Loading...
02/24/1987 City Council (3)VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 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 Library. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Jack Wilson, Council President Steve Dwyer Laura Hall Jo -Anne Jaech Bill Kasper John Nordquist Lloyd Ostrom Tony Russell, Student Rep. STAFF PRESENT Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Mary Lou Block, Planning Manager Jim Barnes, Park & Rec. Manager Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt. Bob Alberts, City Engineer Jack Weinz, Fire Chief 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 5 COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM I received a call last night, and one of the subjects that came up was the fact that this meeting was not properly published. The notice of the meeting was not properly published. The newspaper made no mention of it; the television announcement made no mention of it. I see I have a note here from you. It says that it was posted in the library, but you say someone took it. I don't know. But the fact is the meeting was not properly published. Consequently, I question whether we should be having it, since there may have been a lot of people interested in attending who do not know about it. CITY ATTORNEY SNYDER Mr. Ostrom, I suppose the key there is properly. The City's Ordinance #104.010 establishes every Tuesday at 7 as a meeting date. By state law and the open meetings and record act, once a city has established a regular date, it is free to meet at that date and discuss any topic THIS IS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT WHICH WAS APPROVED ON MARCH 17, 1986 AS THE FEBRUARY 24,;1987 MINUTES that it deems appropriate. You can amend your agenda, so we're not in violation of the state statute. A special notice was given of this meeting, but it was gratuitous. It wasn't required, and even if it were, the only requirement for a special notice of a meeting at state law is that it be delivered 24 hours in advance of the meeting to members of the City Council and to the newspapers. So, I won't argue with your point that some persons who were interested may not have known, but you're not doing anything illegal by proceeding this evening. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM Well, okay, I will --I just wanted to bring that up. My only comment is that this is not a very good way to publicize meetings. I think this was a kind of a last minute effort to get a meeting together, and I don't think it was well done at all. I really object to doing things this way. This evening is our committee meeting night, and I think people understand that, too, in response to what you're saying Scott. People get used to a certain format of our meetings, and when you depart from that at the eleventh hour, it leaves people in the lurch. MAYOR NAUGHTEN Okay, any other comments? Yes. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST I have a question, Mr. Mayor. Who's taking minutes? MAYOR NAUGHTEN Well, there's no minute -taker. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST Who's monitoring the machine? MAYOR NAUGHTEN Peter Hahn is. MR. HAHN This is on . . . and I'm taking notes. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST Okay, just so we have minutes. And is there a copy of the agenda in the audience for the people to know what the subject material is? EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 MAYOR NAUGHTEN Has this agenda been ? MR. HAHN I don't know. That was all done by the city clerk. I have no idea. MAYOR NAUGHTEN I don't know what's on the table over there. Dan, is there a copy of this on the table over there? Is there a notice there, Dan? COUNCILMEMBER JAECH No, that's the regular agenda. MAYOR NAUGHTEN Okay. Well, let me go ahead and read the notice then. The Executive Session will be held commencing at 7 p.m. to consider a personnel matter. Following that, the Council will meet as a whole to consider approval of an amendment to an existing contract with Culp-Wesner-Culp to conduct a brief review of secondary sewer treatment site options at a cost notto exceed $7,500. And I believe, Jack, you called this meeting. This is your agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON Well, it seems that there are a lot of people that are interested in getting more information on these secondary alternate sites. And certainly CWC is interested and would like to have some facts and figures before their contract is voted on. They feel that they can get us some reasonable numbers before, I think it's March the 17th, when we will openly be voting on that contract. And in addition to that, I think some of the staff is desirable of getting some more information on other sites and some Council people are. And there has been an increasing number of people in the city that have been asking about --Can't we look into and get some facts on some different sites? So, with that, we thought the smart thing to do would be to act early on and help the design consultants out to get some factual figures. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST What do you mean by factual figures? That's a real broad one. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON Well, yes it is. And what we need is some numbers on some other sites on what it would cost to put the plant there. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST Do you have those sites listed? COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, Well, there's been a couple of sites that they are kind of interested in. One would be the Union Oil site, and another would be around -- down the tracks. I guess the Burlington Northern property. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM Who is interested? You said "they" are interested. Who is they? COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON Well, anybody that's interested in looking at a different site. Those are the logical two sites and the only two that I've heard discussed. MAYOR NAUGHTEN I might add that we are, concurrent to what's going -on, looking into that one site down there by Woodway, that's in the city of Woodway, between Edmonds and Richmond Beach. .Talking to Metro and Burlington Northern about the feasibility of maybe combining the Richmond Beach site and the Edmonds site and putting it in down there in that area as a cost -.effective measure'. We will know better when we talk to Burlington Northern and Metro about whether that's even feasible. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH Mayor Naughten, your statement just now triggered something --that I was standing in line in downtown Seattle at a bank with Norm Rice and we were talking. Norm Rice I think most of you know is on the Seattle City Council. And I was teasing him about his city trying to dump the sewer garbage from the Richmond Beach area onto the city of Edmonds and funnel it up here, just jokingly. And he stated to me --at first he teased me and tried to blame it on Lois. But then he said that the Metro group had put together a proposal concerning the Richmond Beach plant and were delivering it to the city of Edmonds. What do you know about that? MAYOR NAUGHTEN Well, there was some talk about shipping the Richmond Beach . . . COUNCILMEMBER KASPER . No, she's talking about the most recent proposal, right? EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 COUNCILMEMBER JAECH Yes, this is a brand new [MR: HAHN: No, no, this is the stuff that we were reading in the papers three, four weeks ago.] because Norm said there was something and it was in the final stages, and it would be . . MR. HAHN The original schedule, when I informed you that this came up in a newspaper article, the original schedule was to have the staff, their staff, prepare a report by February 26, which is two days from now. And that got postponed because some key Council members, I guess, were away. And I think the 13th of March is when they're scheduled to report back on this swap, this sewage swap issue. So that's in two weeks from Thursday. MAYOR NAUGHTEN Well, that supposes though that our plant stays where it's at, and Mountlake Terrace goes to Metro [MR. HAHN: That's the swap:] This is something different we're talking about. We're talking about combining these two plants. [COUNCILMEMBER JAECH: Yes, I know.] MR. HAHN I want to make sure that people understand that this site that we're calling the Woodway site is a shortcut which was walked two weeks ago by staff, just to get an idea of where it is. It's still a long shot because even though on paper it appears that you can look at the things that the Mayor mentioned, such as combining with Richmond Beach and all of that, it's an extremely wet site, very inaccessible, with a lot of problems. So we don't want to present you with the ideas that this is a great site. But, it just needs to be studied so we really know if you want to look at it more or if it deserves a further look. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER Mr. Mayor, during the vote the other night, I made the issue, and I just felt that during the time between all these contracts stewing around for two months, that I thought we should continue to look at other sites, because I felt that we hadn't even looked at one of the sites. And the other one we really hadn't, in depth, really studied. And Steve eloquently said we can do that even regardless of the fact we vote. My problem is I've poked around to see if anybody was doing anything, and up until last week, nobody really had done anything and they did start to move last week. I went down to the site. Other people --I just want these things to be done while we've got time to do them and not have somebody come down on us after the fact and say we EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 didn't look at all the sites. And I think that that's why it's so valuable to do this at this time.. And I think that's why Jack wanted to accelerate because somebody says --How are we going to get these people to do it without paying them for it? And I think that's the issue. And we're.not talking about that much money. We just want some motion while we're sitting, at this point. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST Peter, before the meeting I asked you what we paid Culp to study. What did you tell me? MR. HAHN The Engineering Report was $85,000. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST And what did we give him as the scope of work to study? MR. HAHN To look at alternative sites. One of them he had looked at in detail. That was the Union Oil site. The site that Mr. Kasper is talking about, the one I'm calling Woodway site, he really didn't look at in great depth. His feeling was, he dismissed it early on as being so wet. It's really the .Sound on the east side of the tracks. Almost that bad. I'm exaggerating a little bit. [COUNCILMEMBER KASPER: But he didn't say so.] Yes, he did. [COUNCILMEMBER KASPER: He didn't say he dismissed i.t. He never considered it in his written report.] Not in writing. He looked at it sort of just --you know --he looked at it physically at the site and didn't think it warranted much deeper. study than that. So why, at the time, spend a lot of money when it didn't look that feasible. I personally think that after talking to him and the Geotechnicai Engineers it's probably going to turn out to be infeasible. That's my feeling. I can't give you the numbers -- because it will cost 50 million extra --I can't tell how much. [COUNCILMEMBER DWYER: Well, what has changed about the site or . . .] [MAYOR NAUGHTEN: Steve, John's not done yet.] [COUNCILMEMBER HALL: And I'm next.] COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST When did we start that study? [MR. HAHN: June 11, 1985.] And that was signed by this Council? Were you all here when we signed that? [COUNCILMEMBER HALL: That's right.] Did you get a list from these Councilmembers of the.sites to study? [MR. HAHN: No.] EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 COUNCILMEMBER HALL: Mr. Mayor, let me ask you this, since you were the tie -breaking Am I understanding that now? MAYOR NAUGHTEN then: Are,you going to change your vote vote to keep the plant where it is? No, what I'm saying is I'm just updating you on what's going on, as far as what we're --doing . . . COUNCILMEMBER HALL Well, you were adamant when I brought this up prior to, and you said it's all over, the vote is taken. And so I just want to know where you stand on the issue. I am for investigation, and I think we're not going far enough. I say this is a regional issue, as it is with the solid land waste issue. Also, if you're aware now, EPA is going lighter on secondary sewer treatment. They're pulling back. We're now worrying about the ozone layer and that, and they're going to start hitting heavily on that. We haven't commenced our secondary sewer, and I will sit here and say it again, we're going too quickly. Forty million dollars on that site is abominable. If you're talking eight, ten, twelve million, I might consider that sight. It is bad planning for the city. I can't imagine any Planning Department saying that's the logical, most beautiful site. That's where we're going to put forty million dollars. I say we should still get together with the entities surrounding us and get EPA to at least grant us a one year extension. I don't say a waiver; that's too expensive. But I think EPA is willing to listen because of the Gramm-Rudman factors, because of everything on privatization. There are 39,000 cities that can't comply now. With lack of funding, they'll even be less. If we show good faith effort, I believe we will have success in asking for a year's extension, six months extension. Every proposal that we read, and we read a stack of them, didn't we folks, and in between the lines it indicated that this was not the best site. It didn't take but half a brain to figure that out. But they were willing to go and try cramming this plant on the site. We had another session with Culp, in regards to tertiary, which is right down the line. In fact, many cities are on line with tertiary. There's not room on that site to put tertiary. Once again, that's going to mean another site, additional monies. The forty million, as I understand it, also does not consider the outfall, tearing up Dayton Street for the third time in about five years or less, and we have to expend more monies over above the forty million for that outfall. Also, we do not know how far out we're going to go. It could be another humongous bit of money for our citizens. And I maintain I don't feel comfortable going ahead pell-mell as we are. And I am comfor- table with the design team; I have no problem with that. I think, too, they would welcome an alternative site. That is my opinion. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST Mr. Mayor, I think the innuendo has been given tonight that this is something that started in the last year. And I'd like to straighten that misnomer out. This started some ten years ago when we had the option or the --of applying for a secondary waiver, or a waiver on this particular situation for secondary treatment. That application was never filled out, and it was found laying on a desk. When a new city engineer came on board, he filled it out and, of course, the state didn't accept it. So we went in and asked for a waiver. At that time, the city hired Reid Middleton Associates, and they did an extensive study on this thing. We have studied going into conjunction with Metro. And at that time, it was to split the city 50/50, half going to Metro and half going to our own plant. There was another study to put some of it into the Lynnwood plant; there was another study to run it down the very area you're talking about, Bill. That's been studied, only we were going to down with a pipe and hook it into the Richmond Beach road. That didn't work. Then the EPA came out and they said, "We will pay 75 percent of this plant (this is in 1978--75 percent of it) at the most cost-effective site." And that site was selected as to where it is right now. And that's the one EPA would have paid 75 percent of. .Then.the Mayor came along and he had his own plan. He wanted to put primary at the plant where it is now, and then secondary down the street, where you guys are talking about the site, and then maybe someday put them all together. I mean another --you talk about cost-effective, that was more bucks to tie the whole thing into one area. So, I just, Laura, I just, I respect what you're saying, but this just didn't start. COUNCILMEMBER HALL Did you know, John, I'm aware of all that history. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST I know you're aware of it, and I'm not just trying to give you a history lesson, because I'm sure you were at all of those meetings. But I think the public, who you're going out and saying that this is just something that's happening, they should be informed, also, of the other side. COUNCILMEMBER HALL No, John, I'm not saying it's just happening. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM I think that's the kind of the fallacy in this whole argument. It's as though we haven't ever looked at any of these questions before. I think one of the key arguments is how much this is going to cost. EMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 You know, I've heard a whole lot of discussion of this particular aspect of it, and it sounds to me like it's going to cost an awful lot more if we don't put it at the present site. If I had my druthers, I'd put it somewhere else --I always have felt that way. But, I wanted to ask Peter a question. Peter, you've been involved in this thing and have seen some estimates of what it would cost to put the plant at a different place, as far as running the sewer lines down through the swamp there and moving the plant, and all that. What kind of figures do we have? MR. HAHN The Union Oil site was studied in some detail, and a cost breakdown was prepared by Culp-Wesner-Culp as part of the engineering report. And their cost was 3.663 million for the relocation of the convey- ance facilities and a total tag of about 7.million, which took into account the complicated land taking of a unique, irreplaceable site that Union Oil is to the present user for a tank facility on a body of water. So 7 million is what we've been using. Some of that is conjectual. As far as the other site, we don't have firm costs.. We know three things: We know the site is very wet; we know that the Sound is very shal.low--I'm talking about the Woodway site --we know that the Sound has a very shallow profile, and you would need a 2,000-foot-Long outfall to get it to the proper dilution zone; and the third thing we know is that the bluffs have been sloughing pretty seriously, which is why Burlington Northern originally moved the tracks about 200 feet to the west, to get out from the sloughing of the bluffs. So, obviously that would be a problem for us, too, to protect the bluff from eroding on top of our facility. So, the foundation cost, the actual cost, we know would be extra, plus obviously you'd be carrying it even further than Union Oil. But we don't have those costs, and I think that's what.the purpose of the study would be --is to document if we went to the Woodway site that's X dollars more, less, whatever. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM Okay, but you're saying that their study that we paid $85,000 for indicated about a 7 million dollar greater cost to move the plant than to leave --to go down to the Union Oil site than to leave it where it is. [MR. HAHN: Correct.] And I think what John's trying to say is we've done that study. I must say, that's the basis of my vote on this thing. We've had a whole lot of rhetoric on this thing and not really too much as far as facts. We've had all kinds of questions. Wouldn't it be nicer? Or wouldn't it cost less? Or whatever? I think we've got those pieces of information, as.Peter just said. Also, we put out a questionnaire to the public, which has been maligned as to the fact that it was not clear. What the question was was simply this. If it were going to cost more to put the sewer plant down at Union Oil Beach instead of where it is, EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 would you want to pay for i.t.. And the answer was emphatically "no." Now there's been a lot of talk about --well we shouldn't follow the public, we should lead them. Well, when 80 percent of the people who are going to pay for it tell me they don't want to pay any more than they have to, I tend to listen to that. And that's going to be what I'll base my decision on. As I say, I would much rather see the plant somewhere else. But I'm not going to sit here and say well I don't care about what the taxpayer has to do or the ratepayer in the sewer system. I'm not going to ignore that. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH Mayor Naughten, I guess part of my own personal problem is that I try to be very logical, and sometimes I find 9 times out of 10 logic doesn't seem to work when you go through the reasoning process. But to me, moving the site has to be more expensive, no matter how you look at it. You've got the additional pipe, which Peter said is roughly estimated at about 3 million for the piping; we've got to go through the bird sanctuary which is not just a city -declared sanctuary, it's a state -declared sanctuary, which would require a major EIS, not a minor one but a major one that we would have to do. It takes time to do an EIS; we're not even sure if we can go through that area, if it would be allowed after we did the EIS. Then we have to go through condemnation proceedings possibly out at the site where Union Oil is. That also takes a lot of time. I've also, in some checking, found that if we go through that we may have to pay damages to Union Oil. We would also have to pay full -fare market value for what that prime waterfront property is worth, which could be extremely expensive. You add all of these together and one common element comes out of them, plus them being expensive. The common element that comes out is time. And the one thing that all of the people that came before of us, all of.the various engineering firms did tell us when we went back and reviewed it again, was that time could be our enemy in getting our share of the funding to help pay for 50 percent of this project. They said if we did some changes to the site plans at the existing site, we would be okay. But, if we went and moved the site, we stood a fair chance of losing our funding and losing our position on the list for getting it. So, when we're looking at 3 million for piping, you have to add in all of these other costs. But then add the big one; add the possibility of losing 50 percent of the funding for the project. To me, that could be a substantial loss. The one other thing that all the firms did agree on, as far as I can remember and my notes show, is that if we do have to expand the site after secondary, there is enough room to do it, if we close the road just between the Public Works section and where our existing plant is and pull the Public Works site into it. We do have enough room for expansion to tertiary. 'So, that's just what I've gotten going through my notes and what my concerns are. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 COUNCILMEMBER KASPER Well, along the lines of --Culp did not justify the valuation of the site. Number two, there's never been any evidence that that Great Northern site has been studied, anywhere. And thirdly, we do have a gap in time between the contract. We didn't hold the contract up. Culp says "I don't care where the site is, the contract is regarding the job." Last, but not least; I have had no knowledge of a bird sanctuary we're going through. We're going down 104 and we're going down Pine Street. We're not entering the marsh at all. And last, but not least, every one of these councilmen sitting there, geegawing and looking at the covering of the sewer plant, which is another five million dollars which hasn't even been presented to the public, and last, but not least, the public was never told that the plant that's there today will be 80 to 90 percent gone. We're replacing the whole plant. And if that points to why we should consider moving it at this time, it's never been brought to their attention that we're destroying the plant that's there. And it's costing us another half a million dollars to build that plant in that location over the other plant. And we need a staging area, which means we're probably going to have to close Second Avenue, probably move out of the Public Works section. Why should we contribute our --stir up our whole Public Works operation for four years. We should probably force the utility to buy the entire site to build the plant and go somewhere else, and then they'd have their tertiary site, and that hasn't been brought into the picture. COUNCILMEMBER HALL Peter, I am told --our Senator has mentioned talking to Andrea-Beni- Ridiker (phonetic). When we're talking 50 percent grant monies, that according to them is down the tube, and we are looking more like 18 percent. MR. HAHN Oh, okay, the level for the cigarette tax money has been set. And your correct. Right now it seems that there's a real question as to how much the cigarette fund revenues could fund. And so they're talking 20 or 25 percent; maybe it will be 18, who knows. But that hasn't been decided. And a lot of people think that the projects that are on the needs list, many of them are not projects that are really mandated, but they're everybody's dream that is your 18th priority for a city, but they would never do. But they still put them into the needs study, because, as you know, if you don't put it on a list, you'll never get money. So when the state goes to the needs assessment, and only keeps those projects which are really needed and mandated like ours, there may, in fact, be more money available than 20 percent. I don't know if it will be 50, but it could be more --it could be more than 20. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 COUNCILMEMBER HALL I'm banking that, hopefully, it's 18, if we're lucky. Let me ask you this. At our meeting that we had the other morning, Gordon Culp was asked, and we were all asked, how we justified the 40 million. And you know, we couldn't really come up with that at that point. I am saying, Peter --you know, it would be real neat as when we hire an architect to look over our home for a remodel job, they're going to give us top -of -the -line. They're not going to look, and I say but I only have this many dollars, and let's get down to realistic terms. That's the feeling I have. If I could be assured --in other words if all we're going is to secondary.sewer treatment, just getting out smaller doo-doos than what we're doing now. Right? All right, that takes a higher incinerator rate and the whole thing, and a few parts. If there's anything we learned at NLC, Jo -Anne and I attended many sessions on this very subject, they said resist EPA, don't go the Cadillac route, do the route that will do the job. And that's lesser. And that's what I.keep yammering away. I can see keeping.it at that sight, if we're looking at 10 to 12 million. And I can justify that to the tax -paying public. But 40 million is astronomical, and I don't think it's justified. MR. HAHN Actually, I don't think that there's any assumption --I think you started out by saying how is the 40 million dollars justified or arrived at. [COUNCILMEMBER HALL: And without the outfall. We were told that it was a full package.] The way the 40 million was done was to take certain assumptions on contingency costs and other factors that go into getting a price, including design costs, and so on. I think the 40 million is probably an overstatement of costs. And the reason is because in a report you try to think of the worst case when you're building it. I think everybody is confident that it will cost less than 40 million. That's not to say that if you're building tennis courts on top and a city park it might not. [COUNCILMEMBER HALL: At the most, 3 million, as per Gordon Culp's quote, to save. But we haven't figured in the outfall.] Well, the outfall, in case you don't know, by the way, we're having immediate, current today problems with the outfall. So the outfall would have to be repaired, replaced, or whatever, no matter what. And I don't think that's an issue in what we're talking about. I'm sure you realize that. [COUNCILMEMBER HALL: It is, because we are told and the public in their minds says 40 million, that's going to do the complete job.] I think the 40 million would probably --there's five million dollars in contingency in that 40 million dollars. Even an outfall probably would.not cost five million dollars. [COUNCIL - MEMBER HALL: Let's hope.] But to answer your initial question about whether we're building a Cadillac, I don't think we are.. And in fact, our costs are very reasonable, because I've talked to other people who have plants planned as part of this latest secondary EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 effort, and the burden that their going to have is higher than the burden that we're going to have, in terms of relation to our income. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON Mr. Mayor. Well, I talked to our design consultants in a casual format, and I agree with what's been said here about the 40 million. That is a worst case scenario, and that also includes their figures on the seven million, Lloyd, in regards to moving it. That was a worst case scenario. As a matter of fact, they felt that that was probably badly distorted, up to and including the fact that our property, residual property where the site is now, is probably substantially more valuable than what we would have to pay, with the nebulous consideration of the damages if, indeed, it went that way. And so, you can't hang your hat on that figure. There's just too much there that's unknown. But this not unknown. In 1963 I think it was, John, that that plant was built, something like that. 1963, that plant was on --in a lot of respects --was on the outskirts of the city. I mean, nobody drove down there much, and it was just off to the side, and nobody thought anything about it. But, folks, this is not 1963. We're talking about building a brand new sewer plant. It just happens to be over, around, and during the dismantling of the old plant on this site. We are building a brand new sewer plant in 1988, 89, and 90 in downtown Edmonds. Think of it. It's absolutely incredible, and we haven't even held a hearing on it. Now that, folks, is absolutely unbelievable. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM Mr. Mayor. You're memories bad, Jack. We have had many hearings on the subject of the secondary sewage treatment plant, and the site has been discussed, and there's been all kinds of opportunity for people to express their opinion on that. And the fact of the matter is, until about the last three months, there has been very little ever said about it. That's what I find so interesting --is that --we did ask the public. If it costs you more, do you want pay for it? And 80 percent of them said "No." We have had hearings; we had hearings and hearings and hearings over the last several years on this subject. Lots of council meetings, work meetings, as well as public hearings have been spent on it. It is not a new subject. As John says, we've been talking about it for years. So it isn't exactly a surprise to people that this is happening. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON Mr. Mayor. I don't believe it was ever posted. There's no evidence that it ever was. Not only that, but if you talk to people in this community, Lloyd; and I assume you do, they simply were not aware that this was going on. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 1 COUNCILMEMBER JAECH I can remember sitting here at a number of the meetings that we have had that were announced regarding the secondary sewer treatment, and I remember saying over and over, and I think Jeff Palmer and maybe some of the other people that are in the audience were here, where I kept saying that we weren't getting public turning out. Begging to get the public turning out. And the press were very helpful. They did publish articles, special separate articles on our discussions on it. We put notices in the water/sewer bills. We've done all sorts of things concerning that there may be rate increases. The survey was another indication. But people just didn't turn out. Sewers, for some reason, is not an attractive issue that draws people. And those of us that were on the Council when we had to raise the water/sewer rates several years back remember vividly we held numerous hearings on the water/rates, and nobody turned up for them until the night after, the Council meeting, the night after they all got their rate increases. And then we thought we were all going to get lynched. But we had many hearings on those, but people didn't turn out until after the fact. The same thing has happened on this. We have had a number of different hearings and a number of different discussions, and it has been published. The one other thing that I would like to bring up, and Peter contradict me if I'm wrong in this, but I think I asked the question before. When we're talking about it, the 40 thousand dollars is simply an estimate. It is not a hard figure. We asked people to come forth with designs. We saw a lot of different designs. Some of them were very interesting to look at. Some Council members I remember had asked --Well, what would happen if you did cover it? --in looking at the dreaming stage. But, the covers --they showed us all sorts of different things that could happen to it, which were very pretty, but we can't afford those things. But, when we have the engineering firm selected, which we now do, what we will end up doing with the contractor is getting down, rolling up our sleeves, and looking at a design. The design may, as Laura said, when we were at NLC, the number of different conferences that we went to it, we were cautioned when we did the project to work very closely with the engineer and not.let the engineer go for the pie -in -the -sky. But ask the engineer: What is the bare minimum that we have to meet and we have to do to fulfill the requirements of the EPA? Not what is the end luxury scale, but what is the absolute bare minimum? We don't have that at this point. The 40 thousand dollars and the drawing and the schematics that some of you may have seen are just ideas that people have come forth with. They are not necessarily the concept we're going to be building. S,o, there is a lot of movement that we could have in there for less cost. We're not locked into a 40 million dollar figure. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST Mr. Mayor, I think we could go on all night, again, and discuss three or four or four and three, or however you wish. Many of us have read all the testimony, have heard the public's opinion, and now some of the Council members are hearing --I hear feedback from one side. Why don't you make up your mind? Others say you have made up your mind. Laura suggested, and I respect her, that we should ask for a waiver for a year. [COUNCILMEMBER HALL: No, not a waiver.]- Well, okay, not a waiver, but an extension, or however you wish to --however you expressed it. However, I think that each one of us could decide this in our own opinion. Some of us on the testimony, others on what other people want. I would like to strongly suggest at this point that we let the people decide where they want this sewer treatment plant and put it on the ballot in the fall, so that they can step up to the line and say: Okay, we want it where it is, or we want it moved. Then go back and tell Gordon Culp --study some other sites. But right now, we've spent $85,000 here, we spent $75,000 there, because Jack, or not Jack, excuse me, Jack, but Bill found a site down the tracks and someone else might find another site before, because there are people making recommendations, that I think now it's maybe the time that the public should make the decision, and we just put this off until the fall and put it there. COUNCILMEMBER HALL Mr. Mayor. One comment --I agree with what Jo -Anne said in regard to the water rates, but, you see, that is a different situation, isn't it? It's right. When we raise the sewer rates, that's when we're going to get it in the neck. And by then, it's too late. We've already started plowing ground at the site. That's what I'm trying to guard against. The public is busy. They entrust, they elect us to be leaders, and John, I hear what you're saying, but one other thing that EPA has said is that the legislators are responsible for the secondary sewer treatment process, not the staff, not the mayor. And I take that responsibility very, very heavily. And so, I say to put it on the public's back, without giving them the facts and figures and the wherewithal, I think is unfair. Now, if we could have an education process, and if the press will pick it up and we have some hearings, then I'll say put it on the ballot, and then the public will be informed. I think it's unfair to pass the buck. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST Mr. Mayor. In response to that, I think that there has been a lot of material, and I think that each one of us can be experts. I think that there's a gentleman who was interested in the odor because he had a business not too far from it. He sent us a letter. How many people on this Council have gone and looked at another site where --that's supposed to have this new type of treatment? EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 15 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 We've got an awful lot of things here, and I think maybe --I'm satisfied. You said the challenge was in our hands, but we've got 40 million, 35 million dollar public works project. The city will probably never see anything of this magnitude, again. And I feel comfortable with the decision I have made because mine was based on what we found out ten years ago and what's been going on ever since. But, if you're coming up with additional comments, as I am, to --why can't you guys make up your mind pretty soon? --then let's let the public. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER Mr. Mayor. If the public wants to, it can. This is thanks primarily to Mr. Ostrom. We have an initiative and referendum process, and this is one of those issues that's subject to it. And if there's enough feeling about it in the community, that someone wants to initiate the initiative process and go through it, then I'm sure we would all abide by the result, as we would have to. But as I sit here, I haven't heard anything to dissuade me from following the mandates of the public that we have heard so far. And that's the 80 percent vote that Lloyd referred to. Those people that we have given an opportunity to respond to more directly than in just simply a general invitation to come down to a hearing, I'm going to abide by what the public says either way. Right now the public is saying: I don't want to spend any more money than we have to to do this thing. The people that live around the project --over a year ago, we had a meeting with them.. And they said --we don't want it sold; we don't want something else going in there. And we went directly to the people and asked them what they want. That's what they told us. We sent out to the general, public a questionnaire which was returned. And they gave us an answer. And I am, at all times, willing to.abide by what the public wants. If we're wrong here, the public has the opportunity to reverse our decision, thanks primarily to Mr. Ostrom's efforts. And that's a good system of government, and I'm glad we've got it. And I'm willing to do whatever the public wants. Right now, the public is telling me that I should be.satisfied with the decision that was made, and I am. There's nothing out there that indicates to me, as we sit here, that there is --that the public is dissatisfied. I mean, what we're being asked to do is study again two sites that have already been looked at. One more seriously than the other, far more deeply than another. But, the fact that our consulting engineer looked at the second site and summarily dismissed it doesn't make me any more eager to throw good money after bad. And that seems to be what we're doing. I don't think I can sit here and justify to the eight out of ten people who.have already told me what they want why I would appropriate any more of their money at an unpublished hearing to go study something that we've already studied before. So, if I get convinced that somehow I'm reading the public wrong, maybe I'll want to do.something different, but right now I think I'm reading EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 16 FEBRUARY 24, 1.987 the public with what they're telling me. And that's --I mean government can be easy, if we do what we want. It's when you try and ignore what they're saying and call yourself a leader that you get yourself in trouble. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON Mr. Mayor. Well, Steve, I don't think that sending our 1,400 questionnaires, or whatever it was, and asking people in a sentence and a half if they want to raise their taxes to move the sewage disposal plant is a mandate from the people. They certainly don't have any of the facts to make that decision. In fact, that wasn't the decision to move the sewage disposal plant. It was a decision not to raise their taxes. Which you're going to get a "no" answer to 99 times out of 100. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER Mr. Mayor. That questionnaire came back to us two or'three times, and we changed the wording on several of the questions., we argued about the wording. Well, Jack, that questionnaire is the single most important thing that has happened in the site selection process. To ignore what it tells us, when it's by a margin such as that, just --it doesn't make any sense to me. It reminds me of the old joke --Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how did you like the parade? So, it's an important thing, and you can't ignore it, and you can't view this in context, trying to pretend that that didn't happen. I mean, we asked people the real question. We asked people that lived down there areal question. Do you want us to sell this site, you know, move, have it go someplace else and sell the site. That's a real question. And, as I recall, Bob Noack was the only one who even wanted to consider it. I remember he came to the meeting and said yes. Everyone else in the room was totally opposed to it, and I don't feel real strongly either way. I mean, we've asked the people down there what they want for their neighborhood. We've asked the people in the city what they want, and in the absence of some other direction from the public, I'm content with where we are. COUNCILMEMBER HALL Mr. Mayor. Do you have a projected plan for our city,.and is.that coordinated with the Main Street program? And is a big, shiny new secondary sewer treatment plant in that plan? In that particular location in our downtown? MAYOR NAUGHTEN Are you asking me a question? EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 17 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 COUNCILMEMBER HALL I addressed you, Mr. Mayor. Do you have a plan [MAYOR NAUGHTEN: I didn't hear it, I'm sorry.] Okay, is there a plan in the city for the development of our downtown. We're looking about Highway 99 and how we want to do that. Surely, over the years we.have some type of plan for downtown Edmonds. The Main Street has some idea, the DDAT has been in town. Has that included the shiny new treatment plant in the bowl area? MAYOR NAUGHTEN The only plan I know of for downtown that has ever been done is that which the DDAT folks did when they came in here. At that time, they identified, I think, Dayton Street, Main Street, and Railroad Avenue as the triangle that would be the.access to the waterfront and tie in the community. I don't think in that plan they even talked about the sewer treatment plant or considered that in that scenario. COUNCILMEMBER HALL I think that's a gross oversight, if we're going to get pedestrian oriented type business, and we're going to expand that particular plant lot line to lot line. And I cannot imagine anybody in the planning in this city not coming forward with an idea of how we could lick this problem. We do it with all kinds of other land use issues. We have things up the kazoo on minor things in neighborhoods, and here we are trying to promote Edmonds with our best foot forward, and we have a chance now to move the site and it won't cost 40 million to move it and I . . (End of Tape --Side 1) MAYOR NAUGHTEN . . . anyone disagrees with that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON Well, do you think that if we expended $7,500 out of the sewer fund to explore this before we have the opportunity to vote on that contract that it would be advantageous to us? I happen to. I think it will be money well spent. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 18 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 MAYOR NAUGHTEN Well, that seems to be what the whole --everyone seems to be arguing about whether or not to spend this money -and make that study. And I think that's the democratic process to convince the majority of the Council that you have a good idea, and if you can, they'll vote that way. You know, it seems to me that if the decisions are made to keep the plant where it's at, based on the fact that it's going to cost more money --whether it's four, five, or seven million dollars, and that decision to keep it there is based on that additional cost, I don't see any problem spending some money to verify that costa I mean, to me that's just verifying your decision. But, that answers your question. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER Mr. Mayor. As I understand it, we've already done it on the Union Oil site. And the only reason there wasn't spent more time on the other site in the original $85,000 study is because the same experts talked about needing more money to made a determination after briefly looking at it that it wasn't a realistic possibility. I defy anyone to find a consultant who won't say --sure give me more money and I'll study something. I mean, that's what they're in business to do, and as long as we'll pay, they'll study it. But, if it wasn't worth- while the first time, I haven't heard anything that indicates that there's been a change out there. The land isn't sloughing, or the depthness of the Sound has changed, or there's not water over part of the property, or anything. When I first discussed this with Bill, over in Taco Bell, or wherever we were, you know, I thought it sounded like a good idea. I didn't realize at that time that it was something that had already been looked at and had obvious problems that precluded spending more time on it out of our initial $85,000 study. I thought it was a new site, and in fact it was not a new site. It was a site that had been looked at and dismissed before. Absence of some indication that there is anything other than a consultant is eager to do some more work for us, or a real possibility of something being changed, I haven't heard anything tonight to indicate that there's any reason to believe that either of those sites --that we're going to find out anything different from those sites with this additional expenditure of money. And, barring that, some general discussion about wouldn't it be nice to have this in a different place doesn't get us anywhere, except possibly jeopardizing our ability to get 50 percent Funds or 18 percent funds or whatever it is is better than zero. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER I defy anybody to come forth and show me a document that shows even that they considered the site that I proposed, including at the time it was done 10 years ago, 12 years ago, and by Culp. They have not EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 19 EEBRUARY 24, 1987 1 considered that site, because they couldn't even tell me where I was talking about when I asked them to go down and look at it. [COUNCILMEMBER DWYER: Well, that's the least persuasive argument for throwing more money at them that I've ever heard.] And they didn't even know it was down there. Neither did Mr. Hahn or the Mayor nor myself until I went down there. And I'm just saying it looked to me like a site that should be explored. It's absolutely worthless to everybody else. The city of Woodway, the comment they made the other night --well, now we've got a way to get on the sewer line. So everybody's concerned, but my only argument is we've got a window of one to two months, why not.look at it? COUNCILMEMBER DWYER Mr. Mayor. Let me just ask a direct question. Peter, have they looked at the site before You said that they had. Were you fibbing to us? [MR. HAHN: No.] [COUNCILMEMBER KASPER: He's saying "No."] MR. HAHN Certainly what Mr. Kasper said about staff is true. I really did not know that site, and I was relying on the consultant to say that he had looked at a site .around the bend by the railroad tracks somewhere in Woodway. And I don't know if there were one or two sites or three sites or what. He did say that he had looked at the stretch from our own Union Oil facility down to Point Wells. And didn't really see any sites worth looking at. So, as I,told you before, there's no analysis of any site.anywhere along the railroad tracks that --or any numbers or anything written. So, it is true that there was no real analysis; but he basically thought there was nothing worth looking at along that stretch to Point Wells. But, it was not based on any real long study. After.looking at it more closely two Fridays ago, he's actually more convinced than any time before that that site is not feasible. So, that he knows just based on walking it himself with Bob Alberts, I don't know --Bob is here. He can perhaps elaborate more, and based on Hank Landau's, who's a geotechnical engineer, based on their preliminary findings, without putting numbers to it, just a gut feeling on what I described already before --the wetness, the steepness, the everything else. They don't think it's a good site. It's also long and narrow and you can't get to it. But that's a minor problem. Other than that, it basically has the gross size. [COUNCILMEMBER KASPER: plus there's a shelf that requires an outfal.l of 2,000 feet. But my point is nobody had really looked at that site— And secondly, yes just in the last two weeks.] [COUNCILMEMBER DWYER:. And now they've looked closer and there's no greater reason . . . ] [COUNCILMEMBER KASPER: But I don't have any report back to that effect.] [COUNCILMEMBER DWYER: Well, we can study, we can give Culp 11,100 or 11,100 bucks to study every place in the area that won't work and have a report on all of them, but unless there's an indication of why it will work, we're EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 20 FEBRUARY 24, 1987 just throwing the taxpayers money away, contrary to their wishes. I mean, neither --this isn't just a question of --would we all be happier if we weren't building on the same site. Part of the question is is there any reason to believe that this investment of money is going to be worthwile. And I've heard nothing tonight to indicate that this investment of money will be worthwhile. If it was my own money, I wouldn't give it to Mr. Culp to study something, based on what I've heard tonight. And, if I wouldn't do it with my own money, I shouldn't be doing it with anybody else's money.] COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST I just wanted to comment --the change of tenure just a little bit here. When this particular program was shown to the Mainstreet meeting the other day, they received it with some apprehension as to being where it is. But, when they snapped the lid on and showed the people what could be done to the site and asked how much it was going to be, they thought it was quite interesting. They have a pop -on lid so you can make it into a park or whatever you can downtown. Well, and so the same example was cited that at Yost Park, when we were going to put in a water tank, everybody said --we don't want a water tank in Yost Park. In the middle of Yost Park, in a city park, a water tank? We did it. And we did it with the citizens' input, and now we have a tennis court on top of it. A lot of people don't know there's a water tank under that tennis court. So, I think that.we hear a lot of people saying they don't want it where it is, but -I think this has a lot of potential to put it there. And maybe there's going to be a few million dollars or more, but, back to your study, Kasper, if Peter Hahn gets--well' wait a minute now. If Peter Hahn would go into those files --and now whether it's disappeared or not --but there's a big, fat file in there on the line going down the railroad track to hook into Richmond Beach and even the site you're talking about -- was one that was studied to tunnel through it one time, if we ever wanted to move the ferry, we were going to run the roads under Woodway and into . . . yes, it's time to adjourn. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER I move that we adjourn. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH I'll second the motion. Motion carried. Special Session ended at about 8:20. (Fragments of statements from several people about committee meetings followed.) EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page FEBRUARY 24 1987 r AOQUEL�E�GP ARRETT, City Clerk LARK, S. �ifUGHT N, Mayor