HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works May 30 2000
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
May 30, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Courthouse Multi-Purpose Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
Washington.
Also Present: Absent: 10
11
12
13
Marlene Dawson None
Dan McShane
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
1. PRESENTATION BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM WESTCOAST
REGARDING A PROPOSED NATURAL GAS PIPELINE FROM CANADA TO
OLYMPIA THROUGH WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2000-198)
Ron Brintnell, West Coast Energy Director of Business Development, Calgary,
introduced Lizette Parsons (Community Affairs), Pat Siega (West Coast Energy
Engineer), Doug Thorneycroft (West Coast Energy Engineer), and Gary Iverson,
(Cascade Natural Gas Corporation).
The project is called the Orca Natural Gas Pipeline. Cascade Natural Gas,
West Coast Energy, and Puget Sound Energy (PSE), have been working on this for
the last several months. They propose a new pipeline from Sumas and will cross
new and existing areas in Northwest Washington. The pipeline is 140 miles long. It
is proposed to follow the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor to north Everett and across the
peninsula. They have also looked at an offshore line. A feasibility assessment
determined the primary corridor is the onshore route. They have received feedback
from people in Whatcom County and others about the onshore corridor. From
environmental reasons and other reasons, the onshore route is best.
One question is why this project is coming up now. Northwest Washington is
experiencing big growth. It is above the top ten percentile in growth in the United
States (US). Along with that comes additional energy needs for natural gas and
power. The new pipeline can bring savings to existing customers. It has the
potential to provide better service to electricity. There are parts of Northwest
Washington on the peninsula that don’t have access to gas. This pipeline brings
gas to those areas. That is what has driven the interest for PSE and Cascade
Natural Gas. The benefits are reduced natural gas cost, increased reliability, and
the availability gas where it doesn’t exist now. West Coast Energy will not be
involved in distribution. The pipeline is a transmission line. It is a large steel
pipeline.
Throughout the U.S., many pipelines feed major urban centers. This area is
fed by one line. As growth expands, there is an ability to increase service reliability
and increase sources to other gasses. They are targeted to have the pipeline in
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
48
49
service by the third quarter of 2004. They are currently in the preliminary
feasibility stage. In a fatal flaw analysis, they are looking at the pipeline from
engineering, environmental, and needs perspectives. They are almost done with
the feasibly assessment. There are not any fatal flaws. The next stage is to look at
what customers will want in the near-term and any land issues. They will talk to
landowners and have more in-depth discussion with communities. It will be a
federally regulated pipeline. They plan to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) the first or second quarter of 2001. That is one of the reasons
they are having meetings now, to do preliminary things prior to application with
FERC.
Their credo is to consult early and consult often. They want to have the
community's feedback. That is why, prior to announcing the project on April 14,
they had meetings with jurisdictions to let them know what is happening. Lizette
Parsons is the community liaison. They will have a website and direct phone line
for the project, and will have more community meetings.
West Coast Energy is the 14th largest company in Canada. There are $8
billion in assets. They have a good environmental and safety record. They are the
major gas distribution in Ontario. There are 1.2 million customers and 40,000
miles of pipes. They do international power production, but their focus is in North
America. Various services they provide include transmission and field services,
which are 35 percent of their assets. The pipeline gives them a connection to
Northwest Washington. They are the major feeder lines in the Pacific Northwest.
They have an existing relationship with the communities, indirectly through
Cascade Natural Gas and PSE. They understand Cascade Natural Gas and PSE
goals to reduce costs and ensure a safe, reliable product. They are involved in
many major projects in North America now. They have recent experience in
building pipelines in an environmentally safe way. People have not been exposed
to pipeline construction because it has been 40 years since a line has been built.
He showed slides of equipment that will lay pipe into the ground. They can drill
under the river. They will provide more information on the techniques upon
request.
Dawson stated the distribution map showed a north-south corridor. She
questioned who owned that line. Brintnell stated Williams Pipeline owns the
existing pipeline. It is the Northwest Pipeline.
Pat Siega, West Coast Energy Engineer, stated it starts at Sumas and goes
south.
McShane stated it is in the South Fork Valley.
Brenner asked what the secondary corridor is.
Siega stated the primary corridor is the preferred corridor.
Brenner asked if secondary means it is connected to second line. Siega
stated no. They will choose one route, which is now the land route.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
48
49
Brenner asked how old company is.
Doug Thorneycroft, (West Coast Energy Engineer), stated the company
incorporated in 1949 and was responsible for development and operation of a main
transmission system in British Columbia (B.C.).
Brenner asked how many violations, injuries, and deaths have occurred in
that time. Thorneycroft stated there have been no injuries or deaths to the public
on the pipeline system. In terms of violations, they have never been cited by any
regulatory authority for violations of safety issues.
Brenner questioned whether the West Coast Energy pipelines in the U.S. are
very recent. Siega stated that is true. They have been around a long time in
Canada.
McShane stated geologically they will have problem with the land route
they've chosen because there are deep-seated landslides in that area. Also, West
Coast Energy will have a problem publicly if the pipeline is next to the Olympic
Pipeline. He questioned why the company ruled out the South Fork Valley for a
primary route.
Siega stated they ruled out the South Fork Valley because of geo-technical
concerns because of slides. There are also habitat issues with spawning grounds in
the upper areas of the Nooksack River.
McShane stated one area of the primary route is a real problem. There are
very deep-seated slides. Siega stated Bonneville also has a line in that area. They
also consulted with Whatcom County Land Use Manager Roland Middleton. They
also have a geo-technical person on staff. They will stay far enough east to miss
those areas.
McShane stated he is still skeptical.
Siega offered to provide the geo-technical report.
Brintnell stated that is the type of input they want to hear. He encouraged it.
McShane stated they are either going to be east or west of Lake Whatcom.
If they are west of the lake, it will be tough. They will go through a part of
Bellingham that is psychologically traumatized.
Siega stated they are staying east to miss the populated areas. The
philosophy for the entire line is to avoid populated areas.
Brintnell stated they are sensitive to the Olympic Pipeline incident. In terms
of timing, West Coast Energy couldn't have picked a worst time to announce a new
pipeline project. It is a natural gas pipeline. They are also aware of the balancing
act to meet the needs of growth, and they feel confident they can put people at
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
47
48
49
ease. If not, they will have bigger issues. One reason for the discussion is to put
people's minds at ease. The fact the company is here is a signal that it wants to
bring the community into the process.
Brenner asked when they would know final route. Brintnell stated they are
going through that process now. They have identified 40 to 50 areas they want to
evaluate more, which they will do in the next few weeks. They will narrow the
corridor, and then will get out to look at the land. They have done a 40,000 foot
tabletop analysis, based on the systems. There is nothing like walking on the land
and seeing the area. That is what they are starting to do now.
Brenner suggested a walk through along the proposed route with
Councilmember Dan McShane.
McShane suggested that they look at the state Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) watershed analysis of Lake Whatcom watershed. The DNR also
did an analysis on the other side of the South Fork Valley.
Brenner stated she would like to go on a tour.
Siega stated they might do a helicopter reconnaissance. That would be a
good time for a trip.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN AREA
(AB2000-114)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated they would discuss questions one,
two, three, and five on packet page three. They are not ready to deal with
questions four and six without legal counsel.
Brenner read question one on packet page three regarding cost, time, and
permits required to repair the dike.
Paula Cooper, Special Projects Engineer, stated they discussed repair on the
upper portion of the dike. That area is a 500 foot length of the dike. They
discussed beefing up the rock on that structure.
Interfluve’s costs were based on unit cost from the last repair. Staff went
through in detail and nailed the cost down more. The estimate is $105,000 for the
construction. That entails getting out there with a long arm excavator and taking
the top of dike down by five feet. They will work from the top of the dike.
Monsen stated $105,000 is for the cost of the repair. It doesn’t include
preparatory work to get permits or do any mitigation.
Cooper stated mitigation is questionable. She had preliminary discussion
with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. She also contacted the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), but had not heard back from them.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
48
Crawford asked if it includes groins. Cooper stated it does not. If they do
that, it will take more mitigation.
Dawson questioned whether mitigation is different if they work away from
the stream than if they work in the stream. Cooper stated they will want more
mitigation for the more damage done during construction.
Brenner stated the Fish and Wildlife guy stated it is a possibility to get a
permit.
Cooper stated they discussed on Friday about what they might want for
mitigation. It is a negotiation process. Fish and Wildlife want to lower a scarp.
Other mitigation efforts they might require is to put back the mitigation done
previously. Fish and Wildlife want mitigation as long as the project is in place.
That is tough in this situation.
Brenner asked if they should do maintenance on the mitigation that they
have done.
Cooper said the previous mitigation was large woody debris. Trying to
restore structure to the system is a challenge. There were specifications on re-
vegetation. The criticism is that there are no trees growing on the dike.
Brenner asked if they have any idea on the cost for mitigation, studies, and
permits.
Cooper stated the total could be up to $200,000.
Monsen stated it is not so much the dollar amount as the patience they have
to see that the permit is issued. If the Corps of Engineers is involved in permitting,
it takes one year for a permit and two years if it is not a standard permit. They
don’t know if it is a standard permit.
Cooper stated it is repair and maintenance. Under shorelines, it is easier to
get permitting for repair and maintenance. The shoreline process can have an
exemption instead of going through a 120-day wait period. The Corps of Engineers
doesn’t even look at it for six months. There was some observed piping. The
$105,000 wouldn't address that. The material is so gravelly that it does not
warrant a gravel filter. There would be a lot of cost for not much change in flow
characteristics.
McShane questioned whether the 1995 event was a five-year or ten-year
event.
Brenner stated it may have been a 10-year event.
Nelson asked how substantial the piping was.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
46
47
48
49
James Lee, River and Flood Engineer, stated that, from talking to Roger
Nichols, the piping they observed was around 4 to 6 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Nelson asked the time of the year it was observed. Cooper stated it was
observed during the 1995 event. It was running clear, which means it was not
eroding the dike.
Dawson stated that someone was under the impression, based on what
previously occurred, that if the County doesn’t get a response in a timely manner
then the agency is saying no. The County can demand through a court action that
they state why. Cooper stated the Department of Fish and Wildlife has a 45-day
period in which they have to ask for more information or deny/grant the HPA. She
was not clear what would happen if they don't respond.
Dawson stated the County could take them to court to get answers.
Brenner stated the County could spend more money in court and it would
take a long time. Her concern is that the County can't take the agency to court for
everything.
Dawson stated it is an option.
Nelson asked the status of the dike if they do the top part of the repair. He
is concerned about piping underneath. It doesn’t do any good to repair the top if
the bottom washes out.
Cooper stated she and James Lee talked to Roger Nichols, who observed the
piping. Mr. Nichols has also done a lot of river projects for the Forest Service. His
feeling was that the material that the dike is made with is not much different than
material for which a gravel filter would be installed. Short of installing a clay core,
which is rebuilding the entire dike and takes a lot of money, there is no way to
address the piping issue. They can install a gravel filter to the back side of the
dike.
Nelson questioned how secure the foundation is.
Brenner stated it is fine.
Lee stated there is probably another five feet at the worst case to where the
toe is keyed in. As far as the piping goes, he spoke with Roger Nichols and the
contractor who did the initial repair. The material is so coarse that the piping is not
creating additional damage.
Brenner stated the contractor said the dike is operating the way it is
supposed to. It wasn’t undermined. It is doing its job.
McShane stated it is easy to get off focus. They can fix the dike, but it is still
not stable. There are giant landslides in that area.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
47
48
49
Dawson stated there are sensitive areas upstream, but the state Department
of Ecology (DOE) supports the dike because of the road that is behind it that needs
to be protected.
Brenner stated dike would not make people totally safe. They will also put
information on deeds that tell people they are in a dangerous area. They are trying
to help the problem without making people feel they are totally safe.
Cooper stated the $105,000 doesn’t do anything for The Logs Resort.
Dawson asked how long it takes for people to organize for a sub-flood zone.
Cooper stated she didn’t know.
Monsen stated that question is question number five.
Brenner read question number two regarding the voluntary buyout program.
Cooper stated that, in terms of the structured lots, the County is eligible now
by passing the land acquisition ordinance. The Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA) is only interested in voluntary buyouts.
Dawson questioned who brought forward the proposal for the FEMA voluntary
buyout.
McShane stated the program was brought forward by the people in the
floodplain.
Monsen stated the County is now eligible to buyout structured land only, not
bare land. If they want to pursue the possibility of buying out bare land, then the
County needs to start discussing that with FEMA or consider its own program.
Brenner asked if FEMA would assist in buying raw land. Cooper stated they
can’t find a place for that.
McShane asked what the lots are selling for. Cooper stated they are selling
from $7,000 to $14,000 per lot
Brenner read question number three regarding site-specific maps of the
alluvial fan.
Cooper stated she pulled out old maps from files. Results from the Purnell
and Inter-Fluve studies are designated on the map she provided. Areas are divided
into those most likely to erosion, aggradation and channel shifts, and also debris
dam. Geo-Engineers provided a map that shows low, moderate, and high-risk
areas. In terms of the moderate and high risk areas, the Geo-Engineers boundary
and the Inter-Fluve boundary are not much different.
Brenner requested a black-and-white copy of the map.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
47
48
Brenner read question number five regarding creating a flood sub-zone or a
diking district.
Ron Bronsema, County Flood Advisory Committee Chair, stated he worked
with the special districts that included two diking districts and three sub-zones. The
process is to go to the area and give people the options, and let make their own
decisions locally. The decision is made by a vote of the local people. The biggest
difference between diking districts and flood sub-zones is that the diking district is
self-governing. The flood sub-zone is still advisory.
Brenner asked the difference in cost. Bronsema stated the diking district has
more options in funding. The drawback is that it takes a long time because of
election. It may take six to nine months to set up a diking district. The flood sub-
zone would be set up in three or four months.
Cooper stated funding for the diking district is based on acreage protected.
Funding for a flood sub-zone is based on assessed value.
Bronsema stated it is not a problem to wait six to nine months.
Brenner stated they would be waiting in two years for permitting anyway.
Bronsema stated there is a recommendation in the County's Comprehensive
Flood Hazard Management Plan to form two flood sub-zones in the upper
watershed. One would be in the lower/middle North Fork area, and the other is
above Welcome in the upper North Fork. Canyon Creek is a bit off from the main
Nooksack River watershed and they may opt out of the flood sub-zone area
because they are a small area in a large area.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, questioned if a diking district has ever
been formed out of an area that was first a flood sub-zone area.
Bronsema stated that is an option, but it has not been done yet.
Desler asked who decides on the boundaries. Bronsema stated the diking
district is within the 100-year flood plain. The diking districts have been restricted
to the 100-year flood plain area because people who live outside the 100-year
floodplain, but live in the specific watershed, don’t generally receive a benefit. To
form a diking district, people must be interested. The County Council forms the
flood sub-zone.
Monsen stated the boundaries are drawn as close as possible to drainage
areas to include contributing areas.
Kelsey Bingham, Glacier Springs property owner, asked for more clarification
on boundaries for the alluvial fan.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
48
49
Cooper stated there have been three different consultants who provided
boundaries.
Bingham stated he is right on the boundary and wants to know who to speak
with to see where he will be.
Brenner stated they would tighten up the boundaries. If Bingham has a
private engineer, he or she can work with the County staff. Consultants have been
drawing the boundaries.
McShane commented on the Purnell map, which is based on rough
topographic features. No survey was done to tighten up the boundary lines.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated the only regulatory map is the
critical areas zone, based on the Purnell boundaries. It shows areas of highest
concern. A geologist or technical engineer would be required to get involved.
Wendy Cosgrove, The Logs Resort owner, read a letter from her husband (on
file) that says they are in favor of a voluntary buyout, but want the dike fixed.
Monsen questioned whether they want to discuss questions four and six in
two weeks.
Brenner stated she does, with the presence of Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor
Dave Grant.
Cooper questioned whether they should go ahead and set up meetings with
the locals to set up the district.
Dawson moved to recommend that the full Council support the residents in
forming a diking district or flood sub-zone.
McShane stated the flood sub-zone would only pay a percentage of any
repairs. He questioned whether the County Council is committing to come up with
80 percent of what costs the flood sub-zone would come up with. Monsen stated
Councilmember McShane is referring to the 80/20 program. Anyone can make an
application to the 80/20 program, whether a district or individual. Making an
application does not guarantee money. Historically, the County has financed most
of applications that have been submitted.
Cooper stated they could conceivably have Corps of Engineer funding for this
upper portion.
Monsen stated in two weeks the committee will discuss the future of the
flood district and its role in dealing with these matters procedurally and financially.
Crawford questioned whether these people are already paying taxes into the
fund. Monsen stated yes.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
Crawford suggested the County figure out the percentage of the flood district
funds are generated from that area and make those funds available for this work.
The rest will come out of the district's or flood sub-zone's funding.
Brenner stated that is fair. The discussion now is whether to support them in
developing something. The County needs to make the residents more organized
and responsible.
Cooper stated they want to target these areas as a candidate for buyout.
Dawson moved to target these areas for a voluntary buyout program.
Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson moved, subject to legal confirmation, to attach wording to deeds and
post signage in areas subject to flooding, “Properties in this area are eligible for
voluntary buyout.”
Monsen stated they’ve talked about making sure they are eligible for state or
federal disaster funds. The motion does not specify state or federal funds.
Dawson amended her motion, “Properties in this area are eligible for
voluntary buyout, through federal or state programs.”
Bronsema stated federal program requires flood insurance on a residence if it
is to be bought out by FEMA.
Cooper stated she would look into it. She didn't think that was correct for
hazard mitigation.
McShane stated they need language that is legally tight.
Monsen stated he would talk to legal.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF REPLACING THE
WHATCOM COUNTY FERRY (AB2000-200)
Brenner stated this discussion is not about changing the size of the ferry.
There is a deadline to apply for federal money. If the County is going to do
something, it should take advantage of the grant.
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Administration and Operations, stated
Bellingham Bay approached him. They made a presentation to staff and the
Executive. This year they are in the process of filling out an application for a grant.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
47
48
49
They haven't done that in the past. The grant makes $14 million available
nationwide. They have contacted Pierce and Skagit counties. Pierce County
applied in the past, but has not received any money. They have greater needs than
Whatcom County. Skagit County has not applied because of their limited funding
and so little money is available. The grant money is to replace the ferry.
Brenner asked if it is time to replace the ferry and whether the maintenance
costs have become too much. Prieve stated the ferry is 38 years old and in good
shape. The County dry-docks the ferry every year. Costs will not go down as the
vessel gets older.
Brenner asked if the costs have been going up. Prieve stated they do. This
ferry runs seven days a week. It gets a lot of use
Dawson questioned the lifespan. Prieve stated some ferries are 70 to 90
years old.
Brenner stated she heard they could dry-dock every year and a half, legally,
with a new type of ferry. Prieve stated the Coast Guard says they have to dry-dock
annually.
Monsen stated there is a minimum requirement for how frequently the ferry
must go into dry-dock. Part of the annual schedule is for consistency as well for
the islanders, the tides, and a variety of reasons. It is easier to schedule and do
planning every year instead of every year and a half. He believed the legal
requirement to dry-dock is 18 months for this type of vessel.
Nelson stated Bellingham Bay Shipyard said a steel vessel's lifespan is 20 to
25 years. Prieve stated there are vessels much older.
Brenner asked if they are steel vessels. Prieve stated he believed so.
Nelson stated they would have to look into that. Either way, the size will be
critical. There are already problems with rotating maintenance. They are claiming
they can provide the service at no additional cost. He wondered how they would
reduce cost and if they could reduce the size of the crew.
Monsen stated that at this point, the County does not know that. The
ultimate decision is the Coast Guard's decision.
Nelson stated he liked the ideas of the private ownership and having two
ferries available.
Monsen stated that, regarding the 25-year lifespan, after 25 years, they need
to deal with current regulatory requirements for the American with Disabilities Act
(ADA), as an example. If federal money can subsidize the capital cost of a new
ferry, then it is a good idea to replace the ferry at that point. If they don’t have
that outside money, then it is purely a business decision of capital expense versus
maintenance. The state ferry system puts the older ferries in lighter runs and
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
continues to do major maintenance until it is more expensive to bring the ferry up
to code.
Brenner stated this discussion doesn’t have anything to do with size. They
are only discussing replacing the current ferry, not changing the size.
Tim Adams, Bellingham Bay Shipyard, stated there have been some changes
since their presentation to the staff on the T-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the
21st Century, which is the ferry boat discretionary funds. Initially, they proposed to
operate the ferry. County staff said they would prefer to continue operation. That
would be better for Bellingham Bay Shipyard. They are proposing to put in the 20
percent themselves for the vessel. The federal government would put in 80 percent
and they would finance 20 percent. If that isn’t possible, they would discuss 100
percent financing through their sources. The ferry could fit into the current dock.
Some changes in a new ferry include wider lanes and meeting ADA and
Environmental Protection Act (EPA) requirements. Staff is in a difficult position
because they have people who want a new vessel and people who don’t want a new
vessel.
Brenner stated there isn’t as much concern about whether it is a new vessel
as it is about the size of the vessel.
Adams stated there are issues regarding useful life. Issues include the width
of the lane, the car sizes changing over time, and the money spent on
maintenance. This vessel had heads in use for a while, which is terrible on the
steel. Some vessels do last 70 years. The Washington State ferries will run a
vessel until can no longer get a Coast Guard certificate of inspection. There is a
Pierce County vessel he would not step foot on. That is not the case with the
Whatcom Chief, which is in good shape. It runs 18 hours per day, 7 days per week.
For fiscal year 2001, the Federal Highway Administration wants requests in by July
15. The memo about the requests for proposals came out in mid-April.
Dawson asked when the Chief is closed for storms, and if a smaller boat is
closed more frequently.
Mary Ewing, Equipment Revolve and Rental (ER&R) Manager, stated it
depends on the severity of the storm, usually when there are winds between 50
and 75 miles per hour. They also consider tides and other considerations. It is at
the captain’s discretion.
Monsen stated a boat would have to be much bigger to have an impact on a
change in foul weather.
Adams stated that judgement is best left to the skipper. The two propellers
are outboard. A large engine spins 360 degrees. If there are currents, the ferry
can go against the currents. It uses less horsepower because they turn both
propellers, putting the thrust in the direction they need. Propellers can be changed
without going to dry dock. The main engine is on deck and an engine change-out
can be done overnight.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 13
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
McShane stated each propeller has its own engine.
Dawson asked about the partnership to save the County cost and
construction. She asked about leasing. Adams stated it depends on the size of the
vessel.
Brenner asked the cost if it is the size of the Whatcom Chief, and how it
would compare to what they are paying for right now. Adams stated the Whatcom
Chief is paid for. In the operational costs, if they dry-docked every 18 months, like
required, instead of annually, the operational cost would be approximately
$200,000 per year.
Brenner asked what the overall costs are now, compared to what the costs
would be if they entered into the partnership. Monsen stated they are talking about
a capital investment. They are not now capitalizing the boat. They are paying only
for operational costs only. They are not setting money aside for acquisition. When
they acquire a new boat, there will be a cost involved that, which they don't incur
today. The question is whether the County will fund all the cost.
Adam stated the operating costs would go down with a new boat. There will
be less steel to replace on a new vessel. The engine life shrinks while running 18
hours per day.
Crawford asked who pays the 20 percent in this deal. Adams stated
Bellingham Bay Shipyard pays the 20 percent, and the County reimburses the
shipyard. If Bellingham Bay Shipyard were to operate the ferry, they would try and
take money out of the fees.
Crawford questioned who owned the ferry. Adam stated Bellingham Bay
Shipyard would own the ferry.
Crawford stated the proposal is for Bellingham Bay Shipyard to pay 20
percent of the cost, the federal government to pay 80 percent of the cost, the
County reimburse the shipyard the 20 percent, and the shipyard owns the ferry.
He questioned whether the shipyard would own 100 percent of the ferry. Adam
stated they would, or they could do a partnership. They are saying that, if the
County is not willing to put in the 20 percent, they are willing to put in the 20
percent. They can have a lease-option to buy. The County could buy it and the
shipyard would build it.
Brenner stated the County could own it in the end when it pays off
Bellingham Bay Shipyard. Adam stated that is correct.
Crawford asked about the numbers. Adam stated it is $600,000 for the 20
percent. It costs $2 million to $3 million for a new vessel.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Crawford asked if the costs go up if the double the size of the vessel. Adam
stated it would cost $2 million for boat equal in size to the Whatcom Chief and $3
million for bigger boat.
Monsen stated the County wants to put in a grant application to replace the
boat. Regarding Bellingham Bay Shipyard, the County will have to go through a
selection process. It is hard to presume what the packaging and options might look
like. This proposal is one that could be on the table.
Crawford asked if a contract could be written to prefer local providers. Adam
stated they cannot with federal money.
Prieve stated that in Adam's memo to Kremen, it says the federal
government sets aside $5 million per year for ferry improvements for the State of
Washington. That is true, but they have to be a part of the national highway
system to quality. This isn't, and they wouldn't qualify for the five million. They
would be eligible for $14 million nationwide. Adam stated the states of Montana
and Utah received money, and they are landlocked. One could hope.
Al Marshall, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated he provided the
committee with a survey that the County paid for. The survey shows that the
Whatcom Chief is in remarkably good condition. There is a lot of life left in the
ferry. They don't need a replacement. Second, there was a recent survey of the
islanders' opinions. The responses show that the majority doesn't fee that a larger
ferry isn’t needed.
Brenner stated they are not talking about a larger ferry.
Marshall stated the third point is that it would have a profound effect on
Lummi islanders. They are up in arms because there has been no communication
with the islanders. The islanders have set up a committee to deal with this. The
committee wasn’t informed.
Brenner stated she didn’t know there was a committee. This is only a
discussion on whether the County needs to replace the ferry, and a deadline is
looming. The County is not trying to subvert the process. She apologized for
people being up in arms, but not for fast tracking this, because they needed to
discuss this.
Joanne Hammerberg, Lummi Island, asked why they are trying to fix it if it is
not broken.
Brenner stated she never saw the survey before. That is what this meeting
is about.
Robert Fodor, 2343 N. Nugent, Lummi Island, stated it is important to
consult with the islanders. The boat is fully functional. The survey report from
1990 says it is good for 30 more years.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Brenner stated this proposal was brought to the Council’s attention. When
someone brings forward an issue, she looks into it. They do need to consult with
Lummi Island residents, but she has never seen this material before.
Fodor stated the chair of their committee can be contacted by telephone, and
her name is Judy Olsen. They formed the committee on County Executive Pete
Kremen's recommendation. They have had meetings with County staff.
Brenner stated the County Council knew nothing about it.
Fodor stated there is a need for discussion. The proposal talks about annual
maintenance and also maintenance every 18 months.
Adams stated there is a lot of different maintenance, even daily
maintenance. It is a different level of maintenance.
Brenner stated the Council tries to notify people as best it can. This was
brought to her attention recently, and there is a short deadline. Since she knew
nothing about the issue, she felt she had to move on it.
Hammerberg stated the ferry doesn’t need to be replaced.
Nelson stated there must be a certain point in which the islanders want the
ferry to be replaced. He asked when they would want it replaced. Fodor stated
that if it runs continuously and provides good service, they don't need to replace it.
Nelson asked at what point they in which the County is to evaluate the ferry
service to Lummi Island. Hammerberg stated the Coast Guard would say the
vessel is going downhill. It is a Coast Guard safety issue. The Coast Guard says it
is in amazing shape.
Nelson asked why they are having the discussion if everyone agrees it is in
good shape.
Brenner stated it is getting older and they need to look at the cost of
maintenance versus a new one.
Monsen stated the issue is 100 percent of County cost to buy new one in 15
years versus County paying only 20 percent now.
Adams stated the federal ferryboat discretionary funding expires in 2003.
They may or may not extend it. Part of the issue is whether the County wants 80
percent of funding from the federal government. If people are waiting in lines or
are not satisfied with the amount of time it takes to get across, the service levels,
then the County may want to think about more cars so there is better service.
Hammerberg stated this boat doesn’t need to be replaced. There are boats
in the U.S. that need to be replaced. It is an irresponsible use of federal funds.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Brenner stated this is just a discussion.
Brenner asked how many people are on the island committee. Fodor stated
there are eight citizens.
Crawford asked if the committee members are unanimous in their feelings
about the ferry. Fodor stated he didn’t know.
Crawford asked if there are people on the committee who want the ferry
replaced. Fodor stated there are.
Brenner stated the County would contact the island folks in the future.
Brenner stated she met with Planning and Development Services Department
to work on an emergency moratorium, imposing a moratorium on the
acceptance of conditional use permit applications for regional transmission
pipelines of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas; and declaring
an emergency.
An emergency moratorium will be discussed and voted on this evening.
Crawford suggested adding language in the third "Whereas" statement, “…to
recent major pipeline explosions…” 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The committee concurred.
Brenner read the proposed ordinance into the record.
McShane stated he would not be a sponsor, and would abstain from voting.
Goodwin stated she would add Councilmember Dawson as a sponsor.
Dawson suggested the councilmembers read the ordinance from Walla Walla
that she is putting forward at the evening meeting. This is a reactive situation.
The proposed ordinance from Walla Walla takes a proactive approach.
Crawford stated "Whereas" statement number five does not make it clear
that there have been inquiries. He suggested alternate language, "WHEREAS there 38
have been natural gas and petroleum transmission pipeline inquiries in the last 39
several months recent proposals and presentations made by private parties for the 40
construction of new natural gas and petroleum product pipelines in areas where 41
none currently exist, and;” 42
43
44
45
46
47
Brenner agreed and questioned whether staff agreed.
Goodwin stated the staff agreed.
Brenner moved to approve Crawford's suggested amendment, "WHEREAS 48
there have been natural gas and petroleum transmission pipeline inquiries in the 49
last several months recent proposals and presentations made by private parties for 50
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 17
the construction of new natural gas and petroleum product pipelines in areas where 1
none currently exist, and;” 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
Motion carried 2-0 with McShane abstaining.
Brenner moved to recommend the ordinance to the full Council, as amended.
Motion carried 2-0 with McShane abstaining.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 12.56, VICTIM
MEMORIAL SIGN PROGRAM (AB2000-197)
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Brenner stated it only cleaned up language.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner stated that, regarding the emergency moratorium, imposing a
moratorium on the acceptance of conditional use permit applications for
regional transmission pipelines of petroleum, petroleum products, and
natural gas; and declaring an emergency, the reason electrical was not
included is because there are already electrical standards. There are no standards
for natural gas.
OTHER BUSINESS 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.125,
FORMING THE WHATCOM COUNTY UTILITIES PLANNING AND
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2000-177)
McShane stated Kraig Olason’s ideas in his memo dated May 23 are great.
They should go with the suggestions.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated Mr. Olason wrote
additional language to insert that would be the introduction to that language.
Brenner suggested added language in Exhibit A, packet page 31, section
2.125.030 “…the use of existing major utility transmission corridors….” They kept
having problems about where distribution and utility collide.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Nelson asked for a definition of “major.”
Brenner stated there is sort of in the moratorium.
McShane stated they should throw all that out and go with Olason’s
language.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated his language would replace the function
section.
Brenner read the proposal into the record, "The committee will provide
ongoing oversight of utility related issues, specifically effectiveness of
Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations, in meeting
Comprehensive Plan goals, community needs, and protecting the public health and
safety.”
Dawson suggested adding language to the purpose section, “…protection of
public health and safety and environment, and also preserve custom, culture, and 11
economic stability.” It broadens the function a bit. They are items that are in the
Walla Walla ordinance.
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
Brenner stated she didn’t have a problem with that language
McShane stated he had a problem with the language.
Dawson moved the language.
Motion carried 2-1 with McShane opposed.
Brenner moved to replace the function on packet page 31 with, “The
committee will provide ongoing oversight of utility related issues, specifically
effectiveness of Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations, in
meeting Comprehensive Plan goals, community needs, and protecting the public
health and safety.”
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson asked how they would protect public health and safety.
Brenner stated this is a general statement.
Nelson suggested they not use the word "protecting." That is a broad
interpretation by the public or future councilmembers. He questioned how looking
at the new corridor protects the public's health and safety.
Goodwin suggested the language, "…community needs, and address public
health and safety issues."
Nelson agreed with Goodwin's suggested language.
Brenner moved to amend the amendment, "…community needs, and
protecting the public health and safety address public health and safety issues.” 45
46
47
48
Motion carried unanimously.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 19
1
2
3
Brenner moved to approve the amendment, as amended. “The committee
will provide ongoing oversight of utility related issues specifically effectiveness of
comp plan policies and development regulations in meeting Comprehensive Plan
goals, community needs, and protecting the public health and safety address public 4
health and safety issues.” 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
Brenner moved to include the bullet points from Olason’s memo to the
function.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner questioned packet page 36, in the last paragraph, which clearly says
in the second sentence that corridors are to be shared by utilities. It is clear policy
in the Comprehensive Plan. They voted on it during the residual Neighbors
Opposed to Power Encroachment (NOPE) endeavor. She is also concerned
regarding Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements in the first sentence on
packet page 37. The language doesn’t include petroleum lines.
Nelson stated they could consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Goodwin stated it is a quote out of the GMA. An amendment would be
substantial.
Nelson said the question is whether it is included as part of the language in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Brenner stated packet page 38, which is from the Comprehensive Plan, On
page 38, policy 5A-1 of "Issues, Goals, and Policies," they need to add "petroleum
and petroleum products." There are no local standards. In policy 5A-2, they
should consider inserting, “…major utility corridors” in the future. Utility corridors
are the corridors they talked about, not roads or distribution lines. People could
misinterpret the language to include roads or distribution lines. She wanted to
ensure there is no misinterpretation of what they mean by utility corridors.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Goodwin stated there are standards for a conditional use permit (CUP), but
they are not specific to utilities. There are general Comprehensive Plan goals, but
no specific standards. They are hoping the new Utility Committee can do this.
Nelson asked if there is a mechanism to look at the standards to preserve the
corridors from impacts of growth near them that cause the problems.
Brenner stated she thought the utilities don’t need a major development
permit, as specified on packet page 40, policy 5C-3. Olason stated they need a
major development permit if they cross a threshold or if they were a public utility
district.
Brenner stated they haven’t done anything on goal 5G-3, page 43. The
Utilities Committee should make that a high priority. There is money to be made in
renewable and alternative energy. There are many alternatives out there. On
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
packet page 44, policy 5H-2, the term "reasonable" is subjective. She proposed
that "reasonable" be eliminated when this is reviewed. Feasibility is the most
important thing. On packet page 52, number eight, they have not done anything.
The committee should work on that idea.
McShane stated they have to decide the meeting schedule, as referenced on
packet page 32, section 2.125.050.
Brenner questioned a reasonable committee schedule. She suggested once
per month, at the minimum.
Olason stated the committee will have an intensive schedule at the
beginning, then meeting quarterly may be enough. The committee can schedule
meetings more often if necessary.
McShane stated they should leave the schedule up to the committee, and say
they meet at least once every three months.
Andy Swayne, Puget Sound Energy, suggested a minimum schedule.
Meeting not less than quarterly is reasonable. The committee will probably meet
more than quarterly.
Brenner moved that the committee determines its own schedule and must
meet at least quarterly.
Motion carried unanimously.
Swayne submitted a letter to the County Council on Friday. Some of the
comments are now moot, given the committee’s decision to restructure the
function. The thrust of the comments were to make sure that the Council
understood there are areas of regulatory authority, vis-a-vis, siting and land use
related issues that the County has regulation over. Other areas are reserved to the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). Other public entities
are answerable to their own elected board of commissioners. He is concerned
about language regarding regulating utility service.
McShane stated the purpose was changed. He read the new purpose into the
record, "The committee is created to ensure the protection of public, health, safety,
and the environment, when new electric, natural gas, and petroleum transmission
facilities are proposed. The committee will also review telecommunication
proposals to enhance economic development in Whatcom County."
Brenner read all the changes made during the previous Public Works
committee meeting.
Swayne stated PSE has no further comment, given the revisions that have
been made.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Brenner moved to recommend the ordinance to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated she requested an updated map on the existing trunk utility
lines in the County. There was some discrepancy between what really exists and
what shows on the 1997 map. She provided a map in which gas lines and trunk
lines are overlaid with critical areas and geological hazard areas.
Swayne stated that last month, they provided paper maps of that updated
information.
Goodwin stated staff didn’t get it and would like to have it.
ADJOURN 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
______________________________
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
______________________________ ___________________________
Dana Brown-Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair