By According to some King County officials, Snohomish County is using the Growth Management Act to delay construction of the regional Brightwater sewage treatment project.
Conversely, Snohomish County officials say all they have done is follow the law.
A final decision may rest with Gov. Gary Locke.
Early in the current legislative session, Mukilteo Democrats Sen. Paull Shin and Rep. Brian Sullivan introduced bills calling for a review of any facility deemed an ‘essential public facility’ and built by a “metropolitan municipal corporation” outside its geographical boundaries.
King County is the only metropolitan municipal corporation in the state its only qualifying project is Brightwater, proposed for one of two possible Snohomish County sites. One of the sites is on the Edmonds waterfront, in Shin and Sullivan’s 21st Legislative District.
On Feb. 20, the Snohomish County Council passed a pair of ordinances setting up the state mandated “Essential Public Facility Siting Process” as a part of the county code.
Within two weeks, both bills, including a substitute version of the house bill, began moving through the legislative process. The bills are now on the calendars of the Senate and House rules committees, the last stop before consideration for final passage.
Should a final version of the bills reach his desk, Locke would make the final decision as to whether the project would be subject to Snohomish County review for a conditional use permit.
Snohomish County is the only county in Western Washington to have an essential facility siting process, although most counties and cities throughout the state were required to pass such rules by September, 2002.
“This was not put into place just for Brightwater,” said Snohomish County Council member Gary Nelson of Edmonds. “This applies to landfills, prisons, even methadone clinics. The only facility we left to the state was sex offender housing.”
Nelson says the methadone clinic proponents have made the most noise about the ordinances.
However, the tenor of comments at the Feb. 27 meeting of King County’s Regional Water Quality Committee likely eclipsed anything heard from methadone clinic advocates.
“These ordinances could delay the project,” Christie True, capital projects program manager for King County, told committee members. “If the permits are eventually denied, the lost time would add significantly to the cost.”
Snohomish County Council member Dave Gossett of Mountlake Terrace says that is just not true.
“We are not precluding Brightwater,” Gossett said. “All we are doing is requiring them to get a conditional use permit like everyone else, something they have said all along that they would do.”
Nelson said he believes that King County is ignoring the perspective that the Snohomish County Council is doing what is required by law.
“This process fulfills the expectations of the public by giving them an opportunity to have some say in the process,” Nelson said.
Senate Bill 5078 and Substitute House Bill 1000 would prohibit King County from using condemnation to acquire land for the plant until it had gone through the Essential Public Facility Siting process.
The Senate bill would mandate King County going through the siting process under any circumstances while the House version would prohibit using condemnation to acquire land unless it enters into the permitting process by Dec. 31.
In her Feb. 27 presentation, True labeled the bills as “anti-Brightwater.”
True said passage would have multiple negative impacts on the project, including increased costs, a possible building moratorium by the state Department of Ecology and possible violation of the Growth Management Act.
She also said that the bills threaten the economic interests of those owning land at either of the two possible Brightwater sites.
“People who have land that may be condemned are given advantages in the federal tax code,” she said. “If we delay for this process we are denying them the ability to get their investment out.”
However, a publication from King County updating the public on Brightwater was released this week and specifically states “King County … has rarely used condemnation to acquire land. King County prefers to work with property owners …”
Metro King County Council member Carolyn Edmonds of Shoreline said legislators are only doing half the job if they continue to push the bills.
“My feeling is that if they are going to make a legislative change that effects Brightwater, then they should exempt King County from providing services to Snohomish County,” Edmonds said. “We should be able to break our contracts.”
Edmonds implied that might be the best solution, particularly for King County.
“We have more than enough capacity to serve King County without adding Brightwater,” she said. “The Department of Ecology told us that if we don’t expand capacity, then Snohomish County will have a building moratorium. Snohomish County may have to build their own system.”
Renton City Council member and RWQC member King Parker closed the Feb. 27 meeting, stating, “If Snohomish County goes through with this we will see a housing moratorium. They will throw this state into a depression.”
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
