An ordinance that would have given Snohomish County a chance to decide where the new Brightwater sewage treatment plant could be located was struck down by a regional hearings board that said the law violates state regulations.
The board agreed that Snohomish County’s ordinance on where "essential public facilities" can be located is "unfair, untimely and unpredictable" in a ruling issued Monday.
King County filed a petition with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, saying that the ordinance precludes essential public facilities from being built in the county.
The hearing wasn’t specifically about the proposed Brightwater sewage treatment, but "it was like the elephant in the living room," said Barbara Dykes, chief civil deputy prosecutor who argued on behalf of Snohomish County.
King County plans to build the $1.3 billion plant in Snohomish County and begin operating it by 2010. The plant would serve residents in both counties.
The preferred site is along Highway 9 just north of Highway 522, near the Stock Pot Soup plant. The alternative is the former Unocal site in Edmonds. King County Executive Ron Sims is expected to announce the final site around Dec. 1.
Essential public facilities are projects that are needed to serve the public interest, like schools, hospitals or jails.
Both sides agree that Brightwater qualifies, but Snohomish County’s ordinance would have given the county some say in where it could go.
"When regional entities or state entities make a regional decision about where something is going to be, then a local government may not second-guess that decision," said Joe Tovar, administrative chairman of the hearings board.
The board’s decision says the ordinance’s "fundamental flaw" is that it could allow "outright denial of all (essential public facilities)."
What the ordinance did was require Brightwater to go through a conditional-use process, which would have given Snohomish County the chance to determine whether the project met certain conditions.
The county’s hearing examiner would have had the chance to approve the project, approve it with certain conditions, or deny it.
Snohomish County has 10 days from the date of the ruling to file a motion for reconsideration, or appeal. If the county decides not to appeal the ruling, it has until Jan. 14 to rewrite the ordinance so that it complies with state law.
The County Council is expected to discuss the decision and its reaction behind closed doors during today’s regularly scheduled meeting.
Council Chairman Gary Nelson wants to appeal the decision, saying the board ruled too soon because there hasn’t officially been any project application under the rules of the ordinance.
"They (King County) certainly feel as though this code has created an unfair approach for them, but what they fail to understand is that their existing process is very unfair to the citizens of Snohomish County," Nelson said. "I don’t intend to deny the opportunity for citizens of this county to have a say on what is located within their county borders."
Christie True, Brightwater’s project manager, was pleased with the decision, but "we still have several more steps to go."
"We did get some clarification (on the law)," True said. "The next step is for Snohomish County to make changes to their ordinance."
Reporter Victor Balta:
425-339-3455 or
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
