HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works January 29 20021
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
January 29, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Member Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington,
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
Sharon Roy
Also Present:
Seth Fleetwood
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2002 -023)
Brenner nominated Brenner.
Nomination carried 2 -0 with Roy out of the room.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. THE AMENDMENT OF WHATCOM COUNTY FERRY RATES TO EXPAND
THE CURRENT SENIOR /LOW INCOME SPECIAL RATE TO INCLUDE
LUMMI ISLAND PROPERTY OWNERS WHO RECEIVE A PROPERTY TAX
EXEMPTION AND THOSE WHO ARE ALSO MEDICARE RECIPIENTS
(AB2002 -082)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated his memo contains the information
on this issue. In December, they promised to revisit the low- income issue, which
was tied to the commuter pass issue. He recommended that they separate the
income discount from the commuter pass.
Brenner asked about item B in the memo from Jeff Monsen to Pete Kremen
and the Council, dated January 22. She asked whether five full trips per week
would cost $260, and the cost of the pass before. Monsen stated that is the cost.
The cost previously was $160, which was equivalent to 4.1 trips per week.
Brenner asked whether there is anyway to deal with quarterly passes on a
financial need basis. Monsen stated that if the Council is inclined to apply a
discount rate according to income level, set a rate for a punch card instead of an
unlimited ride pass.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner suggested having a quarterly pass only for those with a low income
or disability. Everyone who talked to her about the quarterly pass complained that
those with a moderate or low income would have a difficult time without it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Mr. Monsen proposes in the memo how to correct
and address the fare for seniors, low- income residents, Medicaid recipients, and
people with disability. The suggestion in the memo is clearly defined, and a way
the County can implement a program without question. She supports his
suggestion. The department had a good reason to drop the quarterly pass and use
a punch card instead. They are trying to create equity and make sure that every
trip is fairly compensated. That will keep the ferry healthy and running.
Brenner stated she is sympathetic to people who have a moderate income
and have children. The difference between Lummi Island and anywhere else in the
county is that there is no other way on or off the island. Monsen stated it is not
difficult to re- institute a quarterly pass at some rate. He suggests that if the
Council applies a discount, decide what an appropriate discount is. A quarterly pass
does not do that. A quarterly pass is a fee for unlimited rides.
Brenner stated she is talking about having a quarterly pass that would best
reflect a compromise between the actual cost if people used it a lot, which might be
more than this amount. She believes the discount that is being proposed for the
elderly and handicapped is lower than what they've been paying. If that's true, she
would rather have the discount be what they've been paying. Monsen stated the
senior low- income discount is a fairly substantial discount. This definition expands
it to include a few individuals. Those individuals will see a reduction in what they
are currently paying, before they become eligible for the new program. They did
not increase the rate for the senior and low- income. He doesn't believe the
expanded discount will apply to very many more people. Most of the people they
are talking about are property owners on the island, and he has a revised list from
the Assessor's Office for eligibility. There are approximately 28 eligible individuals.
There are those on disability who also qualify for the property tax exemption.
There would be very few beyond that list of 28. The majority of that list of people
is senior low- income.
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Administration, stated there is at least one
individual on the list who is on Medicaid. To be on the list, one has to own
property. There are probably another five or so people that are not on the list.
Monsen stated those people may fall into the recognized low- income
category, but do not own property.
Brenner asked whether the staff was getting complaints from anyone that
the rates were too high before the Council began discussing the rates. She hadn't
heard any complaints. She asked why they are discounting the rates further.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 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
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they are trying to broaden the category of those
who qualify for a low- income discount. The committee should not focus so much on
the less expensive rate. Mr. Monsen is trying to see if this can be applied more
liberally to low- income folks.
Brenner stated the rate that the staff proposes is actually lower than what
the folks were paying in the past. Monsen stated there are two issues. One issue
is to create a fairly well described eligibility. This proposal expands the eligibility.
The majority of the people who contacted the County about the low- income fare
during the hearing process won't fall into this category. Therefore, they would not
likely be eligible. In many respects, this may be a legal correction to make sure
they are not applying a rate for one category of people that should also be applied
to another class of individuals. In this case, the rate is applied to those who are at
least 65 years old and have tax exempt status. There is a class of individuals who
qualify for tax - exempt status and who are not getting this discount. This may be
described as an appropriate correction.
Roy questioned whether the County was, in a sense, discriminating.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the County continues to
discriminate. The question is whether the County's discrimination is invidious, or
does it past Constitutional muster. He doesn't want to put this issue under a
microscope. To distinguish between property owners and non - property owners
probably would not fly. On the other hand, one has to consider the administrative
aspects of this. An easy and appropriate thing is to consider whether or not
someone has a property tax exemption. It is very easy to check.
Roy asked if Medicaid recipients would be as easily checked. Prieve stated
the staff is proposing that the discount applicant provide either the document from
the Assessor's Office showing tax exemption eligibility or a Medicaid card.
Monsen stated that would also indicate the applicant's primary residence on
the island. The intent here is for the residents. The records they are talking about
are easily obtainable.
Brenner stated she agrees with expanding eligibility. If the County didn't
have complaints about what the cost was before, then expand eligibility at the
previous rate instead of at this lower rate.
Caskey- Schreiber questioned the amount of money they are talking about
here. Monsen stated that overall, they are talking about small dollar amounts.
Only one or two individuals that he is aware of would fall into this category. The
majority are those who wouldn't qualify for a tax exemption or special medical
program, but who are just making enough money or a little more, but need to
commute. That is a much more difficult discussion to have. Try to deal with
defining what class of individuals should be eligible for a discount, and then decide
how to deliver that discount. A quarterly pass is not the vehicle to do that.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner asked if this would pass muster if the County allowed a quarterly
pass for a family of a certain size and under a certain income level. Gibson stated
they are treading close to thin ice. Income level does serve as a legitimate basis of
distinction, but not income level in combination with family size. There has to be a
rational basis. The more they are trying to address a particular situation, the less
rational it becomes. It also becomes more difficult to administer.
Brenner stated poverty level is based on family size.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that could be addressed in the punch card fares.
Monsen stated that disability and age are two protected classes of
individuals. Beyond that, in most utility applications, there may be a discount for
bulk buying if there is no limit to capacity. That discount for buying in bulk
increases the more they pay in advance. If the Council determines that a pass is
an appropriate vehicle to offer as a fare, it is a fare for unlimited use. Not everyone
who has used the quarterly pass in the past view it that way. They view it as a
convenience or as a bit cheaper than the alternative.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is leaning toward accountability for every ride
because they are facing some severe budget cuts down the road. The better they
structure this service now, the better able they will be to keep the service going
without cuts.
Brenner stated there is going to be a group of people who are not below the
poverty level, but who don't earn much money and have families. There will be a
lot of hardship. There is no other way on and off the island. She would like to
explore this a bit.
Art Thomas, 2620 Island View, Lummi Island, supported the amendment for
the low- income and disabled residents. He spoke about the quarterly pass in
general, aside from low- income and disabled families. There is a solution that may
pass muster. He suggested they use the quarterly pass based on the actual
operating cost of five trips per week, which is $3.40. However, the fare is $4, so
the ferry crew doesn't have to handle change. Regarding the unlimited pass, the
people who use it are those people who come into town to go to work every day.
They are going to go to work regardless of whether or not there is a quarterly pass.
Ridership during the rush hours will not go down by eliminating the quarterly pass.
Brenner stated that was not the reason for eliminating the quarterly pass.
Monsen stated it wasn't a primary reason, but an unlimited pass does not
support the notion of shifting when people use the boat.
Thomas stated that the County generates income instead of loses money
from the quarterly passes, because people go on vacation, get sick, or the ferry
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 4
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
goes down. They don't use the pass for more than four days per week. The
County's evidence cannot show that people who buy quarterly passes use the
quarterly passes.
Brenner stated people could use the passes for more than just work, such as
taking kids to activities. Thomas stated two or three families do that. They make
six or seven trips. Other families make two or three trips.
Brenner asked how many quarterly passes were issued last year. Monsen
stated about forty. At this point, he couldn't say how often the quarterly pass users
use the pass.
Caskey- Schreiber stated one of the goals of the punch cards is to have some
kind of idea. Monsen stated there are three or four individuals who used the
commuter pass and sent him information on how they used it. They used it well
beyond four times per week.
Brenner questioned whether there would be a significant amount of lost
revenue if they reinstated the quarterly pass at an increased rate. Monsen stated
he doesn't anticipate a change in level of use at all. They are not talking about a
large dollar amount.
Roy asked if they are going to collect data from the punch card to pinpoint
information on the amount and time of usage. Monsen stated that if they reinstate
the quarterly pass, they would look for a way to refine the administrative process.
They will also try to capture information on how often people with quarterly passes
use the ferry. They have information on the revenue that is generated from the
sales and how many people use the boat. They don't have a system that ties those
two pieces of information together.
Roy asked if the proposal would improve the ability to tie that information
together. Monsen stated it would not. If it is reinstated, it is because they would
also like to know how the passes are actually being used. That is why he offered
the option.
Roy asked if the quarterly pass enhances their ability to do that. Monsen
stated it is hard to say that the quarterly pass saves them any time, from an
operational standpoint, and gives them an advantage to gathering data. That isn't
the case.
Brenner stated she is concerned about that small group that has to make
many trips because of family. Monsen stated that if there is a way to describe that
class of individual, there might be ways to get at the fair share of the operational
cost without reinstating the quarterly pass. Reinstating the quarterly pass may be
the way to do it, but it may not.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 5
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there are any statistics on the number of people
who use the ferry, the amount of revenue collected, and whether they are losing or
gaining money. Monsen stated that over the last 20 years, the increasing amount
of ridership kept up with the increasing cost of operating the ferry. The increased
revenue stream from more riders paid for the increased operational costs. Now,
they are at a point where the ferry does not have the excess capacity to
accommodate an increased ridership that will keep up with increased operational
costs. One or two years ago they began to see that they can't grow in revenue
without a rate increase.
Thomas stated the quarterly pass will not make a difference on usage and
growth. People still have to go to work five days a week.
Malcolm Hutchings, Lummi Island, stated the people on the island should be
treated the same as the rest of the people in Whatcom County, regarding low -
income. The ferry should be treated the same as any other kind of transportation.
If the County subsidizes the low- income, which it should, then the County should
subsidize the rest of the people in the county.
Regarding the quarterly passes, people live on Lummi Island by choice. They
accept that they have to take the ferry. If the County gives the travelers on the
ferry a break, that lost cost will be carried by the rest of the people on the island.
A lot of people do not travel five times per week by choice, but they still pay when
they go. Mr. Monsen has to raise 55 percent of the cost, or else the rates will go up
for everyone.
Brenner agreed that if they subsidize low- income people on the island, they
should do that with the rest of the transportation services. However, in the rest of
Whatcom County, the people do have several options available to get around. The
ferry is the only way on and off the island. The lower income people are going to
suffer. People with money can have a car on both sides.
Roy stated she doesn't know how to get at it demographically. Those people
struggle wherever they are. She suggested getting more data.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the first thing to address, using the punch card, is
to find out how many people are using the ferry, the number of trips they make,
the amount of money, and try it for a year to get the statistics. Until they know
how many trips are paid for, it's an ambiguous answer.
Brenner moved to reinstate a quarterly pass based on income eligibility for a
family with an income under $30,000.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that is a big burden on the Public Works Department
to verify everyone's income.
Brenner suggested they produce an income tax return.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Gibson stated the resident could show income tax return if someone in the
Public Works Department is set up to process that information.
Monsen stated it would be confidential information.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it might cost more to administer something like
that.
Monsen stated his recommendation is not to debate whether or not there is
an eligible category. If they are going to create special discounts, it would be nice
if it would be for someone who is already qualified in a recognized program so the
department would not have to create an administrative process.
Brenner agreed. However, if there are only 40 families now, and this would
apply to about half of that, it can't be much of a burden if they have to come to the
County offices and show a tax return.
Roy stated schools do have a process for free and reduced lunches. They
have specific criteria. That might be a method to use, although she's not sure she
would recommend it.
Monsen stated it is a recognized program that the administration could use.
He needs a recognized program that is simple to administer.
Brenner amended her motion to develop a quarterly pass, based on proof
that the children receive a free and reduced school lunch. Gibson stated that
doesn't address the poor, large, home - schooled family.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that they should talk about a punch card with a
discounted rate, so they can have a year of measuring the number of actual trips
there are.
Monsen stated he is close to sending out a survey to the community to get
that information.
Caskey- Schreiber stated every ferry system in the state has information on
what fares are paid.
Brenner stated they are talking about a nominal amount of people and it
won't be a big impact. She amended and restated her motion to reinstate the
quarterly pass, based on family income level of less than $30,000.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 7
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to expand the fare discount for low income and /or
disabled seniors based on those residents that receive property tax exemption
through the Assessor's Office, and those residents that are Medicaid recipients.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Monsen stated he would prepare the appropriate code amendment to begin
getting this recommendation approved.
Brenner moved to add a discount for those on property tax deferrals, which
is at a slightly higher income tier.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated there are two programs in
Assessor's Office, one is exemption and one is deferral. They are built upon income
levels that rise over time. Before they construct the Medicaid eligibility list, they
need to understand who would be in and who would be out. It would help the
administration to have principles for this program. One of the principles ought to
be that it is non - intrusive or minimizes the intrusiveness as much as possible.
When they begin implementing programs that are highly- structured around
eligibility, they risk offending people in this class and outside this class. It is the
pathway the administration urges they don't go down without a great amount of
thought.
Prieve stated they are using a senior citizen and disabled persons exemption
from real property tax per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 84.36.385.
Brenner stated there are two programs, exemption and deferral. The income
limit for deferral is slightly higher than the income limit for exemption. She moved
that the fare discount also apply to people who have tax deferrals. She asked if
that is okay. Monsen stated he didn't know. He didn't know how many people that
would apply to.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested that they wait and get more information. Prieve
stated they are implementing the current new fare structure in February.
Monsen stated they could amend this at any time.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Monsen stated he would have that information and a proposed ordinance at
the next meeting.
Brenner stated she is interested in a motion to allow discounted punch cards.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 8
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what rate would be appropriate to favor those who
bought in advance and in bulk. Monsen stated the current punch cards have an
eight - percent discount. Those who pay in advance for a ferry ride through the
State ferry system receive a 20- percent discount.
Roy asked if it is possible to sell two kinds of punch cards, one for peak hours
and one for non -peak hours. Monsen stated they talked about that, but the
problem is that they don't collect the fares until they are on the boat. At some
point, they will convert to collecting fares off -boat.
Brenner stated she would like to see a higher discount for low- income
residents, and work it out. She is willing to take people's word for it on their
income level.
Desler stated he agreed. In some ways, eligibility ought to be based on
honesty. Think about what they want to establish in terms of principle. There are
different ways to handle this.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that everyone should have access to this discounted
card to get a specific number on how much is going where.
Roy stated she is concerned about defining this group of people. She is not
comfortable trying to quantify that. There are a lot of variables.
Brenner moved to create an interim punch card with a 20- percent discount
for families with incomes less than $30,000. The applicants won't have to prove
their income level.
Monsen stated that as long as he understands the description of the group,
he could design the collection process. He needs clarity on what the income will be
based on.
Brenner stated the income would be based on $30,000 for the past year, that
the applicant doesn't anticipate a sudden rise in income, and at least one child is
involved.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested that they propose a punch card at a 15- percent
discount rate for everyone, and come up with some numbers. They can customize
it later as needed.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Roy asked what 15 percent is going to do to the Public Works program. For
the Council to experiment, and find out that they made the discount too big, they
will have to raise the fares again.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 9
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how many fares would be on that discount card.
She asked if it would be worthwhile to increase the number of fares to make this 15
percent cut okay. Monsen stated if they passed the motion, he would put it in the
form of a proposed amendment. By the time of the hearing, he would provide his
best analysis of the financial implications. Presuming there is no change in
conversion of cash users to a discount punch card, it looks like the books are still
balanced.
Brenner asked if they would find out the population of moderately low -
income families that really need something like this. Monsen stated that with the
census information and surveys, he would get closer to answering that question.
He is reluctant in going too far with this to respect the land use planning process
and their future customers, and designing the system to service their future
customers. The County doesn't know who they are yet.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to establish a discount punch card at a discount
rate of 15 percent that commuters can buy in bulk. Monsen asked if the current
cardholders with an eight percent rate would increase to a fifteen percent discount
rate.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that is fine.
Monsen stated that applies now to 25 roundtrip walk -on users and car
drivers.
Caskey- Schreiber agreed.
Roy stated she is concerned that they've doubled the discount. Monsen
stated he will prepare a financial analysis by the time the public hearing is
scheduled, if not before.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner asked the administration to look over the suggestions presented by
Jon Archer (on file). Gibson stated there are a few things that raise Constitutional
and administrative - efficiency issues.
Brenner asked why it is difficult administratively if an applicant has to sign an
affidavit. Monsen stated that for those who are exempt from property tax, he can
get a report from the Assessor's Office that has the list of names. In this case, it's
an extra step. In the case of the list of names from the Assessor's Office, he has
their names on file already.
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN ARCO AND BP, ASSIGNING THE NON-
EXCLUSIVE PIPELINE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO BP (AB2002 -046)
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 10
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he spoke to
Councilmember Roy, who asked that this be referred to committee from the Council
meeting two weeks ago.
Roy stated she only wanted time to look at this. The original contract was
from 1970. She had wanted a legal opinion of what this was about.
Gibson stated the rule of thumb with assignments is that approval will not be
unreasonably withheld. They are not being unreasonable in this instance. They are
in year 32 or 33 of a 40 -year franchise agreement. This is about a stretch of right -
of -way at the south end of Kickerville Road. That is the portion of the public right -
of -way that is involved. The situation is a change in ownership, not operations.
From the County's perspective, they are not looking at a significant change in the
operation. They are not looking at a change in the use of right -of -way. The
franchise is set to expire in eight years. He also looked at the area of the county
that is affected by this change. He determined that approval is appropriate
because it is a standard transfer in ownership without a change operationally.
Roy asked about liability insurance. Gibson stated there is a 1970 liability
insurance amount. He expects that, upon renewal of the franchise in eight years,
they will update those amounts to a more contemporary amount.
Roy asked if it is possible to change that now, hypothetically. Gibson stated
the County has that option. The practical reality is that this is a company that
carries reserves to cover their liability for their own reasons. A company of that
nature carries a lot of insurance.
Roy asked if the County could be held to that amount stated in the franchise
agreement for an accident that might happen today. Gibson stated no. The
insurance amount required in the agreement is the County's statement that the
company must have at least that amount of insurance.
Roy questioned whether the agreement would still be good if the County
decides to look at this for another two weeks. Gibson stated the Council shouldn't
delay unnecessarily. At the same time, if questions have to be asked, the
councilmembers should take the appropriate amount of time to ask them. The
company is at this meeting and prepared to address the concerns that they have.
Fleetwood stated people in the community expressed concern about this
item, in light of what happened in Whatcom County two years ago. He would like
to take a couple of weeks to ask some questions and contact people at the British
Petroleum (BP) refinery.
Brenner stated she was concerned about major corporations that form these
subsidiaries, so if there is an accident they can pull out. She asked what assurance
the County has that BP will pony up the extra liability money if there is an accident
in the next eight years.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 11
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Mike Abenhoff, BP, stated that Arco doesn't exist anymore. This is the last
phase of the administrative process. It is just stating that BP is now responsible for
any action that Arco was formerly responsible for. It is a change of paper.
Brenner stated that if there is a problem, there is a way that a subsidiary of a
company can be removed so the parent company is not liable. Abenhoff stated the
new entity alone is a multi - billion dollar asset - holding company. The company
being created is to consolidate the former Arco and Amoco assets, with combined
assets of $2 billion to $3 billion.
Brenner stated she went to the hearings when Arco talked about building a
power plant. It seemed like a good idea. Now, it seems there is something
between Arco and Williams to promote the pipeline to serve BP. She has a problem
with that. She doesn't trust Williams at all. Abenhoff stated that has nothing to do
with this transaction.
Brenner stated this is the only time the Council gets to ask its questions.
Abenhoff stated they are only asking that the agreement that is in place stay in
place, with a different name on it.
Brenner asked if that part of the right -of -way is in this contract. Abenhoff
stated it is a different pipeline. All they are talking about with Williams is the right -
of -way easements for their pipeline to come across some of BP's property. There
are not any talks about Williams serving BP.
Fleetwood stated recently that people in the pipeline industry have created a
model franchise agreement. Abenhoff stated he has heard of it, but he has not
seen it.
Fleetwood stated a model franchise agreement was established by a
committee to be used in precisely these kinds of situations. They could look into
whether that sort of model agreement could be used here. Abenhoff stated the
model agreement can be discussed in the renewal process, but it isn't reasonable to
use to administratively change BP to Arco.
Brenner stated that if it is just administrative, it wouldn't have come to the
Council. Gibson stated it does come to the Council as an administrative matter, but
this is not the point to renegotiate a franchise.
Brenner stated this is an opportunity to get as much information as the
councilmembers need. She moved to hold in committee in two weeks.
Caskey- Schreiber questioned who would be liable if there is an explosion in
two weeks. Abenhoff stated BP would still be liable.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 12
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy stated she would vote for the motion, not because she is concerned, but
because other councilmembers need to continue talking about it.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE TO INCLUDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADEQUATE
WATER SUPPLY AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SELLER TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE BUYER CONCERNING THE WATER
SOURCE WHEN SELLING DEVELOPED PROPERTY (AB2001 -369)
(Clerk's Note: This item was not discussed. It will be held in committee for
two weeks.)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 1/29/2002, Page 13