Port fines build tension. Commissioners split on doing a detailed report on all expenses incurred from 2005 violation
If there were ever a call for any of our local "Public Agencies" to submit to a mandatory "Financial and Performance Audit" from the Oregon Secretary of State's Office, this agency, The Port of Astoria, is a prime candidate and immediately so if we want to save this important part of our community's fabric.
Many months after an altered Port Commission takes its seat, nothing but more infighting and continued deterioration, much less a vision of exactly where this facility is headed in its/our future...McGee
By CASSANDRA PROFITA - The Daily Astorian
http://www.dailyastorian.com/Main.asp?SectionID=2&ArticleID=47709
A rift over how to close the book on the Port of Astoria's 2005 dredging violations illustrated a growing divide among Port commissioners Tuesday.At the end of a fairly peaceful board meeting, Commissioner Kathy Sanders raised a new business item that sparked disagreement.Sanders proposed the board direct staff to prepare a detailed written report of all legal expenses and fines incurred as a result of the agency's Clean Water Act violation in 2005. She asked that all charges be categorized and all fees to lawyers be carefully labeled "so it's easily readable."After some debate, the proposal split the board in a 3-2 vote with Commissioners Dan Hess and Bernie Bjork voting no and Commissioners Sanders, Bill Hunsinger and Larry Pfund in support.Sanders said she wants to know how much money the Port has spent and how much the agency owes on what she surmised is a half-million dollars in costs from the violation in addition to the $200,000 fine from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the Port still hasn't paid.A year ago, former Port Executive Director Peter Gearin said the Port had spent about $300,000 on legal and consulting costs as a result of the violation."I want to start the new year with this done and behind us," Sanders said."It doesn't sound like it," said Commission President Hess."It seems like this dredge violation is the dredge violation that will never go away," said Bjork. "It'll come up every time somebody wants to give the Port a black eye.""I think we're duplicating (our efforts)," said Hess. "I don't know what this is going to accomplish."Sanders said she's noticed an extra $22,500 in violation-related costs since the commission received its last update from staff."I know, Bernie, it seems like this is the thing that will never go away," said Pfund. "But we keep opening up our checkbook and writing more checks. That's the part that doesn't go away, and that's what bothers me."Sanders also requested a report on the Port's proposed supplemental environmental project, which was started in the hopes of reducing the $200,000 fine but hasn't come together. This fall, Port Interim Executive Director Ron Larsen advised the commission to abandon the environmental project because of the unknown costs of following strict Corps regulations on how it would need to be completed. Sanders said she wanted the board to have a written update from staff on the status of the project. The board voted 4-1 to request the report with Bjork voting no. The new commission has been "completely hamstrung for lack of funds" since its inception in July, Sanders said. If the board had money to spend, she said, it would have been able to search nationwide for a new executive director and hire a consultant to begin a strategic planning process.She said she was led to believe the Port had $300,000 in the bank before she was elected, but within a week of being sworn in, she learned the agency "is completely broke.""We spent half a million dollars on legal fees (for the dredging violation), and I feel the public has a right to know," she said.Earlier in the meeting, the board agreed to meet with a Bornstein Seafoods representative in a workshop session to review the company's lease agreement with the Port and look at possible parking arrangements for the company's proposed tourist attraction, the Bornstein Fish Factory.In a letter to the Port dated Dec. 10, the Oregon Department of Justice raised a red flag on a change to the lease that was made in March 2006, saying it doesn't comply with the rules set forward by the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, which supplied the loan for Bornstein's to build a new fish processing plant at the Port.Later, Sanders criticized Hess and Larsen for signing paperwork related to the Bornstein project on Nov. 28 without consulting the rest of the commission.In other business, the board:• Approved a resolution urging the Oregon Department of Transportation to put a higher priority on the Astoria Bypass and Warrenton Parkway project.• Approved a lease reassignment to Englund-Astoria LLC, the new business name for Englund Marine Supply Co.• Heard a presentation on salmon recovery from John Veenendaal, who explained the role of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board in improving salmon habitat.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Commisioner Ann Samuelson - No Way! - Transporting And Storing Billions Of Cubic Feet Of LNG Will Cause An Explosion
Clatsop County approves NorthernStar LNG project
Filed from Houston - Energy Current - 12/18/2007 5:32:52 PM GMT
USA: Clatsop County (Oregon) Commissioners tentatively approved in a 4-1 vote last week the land-use changes that would allow Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas to construct its proposed Bradwood liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on the mouth of the Columbia River near Astoria, Ore., according to media reports.
To meet the Clatsop County code, commissioners listed the project as a small- to medium-size facility. The commissioners also voted to allow NorthernStar to dredge part of the river to make way for LNG tankers. A final decision is expected in January.
Earlier this fall, the Clatsop County Planning Commission approved the land-use changes that the facility needs to meet local zoning rules, despite the county staff and an outside consultant advising against it.
Bradwood Landing still needs approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has final say in the project's construction, as well as water and air quality permits from Oregon and Washington.
Under the proposed plan, NorthernStar would build two LNG storage tankers, each 168 feet (51 m) high, across the river from Puget Island. The company also would construct a new pipeline to transport gas from the terminal to markets in the Pacific Northwest.
The company's pipeline would cross Clatsop, Columbia and Cowlitz counties in Oregon and connect with the Williams pipeline near Interstate 5 northeast of Kelso. An additional pipeline, proposed separately, would plug the terminal into gas lines throughout Oregon.
Opponents of the facility have threatened to appeal the county's decision, accusing commissioners of ignoring their constituents' concerns about safety hazards, damage to fish habitat and impact on shipping traffic the terminal would create.
Commissioner Richard Lee said he voted for the proposal because the terminal "fit the bill" for the riverside site, a long-abandoned sawmill, The Daily News reports.
Un-Freaking-Believeable!!!
Commissioner Ann Samuelson said NorthernStar still must comply with a number of the board's conditions, including offsetting environmental impacts and fixing up a road leading to the site.
However, Samuelson said NorthernStar's executives appear to be open and transparent. "I haven't felt like they were steamrolling us at any point in time. I haven't felt that they were being dishonest."
Samuelson also dismissed claims that transporting and storing billions of cubic feet of superchilled gas could cause an explosion.
The Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition, which opposes the terminal, accused the commissioners of glossing over the public's safety concerns, noting that the county had ignored the advice of its staff, which had recommended against approving the project.
"We are convinced that this decision is incorrect, that no rational agency could believe that this project is safe or beneficial to our community," said Laurie Caplan, an LNG opponent in Astoria.
Opponents also contend that Oregon does not need the gas and is being used as a backdoor to ship gas to California, where several proposed LNG projects have been blocked.
Bradwood Landing is one of three LNG terminals proposed for construction in Oregon, including two near the mouth of the Columbia River and another in Coos Bay.
Filed from Houston - Energy Current - 12/18/2007 5:32:52 PM GMT
USA: Clatsop County (Oregon) Commissioners tentatively approved in a 4-1 vote last week the land-use changes that would allow Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas to construct its proposed Bradwood liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on the mouth of the Columbia River near Astoria, Ore., according to media reports.
To meet the Clatsop County code, commissioners listed the project as a small- to medium-size facility. The commissioners also voted to allow NorthernStar to dredge part of the river to make way for LNG tankers. A final decision is expected in January.
Earlier this fall, the Clatsop County Planning Commission approved the land-use changes that the facility needs to meet local zoning rules, despite the county staff and an outside consultant advising against it.
Bradwood Landing still needs approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has final say in the project's construction, as well as water and air quality permits from Oregon and Washington.
Under the proposed plan, NorthernStar would build two LNG storage tankers, each 168 feet (51 m) high, across the river from Puget Island. The company also would construct a new pipeline to transport gas from the terminal to markets in the Pacific Northwest.
The company's pipeline would cross Clatsop, Columbia and Cowlitz counties in Oregon and connect with the Williams pipeline near Interstate 5 northeast of Kelso. An additional pipeline, proposed separately, would plug the terminal into gas lines throughout Oregon.
Opponents of the facility have threatened to appeal the county's decision, accusing commissioners of ignoring their constituents' concerns about safety hazards, damage to fish habitat and impact on shipping traffic the terminal would create.
Commissioner Richard Lee said he voted for the proposal because the terminal "fit the bill" for the riverside site, a long-abandoned sawmill, The Daily News reports.
Un-Freaking-Believeable!!!
Commissioner Ann Samuelson said NorthernStar still must comply with a number of the board's conditions, including offsetting environmental impacts and fixing up a road leading to the site.
However, Samuelson said NorthernStar's executives appear to be open and transparent. "I haven't felt like they were steamrolling us at any point in time. I haven't felt that they were being dishonest."
Samuelson also dismissed claims that transporting and storing billions of cubic feet of superchilled gas could cause an explosion.
The Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition, which opposes the terminal, accused the commissioners of glossing over the public's safety concerns, noting that the county had ignored the advice of its staff, which had recommended against approving the project.
"We are convinced that this decision is incorrect, that no rational agency could believe that this project is safe or beneficial to our community," said Laurie Caplan, an LNG opponent in Astoria.
Opponents also contend that Oregon does not need the gas and is being used as a backdoor to ship gas to California, where several proposed LNG projects have been blocked.
Bradwood Landing is one of three LNG terminals proposed for construction in Oregon, including two near the mouth of the Columbia River and another in Coos Bay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)