Loading...
02/24/1987 City CouncilThese minutes were not approved, See March 10 for details. A verbatim transcript was made It - approved on March 17, 1987 as the February 24, 1987 minutes, THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO MARCH 3, 1987 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY' 24, 1987 The Special Meeting of -the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds L.ibrary. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Jack Wilson, Council Pres. Scott Snyder, City Attorney Steve Dwyer Mary Lou Block, Planning Manager Jo -Anne Jaech Jim Barnes, Park & Rec. Manager Bill Kasper Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt. John Nordquist Bob Alberts, City Engineer Lloyd Ostrom Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Tony Russell, Student Rep. Dan Prinz, Police Chief CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING CONTRACT WITH CULP WESNER CULP TO CONDUCT A BRIEF REVIEW OF SECONDARY TREATMENT SITE OPTIONS AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $7,5QO Councilmember Ostrom expressed his concern about a proper notice for this special meeting, about bringing up this matter in the last minute, when people are used to regular scheduled meetings. City Attorney Snyder advised that proper notice was given and that the Council in general is free to discuss any topic at the regular meeting dates established by ordinance. Nothing illegal was done in this case. Councilmember Nordquist inquired about minute taking and recording. Mr. Hahn responded that the tape recorder was on and that he was taking minutes. Mayor Naughten read the Special Meeting Notice. Council President Wilson said that many people were interested in getting information on alternative sites, and that Culp-Wesner-Culp (CWC) can get the cost out before the March 17 meeting. Councilmember Nordquist inquired as to what factual figures means and what sites are being considered. Councilmember Ostrom inquired as to who is actually interested. Mayor Naughten, in response to a question, said that as we talk to Metro and Burlington Northern Railroad it might be.worthwhile to know the cost effectiveness and feasibility of options with greater certainty. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the status of the Metro study. Mr. Hahn responded that the Richmond Beach and Edmonds East sewer "swap" idea that was reported in the newspapers is being studied by Metro staff and is due out on March.13. Councitmemb,er Kasper said that the City should keep looking at sites. He said that he found out that the sites were not being studied and that neither staff nor CWC had looked at the Woodway site during the preparation of the Engineering Report. Councilmember Nordquist inquired as to when CWC commenced the Engineering Report preparation and at what cost, and whether the Council had given the firm a list of sites. Mr. Hahn answered that the study was begun June 11, 1985, cost $85,0.00, and that no specific sites were provided by the Council. Councilmember Hall said that we are moving too quickly, that this represents bad planning, that she can't imaginea facility with lot line to lot line coverage. She believed that EPA would give the City an extension. She stated that the proposals for design all implied that this (Dayton and 2nd) was the wrong site, and that it was too small a site, and that tertiary treatment would have insufficient space if required in the future. Also the $40 million estimate did.not include the cost of the outfall. Councilmember Nordquist said that this discussion implies that all of this debate started last year when in fact in started about 10 years ago when Reid Middleton did an extensive study of options, including Metro a.nd combining with Lynnwood, and even the Richmond Beach option. EPA in 1978 indicated that it would provide a 75% grant to the most cost-effective site and plant option, and that this was in fact the present site. Mayor Harrison had a different proposal whereby secondary treatment facilities were to be separately provided at another site. Councilmember Ostrom said that one of the key arguments is how much the project is going to cost. He said that it sounded to him that it would cost more if it were put elsewhere, and asked Mr. Hahn to review the costs. Mr. Hahn stated that the Engineering Report estimated the relocation to the Union 0il site to cost an addition $3.663 million, plus the costs of condemnation, litigation, and possible damages. The consultant had estimated a total of $7 million. The Woodway site, according to Mr. Hahn, did not have a cost estimate analysis, but the consultants indicated that the site has severe water problems, requires major bluff stabilization, requires a 2000 foot long outfall, and has limited, if any, access possibilities. Councilmember Ostrom said that we have the cost estimates for Union Oil and that we asked the ratepayers in a survey what they wished and that 80% said to keep the plant at the present. site. Councilmember Jaech stated that she tries to view this issue in a logical way. Moving the plant just has to be more expensive. There is the actual cost of the pipes, $3.6 million, there is the environmental impact on the bird sanctuary, requiring an EIS, there is the condemnation issue. We may pay damages and on the basis of full fare market value for waterfront land. Add it all together and the common EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 FEBRUARY 24, 1987. element is time. All the engineers have said that.time would be the enemy as far as grants. They have said that modifications to the design at the present site is okay, but changing the site would cause delays. The potential loss of the.grant is'the biggest risk. If space is needed for tertiary, Second Avenue can be closed. Councilmember Kasper said that CWC did not justify the valuation of the site, and that the Woodway site was never studied. The covering of the plant.at the present site would cost an extra $5 million. No one was told that the present plant would be mostly replaced as part of the project. A staging area is needed and we may have to get into the Public Works area. Also, we should get the other agencies to participate in the acquisition of an alternative site. Councilmember Hall expressed her concern that grants would be at the 18% level. She also mentioned that at the NLC Convention people cautioned her to be careful about building a "Cadillac" plant. When asked by Ms. Hall, Mr. Hahn confirmed that the initial estimates at grant levels are in the 20-25% range, but that refinements in the needs estimates could bring up that percentage. Council President Wilson agreed that the $40 million estimate is probably conservative (too high), but that so is the estimated $7 million for moving to Union Oil. He also said that our plant has higher residential value. In 1963, when it was first built, it was on the outskirts. Now, in 1988-90 we would be building a brand new plant in the middle of downtown Edmonds. The Council should think about this, and we have not even held a hearing. Councilmember Ostrom said that the City has had all sorts of hearings and meetings, and work sessions, and that this is not exactly a surprise. Until the last few months not much has been said about this. Council President Wilson said that this subject was not posted and that if you talk to people they were simply not aware. Councilmember Jaech said that she remembered over and over again having these meetings, and seeing special newspaper articles. There was also the survey. People just did not turn out. Last time the sewer rates were increased no on came out until the actual rates were increased. The $40 million is an estimate at this point, and the Council has seen a number of schematic designs -- some covered, some decked, some pretty, some not affordable. The design will change. We were cautioned at the NLC Convention.no.t to go for the "pie -in -the -sky", but to go for the bare minimum which would meet EPA standard-s. The $40 million is not necessarily the figure. Councilmember Nordquist stated that the debate can be prolonged indefinitely and that much material has been read. Each Councilmember can decide this. He said that a one year extension has been brought up, and that perhaps during that time the.voters could address this issue in a fall ballot. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 Councilmember Hall agreed with Councilmember Jaech about the rates, and said it would be too late when the rates are raised. She acknowledged Councilmember Nordquist's comments and said that this decision is a legislative responsibility. An education process is needed. Councilmember Nordquist reiterated that much material has been made available and that Councilmembers can be experts at•this point. He expressed satisfaction at the decision that was made, based on both the studies of 10 years ago and the new material. Councilmember Dwyer mentioned that, thanks to Councilmember Ostrom, the public can place this issue on a referendum vote if there is a concern in the community. We would all abide. He said he has heard nothing to dissuade him from the survey results, and that he would abide by what the public says. People around the plant also wanted this project at the present site. There is nothing out there to indicate that more studies are needed. There is no way to justify to 8 out of 10 people in the survey spending additional money for studies. Council President Wilson said that he did not think that asking 1400 people on a survey is a mandate. All we asked was if people wanted to spend more money, and of course they said no. Councilmember Dwyer replied that the survey questions were reviewed by the Council a number of times, so the results cannot be ignored. We can't pretend it didn't happen. We even asked the abutters, and even the one dissenter, Mr. Bob Noack, said that all the others agreed to support the present site. Councilmember Hall wanted to know if there was a projected plan for Edmonds., if a shining new plant was part of Mainstreets or DDAT. What have they said? Lot line to lot line expansion will have an impact. Also, $40 million is too high. I_t can be done for $15 at the present site. Council President Wilson asked the Mayor if there was merit in studying this. The Mayor said that verifying the costs would be useful in settling the issue. Councilmember Dwyer said that one can understand that the consultant would be willing to do the study. But the Woodway site was dismissed early on. There is no reason to believe we would learn anything new and we would only cause delays. Why study sites that won't work out? Is the investment of $7,500 worthwhile? Councilmember Nordq.uist said that when the plan and model were shown to the Mainstreets Board they were at first apprehensive. But when the lid was shown people were interested. They were told about how the City constructed an underground water tank at Yost Park, covering it with tennis courts. There is a lot of potential. Also, even on Councilmember Kasper's sites, there is a whole file on them where they had been evaluated. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 Councilmember Dwyer moved (Ostrom second) to adjourn. Motion Carried. Special Session ended at about 8:20. These minutes are subject to March 3, 1987, approval. J QUELINE G. PARRETT, City Clerk LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 FEBRUARY 24, 1987