HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil April 18 20001
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
April 18, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
Robert Imhof
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
None
Dawson announced there was discussion in executive session during the
Committee of the Whole meeting with Senior Deputy Prosecutor Karen Frakes
regarding pending litigation (AB2000 -018).
Nelson moved to join the Water District #10 appeal to the Supreme Court on
the conditional use permit of the sewer interceptor.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Hoag, McShane, and Brenner opposed.
Dawson also announced there was discussion in executive session during the
Committee of the Whole meeting on consideration of an appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's decision (on remand) on file No. CUP95 -0056, filed by Rick and
Debra Benner (AB99 -402). This item would be addressed later in the meeting.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
PRESENTATION BY WILLIAMS PIPELINE REGARDING THE GEORGIA
STRAIT CROSSING PROJECT PROPOSAL (AB2000 -129)
Hank Henrie, Williams Pipeline Business Development Team Leader for the
Georgia Strait project, gave an overview of the project. A representative from B.C.
Hydro is also present. Williams is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. They have
approximately 22,000 employees and $18 billion in assets. The company is broken
into three autonomous units; the gas pipeline group for which they represent,
energy services, and communications. Williams has transported gas in Washington
since 1957. A system was built by El Paso Natural Gas. It was the northern part of
their system. Williams Gas Pipeline (WGP) West, headquartered out of Salt Lake
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 1
1 City, has two pipeline groups. One group is Northwest Pipeline and the other is
2 Kern River Gas Transmission Company. Of the two pipelines, there are 4,800 miles
3 of pipeline with 1,400 miles being located in Washington. Eighty percent of the gas
4 consumed in Washington is transported by Northwest Pipeline. The majority of this
5 amount, about 60 percent, is sourced from Canada.
6
7 Northwest Pipeline extends from its interconnection with West Coast at
8 Sumas, Washington, and extends into the Bakersfield, California area. The Georgia
9 Strait crossing pipeline will interconnect with three interstate pipelines. They are
10 West Coast Energy, Northwest Pipeline, and to a B.C. Gas company at Sumas,
11 Washington. It extends 34 miles along an existing utility corridor to Cherry Point,
12 where it enters the Georgia Strait crossing. The pipeline runs about 34 miles to the
13 water, 44 miles offshore, and eight miles on Vancouver Island, where they tie into
14 Centra Gas.
15
16 The project is a joint venture with BC Hydro, and will be an extension for
17 WGP -West system. There will be 85 miles of 16 -inch pipe. They anticipate having
18 two compressor stations. One will be a 4,700 -horse unit at the existing Sumas
19 compressor station, and another unit at Cherry Point, with an estimated cost of
20 $120 million. Markets for the project are two cogeneration projects on the island.
21 One is at Elk Falls and is currently under construction. Another proposed project is
22 at Port Alberny. They are targeting industrial loads on the island. They have had
23 an interest expressed from a large user in Whatcom County and which is equal in
24 magnitude to the identified loads on Vancouver Island. The pipeline will access gas
25 supply from B.C., Alberta, San Juan Basin, and the Rockies. It is another
26 opportunity for U.S. producers to market their gas supplies.
27
28 The U.S. assets regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
29 (FERC) out of Washington D.C. The assets in Canadian waters and on the island
30 will be under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board in Calgary, Ontario.
31 Certificate applications will be filed in late summer /early fall. They expect to
32 receive a notice to proceed by the end of next year. They announced the project in
33 September 1999, and the first round of open houses was held in November and
34 December. The open season began in January and extended through February 22.
35 They hope to have binding precedent agreement from all parties in June. They will
36 submit their application later this summer, and hope to commence construction in
37 April 2002 so they can be in service by November 2002.
38
39 Chris Bias, Williams Pipeline Project Team Leader for the Georgia Strait
40 project, gave his background. He has been a project manager and engineer with
41 Williams for seven years. The route from the U.S. mainland to Cherry Point is 33
42 miles. It starts at Sumas. In Sumas, Northwest Pipeline currently operates an
43 existing compression station, which is their largest. As part of the new project,
44 they will locate the new facilities to the east of the existing facility. It is 33 miles to
45 Cherry Point. Eighty five percent of the route parallels existing natural gas
46 pipelines.
47
48 The route starts out at Sumas. It parallels the existing Northwest Pipeline
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 2
1 Transmission system for three miles. At that point, it joins an existing utility
2 corridor, which contains two natural gas pipelines that are owned by Arco and
3 Cascade Natural Gas. The pipeline runs east -west, about a half mile north of East
4 Badger Road, north of Nooksack and Everson. The land use in this area is primarily
5 agricultural, with some residential use, to a lesser degree. The route runs a half -
6 mile north of Lynden. One of the areas where they leave the corridor is in the
7 Custer area. One of the existing pipeline routes is near houses and residential land
8 uses. The project team has looked at other proposed route areas. Even though it
9 is their preference to follow existing facilities, it isn't always feasible. An alternative
10 route goes through the provisional Custer urban growth area and through the
11 Cherry Point industrial urban growth area. Approximately one mile from the
12 proposed new compressor station, the pipeline crosses Georgia Strait to Vancouver
13 Island. Bias showed slides that showed the proposed routes and what the
14 construction activities will look like.
15
16 Joe Robertson, Williams Pipeline Safety Engineer for the Georgia Strait
17 project, gave his background. He has ten years experience in the pipeline safety
18 business. He discussed the integrity program for the pipeline. The pipeline
19 integrity program starts at the mill with the manufacturing of the pipe. They begin
20 with the use of high strength steel. The pipe manufacturing control testing includes
21 the pipe long seam. They use real -time x -ray radiographic inspection of the long
22 seam. They also use ultrasonic testing measures to verify the integrity of the
23 seam. They also do a hydrostatic test at the pipe mill. The coating is inspected for
24 proper adhesion and thickness. It is used for cathodic protection to prevent pipe
25 corrosion. The pipe is inspected at the mill for certain standards. It is an API
26 certified process. The pipe is subject to audit by the Williams group. Once the pipe
27 is at the design phase, a suitable route is selected. They will identify land issues
28 that would affect the integrity of the pipe. Population density is reviewed. The
29 construction and installation phase begins with welding standards. They follow a
30 list of procedures meeting typical industry standards. Welders must qualify to
31 welding procedures. Welds will be inspected and x- rayed. The pipe will be hydro -
32 tested to 150 percent of maximum allowable pressure. An inspection on the
33 coating, as the pipe is lowered into the trench, will be one of the last forms of
34 inspection. The coating is verified for proper thickness. There could be a nick or
35 ding during the construction phases that could damage the coating. They do an
36 electronic analysis. The inline inspection is one of the last forms of inspection prior
37 to installation and use. The inline inspection device is used to determine damages
38 to the pipe.
39
40 Once the pipe is in the ground and in use, the integrity program continues.
41 The corrosion prevention program is when they look at one of the threats to the
42 pipeline. They take annual readings to maintain the proper level of cathodic
43 protection on the pipeline. The rectifiers that impress the current along the pipeline
44 are read on a bimonthly basis. Any time the pipe is exposed, they do an extensive
45 pipe inspection along the line. Their public education program has three
46 parameters. One is to educate the general public in the danger of digging next to
47 utilities. The "one call before you dig" program identifies where the utilities are
48 located and will request anyone digging in the area to notify the company. A
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 3
1 second component includes education of the public on the right -of -way for signs of
2 damage to the pipes or leaks. The third component is to educate the local
3 emergency response agencies. Training for that would include mock training and
4 working with the company to identify each other's strengths in various situations.
5 Leak detection begins with 24 hour real -time monitoring from Salt Lake City. They
6 monitor pressures along the pipeline. Anything that goes above or below set
7 parameters would set off an alarm and field personnel would respond. There will be
8 weekly aerial patrols of the system. The aerial patrols would monitor the pipeline
9 right -of -way to identify any potential leaks or hazards to the pipeline. They also do
10 instrument and leak detection with a flame ionization (FI) unit, which measures
11 methane gas in parts per million (ppm). Twice per year they will walk the line with
12 the unit. Lastly, there will be a periodic internal inspection to identify any other
13 potential problems. In 44 years, they have had zero fatalities and injuries. There
14 have been four major incidents in the State of Washington within the last ten years.
15 They were all attributed to the landslide issues they've experienced.
16
17 Kirt Rhoads, Williams Pipeline Environmental Team leader for the Georgia
18 Strait project, stated the goal is to ensure the existing environment today retains
19 its character and personality after the successful completion of this proposed
20 project. Step one is to find out what is out there and what studies are available.
21 They will consult with federal, state, and county environmental agencies. Next,
22 they will verify studies by going into the field to fill in any gaps in the reports. They
23 will produce draft reports of their investigation and develop mitigation measures
24 with engineering, design, and right of way groups. Once that is done, they will
25 prepare a final report. During construction, environmental inspectors will be on -site
26 at all times. After construction they will continue to do monitoring to determine the
27 re- vegetation success, erosion areas, wetlands, and biological habitat rehabilitation.
28 This is all done through a process called the National Environmental Policy Act,
29 which requires them to talk to agencies, gather data, talk to the public, and
30 produce an environmental report which is the bulk of their FERC filing. Once the
31 application is in, FERC requires the company to send out a notice of application to
32 affected landowners. The notice asks for comments from agencies and the public.
33 They also put a notice in the newspaper and the federal register. FERC takes the
34 comments and writes a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) or
35 environmental assessment, which is made available for the public's review. Before
36 it is finalized, FERC may hold public hearings if they so choose, dependant upon
37 whether FERC finds that there is significant public interest or environmental issues.
38 After the public hearings, FERC decides the proper alternative. The company can
39 require mitigation measures and stipulations. That is when the company begins
40 construction on the project.
41
42 In an environmental report, there are 15 disciplines. In this location, all are
43 important, and include water use, fish and wildlife, cultural resources, socio-
44 economic factors, air, and noise quality. The alternatives that they keep looking at
45 and refining are a team effort. No one person decides on the course of action. It is
46 a team effort. PCB is on the list, but Northwest Pipeline and Kern River have been
47 PCB -free for years. Issues identified to date include eagles and swans, soils and
48 vegetation, and archeological sites. They are still doing studies. Construction
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 4
1 impacts will be short -term and temporary. The goal is to return the land to its
2 existing use and to minimize and avoid environmentally sensitive resources. It will
3 take two years to get through this process. There will be good mitigation and
4 avoidance measures, and an opportunity for the public to get involved. Affected
5 and adjacent landowners will be notified. A brochure about becoming a commenter
6 or intervener is available.
7
8 Rodney Gregory, Williams Pipeline Land and Right -of -Way Team Leader for
9 Georgia Strait project, stated that in April of 1999, the land function of the project
10 began. He began research of the affected landowners along the existing utility
11 corridor, which involved about 250 parcels. In September 1999, they sent out an
12 introductory letter to all landowners that identified the upcoming project. In
13 October 1999, they sent a detailed letter and information packet. Included was an
14 invitation to November open houses, and they also requested survey permission.
15 In November 1999, they held three open houses, one each in Nooksack, Lynden,
16 and Ferndale. They also notified community organizations and state agencies.
17 Approximately 120 landowners participated. At that point, they began to
18 accumulate the survey permission letters and do follow -up calls. They initially
19 received a 60 percent response. They began a phone campaign in December and
20 sent registered letters to 95 percent of the affected landowners along the route.
21 Survey activities began in January. Areas where they need to do minor route
22 refinements were identified. At that point, near January 13, they sent out letters to
23 Custer area residents that had not previously been identified and followed up with
24 landowners who did not respond. It became evident that they needed to have
25 another open house for Custer area residents. On April 5, an open house for Custer
26 residents was held. To date, the number of potential landowners grew to 309.
27 Seventy nine percent granted permission. Another twelve percent denied
28 permission to survey. Another nine percent received the information, but chose not
29 to respond. Throughout that process, he's only been made aware of two
30 trespasses. They were both unintentional. They have contacted those individuals
31 to explain and apologize.
32
33 At this point, activities for 2000 include an open house on May 9 in Lynden.
34 At that time, they should have a preferred route identified. Between then and the
35 time they file the application, in June to September, he will contract with a local
36 appraisal company to appraise the properties along the routes to determine land
37 values. They will attempt to acquire the land in September or October. They will
38 take purchase options because the project is not yet approved. They will not try to
39 acquire the leases out - right, but will try and get options on the leases. The right of
40 way during construction will be up to 85 feet. They will seek a permanent 50 -foot
41 easement. Most property owners will retain full use of land. There are 202
42 landowners on the proposed route. Prior to construction, they will try for options
43 on property, negotiate fair price for parcels, maintain relationship and resolve
44 issues with landowners. After construction, Williams will continue to operate this
45 new pipeline as well as the existing facilities. They will continue those relationships
46 with the landowners.
47
48 Brenner asked how long Williams Pipeline has been in operation.
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 5
1
2 Gregory stated the Northwest Division has operated since 1957.
3
4 Bias stated Williams consists of several different companies that were under
5 different names when they started. Altogether, the company in the eastern part of
6 the United States has operated for almost 80 years.
7
8 Brenner questioned the original name of that company. Bias stated the
9 original name was Transcontinental Gas Pipeline or something similar.
10
11 Brenner asked the other names of the company. She could only track the
12 company back to 1983.
13
14 Bias stated 1983 is when the merger occurred, and multiple companies were
15 brought together under the Williams name.
16
17 Gregory stated the Williams Company has not always been in the pipeline
18 business.
19
20 Bias stated they could provide information on the history of the company
21 prior to 1983.
22
23 Brenner asked for clarification on the existing route. Bias stated in the
24 Custer area, because the way things have changed, there are separation and
25 changes between the existing pipelines. Williams is trying to follow both or one of
26 the existing pipelines, depending on which was the most feasible.
27
28 Brenner asked how many deaths or injuries have occurred throughout the
29 country from Williams pipelines.
30
31 Robertson stated he is only aware of one death that occurred in Oklahoma
32 City. It was due to third party damage from a gravel pit.
33
34 Brenner stated she did research and found more than one death. Robertson
35 stated there are several subsidiaries of the Williams company. For Williams Gas
36 Pipeline, only one death has occurred that he is aware of.
37
38 Brenner asked about hiring FERC inspectors to insure compliance after the
39 construction phase. Rhoads stated it is the company's obligation to ensure
40 compliance of all the stipulations because it is the company's certificate. They are
41 responsible to adhere to all stipulations. FERC has environmental inspectors during
42 construction and also does periodic post- construction monitoring.
43
44 Brenner asked how many inspectors do this for FERC nationwide. Rhoads
45 stated he didn't find out that information. FERC could subcontract out work to area
46 contractors. He will provide information on the number of FERC inspectors that are
47 on staff.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 6
1 Bias stated FERC only looks after the environmental issues, rather than other
2 compliance issues.
3
4 Brenner questioned who looks after the safety aspect of the pipeline, after
5 construction. Robertson stated the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of
6 Pipeline Safety would do that.
7
8 Brenner questioned the amount of inspectors they have nationally.
9 Robertson stated he would guess there are between 50 and 60 inspectors
10 nationally. He would provide an exact answer.
11
12 Imhof stated this is the issue they need to take to Washington D.C., to
13 ensure that they are funded.
14
15 Brenner asked about environmental issues to date. Earthquakes were not
16 listed on the list of environmental issues. Rhoads stated it is under the geological
17 event item.
18
19 Brenner stated she didn't remember being notified in the fall about those
20 open house meetings.
21
22 Beverly Chipman, Media Relations, stated in November they placed
23 newspaper ads in the Bellingham Herald, Lynden Tribune, Ferndale Record Journal,
24 and sent press releases to all the media, and copied the County Council as well.
25
26 Brenner asked about Williams not coming to a meeting she scheduled, but
27 the company did not show up. At that meeting, the residents reported more than
28 two unintended trespasses. Gregory stated the residents contacted Rex Johnson.
29 Only two incidents were verifiable. Those residents showed up at the April 5
30 meeting. A couple of the landowners share a road. Since the company had gotten
31 permission from one of the users of the road to survey that landowners property,
32 some of the other area residents felt it was a trespass when, in reality, it wasn't.
33
34 Brenner asked if the company plans to use eminent domain to acquire
35 properties where people don't want to let the company have an easement. Gregory
36 stated the FERC process lends it as an option for the company to acquire property.
37
38 Crawford asked if the Council is being asked to simply let Canadian gas get
39 to Canadian islands, or if there is a benefit to the County.
40
41 Henrie stated the majority of gas that is transported in Washington is
42 transported through Northwest Pipeline. Sixty percent of that is sourced from
43 Canada, however that is a low number. The way the pipeline works, they feed gas
44 from the north, from Stamfield, in San Juan Basin, and also the Rockies. The
45 reality of the situation in Washington and Oregon is that almost all gas consumed in
46 Washington is sourced from Canada. Contractually, about 60 percent is from
47 Canada, but gas is routed along the shortest route from the provider to the user.
48 That is called displacement. It alleviates the need to build other facilities. The gas
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 7
1 doesn't necessarily follow its contract corridor. It follows the path of least
2 resistance, which reduces costs for all ratepayers.
3
4 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
5
6 Dawson questioned whether someone from Cherry Point contacted them.
7 Henrie stated that is correct.
8
9 Crawford asked if the County's incentive is reflected in the gas bill. Henrie
10 stated the project gives U.S. producers additional opportunities.
11
12 Hoag asked about the Sumas compressor station they will remodel. She
13 believed the current compressor station is a large contributor to air emissions in the
14 air. There is a concern about air quality in that area. She questioned the
15 estimated air emissions from the new compressor station. Rhoads stated they will
16 use a solar model equipped with best available control technology. It is similar to
17 what they have at other facilities in Washington State. It will produce 18 to 20 tons
18 of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per year, and about 20 of carbon monoxide (CO). That is
19 25 ppm maximum if that facility operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week,
20 and 365 days per year. It will produce less than one volatile organic compound and
21 less than one ton of sulfur dioxide.
22
23 Hoag questioned how that compares with the current station and if they will
24 shut it down. Bias stated the new station will be in addition to the current station.
25
26 Hoag asked about the size of the two existing lines owned by Arco and
27 Cascade, and the size of Williams' proposed line. Bias stated both of the existing
28 pipelines are sixteen inches in diameter. Williams will propose a sixteen -inch
29 diameter pipe as well. However, if the opportunity to transport gas to Cherry Point
30 materializes, it would change the design and the size of the U.S. mainland portion
31 of the pipeline.
32
33 Hoag questioned whether the pressures will be comparable. Bias stated the
34 pipeline would be built for the same pressure regardless of the design changes.
35 The distribution system owned by Cascade is relatively low pressure. The Arco
36 pipeline is rated for around 800 psi. The proposed pipeline is rated for 1,440 psi.
37
38 Hoag stated the proposed pipeline is almost double the pressure of the Arco
39 line. The Cascade line is a distribution line, so it is low pressure. She questioned
40 whether FERC invites comments or whether they have to watch the legal notices.
41 Rhoads stated that if one is a landowner, adjacent landowner, or state or local
42 agency, he or she will get a notice.
43
44 Hoag asked if FERC has ever denied a permit. Rhoads stated it has.
45
46 Hoag asked why they need an easement if they use the existing corridor.
47 Bias stated an easement is an asset of the company. Easements are not shared. It
48 is a matter of possession and being able to control the activities on the rights -of
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 8
1 way. Williams will probably be adjacent to existing easements.
2
3 Hoag asked if they compensate landowners for a devaluation of their
4 property because a gas line is on the property, which will make it more difficult for
5 the owner to sell his or her property.
6
7 Gregory stated that will be a part of the negotiation with the owners.
8
9 Hoag asked what the company would do if a landowner doesn't agree to the
10 price. Gregory stated they would call in a third party mediator.
11
12 Hoag asked about the impact to the County in terms of lost tax base due to
13 devalued property values and lost property taxes. Gregory stated didn't agree that
14 the pipeline will cause that much of a devaluation on existing properties. In his
15 experience, if there are two properties adjacent to each other, the one with the
16 pipeline will not have a lower land valuation.
17
18 Hoag stated realtors say otherwise.
19
20 McShane asked if the project has been brought forward to FERC's attention
21 yet and if they've made the decision that this falls under the classification of an
22 interstate pipeline. Bias stated FERC is aware of the project. Williams has not
23 submitted an application, but have had a pre - application meeting. They are aware
24 of the project and the scope. They have a mind that they have jurisdiction over
25 this facility.
26
27 McShane asked if they believe this is an interstate pipeline and they have
28 jurisdiction. Bias stated they do.
29
30 McShane asked about extra wall thickness based on increased population and
31 if that makes any difference in the safety of the pipeline if there were a major
32 rupture. He believed the static electricity would cause a spark of ignition.
33 Robertson stated the population density is listed within the federal code of
34 regulations (CFR), 49CFR, parts 192. It covers the design of pipelines and has four
35 classifications. Class one is rural areas, which zero to 10 homes within a corridor of
36 660 feet by one mile square within either side of the right -of -way. Class two is 10
37 to 46 homes within 660 feet by one mile square. Population greater than 46 homes
38 is a class three. Class four is a predominance of four story buildings. Based on
39 that is a rating design safety factor. Class one is seventy two percent of the
40 maximum design. Class two is sixty percent of the maximum design. Class three
41 is fifty percent, and class four is forty percent of what the maximum design is
42 allowed to do. They increase wall thickness to accommodate the safety factor.
43 The design thickness provides an added measure of safety. It allows for greater
44 corrosion. A thicker wall adds to protection against third party damage. He
45 personally doesn't believe the extra wall thickness provides that much extra
46 protection. As the classifications change, the code provides an extra 18 months to
47 make the change. Typically, in a class two going to a class three, once the
48 infrastructure is there, that is the danger to the pipeline. The danger to the
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 9
1 pipelines comes from when the subdivisions and development is being built.
2
3 McShane asked if the company does the installation. Bias stated Williams
4 doesn't build pipelines. It is an operator. It does the design work in- house, but the
5 construction work is contracted to companies who specialize in that activity.
6
7 McShane stated the re- vegetation is an issue with existing pipelines. He
8 suggested they make an effort to reduce noxious weeds and to prevent them. The
9 proposed route goes through an agricultural area. If they are disturbing soil, weeds
10 could be introduced. Bias stated the federal regulations through FERC govern the
11 environmental concerns and rehabilitation requires accommodation for noxious
12 weeds. A responsible operator investigates the soil conditions, the County
13 rehabilitation requirements for re- vegetation, and builds that into their construction
14 specification. It might not be required by FERC, but it is important to get the
15 County involved in that process.
16
17 Nelson questioned whether there are two gas lines at the border in Sumas.
18 Bias stated there currently are. One is from West Coast Energy.
19
20 Nelson asked if that is in the same location. Bias stated it terminates at
21 Sumas.
22
23 Nelson asked if Williams will follow the same pipeline route as the one that
24 follows highway nine. Bias stated yes.
25
26 Nelson asked about an oil line in the area. Bias stated there is at least one
27 that he is aware of in the vicinity. They don't follow that line for any appreciable
28 distance.
29
30 Nelson asked how close the Williams pipeline will be to that line. Bias stated
31 it is a crossing issue rather than parallel.
32
33 Nelson stated there are two gas lines and an oil line nearby. He asked if
34 there is any security along the route. Gregory stated the operations people do
35 monitoring and aerial patrols, but there is no security force.
36
37 Nelson stated the County is digging a line along the border to put in fiber
38 optics, and suggested putting the pipeline on the border.
39
40 Hoag stated it should be north of the border because it is Canadian gas going
41 to a Canadian island. Bias stated this project provides an opportunity to the
42 shippers on the pipeline, Canadian or American, to secure gas from suppliers on
43 both sides of the border. Northwest Pipeline would like to see gas moving from
44 U.S. producers to feed those sources. This pipeline is key in that equation because
45 it avails that pipeline of three separate sources of gas. It is not just Canadian gas
46 going to Canada. It could be U.S. gas going to Canada.
47
48 Brenner asked about the pipeline looking for the path of least resistance.
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 10
1 Henrie stated on Northwest Pipeline or any other pipeline, the gas doesn't have to
2 follow the contract path. If the gas comes in at Sumas and has to leave at another
3 delivery point, the gas may go another path to maximize the utilization of the
4 Northwest Pipeline system.
5
6 Brenner stated they spoke with a Puget Sound Energy (PSE) representative.
7 There is another company working with PSE and Cascade Natural Gas about putting
8 in another pipeline. She asked if there is a point when there are enough pipelines,
9 and questioned how much risk Whatcom County has to absorb for the profit and
10 use of others. Henrie stated the proposed PSE pipeline starts at Sumas. They have
11 a couple of proposed routes. One follows Northwest Pipeline's route along the I -5
12 corridor. There is another deviation from there. Williams doesn't believe the
13 pipeline is necessary. They believe that Williams can expand the existing or
14 growing markets in the Pacific Northwest more economically than by building a new
15 pipeline from Canada that goes south. It is more economical and more
16 environmentally sound. From the land use standpoint, it makes more sense to
17 expand an existing pipeline than to build a new pipeline.
18
19 Brenner stated that from her standpoint, it would be better if neither of them
20 built a new pipeline.
21
22 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 8:05 p.m.)
23
24 Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated he was asked to review the
25 FERC and County jurisdiction. The County is currently reviewing three FERC
26 projects and has the jurisdiction of review under the Shorelines Act. The County
27 has also required TransMountain, Williams, and Olympic to go through the
28 Conditional Use Process (CUP) on expansion or replacement of new pipe in
29 Whatcom County. Any shoreline crossings would require a Shoreline permit.
30
31 Hoag asked if it is required for both replacement and new pipe, and if it
32 would be required for this project. Middleton stated unless FERC provides federal
33 preemption, this project is subject to County jurisdiction.
34
35 Brenner stated that would include location and conditions.
36
37 Middleton stated the County does not have jurisdiction over the pipeline
38 safety.
39
40 Brenner stated this isn't about safety, it is about location.
41
42 Hoag asked if the County has the ability to deny a CUP, and if that would
43 stop this project. Middleton stated he didn't know if the County has the ability to
44 deny the CUP.
45
46 Brenner stated the County does have that ability if the company doesn't
47 meet the County's location requirements.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 11
1 Middleton stated this is rather preliminary. He is in the middle of doing his
2 research. It is the opinion of Planning and Development Services that Williams
3 needs to show the County any preemption from the federal government. The
4 County is not going to seek that information. It is up to the company to provide
5 that preemption. The other pipeline folks were unable to provide it. If it falls under
6 the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), the state review, then the
7 County is specifically preempted. There are hundreds of projects that require
8 federal review. Just because the federal government is reviewing a project doesn't
9 mean the local government has to step out.
10
11 Hoag questioned whether the County has the ability to deny a CUP if the
12 company does not show preemption and the County requires a CUP on that use.
13 Middleton stated the County would discuss legal arguments with the Prosecuting
14 Attorney on that point.
15
16
17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
18
19 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: BOARD OF
20 HEALTH FOR MARCH 28, 2000; COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR
21 MARCH 7 AND 21, APRIL 4, 2000; REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR
22 MARCH 7 AND MARCH 21, APRIL 4, 2000; SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL
23 (WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION) FOR MARCH 14, 2000
24
25 Hoag moved to approve.
26
27 Brenner stated she would provide scrivener's errors to be corrected.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31
32 OPEN SESSION
33
34 The following people spoke:
35
36 Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley Road, Bellingham, thanked the Council for their
37 vote to intervene in Sumas Energy 2.
38
39 (Clerk's Note: McShane left the room at 8 :15 p.m.)
40
41 Kaufman stated it is important to sit at the table and ask the questions. He
42 understood why Councilmember Nelson voted the way he did. There are ways to
43 work with the process. Citizens need to go on the offense. One way the citizens
44 did that in the past was with the Neighbors Opposed to Power Encroachment
45 (NOPE) initiative of 1989, which is now an ordinance. He suggested that the
46 citizens of the county work on an ordinance to go on offense now. It is a utility
47 issue for planning utilities here in the county. The Utility Planning Committee was
48 developed to plan the utilities in the county. They should give the company an
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 12
1 option of where the utilities can go. One of the company's slides said the company
2 policy was to accomplish the company goals. Their goal is to make money by
3 exploiting the county. They have a right to make money, but not by exploiting the
4 county. There is a movement to own utility rights along with the property rights.
5
6 (Clerk's Note: McShane returned.)
7
8 Joanne Feringer, 799 Chuckanut Shore Road, Bellingham, spoke for the
9 League of Women Voters. They passed a resolution by their governing board of
10 directors. The league supports the proposal for a moratorium on new
11 developments for Canyon Creek. The promotion of resource conservation and
12 stewardship of the land and long range planning are important league positions.
13 There is a proposal by the County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee
14 (FCZDAC) that the flood funds be used for buyouts, and a moratorium makes sense
15 for now and the future. Few live in the floodplain, yet all pay. All citizens would be
16 well served with this use. The County may be able to take advantage of the
17 Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) money when it is available. Skagit
18 County has such a program. She recognizes how difficult it is to balance individual
19 interests with community needs while making sure the natural resources are
20 preserved. She asked that the County act on the moratorium for the Canyon Creek
21 area.
22
23 Don Nielsen, 6287 Siper Road, stated the pipes have diameter thickness
24 (DT). The pipes are also manufactured with different strengths. Pipe manufactured
25 in 1956 had a rating of 90, which is a DT over 1/4 inch. The line from 1971 was
26 closer to 3/8 inch. The pipe at the Sumas landslide area was a 26 -inch line. The
27 30 -inch line that was newer did not break. It is the same thing in other places. It
28 is always the 26 -inch pipe that exploded. That pipe, in critical geo- hazardous
29 areas, presents health and safety risks to the public. The Office for Pipeline Safety
30 (OPS) has only 45 inspectors throughout the U.S. There are over 200,000 miles of
31 natural gas pipeline. This is the reason why so many people in this community are
32 involved in pipeline safety. It is an important issue.
33
34 Bruno Morris, Pt. Roberts Registered Voters Association President, presented
35 a petition. The Planning Commission recommended changes to the County
36 recreational vehicle (RV) ordinances. This petition is in opposition to those changes
37 and any changes to the ordinance. This petition has been circulated and consists of
38 507 signatures. Two hundred and two people who signed are registered voters.
39 Ninety signatures are from people who are permanent residents. Two hundred
40 twelve are property owners. Many of these property owners are Canadians and
41 people who have cabins in Point Roberts. An analysis of the petitions points out
42 that the signatures cover over half the landmass of Point Roberts. They request
43 that the Council not change the RV ordinance, and that the present ordinance be
44 enforced.
45
46 Frank Lucy, Pt. Roberts Registered Voters' Association Vice President, 1785
47 Heather Way, compared the petitions for and against the RV amendment. The
48 Petitions presented are in contrast to letters that prompted the proposed
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 13
1 amendment. The amendment was sponsored by 136 signatures and letters to the
2 County from July to December of 1999. Thirty -eight signatures were duplications,
3 leaving 98 people asking for a revision of the present RV ordinance. Of these 98
4 people, eight were residents of Pt. Roberts and four were registered voters. The 98
5 signatures represented only 65 residential lots in Pt. Roberts. This compares to
6 over 1,700 developed residential lots with homes or cottages that will be impacted
7 by RVs on vacant lots. The tax revenue from Point Roberts is $2.8 million. The 65
8 RV properties represent only $12,000 in taxes. The County should get on with
9 enforcement of the present ordinances. Enforcement has been successful in
10 Semiahmoo and Birch Bay areas.
11
12 Brenner stated there have been representations made by the Pt. Roberts
13 Registered Voters' Association. She received an apology from one board member.
14 There is some internal stuff going on with the association. Many RVs are in good
15 repair and are not a burden on the neighborhoods. The Council needs to look at
16 what is happening in Pt. Roberts.
17
18 Hoag stated the Council will take up the issue in the Planning and
19 Development Committee.
20
21 Lonnie Tromberg, 8291 Stein Road, Custer, read a letter from her to Williams
22 Pipeline. She just moved to her house on December 12. Eight years ago, she and
23 her family bought a house in North Bend, Washington. They asked all the right
24 questions before buying the property. The neighbor didn't intend to build a fence
25 that would block their view of the shared pond. The Fish and Wildlife people would
26 not restrict her children from playing in or around the creek or pond, as long as
27 they didn't tamper with the wildlife. The 80 acres between the front of her home
28 and the mountain would not be developed because it was unbuildable wetland. The
29 rights to the railroad right -of -way greenbelt beyond the creek and pond were
30 owned by the County who intended to develop it as a part of the Mountain -To-
31 Sound trail. The property did not flood in the 1990 flood. The dike was their
32 savior.
33
34 Within two months, the neighbor built a fence. Within six months, the city
35 discovered a 20 -year old water leak in the city water main that fed her pond and
36 creek. They repaired the leak, the pond dried up, the fish died, and the plat maps
37 were changed to call Silver Creek a drainage ditch. Within two years, the city tried
38 to include in its comprehensive plan a plan to make the railroad right -of -way into a
39 four -lane major arterial connecting Edward Road truck town with Highway 202, and
40 open up the cul -de -sac in front of her house to connect with it and provide an
41 alternative traffic route for residents to the north of her. She headed a citywide
42 campaign to stop that proposal. As the next few years unfolded, a well- connected,
43 wealthy developer paid someone enough money to change the unbuildable
44 wetlands to property suitable for 1,500 homes. The Olympic Pipeline company
45 began a strong campaign to put a pipeline through the same railroad right -of -way
46 behind her property to transport a combination of substances, even possibly
47 hazardous waste. The federal government de- certified the dike because King
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 14
1 County had failed to maintain it, the flood maps were redrawn, and her home was
2 included in the hazardous flood way.
3
4 They had enough. They moved to the Bellingham area in their dream home.
5 They moved in on December 15. Last Friday, she opened her mailbox and found a
6 package from Williams Pipeline. She is not happy about this and does not want her
7 property to be affected by the proposed pipeline. The citizens need the Council's
8 help.
9
10 Marianne Reed, 8296 Valley View Road, Custer, wanted to know what mess
11 will be made when this pipeline explodes. Also, 81 million cubic feet per day will be
12 added to the 35 million cubic feet that go to Vancouver Island now. One hundred
13 sixteen million cubic feet of gas for Vancouver Island is gluttonous. She asked why
14 81 million goes across Washington property when 31 million goes across Canada.
15
16 Carla Furman, 8340 Valley View Road, stated the first proposed pipeline
17 came within 300 yards from her home, but they were not notified. The newspaper
18 article said this pipeline would follow the existing pipeline. Three hundred yards
19 from her home is not the existing pipeline. She didn't understand why they didn't
20 notify those who live that close, when the company claims to be forthright.
21
22 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
23
24 Furman questioned whether the company notified everyone that lives on the
25 pipeline. She questioned whether the existing corridor is really parallel or if they
26 crisscross. It now surrounds her home. They didn't know about it until a few
27 weeks ago. Now it may be a Canadian company who will build the pipeline, not
28 American people.
29
30 Shawn Reed, 8296 Valley View Road and Derrik Altona, 8987 Delta Line
31 Road, asked who gave Williams Pipeline permission to take aerial pictures of their
32 land. He questioned whether anyone asked Williams if it was cheap and easy to go
33 through Custer instead of going to the already- existing corridor.
34
35 Candace Ambrosio, 1712 High Noon Road, stated there are utility problems
36 to address in the County. Corridors are set up in the county. They need to stay
37 within the corridors. The County cannot be ruined. This affects farmland. The
38 Utility Committee needs to be kicked into gear.
39
40 Tom Cosgrove, owner of The Logs Resort, spoke on the proposed moratorium
41 on Canyon Creek. He urged the Council to reject the moratorium. It is a snap
42 decision. The permitting process requires hazardous assessments. No one is
43 getting permits unless they can show there is low risk.
44
45 Chris Smith, 8528 Custer School Road, Custer, stated on the map presented
46 by Williams Pipeline, the gas line can go north to Canada and run across Canada
47 and still use American gas. It doesn't need to go across Whatcom County.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 15
1 Sue Ann Croft, 7304 Miller Way, Glacier, asked the County to wait on making
2 a decision on a moratorium. The Council planned to have a meeting with staff,
3 Inter - Fluve, and Fisheries personnel to come up with some more information.
4
5 Brenner stated it is not an emergency. It will not happen tonight. The
6 recommendation is for a sixty -day moratorium for the County Council to figure out
7 which option it will go with. Also, there will be a motion that the County
8 councilmembers, agency people, and Inter - Fluve meet onsite with residents to look
9 at the situation. If they decide to move the moratorium, it will have a public
10 hearing.
11
12 Croft stated Inter - Fluve is contradicting the Geo- Engineer study. Geo-
13 Engineers should also be involved.
14
15 Nelson stated a concern expressed during Comprehensive Plan discussion on
16 utility corridors was to maintain existing corridors and to have a plan for new utility
17 proposals.
18
19 Hoag stated it is in the Utilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
20
21 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there are a number of
22 policies saying the County should follow existing corridors. It may be appropriate
23 to reactive the siting committee.
24
25 Nelson asked to do that. There are significant issues coming forward.
26
27 Dawson asked how far the pipelines have to be from each other. Goodwin
28 stated they have to get information. The electrical line map in the Comprehensive
29 Plan is outdated. If they reactivate the committee, along with the surface mining
30 committee, the County will have to think about priorities. It might be a good idea
31 to reactivate the utility committee.
32
33 Nelson moved to reactivate the Comprehensive Plan Utility Committee.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 Hoag stated the Council put together suggestions it wanted to see on all
38 pipelines, for the Office of Pipeline Safety. That included valves at certain intervals
39 and that those valves be operated remotely. Williams Pipeline didn't mention in the
40 safety portion anything about remote control valves or intervals. Robertson stated
41 the actual operation of the valves hasn't been decided. The valve spacing will be to
42 Department of Transportation (DOT) standards, which is within four miles.
43
44 Hoag asked if they have seen the letter the Council sent the Office of Pipeline
45 Safety. Robertson stated they have not.
46
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 16
1 Hoag stated she will provide a copy of the letter to the company. She
2 wanted to know how the proposed pipeline would compare with each of the items
3 that the County Council addressed in their letter.
4
5
6 PUBLIC HEARING
7
8 1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY
9 SURPLUS PROPERTY PURSUANT TO WCC 1.10 (AB2000 -149A)
10
11 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
12 hearing.
13
14 Nelson moved to approve.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE SOLID
19 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (AB2000 -161)
20
21 Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated he was available to
22 answer questions.
23
24 Brenner questioned whether this is the same plan that the County has been
25 working on for so many years. Mills stated it is.
26
27 Brenner questioned whether it is already out of date. Mills stated there are
28 minor items that are out of date. They will have revisions.
29
30 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
31 hearing.
32
33 Imhof moved to approve.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37
38 CONSENT AGENDA
39
40 Nelson reported for From Finance and Administrative Services Committee
41 and moved approval of items one through four.
42
43 Motion to approve items one through four carried unanimously.
44
45 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00-
46 31 TO THE APPROPRIATE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, BASED ON
47 JOB LOCATION, DISTANCE FROM PLANT AND PRODUCT
48 AVAILABILITY, TO SUPPLY ASPHALTIC MIXES FOR COUNTY ROAD
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 17
1 PROJECTS IN AN APPROXIMATE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $375,000
2 (AB2000 -165)
3
4 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
5 TWO -YEAR AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND GENERAL
6 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 231 RENEWING THE CORRECTIONS
7 OFFICERS AND COOKS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
8 (AB2000 -166)
9
10 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
11 CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
12 JUVENILE REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF
13 SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR SEVEN
14 DISTINCT PROGRAMS AND THREE SERVICES UNDER THE DIRECTION
15 OF WHATCOM COUNTY JUVENILE SERVICES DEPARTMENT (AB2000-
16 167)
17
18 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
19 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NORTHWEST
20 WASHINGTON MEDICAL BUREAU FOR THIRD PARTY
21 ADMINISTRATION OF SELF - INSURED MEDICAL PLAN, IN THE YEAR
22 2000 PROJECTED AMOUNT OF $103,736 (AB2000 -168)
23
24
25 OTHER ITEMS
26
27 1. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING DRAYTON
28 HARBOR WATER QUALITY DATA (AB2000 -130)
29
30 McShane reported for Natural Resources Committee and stated the
31 presentation was given.
32
33 2. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND REQUEST FOR POSSIBLE
34 DIRECTION REGARDING THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
35 (AB2000 -132)
36
37 McShane reported for Natural Resources Committee and stated this item was
38 withdrawn. It was something they'd already done.
39
40 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO JOIN WHATCOM
41 LAND TRUST TO PURCHASE THE TIMBER RIGHTS FROM THE
42 GOODYEAR NELSON HARDWOOD LUMBER COMPANY, INC. UTILIZING
43 CONSERVATION FUTURE FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $750,000, WITH
44 $500,000 BY AN ANONYMOUS DONOR FOR A TOTAL OF $1,250,000
45 (AB2000 -133A) (FROM 4/4)
46
47 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
48 stated this item was approved unanimously. He so moved.
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 18
1
2 Hoag stated she is opposed to it. The Council should not use taxpayer funds
3 from Conservation Futures Funds for this. It is not what Conservation Futures
4 Funds are for. The original agreement was that this property be logged and that
5 the timber rights would go to this company. They talked about preserving the
6 corridor near the river where the trails are. That is what the Council should be
7 doing. If anything, the Council should use the $500,000 toward that. She was
8 disappointed that no one requested from the donor if that could be done.
9
10 Dawson agreed with Hoag. The anonymous donor is holding them hostage.
11 They need to keep their options open to manage resources to keep parks operating.
12
13 Nelson stated he understood the concern about logging the property
14 preserving a resource that has been there. The Conservation Futures Fund was
15 designed to preserve the natural resources for future generations. Demonstration
16 logging is done through Black Mountain Forestry exhibit. This land ties the park
17 system with the Nesset farm purchase and another facility. It would make a unique
18 trail system in the County, providing a vast array of resources to attract visitors to
19 this economically deprived area. It would also enhance Whatcom County by
20 preserving much of the south fork, which is on the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
21 listing. The Conservation Futures Fund, because of its limitation, would not benefit
22 the County in preserving park activities. That is not the intent or design of the
23 fund. It was designed by the public to preserve these areas for future generations.
24
25 Dawson stated Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rules would be in
26 place to protect the ESA listing if there was a cut.
27
28 Brenner stated the donor said this is the condition in which he or she wanted
29 to donate the money. The County can take it or leave it. That is not being held
30 hostage. Rand Jack told the Council that there was no negotiation with this person
31 and that it had already been discussed. The Council can believe that or not, but the
32 Council has no direct dealing with the donor. Also, there was a statement that this
33 is not what the Conservation Futures money was intended for. She helped draft the
34 measure that went on the ballot, and this is exactly one of the uses the fund is
35 intended for. To say it wasn't the intent is not factual. She would have preferred
36 that this deal was done differently, but this is the way it was done. She supported
37 making sure that area is not clear cut.
38
39 McShane stated those councilmembers who support this deal thank the
40 donor. He thanked the donor for what he or she did. The person has done this
41 before for Whatcom County. He hoped he or she didn't take offense by the Council.
42
43 Hoag stated she referred to what the Conservation Futures Fund states it's
44 purpose is. In terms of the donor's generosity, her comments don't reflect poorly
45 on the donor in any way. It is wonderful that someone donated $500,000 to try to
46 preserve some timber. It isn't appropriate for the County to take $750,000 to
47 purchase timber rights when the County knew when it purchased the land that it
48 would be logged.
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 19
1
2 Dawson agreed. It is the County's $750,000 that is held hostage.
3
4 Brenner stated they talked about selective logging, not clear cutting, when
5 they agreed to the purchase. The Council even asked about it.
6
7 Dawson stated they understood going in that it would be clear cut and the
8 Council had the ability to purchase the timber rights from the individual.
9
10 Imhof stated the County bought the property but didn't have enough for the
11 timber rights. The Council stated it would like to try to find the money to purchase
12 the timber rights.
13
14 Roger DeSpain, Parks Director, stated they tried to look at different options
15 when they were in negotiations with the timber company. As they got into it, the
16 company stated they would do all their logging or none at all. That was after the
17 purchase. The County tried to make that happen for over it year. When the timber
18 company added up its costs, the monies didn't equal.
19
20 Crawford asked who determined the timber value. DeSpain stated there was
21 a third party appraisal.
22
23 Brenner agreed with McShane. Someone is doing this because he or she
24 cares. The person is not connected with the timber company.
25
26 Motion carried 5 -2 with Dawson and Hoag opposed.
27
28 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
29 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
30 CITY OF BLAINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
31 ACT (AB2000 -150) (FROM 4/4)
32
33 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
34 stated Planning and Development Services withdrew this item because they are still
35 working on the agreement.
36
37 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 4 (AB2000-
38 162)
39
40 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
41 stated this was unanimously approved in committee. He so moved.
42
43 Brenner moved to pull the funding for the Economic Development Council
44 (EDC). The agenda and direction of the EDC has changed under the newer
45 management. When Fourth Corner did this service, they were in touch with
46 concerns to help the small businesses that are in the county and to grow clean
47 businesses. As long as the EDC management is the way it is, she cannot support
48 funding. The EDC is now going in a different direction.
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 20
1
2 Hoag agreed. She is in favor of economic development. However, the EDC is
3 not following the mandate given to them or the Council's direction, and they are
4 asking to use the County's funds. The EDC has stated they will try to expand
5 current businesses, which was emphasized by the Council, but that is not
6 happening to the extent that she would like. They are also taking credit for other
7 entities' efforts. The EDC is not supporting the agricultural community like the
8 Council asked. In addition, they claim to want to attract clean industry, but her
9 local legislator told her that he has been heavily lobbied by the EDC to bring the
10 power plant tax break to fruition. That isn't clean industry. She resents the fact
11 that the EDC is using taxpayer funds to lobbying the legislature for more taxpayer
12 funds for that product. When she went to an EDC breakfast where the project was
13 presented, a lot of EDC members told her they didn't support the project. The
14 project received a chilly reception. It bothers her that the management is pursuing
15 this. Last year, the Council withheld funding because the EDC was not reporting to
16 the Council. The Council withheld funding for this year because the EDC was not
17 communicating with the Council, not following directives, and not reporting to the
18 Council. She is now getting reports, but she doesn't like what she is seeking. It is
19 not appropriate to give $15,000 to the EDC because they are not working in the
20 taxpayers' best interests.
21
22 Fred Sexton, EDC Manager, stated other people give him directives.
23 Regarding helping companies expand and relocate, that is what they are there for.
24 They haven't gone out to look for a power plant. They were asked to help. Many
25 board members were involved in that. It is difficult to respond to the committee
26 accusations without thorough information about what is going on.
27
28 Crawford spoke in favor of funding the EDC. He is the current Council
29 representative to the EDC. He attended two meetings and was very impressed with
30 the presentation. With a staff of four, they are taking on an aggressive agenda.
31 The EDC will produce results that the County Council can look forward to through
32 the years.
33
34 Motion to remove the EDC funding failed 3 -4 with Hoag, McShane, and
35 Brenner in favor.
36
37 Nelson asked about the $11,000 appropriation for the grant writer assistant
38 and whether the job specification is for an individual to assist departments in grant
39 writing and locating grants. He questioned this person's responsibility.
40
41 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated assistance would be provided to
42 departments and elected officials. It is a half time position. The person would not
43 be a full -time grant writer, but would help those in the County who write grants
44 now. There may be other resources they can organize. That position would also
45 coordinate with the Council of Government (COG) activities. They should not
46 anticipate that a person working half time would work with all the grants. They
47 expect management in all departments to provide assistance and target efforts.
48
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 21
1 Crawford asked if there is a possibility of doing the small business loan
2 program through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
3 Desler stated that is a separate effort regarding the Chamber of Commerce.
4
5 Brenner asked if they could separate out the EDC item and vote separately.
6
7 Dawson stated Councilmember Brenner already made her concern known.
8
9 Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
10
11 6. RECEIPT OF INFORMATION REGARDING ELIGIBILITY
12 REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM
13 (AB2000 -145)
14
15 Nelson reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
16 stated the committee recommends that the administration bring forward the cost to
17 the administration that is necessary to reinstate councilmembers into the Public
18 Employees Retirement System (PERS). The Council can make the appropriations at
19 that time.
20
21 7. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS RELATIVE TO THE CANYON CREEK
22 ALLUVIAL FAN AREA, REGARDING A REQUEST FROM THE FLOOD
23 CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ENACT A
24 MORATORIUM ON NEW DEVELOPMENT AND TARGET THE AREA FOR A
25 VOLUNTARY BUYOUT PROGRAM (AB2000 -114)
26
27 Brenner reported for Public Works Committee and stated the committee
28 recommended a proposed ordinance establishing a moratorium for two months so
29 the Council can become educated on whether the permitting of the various options
30 can be done. She so moved. The problem now is that the County needs time to
31 find out if any of the alternates, except the buyout program, has any potential of
32 being approved by federal and state agencies. A second motion was made to have
33 a presentation by Inter - Fluve on site that would include the councilmembers and
34 residents. The cost of presentation would be $1,000. She supported a sixty -day
35 moratorium. If they find out the County can't get permitting for the various
36 options, and if landowners are getting their building permits and are building their
37 structures and becoming vested, it will cost the County that much more to do a
38 buyout.
39
40 Dawson stated she didn't support the moratorium. When people go into the
41 Planning Department, they are made aware of the hazards. They are not interested
42 in a buyout.
43
44 McShane stated there were two motions. One was the moratorium and one
45 was the field trip with Inter - Fluve. The buyout would not come out of the County
46 flood hazard fees, but the County would have a program in place when a disaster
47 occurs. Throughout the country, there is Federal Emergency Management Act
48 (FEMA) money available. The County has an obligation to constituents to offer that
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 22
1 opportunity and to minimize the costs that the County might bear. He didn't want
2 to see the County dumping money into the site.
3
4 Nelson questioned the goal of the moratorium.
5
6 McShane stated a temporary moratorium would allow the Council to come up
7 with how they want to proceed.
8
9 Nelson asked what it does to the public.
10
11 McShane stated that, for those who may be going for a building permit, they
12 are not granted a building permit while the Council is changing the conditions of its
13 responsibility in that area. People go to the levy during a summer day in June and
14 see it is an incredible structure. A lay person would think the levy makes the area
15 safe.
16
17 Nelson asked if there are applications that have been submitted.
18
19 McShane stated there are recent permit applications that have been
20 approved. Building has been done there recently. The County cannot deny a
21 building permit application if a landowner can find an engineer that will say the area
22 is okay.
23
24 Crawford stated he supported the field trip, but not the moratorium. Mr.
25 Middleton said there have been permits issued, but not in the at -risk areas.
26
27 McShane stated there have been homes built in the at -risk area recently.
28
29 Sam Ryan, Interim Planning and Development Services, stated people are
30 told up front about the hazards, and a lot of people are told they need to get an
31 engineer redesign when they do the plan review.
32
33 Crawford stated Inter -Fluve can be there in two to four weeks on a Saturday
34 morning. He didn't anticipate any problems coming up in that time period. One
35 person has built in the area. Another person testified and expressed that a
36 moratorium was not an appropriate action. He wanted to see the area with Mr.
37 McShane.
38
39 Brenner stated it may be true that the County doesn't have legal obligation if
40 they are notified through Planning and Development, but there is a moral
41 obligation.
42
43 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
44
45 Brenner continued to state that they are talking about a very short period of
46 time. It would lessen the County's potential liability.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 23
1 Hoag stated she didn't support a moratorium or buyout. They should move
2 the westward part of the dike for a permanent, long -term fix. However, she could
3 possibly support the idea of a temporary moratorium until the Council decides,
4 while not taking applications in the mean time. She asked if the Council has
5 crossed the threshold it needs to for a moratorium.
6
7 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated they haven't met the
8 threshold for an emergency moratorium, but it seems that they have a basis to
9 move forward with the type of moratorium Councilmember Brenner is suggesting.
10
11 Dawson stated if they put in a moratorium for sixty days, it can easily be
12 extended.
13
14 Hoag stated it is based on the vote of the Council.
15
16 Dawson stated it depends on whether the Council supports moratoriums.
17
18 Hoag stated she only supported the temporary moratorium to give the
19 Council a time out.
20
21 Brenner stated it would be on for introduction to the Council in two weeks,
22 with the public hearing two weeks after that.
23
24 Motion to set the hearing date carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
25
26 Brenner stated another motion in committee was to have a presentation with
27 Inter -Fluve to include the residents, the councilmembers, the agencies, and the
28 geo- engineers.
29
30 McShane questioned whether they will see an appeal from one of the
31 property owners. One of the engineers may be the engineer that did the original
32 work on the dike. He questioned whether that geo- engineer can come to the
33 presentation.
34
35 Grant stated that would be okay.
36
37 Hoag stated that person couldn't talk about The Logs Resort.
38
39 Brenner stated staff would also try to get state and federal officials to attend.
40
41 Hoag suggested they include geo- engineers.
42
43 Brenner accepted the suggestion.
44
45 Motion carried unanimously.
46
47 8. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
48 ORDINANCE TEXT 20.90 — AMENDMENTS SECTION, TITLE 20.92 —
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 24
1 HEARING EXAMINER SECTION, AND TITLE 2.33 — PERMIT REVIEW
2 PROCEDURES (AB2000 -159)
3
4 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated this item
5 was approved as amended. The change will help the Council process things as the
6 Planning Commission finishes with them, to prevent the backlog that they
7 experienced last year. This is just the zoning amendment portion. They have also
8 cleaned up definitions. There is one amendment on page 143, the second sentence
9 in section 20.90.020, "An aFea wide ° elassificatien standard map amendment...
10
11 Motion to amend carried unanimously.
12
13 Motion to approve as amended carried unanimously.
14
15 9. ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW WHATCOM COUNTY LAND DIVISION
16 REGULATIONS (TITLE 21) REPEALING THE EXISTING WHATCOM
17 COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), AND MAKING
18 MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 2 AND TITLE 20 (AB2000 -160)
19
20 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated this was
21 held in committee for two weeks.
22
23 10. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN
24 SPACE /OPEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE /TIMBER APPLICATIONS
25 (AB2000 -169)
26
27 Hoag reported for Planning and Development Committee and stated this item
28 was unanimously recommended for approval. She so moved.
29
30 Dawson stated she would abstain due to a personal involvement.
31
32 Motion carried 6 -0 with Dawson abstaining.
33
34 11. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
35 DECISION (ON REMAND) ON FILE NO. CUP95 -0056, FILED BY RICK
36 AND DEBRA BENNER (AB99 -402)
37
38 Nelson moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision not to revoke the
39 conditional use permit for Herbert and Grace Killam.
40
41 Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Hoag opposed.
42
43 Hoag stated the number of violations on this item appalled her. She was
44 gratified that Planning and Development Services tried to at least revoke the
45 permit. She was very disappointed that it was not revoked. If this is not a poster
46 child for getting a permit revoked, then she didn't know what is.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 25
1 12. APPOINTMENT OF STEPHEN SCOTT STANDIFIRD TO THE SOLID
2
WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2000 -051A)
3
4
Imhof moved to appoint Standifird.
5
6
Motion carried unanimously.
7
8
13.
REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S
9
APPOINTMENT OF STEVE PAUS, AS THE DIRECTOR OF JUVENILE
10
SERVICES, AS SET FORTH IN THE WHATCOM COUNTY HOME RULE
11
CHARTER, SECTION 3.23 (AB2000 -170)
12
13
Imhof moved to confirm the appointment of Paus, and stated it is about
14
time.
He deserves it.
15
16
Motion carried unanimously.
17
18
14.
REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S
19
APPOINTMENT OF VIRGINIA WALSH TO HER FIRST FULL TERM ON
20
THE BELLINGHAM WHATCOM COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
21
(AB2000 -171)
22
23
Imhof moved to confirm the appointment of Walsh.
24
25
Motion carried unanimously.
26
27
28
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
29
30
Imhof moved to accept the Introduction Items.
31
32
Brenner moved to add the ordinance for the moratorium to the Introduction
33
Items.
34
35
Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
36
37
1.
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.120,
38
CREATING THE WHATCOM COUNTY SURFACE MINING ADVISORY
39
COMMITTEE (AB2000 -069B)
40
41
2.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY COORDINATED
42
WATER SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE (AB2000 -172) (HEARING TO BE
43
SCHEDULED)
44
45
3.
ORDINANCE AMENDING 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST NO. 5 (AB2000-
46
173)
M
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 26
1 4. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SIXTY DAY MORATORIUM ON
2 DEVELOPMENT IN THE CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN AREA
3 (AB2000 -175)
4
5
6 OTHER BUSINESS
7
8 Dawson stated a conference was held for the western counties. It was very
9 successful. They asked that Whatcom County host another conference in the
10 summer of 2003.
11
12 Hoag stated that, regarding the resolution for intervener status, legal counsel
13 asked for clarification. There is a new resolution that has the wording from the
14 previously approved resolution, with clarification. She moved to approve the
15 amended version of the resolution.
16
17 Motion carried 4 -2 with Crawford and Imhof opposed and McShane
18 abstaining.
19
20 Brenner read her moratorium into the record.
21
22 Dawson stated she sent the letter regarding the Snake River dams on her
23 own. She was disturbed by the Herald's distortion of the letter. She wrote an
24 editorial to be published on Sunday.
25
26 Hoag stated the endangered mammal predators the Council referred to in its
27 draft letter were not eagles and orcas, but terns and harbors seals. The Council
28 has been talking to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and other officials
29 from impacted counties and has attended numerous Endangered Species Act (ESA)
30 workshops. Many things were said in the editorial that were mind - boggling.
31
32 Dawson stated a member of the Pacific Salmon Commission said he liked the
33 letter.
34
35
36 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
37
38 Imhof stated the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) meeting
39 was a good time. The dinner was great and the people were superb. There were a
40 lot of fine comments made by people at the end of the cruise and in Olympia last
41 week.
42
43 Dawson stated Roger DeSpain did an outstanding presentation.
44
45 Imhof agreed. Mr. DeSpain presented information on the partnering done by
46 the Parks Department.
47
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 27
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
Hoag stated the Abbottsford City Council voted to oppose the power plant
and anything associated with it. The Downtown Abbottsford Business Association
also filed for intervener status. About twelve people requested intervener status.
Nelson stated the trip to Colorado was one of the best educational processes
he has experienced. The National Institute of Corrections, who has been in
existence since 1978, hosted the conference. They are part of the Justice
Department. It is to help local communities to plan for jails and facilities.
Hopefully, it will be a benefit for Whatcom County.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the team from Whatcom County
worked very hard. They worked hard all day long, and then Councilmember Nelson
would go back and work on his general officer work into the evening.
Nelson stated he passed his test on the first round.
McShane stated a citizen gave him a video to watch on dams.
Crawford thanked County Executive Pete Kremen for hosting the town
meeting, Councilmember Brenner for having the meeting at Canyon Creek during
Public Works Committee, and Councilmember Hoag for the power line presentation
by Puget Sound Energy during the Planning Committee.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on May 16 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Regular County Council Meeting, 4/18/2000, Page 28