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