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