkprint review; record drawing checkprint review; survey & legal description review; Haul Road Agreement preparation; recorded land division alteration or vacation processing; Agricultural Short Subdivision application 411 Appendix B processing. NOTE: Some fees above will apply after minimum service allowances stated in UFS Nos 2755, 2756, 2758, 7174, AND 7175 are exceeded. UFS No 8211 Addendum Includes, but not limited to: developer -requested services that staff volunteer to perform outside normal business hours; developer -requested pre -application services not otherwise listed under UFS No 7169; developer -requested services not otherwise included under any of the following UFS Nos: 2755, 2756, 2758, 7174, 7175. 412 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-344 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: -� E WE D IRu (�( J" 11/07/12 Introduction 11120112 Hearing Division Head: OCT 3 O 2012 Dept. Head: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Prosecutor: - i-) Purchasin /Bud et: 4d6 /d 2qt Z Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. An Ordinance Authorizing the Levy of Taxes for County and State Purposes in Whatcom County, Washington, for the Year of 2013 ATTACHMENTS. Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( x ) 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.) The proposed ordinance adopts the Whatcom County 2013 Property tax levy. COMMITTEE ACTION. • COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.waus/council. 413 INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: County Executive DATE: November 7, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND STATE PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, FOR THE YEAR OF 2013 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 2013-2014 biennium, including all sources of revenues and anticipated expenditures on November 20, 2012; and, WHEREAS, the County Council has determined it is not necessary to increase the General Fund property tax levy for 2013 to fund essential county services, and, WHEREAS, the County Council held a public hearing regarding the biennial county budget which included property tax rates, and other revenues; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED by the Whatcom County Council: (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 2012 for collection in 2013; and, (C) The amounts collected through the County general levy shall be limited to the amount of 2012 taxes increased for the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state assessed property. Page 1 414 (D) 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. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the taxes to be levied against parcels ofproperty within the Diking Districts, Drainage Districts, and Drainage Improvement Districts are to be credited to the individual maintenance funds for the year 2013, 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 FURTHER 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 , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Kershner, Council Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: I ' N k� jt� Civil Deputy Pro utor ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Jack Louws, Executive Date: Page 2 415 EXHIBIT A WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR 2013 Page 3 416 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Butler Ditch District - Cost Center #622 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget Revenues $50 $66 $4,125 $366 $0 $4,241 $366 Projected 2013 beginning balance $3,875 Assessments $4,125 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues $4,125 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $2,500 $8,000 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $5,100 Total Expenditures $8,000 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $4,125.00 417 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Consolidated Drainage Improvement District #1-623 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account $394 WCIP Investments $23,417 Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) $4,000 Actual 2012 expenditures $2,263 Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) $819 2013 Budget Revenues Assessments Other Revenue $27,811 $3,082 Projected 2013 beginning balance $24,729 $6,000 $0 Total 2013 Revenues $6,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $30,729 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $2,000 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $28,329 Total Expenditures $30,729 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $6,000.00 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Drainage District #2 - 624 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments $6,115 $3,147 $11,262 Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) $2,000 Actual 2012 expenditures $366 $4,065 Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) $3,699 2013 Budget Revenues Assessments Other Revenue Projected 2013 beginning balance $7,197 $2,000 $0 Total 2013 Revenues $2,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $9,197 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures. Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $3,600 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $5,197 Total Expenditures $9,197 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $2,000.00 419 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Drainage District #3 - 625 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget Revenues Assessments Other Revenue $6,589 $1,412 $8,000 J $191 $0 $16,001 $191 Projected 2013 beginning balance $15,810 $5,000 $0 Total 2013 Revenues $8,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $23,810 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures. Admin Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses New Project and Unforeseen Expenses Total Expenditures Projected 2013 Ending Balance $400 $2,000 $21,410 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $5,000.00 $23,810 $0 420 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Drainage Improvement District #5-626 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget Revenues Assessments Other Revenue $6,274 $7,991 $12,000 $7,164 $0 Projected 2013 beginning balance $12,000 $0 $26,265 $7,164 $19,101 Total 2013 Revenues $12,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $31,101 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $10,000 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $20,701 Total Expenditures $31,101 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $12,000.00 421 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Drainage District #6-627 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget $11,136 $6,622 $2,500 $366 $714 $20,258 $1,080 Projected 2013 beginning balance $19,178 Revenues Assessments $2,500 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues $2,500 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $21,678 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $2,100 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $19,178 Total Expenditures $21,678 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $2,500.00 422 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Drainage Improvement District #7-628 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget $23,873 $3,543 $35,416 $8,000 $1,866 $4,866 $3,000 Projected 2013 beginning balance $30,550 Revenues Assessments $8,000 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures. $8,000 $38,550 Admin. $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $7,900 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $30,250 Total Expenditures $38,550 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $8,000.00 423 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Drainage Improvement District #15-629 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures $39,061 $9,886 $20,000 $1,528 $68,947 $16,528 Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) $15,000 Projected 2013 beginning balance $52,419 2013 Budget Revenues Assessments Other Revenue $20,000 $0 Total 2013 Revenues $20,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses New Project and Unforeseen Expenses Total Expenditures $400 $18,000 $54,019 Projected 2013 Ending Balance RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $72,419 $72,419 $0 $20,000.00 424 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Drainage Improvement District #17/630 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account $4,050 j WCIP Investments $1,040 $ 8,090 Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) $3,000 Actual 2012 expenditures $175 $654 Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) $479 Projected 2013 beginning balance $7,436 2013 Budget Revenues Assessments $1,000 Other Revenue Total 2013 Revenues $1,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $8,436 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $300 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $2,300 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $5,836 Total Expenditures $8,436 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $1,000.00 425 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Consolidated Drainage Improvement District #20-631 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account $4,988 WCIP Investments $19,726 $30,214 Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) $5,500 Actual 2012 expenditures $2,752 $2,752 Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) Projected 2013 beginning balance $27,462 2013 Budget Revenues Assessments $2,500 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues $2,500 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $29,962 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures. Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $2,700 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $26,862 Total Expenditures $29,962 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $2,500.00 426 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Consolidated Drainage Improvement District #21-632 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget $14,449 $80 $10,000 $7,098 $0 $24,529 $7,098 Projected 2013 beginning balance $17,431 Revenues Assessments $10,000 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues $10,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $27,431 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures. Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $7,900 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $19,131 Total Expenditures $27,431 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $10,000.00 427 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Drainage Improvement District #30-633 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account $114 WCIP Investments $2,339 $2,453 Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) $0 Actual 2012 expenditures $375 $375 Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) $0 Projected 2013 beginning balance $2,078 2013 Budget Revenues Assessments $0 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues $0 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $2,078 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $200 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $600 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $1,278 Total Expenditures $2,078 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $0.00 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Consolidated Drainage Improvement District #31-634 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget $3,605 $45,550 $15,000 $2,746 $0 $64,155 $2,746 Projected 2013 beginning balance $61,409 Revenues Assessments $15,000 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues $15,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $76,409 (1013 projected beginning balance + 1013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $12,634 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $63,375 Total Expenditures $76,409 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $15,000.00 429 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Drainage Improvement District #30A-635 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget $562 $201 $1,000 $752 $0 $1,763 $752 Projected 2013 beginning balance $1,011 Revenues Assessments $1,000 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues $1,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $2,011 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses New Project and Unforeseen Expenses Total Expenditures Projected 2013 Ending Balance $200 $1,000 $811 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $2,011 $0 $1,000.00 430 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Diking District #1/636 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget Revenues $13,337 $6,219 $14,742 $366 $0 $34,298 $366 Projected 2013 beginning balance $33,932 Assessments 2.50 per acre Other Revenue Total 2013 Revenues $14,742 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $48,674 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $14,600 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $33,674 Total Expenditures $48,674 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 2.50 per acre 431 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2012 Deming Diking District #2-637 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account $10,545 WCIP Investments $71 $22,616 Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) $12,000 Actual 2012 expenditures $16,059 $16,059 Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) $0 2013 Budget Revenues Projected 2013 beginning balance $6,557 Assessments $12,000.00 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues $12,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $18,557 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $13,000 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $5,157 Total Expenditures $18,557 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $12,000.00 432 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2012 Diking District #3/638 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget $16,340 $17,400 $43,740 $10,000 $1,030 1 l $8,769 $7,739 Projected 2013 beginning balance $34,971 Revenues Assessments $10,000.00 Other Revenue $ 0 Total 2013 Revenues $10,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $44,971 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $13,500 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $31,071 Total Expenditures $44,971 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $10,000.00 433 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Diking District #4/639 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) Actual 2012 expenditures Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) 2013 Budget $13,673 $11,482 $30,000 $7,409 $0 J $55,155 $7,409 Projected 2013 beginning balance $47,746 Revenues Assessments $20,000 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues $20,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $67,746 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $11,800 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $55,546 Total Expenditures $67,746 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $20,000.00 434 EXHIBIT B BUDGET FOR 2013 Macaulay Creek Flood Control District #641 As of December 31, 2011 Cash in Account WCIP Investments $55,414 $23 $64,437 Uncollected Assessments (including 2012 and past years) $91000 Actual 2012 expenditures $291 $5,291 Less any Estimated 2012 Expenditures (and outstanding invoices) $5,000 2013 Budget Revenues Projected 2013 beginning balance $59,146 Assessments $9,000 Other Revenue $0 Total 2013 Revenues $9,000 Total available for 2013 Budget Allocation $68,146 (2013 projected beginning balance + 2013 revenue) Expenditures: Admin $400 Projected Work Plan/Estimated Maintenance Expenses $14,000 New Project and Unforeseen Expenses $53,746 Total Expenditures $68,146 Projected 2013 Ending Balance $0 RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED FOR 2013 $9,000.00 435 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-345 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: D I1/07/12 Introduction 11120112 Hearing Division Head. - OCT 3 0 2012 Dept. Head: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Prosecutor: _ �_ Purchasing/Budget: �� � Executive: //I+�l TITLE OF DOCUMENT. An Ordinance Limiting the 2013 General Fund Property Tax Levy ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMNIARYSTATEMENT 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 2013 General Fund Property Tax Levy and establishes a new maximum allowable property tax levy. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. AqA INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: County Executive DATE: November 7, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE LIMITING THE 2013 GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHEREAS, the County Council has approved a budget for the 2013-2014 biennium, including all sources of revenues and anticipated expenditures on November 20, 2012; and 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 2012 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 2013 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: M V�\ IS Civil Deputy Prose or 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kathy Kershner, Council Chair ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Jack Louws, Executive Date: Page 1 437 WHATCOM BOUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ' NO. AB2012-346 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: 11107112 Introduction Originator: I E ((�" E V E D 11/l0/12 Hearing Division Head: OCT 3 0 2012 Dept. Head: Prosecutor: U WHATCOM COUNTY Purchasin /Bud et: ele COUNCIL Executive:�— TITLE OF DOCUMENT: An Ordinance Authorizing the Levying of 2013 Property Taxes for County Road Purposes ATTACHMENTS. Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( x ) Yes ( x ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) The proposed ordinance authorizes the 2013 Property Tax Levy for County Road Purposes. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note. Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.waus/counciL INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: County Executive DATE: November 7, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF 2013 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 Council has approved a budget for the 2013-2014 biennium, including all sources of revenues and anticipated expenditures on November 20, 2012; and, WHEREAS, the County Council has determined it is not necessary to increase the Road Fund property tax levy for 2013, and, WHEREAS, the County Council held a public hearing regarding the biennial county budget which included property tax rates, and other revenues; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED by the Whatcom County Council that the amounts collected through the County Road levy shall be limited to the amount of 2012 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 2013 levy in the amount of $0, which is a percentage increase of 0% from the previous year. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the Whatcom County Council does hereby authorize diverting $706,530 of the County Road District levy for the budget year 2013 to the General Fund. Diverted County Road Taxes are to be used for traffic law enforcement in the unincorporated areas of Whatcom County. ADOPTED this day of 52012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Kershner, Council Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy P e utor ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Jack Louws, Executive Date: Page 1 439 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL No. AB2012-347 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: u U ^ D (�( J" FFDDivision II/07/I2 Introduction I1/20/12 Hearing Head: OCT 3 0 2012 Dept. Head: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Prosecutor: Z _, Purchasing/Budget: /4 Zro !'Z.. Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing the Levy of Taxes for County Conservation Futures Purposes for 2013 ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( x ) Yes ( X ) SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) The proposed ordinance adopts the "atcom County 2013 tax levy for Conservation Futures. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.uslcouncil. INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: County Executive DATE: November 7, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR CONSERVATION FUTURES PURPOSES FOR 2013 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 2013-2014 biennium, including all sources of revenues and anticipated expenditures on November 20, 2012; and, WHEREAS, the County Council held a public hearing regarding the biennial county budget which included property tax rates, and other revenues; 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 2012 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 2013 levy in the amount of $0, which is a percentage increase of 0% from the previous year. ADOPTED this day of , 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Kershner, Council Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: V � L Civil Deputy Pr s cutor ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Jack Louws, Executive Date: Page 1 441 WHATCOM CCI UNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-332A CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: originator: ' E C E � V E D 11/7/12 Introduction 11120/12 Hearing Division Head: OCT 3 0 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 1 Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasing/Budget: p / z Executive: TITLE OF DOC ENT.• An Ordinance in the Matter of the Adoption of the Final Budget of Whatcom County for the Biennium 2013-2014 and Restricting the Expenditure of Certain Funds Therein. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance, Appendix A — Executive's Budget, Appendix B — Authorized Positions SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( x ) 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 proposed ordinance adopts the Whatcom County 2013-2014 budget and places restrictions on the certain expenditures. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council, 442 INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: County Executive DATE: November 7.2012 ORDINANCE NO. IN THE MATTER OFTHE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET OF WHATCOM COUNTY FOR THE BIENNIUM 2013-2014 AND RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN FUNDS THEREIN WHEREAS, pursuant to and in conformity with the provisions of the Whatcom County Home Rule Charter, Section 6.10, relating to the County budget process, the Whatcom County Executive did complete and place on file a Preliminary Budget for Whatcom County for the biennium 2013-2014; and, WHEREAS, following the completion of the Preliminary Budget, which was presented to the Council on October 15, 2012, a notice was published in the County's official newspaper; and, WHEREAS, several meetings of the Council's Committee of the Whole took place in the ensuing weeks to analyze the amounts set forth for each department in the budget and to make recommendations for changes; and WHEREAS, the County Council has analyzed the amounts set forth in the budget in reference to deciding whether the amounts were proper and necessary amounts to be used by the various departments of Whatcom County for the biennium 2013-2014; and WHEREAS, notice was published in the County's official newspaper that the Council would have a hearing to further consider the preliminary budget as presented by the Executive and the recommended changes from the Council's Committee of the Whole, together with the Council's proposed restrictions on the expenditure of certain appropriations, and said public hearing took place. Page 1 443 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council: Section I. Adoption of Budget The amounts set forth below are adopted as the Whatcom County Budget for the biennium 2013- 2014: FUND/DEPT. GENERAL FUND 2013 Appropriation 2014 Appropriation Assessor 2,823,955 2,860,159 Auditor 1,309,288 1,338,973 Council 965,848 973,935 Executive 547,723 553,515 Planning & Development 5,067,990 5,004,052 Treasurer 1,3 61,873 1,384,372 Sheriff 13,468,226 13, 564,8 69 District Court 2,015,981 2,058,718 District Court Probation 1,614,399 1,634,109 Hearing Examiner 181,384 182,551 Juvenile Administration 4,182,158 4,254,721 Prosecuting Attorney 5,678,137 5,742,502 Public Defender 3,313,854 3,394,167 Superior Court/Clerk 2,341,603 2,364,558 County Clerk 2,628,539 2,660,340 Extension 3 43 ,691 347,324 Non -Departmental 13,177,221 11,479,928 Parks and Recreation 3,598,857 3,627,401 Public Health 12,154,240 12,103,987 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 76,774-,9671 75,530,181 Page 2 ... Fund No. OTHER FUNDS 2013 Appropriation 2014 . Appropriation 108 County Road 26,614,249 21,253,878 109 Election Reserves 1,216,470 1,339,531 114 Veterans Relief Fund 467,893 416,275 118 Whatcom County Jail 12,713,574 12,946,211 121 Low -Income Housing Projects 224,000 224,0001 122 Homeless Housing 2,864,615 2,867,891 123 Stormwater Fund 1,785,145 1,881,52 124 Chemical Dependency/Mental Health 3,581,550 3,666,14 130 County Wide E.M.S. 2,638,106 2,663,10 135 WC Trial Court Improvement 13,735 13,735 137 LEOFF I Healthcare Fund 204,066 140 Solid Waste 872,543 850,03 141 WC Convention Center 558,980 558,98 142 Victim Witness 146,562 141,953 151 Community Development 5,000 5,00 154 Road Improve #1 26,812 26,81 155 Road Improve #2 1,888 1,888 159 Road Improve #7 2,682 2,68 165 WC Drug Fund 593,967 593,96 166 Auditor's O&M 261,852 230,96 167 Emergency Management 488,573 386,55 170 Pt. Roberts Fuel Tax 300,000 175 Conservation's Future 169,000 185,00 245 2010 Ltd Tax GO & Refund Bond 472,218 468,068 324 REET H 3,038,386 2,293,15 326 REET 473,511 613,5161 330 Parks Improvement Fund 94,183 96,82 332 Public Utilities Improvement Fund 503,511 578,51 444 Ferry System 2,524,850 2,524,00 501 ER&R 12,925,590 12,738,61 507 Administrative Services 19,760,270 19,960,33 Total Other Funds 95,543,781 89,529,152 Page 3 445 Section II. Provisions Restricting Expenditures Pursuant to Section 6.60 of the Whatcom County Home Rule Charter, the following provisions restricting the expenditure of certain appropriations are enacted for the 2013-2014 biennium. These provisions are an integral part of the official budget of Whatcom County and shall be published therewith, and are adopted as the Whatcom County Budget for the 2013-2014 biennium: (A) This department/fund level appropriation is based upon the backup detail budget, as attached, and as contained in the document titled Whatcom County 2013-2014 Budget, Exhibit A (although labeled as Exhibit A to this ordinance, it is not attached herewith; rather it is kept on permanent file in the Whatcom County Council Office). Authorized Personnel positions cannot be increased during the biennium except by approval of the County Council. Positions approved at less than a full-time equivalent may be increased subject to the availability of funds and the consent of the County Executive, but shall not be considered a permanent change in authorized levels. The monies allocated to Salaries and Wages, Personnel Benefits and Capital Outlay can be transferred only with the prior approval of the County Executive. (B) All construction work funded herein for which the estimated cost is over $25,000 shall be bid out to private contractors, pursuant to the bid procedures contained in the Whatcom County Code, Chapter 3.08, and applicable state laws, except as the Council may specifically authorize. (C) Appropriation authority for any budgeted personnel position which becomes vacant during 2013-2014 shall continue unless the Council by motion identifies the position as one in need of review. (D) Administration of the budget is the responsibility of the County Executive and therefore the County Executive is authorized to manage County budgets by transferring appropriation authority between departments within the General Fund, and between accounts and cost centers within other county funds. (E) $1,000,000 of the adopted Undesignated Ending Fund Balance as provided for in this ordinance shall be maintained in a Rainy Day Reserve Account, and such monies shall only be appropriated upon a two-thirds affirmative vote of the entire County Council. In administering this Rainy Day Reserve Fund: (1) The County Treasurer shall be empowered to use the Rainy Day Reserve Fund to manage the cash flow needs of all County Funds by making short-term loans (less than six months) without interest, and without the need to get Council/Executive permissions. (2) Longer term loans (more than six months) can be made to other funds, but only with County Council approval. (3) Any investment income earned as a result of the Rainy Day Reserve Fund shall be credited to the General Fund general revenues. Page 4 ..E (F) Expenditure authority granted in this ordinance is based on revenue projections contained in Exhibit A. If it is evident that a department's revenues will fall short of the department's budgeted revenues in any calendar year, the department head will submit a plan to the County Executive to reduce departmental expenditures sufficient to offset the revenue shortfall within the same calendar year. (G) Grant and restricted revenue shall be used first to pay for all eligible expenditures before any unrestricted General Fund general revenue is used as local funding for eligible expenditures. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, to authorize the County Council staff to make such clerical, scriveners, or mathematical changes necessary to correct inadvertent errors that may have occurred. ADOPTED this day of , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Kershner, Council Chair APPROVED as to form: (_LS3 ku�� Civil Deputy Pros for () Approved () Denied Jack Louws, Executive Date: Page 5 447 Exhibit B - Authorized Positions With Vacancies Original Ordinance 2012 Totals Changes during 2011-12 Revised 2012 Totals 2012 - 2013 Changes 2013 Totals 2013-2014 Changes 2014 Totals ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES- - Administration Director 0.40 0.00 0.40 (0.40) Special Projects Manager Administrative Supervisor 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.25 _0.00 0.25 0.25 _ (1.00) 0.00 0.00 1.00 _ 0.00 Administrative Services Coordinator 0.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 Admin Secretary/Grant Coordinator 0.40 1.00 0.10 0.50 0.50 Conservation Resource Analyst 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.80 1.00 0.00 2.80 (1.05) 1.75 0.00 1.75 Finance Finance Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Associate Manager Budget Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 Accountant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Financial Accountant 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 _ _ Payroll Supervisor 1.00 1.00 --- - --- 1.00 - -- ------ ------ 1.00 1.00 Payroll Benefits Specialist Senior Purchasing Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 ------- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.80 0.00 11.80 0.00 11.80 0.00 11.80 Facilities Management Facilities Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Facilities Assistant Construction Project Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 Facilities Technical Specialist 3.00 Facilities Maintenance Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 Facilities Maintenance Technician 3.00 3.00 3.00_ 1.00 Custodial Coordinator 1.00 6.00 1.00 _ _ Custodian 6.00 6.00 _ _ _ _1._00 6.00 17.00 0.00 17.00 0.00 17.00 0.00 17.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Information Technology Information Technology Manager 1.00 1.00 Administrative Assistant Associate Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Special Projects Manager 0.00 7.00 1.00 _ 1.00 7.00 _ 1.00 Systems Administrator Systems Support Specialist 6.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Service Desk Technician Project Coordinator Systems Analyst 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Applications Supervisor Applications Administrator 0.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 (2.00) 4.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 Applications Technician Records & Project Administrator 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Clerk/Receptionist 1.00 1.00 22.75 0.00 22.75 2.00 24.75 0.00 24.75 Human Resources Human Resources Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Employee Relations Manager Human Resources Representative 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 I:\Position Control\Position Control for 2013-2014bgt.xls 10/26/20144 45 AM Exhibit B - Authorized Positions With Vacancies Original Ordinance 2012 Totals Changes during 2011-12 Revised 2012 Totals 2012 - 2013 Changes 2013 Totals 2013-2014 Changes 2014 Totals Administrative Clerk 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Office Coordinator 1.00 1.00 _ 6.80 0.00 6.80 0.20 7.00 0.00 7.00 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 61.15 0.00 61.15 1.15 62.30 0.00 62.30 ASSESSOR ------ -- - _.... -- - Assessor ---._......-------- 1.00 ---- 1.00 --- 1.00 1.00 -.._._._..---- - Chief Deputy Administrative Assistant 1.00 - _ _ 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Property Data Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Office Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Program Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 Clerk _4.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 13.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 _ _ _ -_ Clerk/Receptionist - _ _ 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 _ _ 2.00 Personal Property Clerk Drafter/GIS Technician - 1.00 1.00 13.00 1.00 Appraiser 13.00 13.00 TOTAL ASSESSOR 28.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 28.00 AUDITOR 1.00 1.00 1.00 Auditor 1.00 _ _ Chief Deputy _ _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ _ 1.00 Records/Licensing Supervisor Coordinator 1.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 Clerk 8.00 8.00 _- - Elections - 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ Elections Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Office Coordinator Elections Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ _ Coordinator Clerk 1.00 4.00 (1.00) 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 TOTAL AUDITOR 19.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 19.00 COUNTY COUNCIL 1.00 1.00 1.00 Clerk of the Council Deputy Clerk ---.....- - - -- ----- ----- Confidential Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 -------- ----- 1.00 ------- - 1.00 3.50 - - .....---------- 1.00 Council Member 3.50 1.00 1.00 3.50 3.50 1.00 Senior Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 Administrative Clerk .. ----- Confidential Clerk/Receptionist 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 ----.....------- 1.00 TOTAL COUNTY COUNCIL 9.50 0.00 9.50 0.00 9.50 0.00 9.50 COUNTY EXECUTIVE 1.00 1.00 0.00 Executive Deputy Administrator 1.00 0.60 0.00 1.00 1.00 (1.00) 0.60 (0.60) Special Projects Manager 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 _0.00 0.25 Executive Assistant 0._00_ _ Executive Asst/Communications Coord. 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.50 _ 1.00 Executive Secretary 1.00 0.40 1.00 Admin Secretary/Grant Coordinator 0.50 TOTAL COUNTY EXECUTIVE 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.25 3.75 0.00 3.75 DISTRICT COURT Judge District Court Commissioner 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I:\Position Control\Position Control for 2013-2014bgt.xls 10/26/2011405 AM Exhibit B - Authorized Positions With Vacancies Original Ordinance 2012 Totals Changes during 2011-12 Revised 2012 Totals 2012 - 2013 Changes 2013 Totals 2013-2014 Changes 2014 Totals District Court Administrator 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 Chief Deputy Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Jury Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ _ Coordinator 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 Clerk 4.00 Clerk/Receptionist Calendar Coordinator 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Senior Court Clerk Court Clerk 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 TOTAL DISTRICT COURT 17.50 1.00 18.50 0.00 18.50 0.00 18.50 DISTRICT COURT PROBATION 0.50 District Court Probation Administrator 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 Probation Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ _ _ Lead Probation Officer 1.00 1.00 9.50 1.00 1.00 9.50 Probation Officer 9.50 9.50 Substance Abuse Specialist 0.70 1.00 _ 0.70 0.70 (0.70) 0.00 Senior Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 Clerk 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 TOTAL DISTRICT COURT PROBATION 15.70 0.00 15.70 0.00 15.70 0.70 15.00 EXTENSION Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Coordinator 1.00 1.00 Master Composter/ Rec cler Coord. 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 TOTAL EXTENSION 2.52 0.00 2.52 0.00 2.52 0.00 2.52 HEALTH 6.60 0.60 Health Officer 0.60 0.60 _ Health Department Director 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 _ 1.00 Assistant Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Community Health Manager Environmental Health Svcs Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Disease & Epidemiology Manager Disease Ctrl & Emerg. Resp. Mgr. 0.00 1.00 1.00 (1.00) 1.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 Public Health Nurse Supervisor Public Health Nurse Epidemiologist 3.00 12.00 1.00 (1.00) 3.00 3.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Medical Assistant Nutrition Supervisor 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 Nutritionist 1.00 1.00 WIC Certifier Social Worker 2.80 1.00 0.10 2.90 1.00 2.90 2.90 1.00 1.00 Care Coordinator Business Services Supervisor 0.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 (0.80) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Financial Services Coordinator Accountant 1.00 1.00 (1.00) _ _ _ 0.00 _ _ 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Account Clerk 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 Clerk Office Coordinator 1.00 1.00 (1.00) 0.00 0.00 1.00 10.95 1.00 1.00 10.95 Clerk/Typist 11.95 (1.00) 10.95 _ Community Health Specialist -- - - ---------._ Environmental Health Supervisor 2.00 3.00 1.00 - - 3.00 - ----- 3.00 _ _ _ _ 3.00 _ 3.00 - - 3.00 - ---- -- 3.00 Environmental Health Specialist Human Services Manager 13.00 1.00 (1.00) 12.00 12.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I:\Position Control\Position Control for 2013-2014bgt.xls 10/26/201'2"I' . 5 AM Exhibit B - Authorized Positions With Vacancies Original Ordinance 2012 Totals Contract Coordinator 1.00 Changes during 2011-12 Revised 2012 Totals 2012 - 2013 Changes 2013 Totals 2013-2014 Changes 2014 Totals 1.00 1.00 1.00 Program Specialist 5.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Health Information Specialist (1.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Data Applications Specialist 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 TOTAL HEALTH 74.25 1.10 73.15 0.80 72.35 0.00 72.35 HEARING EXAMINER Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 TOTAL HEARING EXAMINER 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1 0.00 1.00 JAIL 1.00 Chief Corrections Officer Chief of Corrections (1.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 Inspector Lieutenant 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Corrections Sergeant Corrections Deputy 8.00 4.00 (1.00) (3.00) 8.00 63.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 8.00 63.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 8.00 63.00 4.00 _ 63.00 0.00 Clerk Administrative Coordinator 1.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ Records Specialist Account Clerk 2.00 0.00 Lead Work Crew Coordinator Outside Maintenance Coordinator Work Crew Coordinator 0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL JAIL 86.50 0.00 86.50 0.00 86.50 0.00 86.50 JUVENILE COURT ADMIN. 1.00 Juvenile Court Administrator (1.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Administrative Assistant Assistant Administrator Clerk Accounting Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Account Clerk Legal Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 10.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Probation Officer Detention Manager Juvenile Detention Officer Nurse Practioner CASA Volunteer Coordinator 10.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 15.00 0.70 15.00 0.70 15.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 Program Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 TOTAL JUVENILE COURT ADMIN. 38.40 1.00 37.40 0.00 37.40 0.00 37.40 PARKS & RECREATION Administration 1.00 1.00 1.00 Director Accountant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Administrative Assistant ----- - -- - - - - - - -- Clerk Division Secretary Design & Development Supervisor - 2.00 1.00 - ... - -... 2.00 .... . . . . ..... 1.00 - ---._..... 2.00 --- 1.00 - - 2.00 - -- - 0.00 1.00 1.00 (1.00) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Senior Citizen's Program Recreation & Senior Services Mgr. ----- -------- -------------- 1.00 1.00 (1.00) 0.00 1.00 _ 0.00 1.00 0.00 Maintenance Worker Park Facilities 1.0_0 Park Operations Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I:\Position Control\Position Control for 2013-2014bgt.xls 10/26/20144-5 AM Exhibit B - Authorized Positions With Vacancies Original Ordinance 2012 Totals Lead Park Ranger 3.00 Changes during 2011-12 Revised 2012 Totals 2012 - 2013 Changes 2013 Totals 2013-2014 Changes 2014 Totals 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 Range Master 1.00 1.00 1.00 Park Ranger 3.00 - -- ----- ---3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 -----....._ __ --- 3.00 --------------- 1.00 -- Maintenance/Construction Supervisor Outside Maintenance Coordinator ...------- - 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Repair Maintenance Maintenance Worker 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION 23.75 0.75 23.00 0.00 23.00 0.00 23.00 PLANNING & DEVELOP. SVCS. 1.00 1.00 Director 1.00 1.00 Administrative Assistant Division Manager 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 Division Secretary 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 GIS Specialist 1.00 1.00 Planner 24.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 0.00 24.00 (1.00) 23.00 (1.00) 22.00 1.00 Coordinator Public Service Inspector 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 Fire Inspector Plans Examiner Permit Center Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 (1.00) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Permit Center Technician PDS Supervisor (3.00) 1.00 TOTAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 47.00 2.00 45.00 1.00 44.00 (1.00) 43.00 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Prosecuting Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 18.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Chief Criminal Deputy 1.00 1.00 1.00 Chief Civil Deputy Assistant Chief Criminal Deputy 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant Chief Civil Deputy Deputy Coordinator - - - -- --- - - - -- - - - - - - Legal Assistant Confidential Secretary Clerk Administrative Manager Paralegal 1.00 18.40 1.00 1.00 18.40 18.40 1.00 - - -- - 14.00 (1.00) 1.00 ----- 13.00 ----------- - -- 1.00 - 13.00 ... 1.00 13.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 Domestic Relations Coordinator Sexual Assault Case Specialist 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 Domestic Violence Case Specialist Law Library 1.00 1.00 1.00 Librarian 0.50 0.50 0.50 TOTAL PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 50.90 1.00 49.90 0.00 49.90 0.00 49.90 PUBLIC DEFENDER 1.00 1.00 1.00 Public Defender Chief Deputy Deputy Office Administrator Investigations Supervisor -------- ------ --- --- Investigator Legal Assistant _ Administrative Secretary - Clerk/Receptionist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 15.00 1.00 15.00 1.00 15.00 1.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ------ 3.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 ---- 3.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.80 - _ 1.0.0 0.86 1.00 0.80 1APosition Control\Position Control for 2013-2014bgt.xls 10/26/20141545 AM Exhibit B - Authorized Positions With Vacancies Original Ordinance 2012 Totals Changes during 2011-12 Revised 2012 Totals 2012 - 2013 Changes 2013 Totals 2013-2014 Changes 2014 Totals TOTAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 29.80 0.00 29.80 0.00 29.80 0.00 29.80 PUBLIC WORKS Ad m i n i n i strati o n/Acco u nti n g Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accounting Supervisor 1.00 (1.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Accounting Budget Supervisor Financial Accountant 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accounting Technician Administrative Assistant 2.00 2.00 1.00 (1.00) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Safety/Training Specialist _ 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 Clerk/Receptionist 2.00 Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Special Projects Manager 1.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 (1.00) 11.00 0.00 11.00 Engineering 1.00 Assistant Director Administrative Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Clerk Records Assistant 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Engineering Manager 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 _ 4.00 5.00 Engineer 5.00 2.00 Planner Coordinator 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Survey Technician 3.00 Senior Professional Land Surveyor Permit Center Technician 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 14.00 2.00 (1.00) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 14.00 Engineering to Coordinar Engineering Technician 1.00 14.00 14.00 36.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 36.00 Flood Control 1.00 ------ ----- -- - - - - 1.00 Engineering Manager Division Secretary 1.00 1.00 2.00 - -- -- ------ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Engineer Engineering Technician 2.00 2.00 _ _ 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 Flood - Natural Resources Planner 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 Maintenance & Operations 1.00 -- ------- ----------- - M&O Superintendent 1.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant Superintendent/M & O 2.00 2.00 -------- -- 2.00 2.00 - --- 5.00 -- -- - - ---- -. - Road Crew Leader Senior Sign Leader 5.00 1.00 - ._._ .. 5.00 - - 5.00 -- -- --- 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sign Technician M&O Team Leader 3.00 1.00 8.00 _ 3.00 3.00 1.00 _ _ 3.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Equipment Operator 8.00 8.00 8.00 22.00 Senior Road Maintenance Worker 22.00 22.00 22.00 I:\Position Control\Position Control for 2013-2014bgt.xls 10/26/201 2A"9 45 AM Exhibit B - Authorized Positions With Vacancies Original Ordinance 2012 Totals Changes during 2011-12 Revised 2012 Totals 2012- 2013 Changes 2013 Totals 2013-2014 Changes 2014 Totals Maintenance Worker 18.00 18.00 (1.00) 17.00 17.00 -Road Clerk/Receptionist 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 Administrative Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00 Clerk 2.00 2.00 1 2.00 2.00 64.50 0.00 64.50 (1.00) 63.50 0.00 63.50 Noxious Weed 1.00 1.00 1.00 WeedControl Coordinator 1.00 Weed Compliance Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 ,Ferry 1.00 1.00 -2.0-0 ..._._0_.00 1.00 1.00 -Coordinator Senior Master -Master -Master Engineer Purser/ Deckhand 1.00 1.00 _1.00_ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00- 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 Deckhand Regular Relief Deckhands . . ......... 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 storm-m-ater (Water Resources Manager 1.00. 1.00 1.00 -Engineering -------- Division Secretary Engineering Technician Planner Program Specialist 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 1.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 Solid Waste Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Eguimirmt Services 1.00 Equipment Services Manager Shop Crew Leader Heavy Duty Mechanic Purchasing Coordinator Purchasing Assistant Clerk/Receptionist 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 3.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 3.00 0.50 8.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.50 0.50 14.50 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 0.00 14.50 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 155.70 0.00 155.70 (1.00) 154.70 0.00 154.70 -SHERIFF Sheriff - 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _..__1..00 1.00 Undersheriff Chief Criminal Deputy Chief Civil Deputy Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 Lieutenant Crime Analyst 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Volunteer Services Coordinator Coordinator Senior Administrative Assistant ---- 1.00 (1.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 . . ....... -------- - 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Accountant 1.00 (1.00), 0.00 0.00 1:\Position ControkPosition Control for 2013-2014bgt.xis 10/26/2045A5 AM Exhibit B - Authorized Positions With Vacancies Original Ordinance 2012 Totals Financial Accountant 0.00 Changes during 2011-12 Revised 2012 Totals 2012 - 2013 Changes 2013 Totals 2013-2014 Changes 2014 Totals 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Administrative Coordinator 1.00 (1.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Account Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Civil Assistant 1.00 (1.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ _ _ Records/ID Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ _ 1.00 ID Technician 3.00 _ _ __ _ 3.00 3.00 3.00 _ Clerk 0.00 9.00 9.00 _ 9.00 9.00 Records Specialist 8.00 (8.00) 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 Sergeant 10.00 10.00 10.00 Deputy 67.00 2.00 69.00 69.00 69.00 102.50 2.00 104.50 0.00 104.50 0.00 104.50 Emergency Management Deputy Director 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 Program Specialist 2.00 Clerk 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ _ 1.00 Administrative Coordinator 1.00(1.00).0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 TOTAL SHERIFF 106.50 2.00 108.50 0.00 108.50 0.00 108.50 SUPERIOR COURT/CLERK 3.00 Judge 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 Superior Courts Administrator Superior Court Administrator 0.00 1.00 1.00 (1.00) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 Superior Court Commissioner Court Reporter 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Judicial Assistant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Court Facilitator 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Drug Court Coordinator 1.00 1.00 Substance Abuse Specialist 2.70 1.00 2.70 1.00 _ 2.70 _ 2.70 Chief Deputy Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accountant Clerk 1.00 7.50 1.00 1.00 7.50 7.50 8.00 7.50 8.00 Court Clerk Specialty Court Clerk 8.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Senior Court Clerk 1.00 1.00 Account Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 TOTAL SUPERIOR COURT/CLERK 40.20 0.00 40.20 0.00 40.20 0.00 40.20 TREASURER Treasurer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Chief Deputy 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Revenue Specialist Tax Specialist 1.00 0.00 (1.00) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 Revenue Deputy 3.00 3.00 Operations/Accounting Specialist 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Investment Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Treasury Services Manager Accounting Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Clerk 2.00 2.00 Head Cashier 1.00 1.00 TOTAL TREASURER 13.00 0.00 13.00 0.00 13.00 0.00 13.00 COUNTY TOTAL STAFFING 824.37(2.85)1821.52 1.90 819.62 1.70 817.92 I:\Position Control\Position Control for 2013-2014bgt.xls 10/26/20145 AM WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-327 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office A enda Date Assi ned to: Originator: M.A. 1011212012 1012312012 Public Works, Health & Matt Aamot j� E C E � � E D . OCT 15 2012 Safety Committee Division Head: Mark Personius ]� �! �✓' /D/�?��7� 11/7/12 Introduction Dept. Head: Sam Ryan / 11 / 20/ 12 Hearing Prosecutor: I Royce Buckingham D WHATCOM COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: COUNCIL Executive: Jack Laws TITLE OF DENT: Six -Year Capital Improvement Program and level of service amendments. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance and Exhibits 2. Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Reasons for Action Other background information is on file at the Council office. SEPA review required? ( X ) Yes ( ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( X) Yes ( ) NO SEPA review completed? ( X ) 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.) Adoption of the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Whatcom County Facilities 2013-2018 (Appendix F of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan) to replace the existing Six -Year CIP for 2011-2016. The Six -Year CIP includes plans for County parks, trails, correction facilities, stormwater facilities, flood protection facilities, government buildings and transportation. The proposed amendments also include eliminating the level of service standard for County maintenance and operation facilities in chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCILACTION. 10/23/2012: Hold in Committee and also introduce November 7. Have hearing same night as the budget hearing. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. AB2012-089 and PLN2012-00002 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. 456 WHATCOM COUNTY., Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax October 12, 2012 I.E. "Sam" Ryan Director To: Jack Louws, The Honorable Whatcom County Executive The Honorable Whatcom County Council From: Matt Aamot, Senior Planner/ Through: Mark Personius, Long Range Planning Division Manager MY RE: Six -Year Capital Improvement Program and LOS Amendments The Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Whatcom County Facilities includes plans for County parks, trails, correction facilities, stormwater facilities, flood protection facilities, government buildings and transportation. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan indicates that the Six -Year CIP should be updated every two years. The last CIP was approved by the County Council in 2010. Therefore, the CIP is being updated in 2012. Additionally, the subject proposal would delete the level of service standard for County maintenance and operation facilities. The Growth Management Act does not require that a local comprehensive plan contain a level of service standard for such facilities. Rather, County facility managers may propose, and elected officials may authorize, improvements to maintenance and operation facilities when needed. Planning & Development Services is requesting Council committee consideration of these amendments on Oct. 23. It is anticipated that the County Council would make a final decision on these amendments along with approval of the biennial budget. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Office (360) 676-6907 FAX (360) 738-2525 457 10-12-2012 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES (2013-2018) AND MODIFYING LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council initiated the subject amendments for review in 2012; and WHEREAS, Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Whatcom County facilities is reviewed every other year and is due for an update in 2012; and WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act does not require that a local comprehensive plan contain level of service (LOS) standards for maintenance & operation facilities and, therefore, this LOS standard may be deleted; and WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 13, 2012; and WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Planning Commission recommended the comprehensive plan amendments on October 11, 2012; and WHEREAS, The County Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT The proposal is to amend the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as follows: a. Deleting the level of service standard for maintenance and operation facilities in chapter 4 of the comprehensive plan; b. Adopting the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Whatcom County Facilities 2013-2018; and c. Repealing the existing Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities 2011-2016. 2. Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on August 20, 2012. 3. A determination of non -significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on August 23, 2012. 4. The proposal was posted on the County website on August 9, 2012. 5. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to citizen, media, cities and other groups on the County's e-mail list on August 9, 2012. 6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendments was published in the Bellingham Herald on August 31, 2012. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendments on September 13, 2012. Pursuant to WCC 2.160.080, in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendments the County must find all of the following: a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. b. Further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate changed conditions that show need for the amendment. c. The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: i. The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. 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. 2 459 e. Amendments that propose the expansion of an urban growth area boundary are required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR sending area, with certain exceptions. Growth Management Act 9. The Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 to guide adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. 10. GMA planning goal # 12 is to "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards" (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). 11. The subject amendments include updating the Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities for the 2013-2018 planning period. Updating the CIP is one step in the process of planning regional facilities provided by the County to serve the people of Whatcom County. 12. The GMA, at RCW 36.70A.070(3), requires that a comprehensive plan must include a capital facilities plan element consisting of: a. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. b. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. c. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. d. At least a six -year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. e. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. 13. The Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities contains an inventory of existing County owned or operated facilities, a forecast of future needs based upon the level of service standards adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and other factors, proposed expanded or new County capital facilities, costs and funding sources. M.1 14. Existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 4A-4 addresses the GMA requirement to reassess the land use element if probable capital facility funding falls short. County -Wide Planning Policies 15. County -Wide Planning Policy K-1 indicates that, as part of the comprehensive planning process, the County must identify appropriate land for public facilities that meets the needs of the community including recreation, transportation and human service facilities. 16. The CIP identifies County park, trail, transportation and other improvements as contemplated by the County Wide Planning Policies. Interlocal Agreements 17. Existing inter -local agreements between Whatcom County and the cities indicate that the County will consult with the appropriate city in planning new road construction projects within the city's urban growth area. The inter -local agreements also provide joint planning for parks. 18. The County Engineer indicated on July 2, 2012 that the County sends a copy of the six -year transportation improvement program to cities prior to approval, requests comments, and informs cities of the hearing date. The Whatcom County Parks Director stated on July 2, 2012 that the County Parks' staff maintains a consistent working relationship with appropriate staff from cities on joint park projects and planning. Therefore, the type of cooperation envisioned by the inter -local agreements is occurring. Further Studies/Changed Conditions 19. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan calls for an update of the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for County facilities every other year. Specifically, Policy 413-1 is to: 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. 20. A revised capital improvement program has been formulated for County owned or operated facilities, which presents improvement projects over the new six -year planning period. L 461 Public Interest 21. The Six -Year CIP plans for public facilities from 2013 to 2018 based upon anticipated population growth over the six -year planning period and other relevant factors. Therefore, the proposal should complement the County's growth and development plans. 22. The Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities will have a positive impact on the County's ability to provide public facilities by planning ahead for such facilities. Adverse impacts to other service providers have not been identified. 23. The goal of the Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities is to plan for County owned or operated parks, trails, stormwater facilities, flood protection facilities, government buildings, correction facilities, and transportation improvements to serve the people of Whatcom County. Planning for such County facilities is in the public interest. Spot Zoning 24. The subject proposal does not involve rezoning property. Level of Service Standard Modification 25. A level of service standard for maintenance & operation facilities is set forth in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 26. The "Growth Management Act — Procedural Criteria for Adopting Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations" state that counties are not required to set level of service standards for facilities that are not necessary for development (WAC 365-196- 415(2)(b)). 27. Whatcom County will continue to monitor and evaluate the need for maintenance & operation facility improvements. However, such facilities are not related to growth management planning. Therefore, the level of service standard for such facilities may be removed from the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS The proposed amendments conform to applicable requirements of the Growth Management Act. 2. The proposed amendments satisfy the approval criteria of WCC 2.160.080. 5 462 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that: Section 1. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 (Capital Facilities) is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A. Section 2. The Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for Whatcom County Facilities 2013- 2018 (Appendix F of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan) is hereby adopted as shown on Exhibit B. Section 3. The Whatcom County Six -Year Capital Improvement Program 2011-2016 is hereby repealed as shown on 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 , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Kershner, Chairperson APPROVED as to form: Civil Deputy Prosecutor rol ( ) Approved () Denied Jack Louws, Executive Date: 463 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 F=vhihi+ A Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities Amend the Capital Facilities chapter of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 4) as follows: 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 of a mile per 1,000 population activity centers ........................................ five centers per 100,000 population Policy 4G-3: Adopt the following level of service for correction facilities: jails..................................................................1.42 beds per 1,000 population juvenile detention ......................................... 0.125 beds per 1,000 population Policy 4G-4: Adopt the following levels of service for administrative facilities: maiRtepaRGe& GpeF.+�G (61Rrir►sGFPerated`.................... 0.41-�sq. #. Pe� Gapita sheriffs office (unincorporated).......................................0.26 sq. ft. per capita sheriff emergency ops (county-wide).........................0.011 sq. ft. per capita Note: Strikethroughs on Exhibit A show the changes to the adopted Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan language. ME" Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year ClP 2013-2018 Exhibit B SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES 2013-2018 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-1 465 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 - Introduction...................................................................... 3 Chapter 2 — Parks and Recreation...................................................... 5 Chapter 3 - Maintenance & Operations..............................................14 Chapter 4 - Government Office Space................................................15 Chapter 5 - Sheriff's Office..................................................................16 Chapter 6 - Emergency ManagementlEOC.........................................17 Chapter7 - Jails...................................................................................18 Chapter 8 - Juvenile Detention...........................................................20 Chapter 9 — Transportation.................................................................21 Chapter 10 — Stormwater and Flood Protection Facilities ................23 Chapter 11 — Improvements to Existing Buildings ............................29 Chapter 12 — Costs by Project Category............................................30 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-2 E •• Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION The Growth Management Act requires that the County's Comprehensive Plan include a "capital facilities plan element" (RCW 36.70A.070(3)). The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan calls for the County to develop and update the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for County projects. The main purpose of this Capital Improvement Program is to plan County facilities to serve the people of Whatcom County over the next six years. Growth Management Act Requirements According to the Growth Management Act, a county's capital facilities plan must include five items, which are shown below. A. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. Current inventories of existing County capital facilities, based upon information provided by various County departments, are included in each chapter of this document. B. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. Chapters 4 and 6 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan establish "level of service" standards for County parks, administrative facilities (i.e. Sheriff's office space), correction facilities, and transportation. Level of service standards are expressed in acres of parkland needed for every 1,000 people in the County, square feet of Sheriffs office space needed to serve each person in the County, etc. Forecasts of future needs for capital facilities over the six -year planning period are determined by applying the adopted level of service for a given facility to the expected population in the year 2018. F=Gr example, the adopted level of would be Reeded by the yeaF 2018 te maintain the ad9pted level A-f se-P.4roe. SiRGe the GOURty already the noorlc of the gFE)Winn nnn,,latinn C. Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. General locations and capacities (acres of parkland, jail beds, etc.) of proposed new County facilities are indicated in this document. D. At least a six -year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. This Six -Year Capital Improvement Program presents costs and funding sources for proposed County capital facilities (all figures are in 2012 dollars). There are a variety of funding sources that the County utilizes to pay for capital facilities, including real estate excise tax, conservation futures, the public utilities improvement fund, the jail fund and grants. One other potential source is the County's General Fund. The Finance Manager for Whatcom County indicated that, over the six -year planning period, there would be little revenue in the County's General Fund to finance capital facilities. However, the capital facilities proposed in this Six -Year Capital Improvement Program are within the County's funding capacity. Specifically, Whatcom County's unused limited tax general obligation bond long-term debt capacity at the end of 2011 was Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-3 467 Plannina Commission Recommended Version October 11. 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 $337,885,810, which far exceeds the expenditures proposed by this Six -Year Capital Improvement Program. Therefore, it would be possible to issue bonds to pay for capital facilities if revenue is increased, expenses decreased, or programs reprioritized to make debt service payments. Revenue and expenditure projections for roads and related non -motorized facilities are set forth in the six - year transportation improvement program. E. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Finally, in accordance with the Growth Management Act, a requirement to reassess the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure consistency between plans already exists in the Comprehensive Plan (Policy 4A-4). Charter Provisions and the County Budget In addition to Growth Management Act provisions relating to capital facilities, Section 6.30 of the County Charter also requires the County to include a six -year capital improvement program as part of the budget. Appropriation for 2013-2014 capital projects may be included in the biennial budget or may be adopted through the supplemental budget process. Ultimate funding for capital improvement projects is subject to County Council authorization in the adopted budget. Costs identified for 2015-2018 are included for planning purposes and review of potential future needs, but not for budget authorization at this time. Contracting for Services Whatcom County may contract with other entities, such as the Council of Governments and the Northwest Regional Council, for vital community services. These contracts represent County participation in providing essential services, alongside other partners, without the need to construct County owned capital facilities, which can be very costly. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-4 W-0 Planninq Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CUP 2013-2018 Chapter 2 - PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS Existing Developed Park Facilities The 2012 inventory of County parks shows a total of 7,145 acres with 1,941 acres of developed parks at various locations throughout the County. This inventory -is shown below, is a partial list of developed land owned by the Parks Department that is readily usable by the general public. EXISTING PARKS 1 Bay Horizon Park, 7499 Alderson Rd. 68.19 2 Deming Eagle Homestead Park, Truck Rd. 33.00 3 Hovander Homestead Park and Tennant Lake, 5299 Nielsen Rd. 333.42 4 Interurban Trail/Teddy Bear Cove Parkway, Chuckanut Dr. 11.19 5 Jackson Rd. Beach Access, Birch Bay 0.15 6 Jensen Family Forest Park, Stein Rd. and Birch Bay Lynden Rd. 21.48 7 Josh VanderYacht Park, 4106 Valley Highway 1.99 8 Lake Whatcom Park, North Shore Rd. 218.00 9 Lighthouse Marine Park, 811 Marine Dr. in Point Roberts 20.49 10 Lily Point Marine Park, East end of APA Rd. in Point Roberts 130.20 11 Lummi Island Overlook, Nugent Rd. 0.16 12 Maple Beach Park, Boundary Bay Rd. in Point Roberts 0.50 13 Monument Park, Marine Dr. and Roosevelt in Point Roberts 6.94 14 Northwest Soccer Park/Baseball & Softball Complex, Smith Rd. and Northwest Dr. 35.00 15 Nugent's Corner Access, 3671 Mt. Baker Highway 14.00 16 Point Whitehorn Marine Reserve, Koehn Rd. 54.10 17 Samish Park, 673 N. Lake Samish Dr. 30.61 18 Semiahmoo Park, 9261 Semiahmoo Parkway 17.92 19 Silver Lake Park, 9187 Silver Lake Rd. 412.05 20 Squires Lake Park, 135 Old Highway 99 North Rd. 84.15 21 Stimpson Family Nature Reserve, Lake Louise Rd. 371.27 22 Sunset Beach, West Shore Dr. on Lummi Island 2.25 23 Sunset Farm, 7989 Blaine Rd. 69.50 24 Ted Edwards Park, Oriental Ave. 3.85 25 Welcome Bridge Access, Mosquito Lake Rd. 0.60 26 Bay to Baker Trail 118.00 27 Birch Bay Shoreline Properties 11.35 28 Canyon Lake Creek Community Forest 2,266.00 29 Chuckanut Mount Park 999.80 30 Olson Property 368.70 31 - Plantation Rifle Range 60.00 32 South Fork Regional Park 603.00 33 Halverson Park 5.60 34 Roeder Home 1.15 TOTAL 6,374.61 Note: The Planning Commission modified the "Existing Parks" table after amending the paragraph above it. For consistency with the changes to the table, the acreage may need to be modified in the paragraph above the table. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-5 469 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Future Parks Level of ServicePa, �k Needs A level of service of 9.6 acres of developed parkland for every 1,000 people in the County was adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With pFejeGte l r epulatinn gFGMh in Wha#nnm Qeupt a ever the ReA six years, aR additiGRal 153 aGFes ef developed/usable parkland would be needed -hy the year 2018 to meet the adopted level Of GeWiGe Proposed Park Improvement Projects Seven park improvement projects are proposed to provide additional park space by the year 2018. These projects would add 271873 acres of parkland in Whatcom County, as shown below. Additionally, other park and recreation improvement projects will add recreational facilities at these parks, include playfields, picnic areas, restrooms, and parking. Financing for Park Improvement Projects projects are proposed on existing parkland. These but will not add acreage to the inventory. Examples The total cost of the seven proposed park improvement projects is approximately $2.5 million over the six - year planning period. These costs would be paid for through grants, real estate excise tax (REET), the park improvement fund, conservation futures, and flood funds as shown below. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-6 470 Plannino Commission Recommended Version October 11. 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, 2013-2018 F Site No and AdYe 1201 Ot�k, <2D - 2'z 2U18 is u tlingk ��* P�o�ect fVame,� C s Sources , 1. Cherry Point / 35 0 0 0 0 150,000 150,000 300,000 1 and 2 Point Whitehorn Industrial Area Access 2. Dittrich Park 24 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 0 500,000 1 and 2 Lake Samish 3. Lake Whatcom 83 0 0 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 520,000 1 and 2 County Park South Unit 4. Maple Falls Park 73 0 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 300,000 1 and 2 5. Riverplace Park 50 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 1, 2, 4 and 5 Ferndale 6. South Fork 0 0 250,000 400,000 0 0 0 650,000 1,2 and 3 Regional Park, Mosquito Lake Rd. 7. Sunnyside 6 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 100,000 1 and 2 Landing Park, North Shore Rd. Total 271 100,000 400,000 730,000 430,000 530,000 280,000 2,470,000 Funding Source Key 1. State and Federal Grants 2. REET II 3. Park Improvement Fund 4. Conservation Futures 5. Flood fund Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-7 471 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 TRAILS Existing Trails Whatcom County currently has 60.63 miles of trails in various locations throughout the County. This inventory is shown below. EXISTING TRAILS 1 Bay Crest, Sunset Dr. and Woodbridge Dr., Birch Bay 0.21 2 Bay Horizon, 7499 Alderson Rd. 0.25 3 Bay to Baker Maple Falls -Glacier 4.00 4 Canyon Lake, off Canyon Lake Rd. 4.50 5 Chuckanut Ridge 0.36 6 Deming Homestead Eagle Park, Truck Rd. 0.30 7 Hemlock, Chuckanut area 3.53 8 Hovander Marrietta Coast Millennium Trail 4.90 9 Huckleberry, Chuckanut area 0.43 10 Interurban, Chuckanut area 2.80 11 Jensen, Stein Rd. and Birch Bay Lynden Rd. 0.61 12 Lake Samish, 673 N. Lake Samish Dr. 1.30 13 Lake Whatcom Park 4.02 14 Lily Point, Point Roberts 4.17 15 Lost Lake, Chuckanut area 3.07 16 Lower Salal, Chuckanut area 1.30 17 Madrona, Chuckanut area 0.78 18 Maple Creek, off Silver Lake Rd. in Maple Falls 1.50 19 Monument Park, Marine Dr. and Roosevelt in Point Roberts 0.18 20 Olsen Property Trail, Lake Whatcom Watershed 4.00 21 Ostrom Property, 4304 South Pass Rd. 0.66 22 Pine and Cedar Lakes, Chuckanut area 3.87 23 Point Whitehorn, Birch Bay area 0.75 24 Raptor Ridge, Chuckanut area 0.40 25 Salal, Chuckanut area 1.18 26 Semiahmoo East Paved 0.63 27 Semiahmoo West Footpath 0.45 28 Silver Lake Park, 9187 Silver Lake Rd. 3.10 29 Soccer Trail, Smith Rd. and Northwest Dr. 0.30 30 Squires Lake, 135 Old Highway 99 North Rd. 2.14 31 Stimson Reserve, Lake Louise Rd. 4.04 32 Sunset, 7989 Blaine Rd. 0.57 33 Teddy Bear Cove, Chuckanut area 0.33 TOTAL 60.63 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-8 472 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Future Trail Needs A level of service of 0.60 miles of trails for every 1,000 people in the County was adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth in Whatcom County over the next six years, an additional 71 miles of trails would be needed by the year 2018 to serve the people of Whatcom County. Trail Improvement Projects Five improvement projects are proposed to provide additional trails to meet the anticipated need by the year 2018. These projects would add 71 miles of trails in Whatcom County, as shown below. Financing for Trail Improvement Projects The total cost of the five proposed trail improvement projects is approximately $6.2 million over the six -year planning period. These costs would be paid for through grants, REET, conservation futures, donations, and, potentially, a levy. This is an ambitious plan and funding needed to provide this level of service will, realistically, have to compete with higher priority functions of County government. 1. Bay to Baker 8 Trail 2. Chuckanut 2.7 Mountain Trails 3. Hertz North 1 Lake Whatcom Trail Extension TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, 2013-2018 FU Q 2017 2Q18 total ,� E "'dmg 7 Cdst a5ource5 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 1, 3 and 4 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 30,000 1, 3 and 4 1,500,000 65,000 0 0 0 0 1,565,000 1, 2, 3 and 5 4. South Fork 4.3 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 75,000 1, 2 and 5 Regional Park Trail 5. Lake Whatcom 55 0 0 125,000 125,000 125,000 175,000 550,000 1, 2 and 5 Trails - Reconveyance Lands Total 71 1,500,000 155,000 1,140,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,175,000 6,220,000 Funding Source Key 1. State and Federal Grants 2. REET II 3. Conservation Futures 4. Levy 5. Donations Note: Lake Whatcom Trails are predicated on pending Department of Natural Resources re -conveyance transaction within the Lake Whatcom watershed. For the Bay to Baker Trail and Lake Whatcom Trails, trail alignments and lengths are pending land acquisition, property easement negotiation and final trail design. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-9 473 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year ClP 2013-2018 ACTIVITY CENTERS Existing Activity Centers Activity centers are indoor facilities that provide recreational opportunities (Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9). There are currently 13 activity centers that provide a variety of year-round programs for various age groups. The activity center inventory is shown below. EXISTING ACTIVITY CENTERS 1 Bay Horizon, 7499 Alderson Rd. 2 Bellingham Senior Activity Center, 315 Halleck St. 3 Blaine Community/Senior Center, 763 G Street 4 Everson Senior Center, 111 W. Main 5 Ferndale Senior Center, 1998 Cherry Street 6 Lynden Community Center, 401 Grover Street 7 Plantation Rifle Range, 5102 Samish Way 8 Point Roberts Community Center, 1487 Gulf Road 9 Roeder Home, 2600 Sunset Dr. 10 Sumas Community Center, 461 2nd Street 11 Van Zandt Community Hall, 4106 Valley Highway 12 Welcome Valley Senior Center, 5103 Mosquito Lake Rd. 13 East Whatcom Regional Resource Center, 8251 Kendall Rd. Note: The Blaine, Everson, Lynden and Sumas Centers are owned by these respective cities. The Point Roberts Community Center is owned by the Point Roberts Park District. Whatcom County provides and/or contracts for senior activities and recreational programming at these centers. Future Activity Center Needs A level of service standard of five activity centers for every 100,000 people in the County was adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth in Whatcom County over the next six years, no additional centers would be needed by the year 2018 to meet the adopted level of service. Proposed Activity Center Improvement Projects No improvement projects that would add usable indoor space are proposed within the six -year planning period. Maintenance projects may be undertaken. Financing for Activity Center Improvement Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-10 474 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 OTHER PARK AND RECREATION PROJECTS Pursuant to RCW 82.46.010, RCW 82.46.035 and WCC 3.20, the following park, trail, and recreational facility improvements have been identified as projects that will be funded or partially funded with the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET I or REET II). These are in addition to the projects identified above that will utilize REET funds. • Bay Horizon Park Play fields Park trails • Birch Bav Restrooms, parking improvements, open space improvements and access • Canyon Lake Access road repairs • Coast Millennium Trail Trail construction • East Whatcom Regional Resource Center Play fields Covered play area • Hovander Park — Tennant Lake Improve accessibility, exhibits and function in animal contact area Improve vehicle access, entrance and non -motorized accessibility Construct new restroom building(s) Evaluate & rectify sinking building foundation Hovander Home Reconstruct / replace Tennant Lake boardwalk Surface / improve parking areas and access roads Construct group camp area and sites Construct special event group picnic area and shelters Construct bike / pedestrian facility over Nooksack River to connect with Pioneer Park Improve road access into park Remodel interior of interpretive center Adapt machine shed for public use Boat launch improvements Replace roofs and paint buildings Lake Whatcom Parks and Trails Construct two vehicle accessible bridges at Hertz Trail Construct day use areas Construct public restrooms Construct / replace docks Develop trailheads Utilize residence for events Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-11 475 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 • Lighthouse Marine Park Resurface parking areas Replace playground Replace boardwalk and buildings Construct observation deck Cabins • Maple Beach Parking Restrooms • Nooksack River Trail Develop multi -use trail • Northwest Annex Trail Surface 1.0 mile trail • Nugent's Corner Open shelter Trail improvements Accessible fishing platform Restroom • Olsen Property (Lookout Mountain Access) Restroom Parking improvements • Plantation Rifle Ranqe Renovate impact berm, add retaining wall and re -grade Resurface parking area Resurface access road Replace HVAC • Samish Park Misc. accessibility / picnic improvements - precast paver access path, re -grading and gravel resurfacing Replace playground Re -grade and resurface existing parking area and install plastic stall stripping Survey existing conditions, perform engineering analysis and bank stabilization and optimize parking configuration Repair rotted wall and pitch roof Improve parking area • Semiahmoo Park Concession building electrical, plumbing & fixture improvements Silver Lake Park Replace park playground Replacement of 300' of boardwalk Renovate all cabins, indoor plumbing, flooring and insulation Construct new shower and restroom building in campground Replace restroom in equestrian campground Install new electrical service, pads, road surfacing, water and walkways. Install services and surface road Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-12 476 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Relocate road to accommodate cabin septic tanks, etc. Replace garage at residence Replace windows, electrical service, insulate, and siding Install playgrounds in campgrounds Repair rot, etc. in lodges Horse camp shelter re -roofing Trail improvements ADA improvements New campground and cabins • Stimpson Family Nature Reserve Restroom • Sunset Farm Improve 0.5 mile trail and connect to community trail system Restrooms Stable Repairs Landscaping • Teddy Bear Cove Woodstock Farm connector trail • Warnick Bridge Trailhead improvements • Miscellaneous locations Roof replacements (shop and office) Insulation and siding (shop and office) Parking lots Landscaping Stormwater improvements Interpretive signs • Planning and Design Update Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan Park master plans Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-13 477 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 3 - MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS Existing Maintenance and Operations Space The 2012 inventory of maintenance & operations/facilities management space that serves the County is 44,411 square feet. This inventory is shown below. EXISTING SPACE 1 Central Shop, 901 W. Smith Rd. (Maintenance and Operations) 35,773 2 316 Lottie St. (Facilities Management) 4,978 3 Minimum Security Correction Facility - 2030 Division St. 3,660 (Facilities Management Storage) TOTAL 44,411 Proposed Maintenance and Operations Improvement Projects No improvement projects that would add usable space are proposed within the six -year planning period. Only maintenance projects may be undertaken. Financing Maintenance and Operations Improvement Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-14 - Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 4 - GOVERNMENT OFFICE SPACE Existing Office Space The 2012 inventory of County government office space is 180,769 square feet at eight locations. This inventory is shown below. 1 Civic Center Annex (322 North Commercial) 20,279 2 Central Plaza Building (215 N. Commercial) 10,307 3 County Courthouse (311 Grand Avenue) 94,678 4 Forest St. Annex (1000 North Forest St.) 6,487 5 509 Girard St. 13,189 6 3373 Mt. Baker Highway 2,110 7 1500 N. State St. 12,281 8 Northwest Annex (5280 and 5256 Northwest Dr.) 21,438 Total 180,769 Proposed New Office Building Projects No new buildings are proposed within the six -year planning period. Only improvement and maintenance projects in existing buildings are proposed (see chapter 11). Financing for New Office Building Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-15 479 Planninq Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 5 - SHERIFF'S OFFICE Existing Sheriff's Office Space The 2012 inventory of Sheriff office space is 23,962 square feet serving the unincorporated population. This inventory is shown below. EXISTING SHERIFF'S FACILITIES Public Safety Building (311 Grand Ave) 15,102 Minimum Security Correction Facility (2030 Division St.) 6,000 Inspector's Office, Civic Center Building (322 N. Commercial) 920 Laurel Fire Hall (6028 Guide Meridian) 1,500 East Whatcom Regional Resource Center 160 Birch Bay Fire Hall 192 Nugent's Corner Fire Hall 88 Total 23,962 Notes: 1. The Sheriffs Office also has storage facilities at various locations in Whatcom County. 2. The County has two mobile homes and an old detention facility in Point Roberts. The resident deputies operate out of their homes or utilize space at the U.S. Customs office at the border. Existing Sheriffs Office facilities locations and square footage include shared space at local fire districts that is available depending on Fire District needs and is generally subject to change with short notice or no notice, and rented or leased space not solely dedicated to Sheriffs Office use. Future Sheriff's Office Needs A level of service of 0.26 square feet of Sheriffs Office space per capita was adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth in unincorporated Whatcom County over the next six years, a small amount of additional Sheriff's Office space (approximately 81 square feet) would be needed in 2018 to meet the adopted level of service. A plan has not been formulated at the present time to increase the Sherri's Office space. Therefore, either the LOS will need to be re-evaluated at the next comprehensive plan update or a plan will need to be formulated to provide additional office space in the future. Most Sheriffs Office functions are based in the Public Safety Building adjacent to the Courthouse and are remote to the vast majority of Sheriffs Office Bureau of Law Enforcement and Investigative Services functions that take place in unincorporated Whatcom County. This results in inefficiencies and delays. Space and design factors in current facilities preclude consolidating various functions performed throughout the agency (reception, finance, etc.) and result in redundancies. When fiscally feasible. existing Sheriffs Office facilities and associated functions should be consolidated (except for "Resident Deputy" program facilities). Proposed Sheriff's Office Improvement Projects At the current time, no improvement projects that would add usable space are proposed within the six -year planning period. Financing for Sheriff's Office Improvement Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-16 E'1 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 6 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT/ EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) Existing Emergency Management/EOC Space The 2012 inventory of Division of Emergency Management office space is 1,821 square feet, located in the Civic Center Annex as shown below. The active Emergency Operation Center for the county was closed in 2010. If an Emergency Operations Center is needed during an emergency, the portable building at the Central Shop, which is 3,600 square feet, is the designated site for set-up. EXISTING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FACILITIES jtNo..,,,.' Facility Name., r r3�b^... Squar.: 1 Civic Center Annex (322 North Commercial) 1,821 TOTAL 1,821 Future Emergency Management/EOC Needs The Division of Emergency Management requires both daily office space for Emergency Management and, during an actual emergency, additional space for the emergency operations center (EOC). During an emergency, the EOC may have to accommodate several hundred people in a single day. These people include a combination of elected officials, trained personnel and volunteers, who serve in a variety of capacities during the emergency. A level of service of 0.011 square feet of emergency operations space per capita was adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth an additional 578 square feet, over and above the existing 1,821 square feet of office space, would be needed by the year 2018 to meet the adopted level of service. However, during an emergency when a location for an EOC is needed, there is access to the portable building at the Central Shop (approximately 3,600 square feet). This is a designated "cold site" that will require 45 minutes to 1 '/z hours to set up. The Division of Emergency Management may need to move out of the Civic Center Annex within the next year. as other County functions may move into this space. The County is working to develop a comprehensive and coordinated plan to re -locate Emergency Management, with the goal of assuring appropriate Iona -term facilities. However, this plan has not vet been finalized. Proposed Emergency Management/EOC Projects No improvement projects that would add usable space are proposed within the six -year planning period. Financing for Emergency Management/EOC Improvement Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-17 En Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year ClP 2013-2018 CHAP-rER 7 - JAILS Existing Jail Facilities The main County jail was designed for 148 beds, although it currently has 283 beds due to double bunking, internal remodeling and use of temporary beds. In 2011, the average daily population for the main jail was 265. Additionally, the jail is currently not in compliance with the Building/Fire Codes for double bunking, although a plan has been approved to bring it into compliance. Whatcom County completed construction of a 150 bed minimum security correction facility on Division St. in 2006. In 2011, the average daily population for the minimum security facility was 137. The main jail is located in the Public Safety Building next to the County Courthouse in downtown Bellingham and minimum security correction facility is located in the Bakerview Rd. industrial area. EXISTING JAIL BEDS MW a Slt ame, y Ap arfit;dJ - - 1 Public Safety Building (311 Grand Ave.) 283 2 Minimum Security Correction Facility (2030 Division St.) 150 TOTAL 433 Future Jail Needs A level of service of 1.42 beds for every 1,000 people in the County was adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth in Whatcom County over the next six years, no additional beds would be needed by the year 2018 to comply with the adopted level of service. However, based on the actual averaae dailv populations of the two Countv iail facilities, the Countv intends to review this level of service. Average daily populations documented by the Corrections Bureau since 2006 have been well above the minimum number of beds required by the current level of service standard, which was adopted in 1997. This indicates a need to review and. potentially. update the existing level of service standard. This review will begin in 2013. Proposed Jail Improvement Projects While the jail facilities are meeting the current adopted level of service, there are concerns among law and justice officials relating to the actual need in the community. This need has been documented by recommendations from the Whatcom County Law and Justice Plan Phase 11 Report (June 2000), in a report entitled Operational Review of the Whatcom County, Washington Jail (March 2004), and in the Whatcom County Jail Planning Task Force Recommendations (Dec. 2011 and March 2012). In an effort to meet the community need, the County will be siting and constructing a Sheriff's Office New Main Jail Facility, tentatively scheduled to open with 600 beds. At the time the Sheriffs Office New Main Jail Facility is open, the offenders at the minimum -security corrections facility would be relocated to the new facility. A location for the Sheriff's Office New Main Jail Facility has not been selected. It is anticipated that the new jail facility will come on line by 2016. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-18 ME Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year ClP 2013-2018 Financing for Jail Improvement Projects The cost of the proposed Sheriff's Office New Main Jail Facility is approximately $60,000,000 within the six - year planning period. These costs would be paid for through the general fund, REET I, public utilities improvement fund, jail fund and voter and/Council approved bonds. JAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO SERVE COUNTY -WIDE, 2013-2018 1. Sheriffs Office 600 10,000,000 10,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 4,000,000 0 60,000,000 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 New Main Jail Facility Note: Additional projections and analysis indicate there may be a need for more than 600 beds, but these are still under review. Funding Source Key 1. General Fund 2. REET 1 3. Public Utilities Improvement Fund 4. Jail Fund 5. Voter and/or Council approved Bonds Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-19 ME Planninq Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 8 - JUVENILE DETENTION Existing Juvenile Detention Facilities The 2012 inventory of County juvenile detention facilities includes 32 beds serving the county -wide population. The juvenile detention facility is located on the sixth floor of the County Courthouse at 311 Grand Avenue. EXISTING JUVENILE DETENTION BEDS 1 County Courthouse (311 Grand Ave.) 32 Future Juvenile Detention Needs A level of service of 0.125 beds per 1,000 population was adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. With projected population growth in Whatcom County over the next six years, no additional beds would be needed by the year 2018 to meet the adopted level of service. Proposed Juvenile Detention Projects No improvement projects are currently proposed that would increase the number of permanent beds within the six -year planning period. Financing for Juvenile Detention Improvement Projects Not applicable. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-20 .;. Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 9 - "TRANSPORTATION ROADS Existing Roads The 2011 inventory shows a total of 941.5 miles of County roads. Additionally, there are 217.5 miles of state highways in Whatcom County (including 1-5). Therefore, there are approximately 1,159 miles of public roads in Whatcom County. Future Road Needs The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan sets level of service (LOS) standards for County roads. Future traffic and the level of service for roads can be forecasted using computer -modeling software. The Whatcom Council of Governments forecasts future traffic utilizing a computer transportation model. This modeling effort will inform transportation planning in Whatcom County. Whatcom County accomplishes planning for County road improvements by approving a Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program each year, as required by RCW 36.81.121. Proposed Improvement Projects The Whatcom County Council approved the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2013 through 2018 under Resolution No. 2012-023. This six -year plan includes preliminary planning for two proposed new road projects: • Horton Road Connector (between Northwest Drive and Aldrich Road); and • Lincoln Road extension (between Harborview Road and Blaine Road). While these two projects are on the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, construction is not anticipated within the six -year planning period. Rather, preliminary engineering to determine project feasibility may be initiated within this time frame. The six -year plan also includes a number of bridge replacements, several reconstruction projects, and the Birch Bay Drive & Pedestrian Facility improvements, which include pedestrian and non -motorized enhancements along Birch Bay Dr. from Alderson Rd. to Harborview Rd. In addition to the projects in the Six -Year Transportation Program, the Lincoln Road/Birch Point connector is a developer funded project. The project completion date is unknown because of current economic conditions. Financing for Improvement Projects The total cost of the County transportation projects in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program is $48,236,000. These costs include $24,705,000 of County funds, with the remainder being funded by the State and Federal governments. These costs are shown in greater detail in Resolution No. 2012-023. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-21 EM Planninq Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 LUMMI FERRY Existing Ferry Facilities Whatcom County currently has one ferry vessel serving Lummi Island. The ferry runs between Lummi Island and Gooseberry Point on a daily basis. Future Ferry Needs The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan sets a level of service of 513 ferry passenger trips annually per capita of Lummi Island population. Based upon projected population, the Lummi ferry will not meet the adopted level of service over the six -year planning period. The Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program approved in 2012 includes preliminary engineering for a new ferry, but no funds for a new ferry itself. Therefore, it will be appropriate to consider revising the LOS standard during the next comprehensive plan update. Proposed Ferry Improvement Projects No improvement projects that would add ferry capacity are proposed within the six -year planning period. Financing for Ferry Improvement Projects No improvement projects that would add ferry capacity are proposed within the six -year planning period. Other ferry improvement costs are shown on the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-22 M Planninq Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year C/P 2013-2018 Chapter 10 Stormwater and Flood Protection Facilities STORMWATER Existina Stormwater Manaaement Facilities Public Works Department is responsible for the design, engineering, and construction of county -owned stormwater facilities. Many stormwater facilities are road -related stormwater conveyance systems, such as culverts and ditches, on and adjacent to county roads. Others are off right-of-way facilities that control storm flows and improve water quality. In response to (1) increasing federal and state mandates to manage stormwater and (2) the public's desire to improve stewardship of sensitive watersheds, Whatcom County established a Stormwater Section in the Surface Water Division of the Public Works Department in 2005. The Stormwater Section is responsible for planning, designing, engineering, and construction of stormwater facilities. Inventories of existing stormwater facilities are maintained by the Public Works Department. Engineering Services Division maintains an inventory of all road -related facilities. The Surface Water Division maintains an inventory of public and private stormwater facilities in the area covered by the county's NPDES Phase II permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. This inventory includes ditches, culverts, catch basins, vaults, ponds and swales. Stormwater projects that have been constructed since the Public Works Stormwater Section was created in 2005 are listed below. /. X1Sting a i� // x #M hre on e t�o� _ Watershetl I to Corrp haca .. Wd 1 Lake Whatcom Geneva storrrw ater retrofits 2006 2 Lake Whatcorn Cable Street reconstruction & storrrw ater irrproven-ents 2007 3 Lake Whatcom Lahti Drive storrrw ater irrprovements i 2010 — 4 Lake Whatcom Silver Beach Creek irprovements - Brow nsville Drive to E 16th Place 2011 s. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-23 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year C/P 2013-2018 Whatcom County Public Works received several awards for the Silver Beach Creek improvements, which were completed in 2011 (existing site no. 4 above). Silver Beach Creek experiences increased stormwater runoff and greater peak flows due to its developed landscape. This project is designed to substantially improve water quality and reduce flooding in an especially problematic reach of the creek. The project included reshaping and stabilizing the stream channel, installing water quality treatment swales, and installing stormwater vaults. These improvements filter phosphorus -containing sediment, alleviate flooding, reduce erosion, and promote infiltration. Project construction cost was approximately $900,000 and shared between local real estate excise tax (REET) revenues and a federal EPA grant. Financina for Stormwater Proiects An increasing emphasis on the protection of sensitive watersheds has resulted in the adoption of comprehensive stormwater plans for Lake Whatcom and Birch Bay. A similar plan is currently being developed by the Lake Samish community. The adopted plans identify work towards planning, design, engineering, and construction of capital projects intended for the next six years. Capital facilities that may be constructed during the next six years are listed below. Projects are expected to be financed by a combination of REET, grants, countywide Flood Control Zone District tax revenues, local Flood Control fees and, potentially, the county general fund. Where appropriate, matching contributions from other beneficiaries will be sought. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-24 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Lake Whatcom Stormwater Projects, 2013-2018 1. Velocity and volume 290,000 0 0 0 0 0 290,000 1 and 2 reductions, Coronado 2. Natural drainage retrofits, 330,000 0 0 0 0 0 330,000 1 and 2 Strawberry sub -basin 3. Euclid Ave/Cedar Hills . 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 1 and 3 Install rain gardens, filter vaults and swales 4. Velocity and volume 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 1 and 3 reductions, Agate Bay Lane 5. Water Quality protection, 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 1 and 3 Agate Heights Reduce ditch erosion and install bio-infiltration swales 6. Stream restoration, 0 0 0 220,000 0 0 220,000 1 and 3 Beaver Creek 7. Sudden Valley, water 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 200,000 1 and 2 quality improvements Drainage system upgrades and water quality facilities 8. Velocity reductions, 0 0 0 0 400,000 0 400,000 1 and 2 Toad Lake at Academy Rd. 9. Silver Beach Creek 0 0 0 0 0 450,000 450,000 1 and 2 main channel restoration below Hills Dale 10. Lake Whatcom Blvd. 150,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 750,000 1, 2 and 4 stormwater improvements Vaults and roadside treatments Total 770,000 1,100,000 400,000 420,000 400,000 450,000 3,540,000 Funding Source Key 1. REET II 2. Grants, including grants from the Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Agency 3. Flood Control Zone District taxes 4. Local Flood Control District Fees Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-25 489 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Birch Bay Stormwater Projects, 2013-2018 1. Cottonwood By-pass 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 1, 2 and 4 Re-route to new outlet and installation of water quality treatment facilities 2. Cottonwood- Fern & 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 1, 2 and 4 & Beachway Neighborhood drainage improvement 3. Shintaffer Road/Deer Creek, 0 425,000 0 0 0 0 426,000 1, 2 and 4 Partial re-route to new upgraded outlet water quality treatment facilities 4. Rogers Slough, 50,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 300,000 1, 2 and 4 System upgrades to reduce flooding and provide water quality treatment facilities 5. Birch Bay Dr., Stormwater 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 1,2,3 and 4 upgrades to beach outfalls 6. Point Whitehorn, 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 1, 2 and 4 Drainage upgrade and water quality facility installation 7. Central Birch Bay 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 750,000 1, 2 and 4 Establish one or more drainage routes from upland to bay, install or upgrade conveyance system and develop water quality treatment facilities Total 600,000 425,000 250,000 500,000 200,000 750,000 2,725,000 Funding Source Key 1. REET II 2. Grants, including grants from the Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Agency 3. Flood Control Zone District taxes 4. Local Flood Control District Fees Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-26 490 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Lake Samish Stormwater Projects, 2013-2018 1. Lake Samish 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 1 Stormwater Plan Total 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 Funding Source Key 1. REET II 2. Grants, including grants from the Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Agency 3. Flood Control Zone District taxes 4. Local Flood Control District Fees Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-27 491 Plannina Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 FLOOD PROTECTION Existing Flood Protection Facilities Whatcom County has been involved in river management and protection of infrastructure for decades. In response to the devastating floods in 1990, the County established a County -wide Flood Control Zone District to address the natural hazards associated with river flooding, lowland flooding, landslides, and coastal storms. Projects range from repairs to existing flood control facilities after flood events, to flood hazard reduction projects that typically result from a comprehensive flood hazard management planning process. Significant flood projects that. have been constructed since 2000 are listed below. 1 South Fork Nooksack :Saxon Bank Stabilization Project 2001 2 _......._.... ,Near Sumas, iSaar Creek Sediment Trap ........... _�.�.... - p _ w __ . ... _ _._ - __ _ __ ... ..... - .. 2003 3 INear Everson ;Everson Overflow Bank Stabilization Project 4 ;Near Ferndale rand Creek Levee Setback Protect 3 2006 . ........ 5 iDeming ......t... ..._ ........ .... .. . . ;Deming Levee Rehabilitation Project ..__. . . i 2008 6 ................... Ferndale ... .......... -_. ;Hovander Park Levee Setback Project .............................. ._ .. .... .. 2010 7 zNear ;Varies SAcquisiUon of flood -prone properties i on goinc Financing for Flood Protection Projects Capital facilities that may be constructed during the next six years are listed below. Projects are expected to be financed by a combination of real estate excise taxes (REET), grants, countywide Flood Control Zone District tax revenues, local Flood Control and diking district fees and, potentially, the county general fund. Where appropriate, matching contributions from other beneficiaries will be sought. 1. Canyon Creek Fish Habitat Restoration and Flood Protection 2. Deming School and Tribal Treatment Facilities Flood Protection 3. Jones Creek Deflection Berm Debris Flow Protection and Turkington Rd. brige reconfiguration Flood Protection Projects, 2013-2018 ma�r f t r .^%tN....,.. is '1111,1"'I'll"'n .' 11, 2,226,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 2,276,000 2 and 3 300,000 1,250,000 50,000 0 0 0 1,600,000 1,2,3 and 4 675,000 325,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 3,000,000 1,2,3 and 4 4. Swift Creek and Sumas 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 1,2,3 and 4 River Bridges Sediment Management Total 3,226,000 1,650,000 2,075,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 7,026,000 Funding Source Key 1. REET II 2. Grants, including Salmon Recovery Funding Board and other applicable programs 3. Flood Control Zone District taxes 4. Local Flood Control District Fees Note: The Canyon Creek Fish Habitat Restoration and Flood Protection project costs include $973,750 in grants that have already been approved. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-28 492 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 11 — Improvements to Existing Buildings Whatcom County plans to make the following improvements to existing buildings within the six -year planning period to maintain or enhance the function of these structures. IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS, 2013-2018 1. Civic Center Annex- 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 1, 2, 3 and 5 Repair & retrofit, HVAC, engineering, lighting, and exterior repair 2. Upgrade jail and 1,400,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 2,400,000 1, 3, 4 and 5 juvenile controls and improve exiting 3. Courthouse - Exterior 0 180,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 1,180,000 1 and 3 engineering evaluation and repairs 4. Courthouse - 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 1 and 3 window replacement 5. Courthouse - Full 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 1 and 3 suite courtroom and judicial hearing room 6. Reconfiguration of 0 0 120,000 0 800,000 0 920,000 2,3, and 6 Triage - Engineering evaluation and remodel 7. Reconfiguration of Old 0 0 0 120,000 800,000 0 920,000 4 Jail - Engineering and remodel 8. Northwest Annex - 0 0 120,000 800,000 0 0 920,000 2 and 3 Engineering and remodel Total 2,400,000 2,630,000 1,240,000 920,000 1,600,000 0 8,790,000 Funding Source Key 1. Grants 2. EDI funds 3. REET 4. Jail Fund 5. Bonds 6. Behavioral Health Fund Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-29 493 Planning Commission Recommended Version October 11, 2012 Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2013-2018 Chapter 12 — Costs by Project Category CAPITAL COSTS BY PROJECT CATEGORY, 2013-2018 Parks 100,000 400,000 730,000 430,000 530,000 280,000 2,470,000 1.78% Trails 1,500,000 155,000 1,140,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,175,000 6,220,000 4.47% Sheriff's Office New Jail 10,000,000 10,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 4,000,000 0 60,000,000 43.15% Transportation 18,906,000 11,205,000 4,470,000 4,552,000 4,552,000 4,551,000 48,236,000 34.69% Stormwater 1,400,000 1,525,000 650,000 920,000 600,000 1,200,000 6,295,000 4.53% Flood Protection 3,226,000 1,650,000 2,075,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 7,026,000 5.05% Existing Buildings 2,400,000 2,630,000 1,240,000 920,000 1,600,000 0 8,790,000 6.32% Total Cost 37,532,000 27,565,000 28,305,000 25,972,000 12,432,000 7,231,000 139,037,000 100.00% Note: Underlining and strikethroughs on Exhibit B show the Planning Commission's changes to the Aug. 2012 draft CIP (the previously adopted CIP would be totally repealed — see Exhibit C). Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-30 ME Exhibit C (Repeal Existinq CIP) Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-1 495 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 . M-1 .. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-2 496 November. 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 MMIMMMM MTEM? Om •. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-3 497 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-4 498 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 Bay Horizon Park, 7499 Alderson Rd. 68.19 2 Deming Eagle Homestead Park, Truck Rd. 33.00 3 Hovander Homestead Park and Tennant Lake, 5299 Nielsen Rd. 333.42 4 Interurban Trail/Teddy Bear Cove Parkway, Chuckanut Dr. 11.19 5 Jackson Rd. Beach Access, Birch Bay 0.15 6 Jensen Family Forest Park, Stein Rd. and Birch Bay Lynden Rd. 21.48 7 Josh VanderYacht Park, 4106 Valley Highway 1.99 8 Lake Whatcom Park, North Shore Rd. 218.00 9 Lighthouse Marine Park, 811 Marine Dr. in Point Roberts 20.49 10 Lily Point Marine Park Reserve, East end of APA Rd. in Point Roberts 130.20 11 Lummi Island Overlook, Nugent Rd. 0.16 12 Maple Beach Park, Boundary Bay Rd. in Point Roberts 0.50 13 Monument Park, Marine Dr. and Roosevelt in Point Roberts 6.94 15 Nugent's Corner Access, 3671 Mt. Baker Highway 14.00 16 Point Whitehorn Marine Reserve, Koehn Rd. 54.10 17 Samish Park 673 N. Lake Samish Dr. 30.61 18 Semiahmoo Park, 9261 Semiahmoo Parkway 19 Silver Lake Park, 9187 Silver Lake Rd. 20 Squires Lake Park, 135 Old Highway 99 North Rd. 21 Stimpson Family Nature Reserve, Lake Louise Rd. 22 Sunset Beach, West Shore Dr. on Lummi Island 23 Sunset Farm, 7989 Blaine Rd. 24 Ted Edwards Park, Oriental Ave. 25 Welcome Bridge Access, Mosquito Lake Rd. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 17.92 412.05 84.15 371.27 2.25 69.50. 3.85 0.60 TOTAL 1,941.01 F-5 499 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 10. far-Aities at these parks, but Will REA I I to the. r 26. Cherry Point / 35 0 0 0 188,000 188,000 188,000 564,000 1 Point Whitehorn Industrial Area Access 27. Dittrich Park 24 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,000,000 1 and 2 Lake Samish 28. Lake Whatcom 83 0 0 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 520,000 1 and 2 County Park South Unit 29. Maple Falls Park 73 0 90,000 90,000 0 0 0 180,000 1 and 2 30. Riverplace Park 50 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 1, 2, 4 and 5 Ferndale 31. South Fork 582 0 0 197,500 197,500 0 0 395,000 1,2 and 3 Regional Park, Mosquito Lake Rd. 32. Sunnyside 6 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 100,000 1 and 2 Landing Park, North Shore Rd. Total 853 500,000 90,000 667,500 815,500 618,000 568,000 3,259,000 Funding SOWFGe Key rC�nEnT�c a Dark Imnreyernent FLAnd 4 Genswyatinn F t es Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-6 500 November. 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 Bay Crest, Sunset Dr. and Woodbridge Dr., Birch Bay 0.21 2 Bay Horizon, 7499 Alderson Rd. 0.25 3 Bay to Baker Maple Falls -Glacier 4.00 4 Canyon Lake, off Canyon Lake Rd. 4.50 5 Chuckanut Ridge 0.36 6 Deming Homestead Eagle Park, Truck Rd. 0.30 7 Hemlock, Chuckanut area 3.53 8 Hovander Marrietta Coast Millennium Trail 4.90 9 Huckleberry, Chuckanut area 0.43 10 Interurban, Chuckanut area 2.80 11 Jensen, Stein Rd. and Birch Bay Lynden Rd. 0.61 12 Lake Samish, 673 N. Lake Samish Dr. 1.30 13 Lake Whatcom Park 4.02 14 Lily Point, Point Roberts 4.17 15 Lost Lake, Chuckanut area 3.07 16 Lower Salal, Chuckanut area 1.30 17 Madrona, Chuckanut area 0.78 18 Maple Creek, off Silver Lake Rd. in Maple Falls 1.50 19 Monument Park, Marine Dr. and Roosevelt in Point Roberts 0.18 20 Olsen Property Trail, Lake Whatcom Watershed 4.00 21 Ostrom Property, 4304 South Pass Rd. 0.66 22 Pine and Cedar Lakes, Chuckanut area 3.62 23 Point Whitehorn, Birch Bay area 0.75 24 Raptor Ridge, Chuckanut area 0.40 25 Salal, Chuckanut area 1.18 26 Semiahmoo East Paved 0.63 27 Semiahmoo West Footpath 0.45 28 Silver Lake Park, 9187 Silver Lake Rd. 3.10 29 Soccer Trail, Smith Rd. and Northwest Dr. 0.30 30 Squires Lake, 135 Old Highway 99 North Rd. 2.14 31 Stimson Reserve, Lake Louise Rd. 4.04 32 Sunset, 7989 Blaine Rd. 0.57 33 Teddy Bear Cove, Chuckanut area 0.33 TOTAL 60.38 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-7 501 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 33. Bay to Baker 8 Trail 34. Chuckanut 2.7 Mountain Trails 35. Hertz North 1 Lake Whatcom Trail Extension 36. South Fork Regional Park Trail 37. Lake Whatcom Trails - Reconveyance Lands - 9c.. — 2 - MI 1416"Jo. MIT, 11ilt 71"IEW 1 3 - TiITJ Tuf ��1 Y i �] �7�T13�iZ3rIitZL Rr7�L f^i 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 1, 3 and 4 26,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 76,000 1, 3 and 4 0 1,500,000 65,000 0 0 0 1,565,000 1, 2 and 5 4.3 0 250,000 250,000 275,000 0 0 775,000 1, 2 and 5 50 0 0 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 900,000 1, 2 and 5 Total 66 26,000 1,775,000 1,565,000 1,500,000 1,225,000 1,225,000 7,316,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-8 502 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 Bay Horizon, 7499 Alderson Rd. 2 Bellingham Senior Activity Center, 315 Halleck St. 3 Blaine Community/Senior Center, 763 G Street 4 Everson Senior Center, 111 W. Main 5 Ferndale Senior Center, 1998 Cherry Street 6 Lynden Community Center, 401 Grover Street 7 Plantation Rifle Range, 5102 Samish Way 8 Point Roberts Community Center, 1487 Gulf Road 9 Roeder Home, 2600 Sunset Dr. 10 Sumas Community Center, 461 2nd Street 11 Van Zandt Community Hall, 4106 Valley Highway 12 Welcome Valley Senior Center, 5103 Mosquito Lake Rd. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-9 503 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 13. East Whatcom 2,550,000 700,000 0 Regional Resource Center - Kendall Rd. Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 3,250,000 1,2,3 and 4 F-10 504 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 505 F-11 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year C!P 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-12 506 November. 2010 Version - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 Central Shop, 901 W. Smith Rd. (Maintenance and Operations) 35,773 2 316 Lottie St. (Facilities Management) 4,978 3 Minimum Security Correction Facility - 2030 Division St. 3,660 (Facilities Management Storage) Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan TOTAL 44,411 F-13 507 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 Civic Center Annex (322 North Commercial) 17,706 2 Central Plaza Building (215 N. Commercial) 10,307 4 County Courthouse (311 Grand Avenue) 94,678 5 Forest St. Annex (1000 North Forest St.) 6,487 6 509 Girard St. 13,189 8 1500 N. State St. 12,281 9 Northwest Annex (5280 and 5256 Northwest Dr.) 21,438 Total 178,196 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-14 508 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 EXISTING SHERIFF'S FACILITIES 1 Public Safety Building (311 Grand Ave) 2 Minimum Security Correction Facility (2030 Division St.) 3 Inspector's Office, Civic Center Building (322 N. Commercial) 4 Laurel Fire Hall (6028 Guide Meridian) 5 Kendall Satellite Office 6 Birch Bay Fire Hall 7 Nugent's Corner Fire Hall Notes: I he S-herfPs-OtfiGe alse has st rage fa, litie6 at va.riews Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan 15,102 6,000 500 1,500 121 192 88 Total 23,503 F-15 509 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Olympic Coordination Center (3888 Sound Way) 2,250 TOTAL 2,250 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-16 510 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 .z .. _ _ fife - .. r - r <= k "i T.•�. � l � �. 3� fib.. t i ^H.. . � .. z� R. -_ »Y31 `a �, �, XP* 3,g � fd° Y J ! � Site No .,� 1 Public Safety Building (311 Grand Ave.) 283 2 Minimum Securitv Correction Facilitv (2030 Division St.) 150 TOTAL 433 100 Wz r_ IN NINE III PPM Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-17 511 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 3. New Jail at the 600 4,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 17,000,000 0 41,000,000 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 Law and Justice Center Campus Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-18 512 November. 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1 County Courthouse (311 Grand Ave.) 32 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-19 513 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-20 514 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-21 515 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-22 516 November. 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 Lake WhatGOM Stormwater DrejeGts 1. Silver Beach Creek, 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 1 and 2 Stream stablization (Brownsville to 16th) 2. Silver Beach Creek, 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 1 and 2 Main channel velocity reductions 3. Hillsdale sub -basin, 0 0 0 0 200,000 210,000 410,000 1, 2 and 3 drainage retrofits 4. Velocity reductions, 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 1, 2 and 4 Toad Lake at Academy Rd. 5. Velocity and volume 0 0 75,000 215,000 0 0 290,000 2 and 4 reductions, Coronado 6. Natural drainage retrofits, 0 0 37,500 112,500 0 0 150,000 2 and 4 Strawberry sub -basin 7. Natural drainage retrofits, 0 0 0 57,500 172,500 0 230,000 2 and 4 Geneva sub -basin 8. Velocity and volume 0 0 0 35,000 105,000 0 140,000 2 and 4 reductions, Agate Bay Lane 9. Water quality 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 2 and 4 protection, Agate Heights 10. Stream restoration, 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 2 and 4 Beaver Creek 11. Lake Whatcom Blvd. 0 0 150,000 600,000 0 0 750,000 1, 2 and 4 stormwater improvements Total 950,000 0 462,500 1,020,000 477,500 310,000 3,220,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-23 517 November. 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1. Charel Terrace, 225,000 0 0 0 0 0 225,000 1, 2 and 4 Drainage System upgrade and water quality treatment facility 2. Hogan Drive, 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 1, 2 and 4 Road culvert outlet armoring and dissipator 3.Cottonwood By-pass, 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 1, 2 and 4 Re-route to new outlet and installation of water quality treatment facilities 4. Shintaffer Road/Deer Creek, 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 1, 2 and 4 Partial re-route to new upgraded outlet water quality treatment facilities System upgrades to reduce flooding and provide water quality treatment facilities 6. Point Whitehorn, 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 1, 2 and 4 Drainage upgrade and water quality facility installation 7. Central Birch Bay 0 0 0 0 750,000 0 750,000 1, 2 and 4 Establish one or more drainage routes from upland to bay, install or upgrade conveyance system and develop water quality treatment facilities 8. Birch Bay Dr., Stormwater 0 0 0 50,000 150,000 0 200,000 1,2,3 and 4 Upgrades to beach outfalls Total 235,000 300,000 250,000 550,000 1,100,000 0 2,435,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-24 518 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1. Lake Samish 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 1 Stormwater Plan Total 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 Cllnrl*nn SO irno Key 1. p�iT 2. Grants 2- Flood Gentrel znnemi�irt�es A 1 nrol Flood Gentrel Dictrirt Fees Protect , 3 �� 2011 , 20 �2�2013 h 204 2015 201 ti Total l untling Cost_ 5ourcesa �, uw a: .. ...... ................. . _.... . , 1. Deming School and 200,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,2,3 and 4 Tribal Facilities Flood Protection 2. Turkington Road Bridge / 200,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 700,000 1,2,3 and 4 Acme Community Landslide Protection 3. Swift Creek and Sumas 85,000 0 0 0 0 0 85,000 1,2,3 and 4 River Bridges Sediment Management Total 485,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 1,985,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-25 519 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 1. Civic Center Annex - 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 1, 2, 3 and 5 Repair & retrofit, HVAC, engineering, lighting, and exterior repair 2. Upgrade jail and 1,000,000 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 2,400,000 1, 3, 4 and 5 juvenile controls and improve exiting engineering evaluation and repairs 4. Courthouse - 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 1 and 3 window replacement 5. Courthouse - Full 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 1 and 3 suite courtroom and judicial hearing room Total 2,000,000 3,030,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 6,030,000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-26 520 November, 2010 Version Appendix F - Six -Year CIP 2011-2016 An V a AWAVA Id!!5rPTMI A 1 Parks 500,000 90,000 667,500 815,500 618,000 568,000 Trails 26,000 1,775,000 1,565,000 1,500,000 1,225, 000 1,225,000 Activity Centers 2,550,000 700,000 0 0 0 0 Jail 4,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 17,000,000 0 Transportation 6,902,000 4,980,000 1,730,000 2,056,666 2,056,667 2,056,667 Stormwater 1,215,000 300,000 712,500 1,570,000 1,577,500 310,000 Flood Protection 485,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 Existing Buildings 2,000,000 3,030,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 Total 17,678,000 14,375,000 13,675,000 15,942,166 22,477,167 4,159,667 3,259,000 7,316,000 3,250,000 41,000,000 19, 782, 000 5,685,000 1,985,000 6,030,000 88, 307, 000 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan F-2 7 521 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 1 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Six -Year Capital Improvement Program and Level of Service Amendments FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR ACTION 1. The proposal is to amend the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as follows: a. Deleting the level of service standard for maintenance and operation facilities in chapter 4 of the comprehensive plan; b. Adopting the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Whatcom County Facilities 2013-2018; and c. Repealing the existing Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities 2011-2016. 2. Notice of the subject amendments was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on August 20, 2012. 3. A determination of non -significance (DNS) was issued under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on August 23, 2012. 4. The proposal was posted on the County website on August 9, 2012. 5. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and that the proposal had been posted on the County website was sent to citizen, media, cities and other groups on the County's e-mail list on August 9, 2012. 6. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject amendments was published in the Bellingham Herald on August 31, 2012. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendments on September 13, 2012. 1 522 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 2 8. Pursuant to WCC 2.160.080, in order to approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendments the County must find all of the following: a. The amendment conforms to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, is internally consistent with the county -wide planning policies and is consistent with any interlocal planning agreements. b. Further studies made or accepted by the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate changed conditions that show need for the amendment. c. The public interest will be served by approving the amendment. In determining whether the public interest will be served, factors including but not limited to the following shall be considered: i. The anticipated effect upon the rate or distribution of population growth, employment growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. 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. Amendments that propose the expansion of an urban growth area boundary are required to acquire development rights from a designated TDR sending area, with certain exceptions. Growth Management Act 9. The Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 to guide adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. 10. GMA planning goal # 12 is to "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards" (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). 2 523 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 3 11. The subject amendments include updating the Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities for the 2013-2018 planning period. Updating the CIP is one step in the process of planning regional facilities provided by the County to serve the people of Whatcom County. 12. The GMA, at RCW 36.70A.070(3), requires that a comprehensive plan must include a capital facilities plan element consisting of: a. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. b. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. c. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. d. At least a six -year plan that will 'Finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. e. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. 13. The Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities contains an inventory of existing County owned or operated facilities, a forecast of future needs based upon the level of service standards adopted in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and other factors, proposed expanded or new County capital facilities, costs and funding sources. 14. Existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 4A-4 addresses the GIVIA requirement to reassess the land use element if probable capital facility funding falls short. County -Wide Planning Policies 15. County -Wide Planning Policy K-1 indicates that, as part of the comprehensive planning process, the County must identify appropriate land for public facilities that meets the needs of the community including recreation, transportation and human service facilities. 16. The CIP identifies County park, trail, transportation and other improvements as contemplated by the County Wide Planning Policies. 524 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 4 Interlocal Agreements 17. Existing inter -local agreements between Whatcom County and the cities indicate that the County will consult with the appropriate city in planning new road construction projects within the city's urban growth area. The inter -local agreements also provide joint planning for parks. 18. The County Engineer indicated on July 2, 2012 that the County sends a copy of the six -year transportation improvement program to cities prior to approval, requests comments, and informs cities of the hearing date. The Whatcom County Parks Director stated on July 2, 2012 that the County Parks' staff maintains a consistent working relationship with appropriate staff From cities on joint park projects and planning. Therefore, the type of cooperation envisioned by the inter -local agreements is occurring. Further Studies/Changed Conditions 19. The Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan calls for an update of the Six - Year Capital Improvement Program for County facilities every other year. Specifically, Policy 413-1 is to: 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. 20. A revised capital improvement program has been formulated for County owned or operated facilities, which presents improvement projects over the new six -year planning period. Public Interest 21. The Six -Year CIP plans for public facilities from 2013 to 2018 based upon anticipated population growth over the six -year planning period and other relevant factors. Therefore, the proposal should complement the County's growth and development plans. 22. The Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities will have a positive impact on the County's ability to provide public facilities by planning ahead for such facilities. Adverse impacts to other service providers have not been identified. M 525 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 5 23. The goal of the Six -Year CIP for Whatcom County Facilities is to plan for County owned or operated parks, trails, stormwater facilities, flood protection facilities, government buildings, correction facilities, and transportation improvements to serve the people of Whatcom County. Planning for such County facilities is in the public interest. Spot Zoning 24. The subject proposal does not involve rezoning property. Level of Service Standard Modification 25. A level of service standard for maintenance & operation facilities is set forth in the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 26. The "Growth Management Act - Procedural Criteria for Adopting Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations" state that counties are not required to set level of service standards for facilities that are not necessary for development (WAC 365-196-415(2)(b)). 27. Whatcom County will continue to monitor and evaluate the need for maintenance & operation facility improvements. However, such facilities are not related to growth management planning. Therefore, the level of service standard for such facilities may be removed From the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed amendments conform to applicable requirements of the Growth Management Act. 2. The proposed amendments satisfy the approval criteria of WCC 2.160.080. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the Whatcom County Planning Commission recommends approval of: 1. Exhibit A, amendments to Chapter 4 of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 2. Exhibit B, adoption of the Six -Year Capital Improvement Program for Whatcom County Facilities 2013-2018 (Appendix F of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan). The Planning Commission also recommends repealing Exhibit C, which is the Six - Year Capital Improvement Program for Whatcom County Facilities 2011-2016. 5 526 File # PLN2012-00002 October 11, 2012 Six -Year CIP and LOS Amendments Planning Commission Recommendations, Page 6 WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Unelle Luke, Chair Date Sam Ryan, Se eta ry /D -,/ a - /oZ Date Commissioners present at the October 11, 2012 meeting when the vote was taken: Ken Bell, Ben Elenbaas, Rod Erickson, Michelle Luke, David Onkels, Jeff Rainey, and Mary Beth Teigrob. Vote: Ayes: 7, Nays: 0, Abstain: 0, Absent: 2. Motion carried to adopt the above amendments. 0 527 NOTE: Exhibits A-C are attached to the proposed Ordinance to be considered by the County Council in order to avoid redundancy. 528 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-348 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: 11107112 Introduction Originator.' D \\� 2 D IECE � 11120112 Hearing Division Head: V �C, OCT 3 0 2012 Dept. Head.- Prosecutor: 6 - WHATCOM COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: COUNCIL Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT: A Resolution Authorizing The Levy Of Taxes for the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District for 2013 ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( x ) 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.) The proposed resolution adopts the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District 2013 tax levy. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 529 INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY: County Executive DATE: November 7, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (WCFCZD) FOR 2013 WHEREAS, RCW 86.15.160(3) authorizes the Board of Supervisors of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District (WCFCZD) to impose an ad valorem property tax levy of up to fifty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value upon real property within the district; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the WCFCZD has reviewed the proposed annual budget, including all sources of revenues and anticipated expenditures; and, WHEREAS, the annual budget provides detailed listings of various revenues including property taxes; and, WHEREAS, the FCZD has held a public hearing concerning the annual budget, the property tax rates, and revenues included therein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the WCFCZD Board of Supervisors that amounts collected through the WCFCZD levy shall be limited to the amount of 2012 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 2013 levy in the amount of $0, which is a percentage increase of 0% from the previous year. ADOPTED this . day of , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Kershner, District Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Pros for ( ) APPROVED ( ) NOT APPROVED Jack Louws, Executive Date: Page 1 530 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. AB2012-349 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: 1117112 Introduction originator: p E C E� V E D 11120112 Hearing Division Head: OCT 3 0 2012 Dept. Head: Prosecutor: WHATCOM COUNTY Purchasing/Budget: M-2— COUNCIL Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT.• A Resolution, Adopting the 2013 Budget for the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District and Subzones. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution SEPA review required? ( ) Yes (X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( x ) 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.) Resolution Adopting the 2013 Budget for the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District and Subzones. COMMITTEE ACTION. COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the Coun 's website at. www.co.whatcom.wauslcounciL 531 PROPOSED BY: SPONSORED BY: INTRODUCED: November 7, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. (A Resolution of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors) ADOPTING THE 2013 BUDGET FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT AND SUBZONES WHEREAS, RCW 86.15.140 requires that the Board of Supervisors of each flood control zone district and subzone adopt an annual budget for the zone; and WHEREAS, the statute further requires that the zone or subzone budget be divided into four appropriation items: overhead and administration, maintenance and operation; construction and improvements, and bond retirement and interest; and WHEREAS, under the appropriation item for construction and improvements, the Board is required to list each flood control improvement or storm water control improvement and the estimated expenditure for each during the next year; and WHEREAS, the budget may only be adopted after a public hearing for which proper notice has been given; and WHEREAS, Fund No. 169, is managed by the County on behalf of the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District for purposes of funding flood control, storm water management, and other water resources work by the County that are consistent with the powers of the District under RCW 86.15; and WHEREAS, funds obtained by the County through grants or cooperative agreements for flood control and other water resources work are also managed through Fund No. 169; and WHEREAS, the 2013 budget proposed by the County Executive for Whatcom County includes proposed expenditures out of Fund 169 to pay for flood control, storm water management, and other water resources work consistent with the powers of the District under RCW 86.15; and 532 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors approves the appropriations of Flood Control Zone District Fund No. 169 for 2013 in the amounts set forth in the document titled Whatcom County 2013-2014 Budget and as subsequently modified and presented below: Fund No. FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DIST. 2013 Appropriation 169 Flood Control Zone District: 6,235,251 16921 Lynden/Everson Sub -Zone 100,000 16922 Sumas/Nooksack/Everson Sub -Zone 87,500 16923 AcmeNan Zandt Sub -Zone 32,500 16924 Samish Watershed Sub -Zone 17,625 16925 Birch Bay Sub -Zone 1,204,933 Total 7,677,809 APPROVED this day of , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council Kathy Kershner, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,-R L Civil Deputy o ecutor 533 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-340 CLEARANCES Initi/all Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: 14 3 12 11107112 Intro Originator: E C E Q V E D Division Head: 11120112 Hearing OCT 3 1 2012 WHA17C+'�Olj� COUNTY C U `U L Dept. Head: i�/3/i �' Prosecutor: WOO, Purchasing/Budget. 0 Y i Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. An Ordinance Establishing the Birch Bay Drive and Pedestrian Facility Project Fund and Establishing a Project Based Budget for the Birch Drive and Pedestrian Facility Project. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance & Budget Modification Requests SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X ) Yes () NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) An Ordinance Establishing the Birch Bay Drive and Pedestrian Facility Project Fund and Establishing a Project Based Budget for the Birch Drive and Pedestrian Facility Project. COMMITTEE ACTION.• COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. 534 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: Public Works INTRODUCTION DATE: 11/07/12 ORDINANCE NO. ESTABLISHING THE BIRCH BAY DRIVE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY PROJECT FUND AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT BASED BUDGET FOR THE BIRCH DRIVE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY PROJECT WHEREAS, the Birch Bay Drive and Pedestrian Facility project will construct an approximate 2 mile improvement of Birch Bay Drive. WHEREAS, the Birch Bay Drive and Pedestrian Facility project was approved as project #3 on the one year road program, the project will include a separated berm/trail to encourage walking and bicycling along Birch Bay Drive to support safety while improving non -motorized mobility. In addition, -the project will provide mitigation for both beach erosion and roadway storm damage. WHEREAS, the project will be funded with initial REET II funding of $745,000, and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that a new fund is hereby established, effective January 1, 2013 titled "Birch Bay Drive and Pedestrian Facility". This fund shall be used to account for the costs and revenues for the construction of said project, and, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the Birch Bay Drive and Pedestrian Facility Project is approved with an initial project budget of $1,072,324 as described in Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: &,� �. hjl-� Civil Deputy Prosecutor 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kathy Kershner, Chair of the Council ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Jack Louws, County Executive Date: 535 Birch Bay Drive and Pedestrian Facilit Draft Concept and Scope, April, 2012 $10 million — berm component of the project - Economic development - Recreational - Environmental improvements via stormwater and other - Vehicle traffic enhancement via congestion reduction - Pedestrian enhancement via reduced vehicle conflicts - Dense population area with 8,000 residents Question: Who is responsible for maintenance after construction? Cost? Phase I - $10 million Financial Structure - Economic Development contribution $ 1.5 million - Flood Control Zone District/BBWARM $ 0.5 million - REET II contribution $ 1 million* - Road Fund contribution $ 7 million** *Approximately $745,000 in REET II funding is currently available and pending transfer as unused from the Yew Street Project account as the project closes out in September. **Public Works Trust Fund financing proposed over 10 year period at 0.50% with anticipated annual debt service of $719,394 from the Road Fund. 536 Exhibit A Project Title: Birch Bay Drive and Pedestrian Facility CRP #907001 Project Based Budget Request: No. 1 Duration Requested: 2 yrs (2013, 2014) Estimated Requested Project Expenditure Project Object Account Project Budget Cost s to Date Budget Professional Services 1,164,521 92,197 1,072,324 Right -of -Way - - - Construction - - - 6000.595110 Total 1,164,521 92,197 1,072,324 Estimated Requested Project Revenue to Project Object Account Project Funding Revenues Date Budget. 8301 REET II Transfer 745,000 - 745,000 Federal STP(E) 327,324 - 327,324 Total 1,072,324 - 1,072,324 537 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-341 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 10 3 (� n W ECEWED 11107112 Intro Division Head: 11120112 Hearing OCT 31 2012 WHATCONni'(COUNTY COIL Dept. Head: r® � i�r� Prosecutor: IDI�,/,Z Purchasing/Budget: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. An Ordinance Establishing the Birch Bay — Lynden RoadTortal Way Signatization/Improvements Project Fund and Establishing a Project Based Budget for the Birch Bay — Lynden Road/Portal Way Signatization/Improvements Project: ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance & Budget Modification Requests SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( X ) Yes () NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE. (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) An Ordinance Establishing the Birch Bay — Lynden Road/Portal Way Signatization/Improvements Project Fund and Establishing a Project Based Budget for the Birch Bay — Lynden Road/Portal Way Signalization/Improvements Project. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #. Related Fite Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution L- Number: SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: Public Works INTRODUCTION DATE: 11/07/12 ORDINANCE NO. ESTABLISHING THE BIRCH BAY- LYNDEN ROAD/PORTAL WAY SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FUND AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT BASED BUDGET FOR THE BIRCH BAY- LYNDEN ROAD/PORTAL WAY SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, the Birch Bay-Lynden Road/Portal Way intersection need signalization improvements, and, WHEREAS, the Birch Bay-Lynden Road/Portal Way — Signalization Improvements was approved as project #1 on the one year road program, and the project will improve the signalization, channelization and illumination of the intersection located south of Blaine and west of 1-5, with minor changes to the vertical and horizontal alignment. Stormwater treatment and detention will also be implemented in this project, and, WHEREAS, the project will be funded with initial STP(R) and RAP funding of $2.95 million, and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that a new fund is hereby established effective January 1, 2013 titled "Birch Bay-Lynden Road/Portal Way — Signalization Improvements". This fund shall be used to account for the expenditures and revenues for the construction of said project, and, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the Birch Bay-Lynden Road/Portal Way Signalization Improvement Project is approved with an initial project budget of $3,620,000 as described in Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Prosecutor 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kathy Kershner, Chair of -the Council ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Jack Louws, County Executive Date: 539 Exhibit A Project Title: Birch Bay Lynden/Portal Way CRP #901011 Project Based Budget Request: No. 1 Duration Requested: 2 years (2013, 2014) Estimated Requested Project Expenditure Project Object Account Project Budget Cost s to Date Budget Professional Services 500,066 480,066 20,000 Right -of -Way 54,973 4,973 50,000 Construction 3,550,000 - 3,550,000 6000.595110 Total 4,105,039 485,039 3,620,000 Estimated Requested Project Revenue to Project Object Account Project Funding Revenues Date Budget 4333.2022 Federal STPR 3,250,000 - 3,250,000 4334.0371 State Rural Arterial Program 750,000 - 750,000 8301. Road Fund Transfer 300,000 - 300,000 Total 4,300,000 - 4,300,000 540 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-350 CLEARANCES Initial ate Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 16 � I lZ � E (� E V E D 11107112 Intro Division Head: 11/20/12 Hearin g OCT 31 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Dept. Head: Prosecutor: Purchasing/Budget: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. • An Ordinance Establishing the Potter Road — South Fork Bridge No. 148 Replacement Project Fund and Establishing a Project Based Budget for the Potter Road — South Fork Bridge No. 148 Replacement Project ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance & Budget Modification Requests SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( X ) Yes () NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Requested Date: SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) An Ordinance Establishing the Potter Road — South Fork Bridge No. 148 Replacement Project Fund and Establishing a Project Based Budget for the Potter Road — South Fork Bridge No. 148 Replacement Project. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: 541 SPONSORED BY: PROPOSED BY: Public Works INTRODUCTION DATE: 11/07/12 ORDINANCE NO. ESTABLISHING THE POTTER ROAD — SOUTH FORK BRIDGE NO. 148 REPLACEMENT PROJECT FUND AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT BASED BUDGET FOR THE POTTER ROAD — SOUTH FORK BRIDGE NO.148 REPLACEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Potter Road — South Fork Bridge No. 148 Replacement is structurally deficient and functionally obsolete, and, WHEREAS, the Potter Road — South Fork Bridge No. 148 was approved as project #12 on the one year road program, the project replaces the existing bridge with a 360' two -span, pre- stressed and post -tensioned concrete girder bridge, and, WHEREAS, the project will be funded with $7.7 million in BRAC funding and $1.9 million in County Road funds, and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that a new fund is hereby established effective January 1, 2013 titled "Potter Road — South Fork Bridge No. 148 Replacement". This fund shall be used to account for the expenditures and revenues for the construction of said project, and, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the Potter Road — South Fork Bridge No. 148 Replacement project is approved with an initial project budget of $8,450,000 as described in Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Prosecutor , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Kathy Kershner, Chair of the Council ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Jack Louws, County Executive Date: 542 Exhibit A Project Title: Potter Road/South Fork Nooksack, Bridge No. 148 CRP #998027 Project Based Budget Request: No. 1 Duration Requested: 3 yrs (2013, 2014, 2015) Estimated Requested Project Expenditure Project Object Account Project Budget Cost s to Date Budget Professional Services 987,555 937,555 50,000 Right -of -Way 133,423 33,423 100,000 Construction 8,300,000 - 8,300,000 6000.595110 Total 9,420,978 970,978 8,450,000 Estimated Requested Project Revenue to Project Object Account Project Funding Revenues Date Budget 4333.2021 Federal Bridge Replacement 7,700,000 - 7,700,000 8301. Road Fund Transfer 1,900,000 - 1,900,000 Total 9,600,000 - 9,600,000 543 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-351 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: 3 i /2 CIrE0�0ED V I� O C T 31 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 11107112 Intro Division Head: 11120112 Hearing Dept. Head: /ob �bo m Prosecutor: /0�3/%2 Purchasing/Budget: Executive: TITLE OF DOCUMENT. An Ordinance Establishing the Rural Road Safety Program Project Fund and Establishing a Project Based Budget for the Rural Road Safety Program project. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance & Budget Modification Requests SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing? (X) Yes () NO Requested Date: 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 required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.) An Ordinance Establishing the Rural Road Safety Program Project Fund and Establishing a Project Based Budget for the Rural Road Safety Program project. COMMITTEE ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION.• Related County Contract #. Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. 544 PROPOSED BY: Public Works SPONSORED BY: BY: INTRODUCTION DATE: 11/07/12 ORDINANCE NO. ESTABLISHING THE RURAL ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM FUND AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT BASED BUDGET FOR THE RURAL ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM PROJECT WHEREAS, the Rural Road Safety Program will address county -wide road safety improvements in two (2) distinct areas — intersection safety and run -off -the -road crashes, and, WHEREAS, the Rural Road Safety Program was approved as project #2 on the one year road program, the main elements of the program focus on the installation of centerline and rumble strips, bridge freeze indicators, bridge approach guardrail improvements and selected intersection upgrades, and, WHEREAS, the project will be funded with $1.325 million in federal grants, and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that a new fund is hereby established effective January 1, 2013 titled "Rural Road Safety Program". This fund shall be used to account for the expenditures and revenues for the construction of said project, and, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that the Rural Road Safety Program Project is approved with an initial project budget of $1,046,000 as described in Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of , 20 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Clerk of the Council Kathy Kershner, Council Chair WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deputy Prosecutor WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Jack Louws, County Executive ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Date Signed: 545 Exhibit A Project Title: Rural Road Safety Program CRP #911017 Project Based Budget Request: No. 1 Duration Requested: 2 yrs (2013, 2014) Estimated Requested Project Expenditure Project Object Account Project Budget Cost s to Date Budget Professional Services 299,000 269,000 30,000 Right -of -Way 16,000 - 16,000 Construction 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 6000.595110 Total 1,315,000 269,000 1,046,000 Estimated Requested Project Revenue to Project Object Account Project Funding Revenues Date Budget ????.???? Federal 1,299,000 - 1,299,000 8301. Road Fund Transfer 16,000 - 16,000 Total 1,315,000 - 1,315,000 546 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-352 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: 11107112 Intro Originator: l EC E V CA D 11120112 Division Head: Public Hearing C �T 31 2012 Dept. Head: WHATCOM COUNTY Prosecutor: COUNCIL Purchasing/Budget: Executive: TITLE OFDOCU ENT: An Ordinance Establishing the Sheriff's Record Management System Project Fund and Establishing a Project Based Budget for Phase I of the Sheriff's Records Management System Project. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance & Budget Modification Requests SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X ) NO Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? (X ) Yes ( ) 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.) An Ordinance Establishing the Sheriff's Record Management System Project Fund and Establishing a Project Based Budget for Phase I of the Sheriff's Records Management System Project. COMMITTEE ACTION. • COUNCIL ACTION. Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Olt / SPONSORED BY: Executive PROPOSED BY: Executive INTRODUCTION DATE: 11/07/12 ORDINANCE NO. ESTABLISHING THE SHERIFF'S RECORD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT FUND AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT BASED BUDGET FOR PHASE I OF THE SHERIFF'S RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT WHEREAS, the Sheriff's Department requires a new records management system to improve operations and comply with federally mandated criminal offense reporting standards, and, WHEREAS, the records management project will be implemented in two phases, the first phase will include the system core function and mobile reporting, phase II will include the jail functions and other specialized Sheriff's office programs, and, WHEREAS, the 2013 -2014 biennial budget includes funding for phase I of this project, and WHEREAS, Section 6.80 of the Whatcom County Home Rule Charter allows for project - based capital budget appropriation ordinances that lapse when the project has been completed or abandoned or when no expenditure or encumbrance has been made for three (3) years, and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that a new fund is hereby established effective January 1, 2013 titled Sheriff's Records Management System Project Fund. This fund shall be used to account for the revenues and expenditures of the Sheriff's Records Management System Project, and, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council that Phase I of the Sheriff's Records Management Project is approved with an initial project budget of $1,200,000 as described in Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of , 2012. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Civil Deput rose or Kathy Kershner, Chair of the Council ( ) Approved ( ) Denied Jack Louws, County Executive Date: Exhibit A Project Title: Sheriff's Records Management System Project Based Budget Request: No. 1 Estimated Requested Project Expenditure Project Object Account Project Budget Cost s to Date Budget 6110 County Staff 60,199 - 60,199 6230 Social Security 4,407 4,407 6259 Worker Comp 728 728 6210 Retirement 4,724 4,724 6245 Medical 11,827 11,827 6255 Other Heath and Welfare 1,335 1,335 6630 Professional Services 381,780 - 381,780 7420 Computer Capital 735,000 - 735,000 Total 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 Estimated Requested Project Revenue to Project Object Account Project Funding Revenues Date Budget 8301 General Fund Transfer 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 Total 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 549 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2012-353 CLEARANCES Initial Date Date Received in Council Office Agenda Date Assigned to: Originator: M.A. 1012412012 111712012 Introduction Matt Aamot D IF U u Division Head: Personius {%'t /EC l � 2 q ll Y 1112012012 Finance Committee Mark / OCT 3 0 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY and Council Dept. Head: Sam Ryan < 1A p�.� �0/a /� Prosecutor: Royce Buckingham 12 Purchasing/Budget: / '✓�j 2 COUNCIL Executive: Jack Louivs TITLE OFDOC MENT: Interlocal Agreement between Whatcom County and the cities concerning cost sharing for the Comprehensive Plan update and Urban Growth Area review. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cover letter 2. Draft Interlocal Agreement 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.) Request authorization for the County Executive to enter into an interlocal agreement between Whatcom County and the cities of Bellingham, Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack and Sumas concerning cost sharing for planning studies associated with the comprehensive plan update and urban growth area review. COMMITTEEACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: Related County Contract #: Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number: Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing on the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council. 550 WHATCOM COUNTY Planning & Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive, Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax J.E. ""Sam" Ryan Director RECEIVED OCT 25 2012 October 24, 2012 JACK LOUWS COUNTY EXECUTIVE To: Jack Louws, The Honorable Whatcom County Executive The Honorable Whatcom County Council From: Matt Aamot, Senior Planner Through: Mark Personius, Long Range Planning Division Manager i4( RE: interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing for Comp Plan/UGA Review The Growth Management Act requires Whatcom County to review and update, as necessary, the Comprehensive Plan and urban growth areas (UGAs) by June 30, 2016. Because this review requires a coordinated effort between Whatcom County and the seven cities in the County, and the cities will also be updating their plans, the City/County Planners Group has developed a draft interlocal agreement that would share costs associated with the review. Specifically, under the terms of the draft interlocal agreement, the cities and the County would agree to provide a total of $140,000 for consultant assistance with the following: • County -wide population projections and allocations to urban growth areas; • County -wide employment projections and allocations to urban growth areas; • Allocation of households, population and employment to smaller geographic units (including transportation analysis zones); and • Environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act. Costs would be divided between the County and the seven cities based upon the percentage of population in the respective jurisdiction relative to the total population of the County in 2012. Planning & Development Services is requesting Council consideration of the interlocal agreement on Nov. 20. The interlocal would become effective when signed by the County Executive and city representatives. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Office (360) 676-6907 FAX (360) 738-2525 551 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN a0/a1000-7 WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF BELLINGHAM, BLAINE, EVERSON, FERNDALE, LYNDEN, NOOKSACK, AND SUMAS CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR PLANNING STUDIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND UGA REVIEW This agreement is made by and between Whatcom County (herein after referred to as the "County") and the Cities of Bellingham, Blaine, Everson, Ferndale, Lynden, Nooksack, and Sumas (herein after referred to as the "Cities"). WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the County and Cities to update their respective comprehensive plans and review and, if necessary, revise urban growth areas by June 30, 2016 (RCW 36.70A.130); and WHEREAS, cooperative relationships, joint review of growth management planning issues, and coordination between the County and Cities are mutually beneficial; and WHEREAS, the Cities and County desire to share costs for planning and environmental studies associated with the urban growth area review that is due by 2016; NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein, the Cities and County agree as follows: Section 1. Cost Sharing for Planning Studies The Cities and the County agree to provide a total of $140,000 for: * County -wide population projections and allocations to urban growth areas; County -wide employment projections and allocations to urban growth areas; * Allocation of households, population and employment to smaller geographic units; * Environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act; and * Associated consultant administrative costs. The $140,000 will be apportioned in accordance with the percentage of population in the respective jurisdiction relative to the total population of Whatcom County in 2012 as follows: 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing 552 2012 % of Funding OFM Total share for Pop Est. POP. 2016 Update Whatcom County (Unincorporated) 87,921 43.20% $60,486 Bellingham 81,360 39.98% $55,972 Blaine 4,760 2.34% $3,275 Everson 2,520 1.24% $1,734 Ferndale 11,830 5.81% $8,139 Lynden 12,340 6.06% $8,489 Nooksack 1,370 0.67% $943 Su mas 1,399 0.69 % $962 TOTAL 203,500 100.00% $140,000 Section 2. Invoicing and Reimbursements The County agrees to invoice the Cities for their respective portions of the costs every three months. The Cities agree to reimburse the County for their respective portions of the costs within 30 days of receiving an invoice. Section 3. Budgeting In order to facilitate budgeting by the Cities and the County, it is agreed that: • Cities will plan to reimburse the County up to 35% of their cumulative total funding share by the end of 2013. • Cities will plan to reimburse the County up to 85% of their cumulative total funding share by the end of 2014. • Cities will plan to reimburse the County 100% of their cumulative total funding share by the end of 2015. The percentages in Section 3 of this agreement may be modified by written agreement of all of the parties. Section 4. Effective Date, Duration and Termination This agreement shall be effective upon'signature by the Mayor and/or City Manager of each of the seven Cities and the Whatcom County Executive. This agreement shall remain in effect until December 30, 2016 unless modified or terminated by written agreement of the parties. 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing 2 553 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement, effective on the date indicated in Section 4 of this agreement. CITY OF BELLINGHAM By Kelli Linville, Mayor Date Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Attest STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Whatcom ) On this day of , 2012, before me personally appeared KELLI LINVILLE, to me known to be the Mayor of the CITY OF BELLINGHAM, and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing 3 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires: 554 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement, effective on the date indicated in Section 4 of this agreement. CITY OF BLAINE By Gary Tomsic, City Manager Date Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Attest STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Whatcom ) On this day of , 2012, before me personally appeared GARY TOMSIC, to me known to be the City Manager of the CITY OF BLAINE, and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. 2012 lnterlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing 4 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires: 555 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement, effective on the date indicated in Section 4 of this agreement. CITY OF EVERSON By John Perry, Mayor Date Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Attest STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Whatcom ) On this day of , 2012, before me personally appeared JOHN PERRY, to me known to be the Mayor of the CITY OF EVERSON, 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 appointment expires: 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing 556 IN WITIIIESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement, effective on the date indicated in Section 4 of this agreement. CITY OF FERNDALE By Gary Jensen, Mayor Date Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Attest STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Whatcom ) On this day of , 2012, before me personally appeared GARY JENSEN, to me known to be the Mayor of the CITY OF FERNDALE, and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing 6 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires: 557 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement, effective on the date indicated in Section 4 of this agreement. CITY OF LYNDEN By Scott Korthuis, Mayor Date Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Attest STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Whatcom ) On this day of , 2012, before me personally appeared SCOTT KORTHUIS, to me known to be the Mayor of the CITY OF LYNDEN, and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing 7 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Stale of Washington residing at My appointment expires: 558 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement, effective on the date indicated in Section 4 of this agreement. CITY OF NOOKSACK By James Ackerman, Mayor Date Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Attest STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Whatcom ) On this day of , 2012, before me personally appeared JAMES ACKERMAN, to me known to be the Mayor of the CITY OF NOOKSACK, and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing 8 ]VOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires: 559 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement, effective on the date indicated in Section 4 of this agreement. CITY OF SUMAS By Bob Bromley, Mayor Date Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Attest STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Whatcom ) On this _ day of , 2012, before me personally appeared BOB BROMLEY, to me known to be the Mayor of the CITY OF SUMAS, and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing 0 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires: 560 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement, effective on the date indicated in Section 4 of this agreement. WHATCOM COUNTY By Jack Louws, County Executive Date Approved as to form: Whatcom C my Prosecutor Attest STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Whatcom ) On this day of , 2012, before me personally appeared JACK LOUWS, to me known to be the County Executive of WHATCOM COUNTY, and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing and sealing thereof. 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing 10 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires: 561