04/28/1987 City CouncilA special meeting of the
Mayor Larry Naughten in
the regularly scheduled
flag salute.
PRESENT
Larry Naughten,
Mayor
Jack Wilson,
Council President
Steve Dwyer
Laura Hall
Bill Kasper
John Nordquist
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT
Subject to May 26, 1987
Approval
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 28, 1987
(SPECIAL MEETING)
Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8 p.m. by
the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library following
Council committee meetings. All present joined in the
ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
Jo -Anne Jaech Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr.
Lloyd Ostrom Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director
Tony Russell, Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Student Rep. Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt.
Chris Beckman, Engineering Coord.
Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards, Recorder
Good evening and welcome to this special meeting. The first thing I would like
to ask is that if anyone here cares to speak tonight be sure you put your name
on the sign-up sheet over there. And even if you don't, you'll be given time
to speak. The sign-up sheet lets us determine how much time we can give each of
you to speak, so we can make sure everyone gets an opportunity to talk. Before
we get started with the public hearing, I'd like to read a letter. We have
several letters to read into the record tonight in regard to the subject. This
is a letter by Bjorn Thuesen:
EApril 28, 19871.
To - The Mayor and Members of The City Council of The City of Edmonds
As an appreciative resident of this fair city, I would like to comment
about the relocation of the sewer plant.
I have no input as to the economics, but the question of aesthetics
is of paramount importance to me and the citizens of this town. A
sewer plant, by its very nature, is objectionable to anyone living
close by. The sewer plant should have the benefits of the best
architectural design, as well as a full sloping (not flat) roof. It
should be pleasing to the eye both in design and.landscaping to the
point where people might inquire what interesting enterprise might
reside there.
The most depressing site, when coming in to Seattle, is the ugliness
of the Kingdome. Whom, in restropect, would not have voted for a
$45,000,000.00 budget and an aesthetic looking building versus the
$40,000,000.00 ugliness.we must live with.
The City of Edmonds constructed a beautiful library and should
follow its own example with the sewer project.
Sincerely,
THUESEN CUSTOM HOMES INC.
Bjorn Thuesen
President
I think Jack has a couple letters, too, to read.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON
This letter was written to Jack Wilson, President, Edmonds City Council.
[April 20, 19871
Subject: Hearing on Sewage Treatment Plant location
Dear Councilman Wilson:
Because I will be out of town on the evening of Tuesday, April 28,
1987, when a Hearing on the Subject matter is to take place, I am
sending you this copy of a letter directed to the Enterprise
newspaper.
The letter expresses my thoughts relative to both matters the
Sewage Treatment Plant and the Post Office expansion. If I could
attend the meeting of the 28th, I would express my thoughts
verbally as in the letter.
I do sincerely believe a final decision should be made at this
hearing if all current facts and figures are at hand. If they
are not, then they should be presented at a final hearing within
two weeks with those facts.
In summary, my vote would be as follows:
If costs are too exorbitant to move the Plant, preferably
to the Harbor Square site, then I would vote to leave it,
at the present site and "Cap" the entire expanded operation
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 APRIL 28, 1987
Of course, the cost of the Harbor Square site would have
to be weighed against the sale price of the sewage plant
site in making the final Total Cost decision.
Sincerely yours,
Rob Morrison
There was one more letter. This is to Edmonds City Council.
[April 18, 1987]
I am unable to attend your April 28 Hearing on the location of the
sewage treatment plant but I want to take this opportunity to
express my opinion.
I frequently take walks in our downtown area and I want you to know
that there is a very repugnant odor coming from our treatment plant
much of the time --particularly in the summer months.
I'm sure that you all take great pride. in your city and will show
it by not expanding the treatment facility in its present location.
I strongly recommend that you seek a new location near the Union Oil
Tank Farm.
Sincerely,
Harve Harrison
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. Peter.
MR. HAHN
I see a few new faces in the audience. For those of you who don't know me, I'm
Peter Hahn. I don't think I -have the correct nameplate. I'm not the City
Attorney. What I just want to go over tonight is the chronology of this whole
project and sort of put it into a historic context for those of you who may not
be as familiar as the City Council or some of us on the staff working on this
project. In putting together an abbreviated chronology, which really left out
a lot of the dates, and I don't think you'll all be able to see it, but members
of the Council probably have seen this. This is.just one page which has on it
probably around twelve dates. The abbreviated chronology has something like
40 dates, which basically started in 1976. The Clean Water Act was passed by
the United States Congress in 1972, requiring secondary treatment. The City,
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 APRIL 28, 1987
in response to that law, hired a consultant, Reid, Middleton & Associates, in
1976 and undertook a fairly lengthy planning process which culminated in public
hearings in 1978 and in the adoption of what's called a Facilities Plan, a
Facilities Report. A lot of community input went into that, and it was a fairly
massive study --one of these.big volumes that I'm sure you've seen in other
respects. This is what it looked like. We sometimes call it the Blue Book.
And then we --in 1977 there were amendments to the Clean Water Act which held
out the promise of waivers. And this is one of these games that the Regulatory
Agency plays. They make us do something; then they hold out hope for something
else. Basically throw the project off track. And we spent something like
three years and a lot of your funds looking for waivers. While we were doing
this, we made some other decisions which kept us on track. One of those, in
1984, was to buy a piece of land south of the present plant in anticipation of
expansion to secondary facility. And this was in line with a Council decision
and a Council vote in 1978, whereby the present site was selected. In 1984
that was reaffirmed. In 1985, our waiver was turned down, and in '85 again,
roughly in the middle of the year, the City undertook the continued planning
for secondary treatment and hired an engineering consulting firm, basically to
update the 1979 report. And that update began almost two years ago --we're
almost in May, and it was in June that it began.
The other thing that happened --out of these 40 dates that I mentioned to you
that are on three pages of this chronology, something like six or seven are
public hearings. So this project has been in front of people for quite some
time. An important document in all of this is what's called the Department of
Ecology Order. This is a legal piece of paper which tells the City what we
have to do. And it came right after the waiver denial, and it has some
important dates on it. The first time we got it, they wanted us to finish the
plant in July of 1988. That's 14 months from now. I wasn't very happy about
that. A consultant, Gordon, and I went down and basically spent half a day
telling them why that was no good. And so they changed it, and we got a 1991
completion date. Three other dates --I know you can't see it so I'll read it
for you. The first date was the end of last year, December 31st, was to be
the day on which we completed the revised engineering report, the plan. And
we met that date. And we got an approved plan by the end of the year. The
second date is July 1, 1988. That's the date by which plans and specifications
have to be completed for the present plant. That's the full set of documents
from which a plant will be built. This is a legal date. And then, finally,
the important date that's important, of course, is April 1, 1991, the date by
which we have to have a plant completed.
Now, how do you get to that date? And what do you have to do to meet those
compliance milestones? This is a project schedule that was put together by
the staff and by the consultant in order to meet the July 1 completion date
for plans and specs. Now, again, you can't see that, but this shows that a
notice to proceed to our consultant, Gordon Culp, had to be sent out March 1,
1987. Well, we didn't make that. Instead, a notice to proceed went out
Friday. So it's almost two months late. So we stand some chance of not
meeting the'July 1 deadline. Is that important, you ask? Well, let me talk
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 APRIL 28, 1987
about three themes that have been throughout this process. One real important
theme I touched on, which is the compliance order and the dates. A second
theme that's really important is cost effectiveness. Being able to build a
facility that's going to cost you the least possible amount on your monthly
bill. What does that mean? Well, we've all heard about grants. Obviously,
grants are big help. And to the extent that we're building this with money
that's coming from the federal government or from the state, our direct local
Contribution will be less. Although, we, of course, know that we do pay federal
and state taxes, so it's not a free ride anyway. But, it will definitely make
a difference if we can get grant assistance. How does one get grant assistance
successfully? One way is to be able to compete against other people who want
the same pot of money. And we've been fairly lucky, to that extent. We have
a good design grant. One reason we have a good design grant is because the
agencies that are going to swallow up most of the state money --their right to
the south of us, Seattle Metro --haven't got their act together. And so one
reason we're sitting around here with a million and a half in our pocket, and
I mean that, in our pocket, is because we were able to jump the gun on them.
The other way in which we get a cost effective project is basically --first of
all, design a good one --and I think we have an excellent firm that the Council
spent a lot of their time, including weekends and evenings and extra meetings,
selecting --the Council selected this particular design team, is that you put
together a project in such a way that when you bid it, you're bidding in a
favorable bidding climate. You bid early; you bid before the competition.
You bid where contractors need work. You bid before inflation starts coming
back. You bid before interest rates come back up. And that's how you control
costs.
I've been involved with a lot of other cities that are in the same quandary as
we are, in terms of building a project, and I told them our projected rates.
And they're very envious. Our projected rates, even without grant assistance,
without grant assistance, just local share, are very good. And people ask me
constantly: How are you going to do that? Why are your rates.only $20 a
month? And I think we've got a good team put together and a good consultant
and I think we've made a lot of progress. And that's how we got to where we
are. And I think the other important thing that the project has to do --and
I'm very glad that Mr. Thuesen's letter was read --is because what we're trying
to do is put together a most sensitive and most beautiful design for a model
public facility in the City of Edmonds.
The reason there are odor problems now is because you're dealing with an
antiquated facility, one that has some design flaws, frankly, but one also that
has aged. And one that is going to be changed. And that's the key. And it is
an opportunity to put together the best technology, the'best aesthetics, the
best landscaping, the best roofing or decking or capping material. And what
we're planning as part of the design process is extensive public participation.
This is just the first meeting with the design team on board, and there will
be many others. There will be specialists in architecture, in landscaping,
in materials, in odor control, noise control, and all of those things are going
to be taken into account. Because we all know that this facility is important.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 APRIL 28, 1987
I really wish, as a planner and as somebody who works here, I really wish we
had a site that was out of sight, out of the downtown. And that we could say,
'Great, let's get a treatment plant somewhere else, so that we don't have to
look at it at all, and that we don't have to be disturbed by it's impact.'
Unfortunately, that's not really the case. We looked at a site in Woodway which
was out of sight and out of mind --very, very expensive. But at least it was
really away from the downtown. Union Oil had its own problems. Harbor Square --
I see it as being very roughly equivalent to the present site. It's still in
the downtown; it's still in a viable economic area. I don't see any great big
differences But I'm sure this will be discussed tonight to greater length.
But I just want to make sure that everybody here knows that regardless of any-
thing else we will be committed to continuing making good progress, reducing
the rates, and designing a model facility that I think you and the Council will
all be very, very proud of. That's all the staff has to say.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. We will start then with the public hearing. We have 26 people signed
up to speak. Given that number and the amount of time we have this evening,
I've allotted four minutes per speaker. And I will let you know when your
time is up by simply raising my hand. If you're still talking, and you can
summarize, and we'll go on from there. And if anyone hasn't had an opportunity
to speak, we'll certainly let them speak at the end of the hearing. If you
have any questions you want to direct to the staff, or if you have any questions
you want to direct to our engineering firm, they're right here. So we can get
all the information out in regard to this subject.
MR. HAHN
May I quickly introduce our team?
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Yes. Sure.
MR. HAHN
For those of you who haven't met
have Gordon Culp, who is head of
down in the waterfront; next down
Brian Hemphill at the end of the
sitting I think where my name is
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
them, starting from the audience's left, we
the firm, lives in Edmonds, their offices are
in line is Bruce Willis --Wiley, excuse me;
table;.and the City Engineer, Bob Alberts,
roughly or maybe his name is up.
Okay. We'll start with our public hearing then. The first person to speak who
is signed up on the list is Jeff Palmer. Jeff.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 APRIL 28, 1987
JL
JEFF PALMER
I'm Jeff Palmer. I live at 17510 - 76th Avenue West in Edmonds. I'm hear
first of all to dispel the myth that the public has somehow had full partici-
pation in the decision -making process regarding the siting of this plant, or
that the public.has somehow spoken in that regard. Asa member of the public
who probably has an attendance record at City Council meetings that exceeds
several Council members, I can tell you it's not so. If you refer back to the
chronology that you were given in your Council packets last week, and that
Peter Hahn referred to tonight on the secondary facilities and the events that
had taken place, what I find is that there are really two or three.hearings
for public input, August '78, nine years ago, and then two in September of
'85. Since that time, by my count, there have been approximately 27 meetings
or significant events having to do with secondary treatment that have been
mostly at work sessions where no public involvement is solicited or the siting
has.come up as a side issue to a main question. Each step along the way,
we've gotten more information to draw a decision on. More questions have been
raised, more answers, and chiefly, more alternatives. I don't see that the
public has had the opportunity to put all that information together and say to
their Council members, 'This is what we want done.' We have received more
information on processes, such as digesters that could turn the City of Edmonds
into a giant septic tank in smell; landscaping, lidding, and all the costs that
are involved with those. Reliance on a single, what I would term 'slanted,'
question on a citizen survey is not what I would term the most responsible way
to make this decision, and I think it should be thrown.out.
Sufficient information, I believe from my audience participation at Council
meetings, has been revealed to date that makes me question the present site.
And I believe that information warrants a reopening of the issue and funding
of a thorough study to look at a cost -benefit analysis of the Harbor.Square
alternative. Edmonds voters aren't children; they're not sheep that are
mindless and need to be herded; they're savvy, well-educated voters who are
capable of making the hard decisions, if the information is given to them.
We've gotten a lot more information over the last year, two years, even the
last three months, and I believe that if that information is put before the
public we may have a different decision on siting than what we have today.
I noticed two quotes from Peter Hahn tonight: (1) We're dealing with an
antiquated facility with design flaws. I.can't see where it would be to our
economic benefit to work on a total redesign and correct those flaws at that
site when there's potentially another site,. Harbor Square, which, again
according to Mr. Hahn, is roughly equivalent in cost to the present site. I
ask you to reopen the issue of, the question of site selection and recommend
that as a study, progress. Thank you.
MR. HAHN
Correction. I did not say that they were roughly equivalent in cost. I just
said 'roughly equivalent.' I didn't mention costs.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 APRIL 28, 1987
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Stew Sierer.
STEWART SIERER
I'm Stewart Sierer. I live at 9615 Blake Place. My understanding of one
aspect of this consideration is the problem of other sewer districts currently
using our facility and not paying for this, such as the Ronald Sewer District,
the Olympic Sewer District, and perhaps others. It seems to me that a new
location could represent`a clean break with the past. Before connecting up
these districts at this new location,.you people would have the opportunity
before connecting these people to convince them, the other districts, to share
the costs before you went ahead. I think that's Colson's law.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Sounds like Stewart's law. Finis Tupper.
FINIS TUPPER
I'm Finis Tupper, 711 Daley Street. First off, I'd like to say that I have
full confidence in Peter Hahn and the work that he has done in this city on
this issue in his short tenure here. And that I have full faith in his
abilities and expectations with regards to the site and what he said tonight.
There has been more than adequate opportunity for public input. I've attended
Council meetings on a regular basis since 1980, and prior to the Council vote
to continue using the present site and since then, there has been lots of
discussion. Peter mentioned some of the meetings, and there have been meetings
involving, like the September 9, which involved must the neighbors of the
existing site. And September 17, 1985, City Council meeting. And then just
recently in February, it's my understanding, secondhand, that the mayor met
with the planning staff and the consultant, and they met with the Board of
Directors of Main Street to discuss this issue. There has been news coverage
that's kept the public fully appraised of this matter. I say there has been
no ground swell of opposition up until this evening, after the vote has been
made against changing the site. And I think the city survey does constitute
a representation of how the citizens feel about what the federal government
is trying to do to us here in the city --jam this down our throat. Let's try
to make it as cost-effective as possible. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. Dick Hill.
DICK HILL
My name is Dick Hill, and I live at 1242 Coronado Place. One thing that
Mr. Palmer skipped over sort of lightly,_I thought, in his presentation was
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 APRIL 28, 1987
that all the work that has been done so far has been contingent on the plant
staying in the same location. Now, what we are looking at is an estimated
cost of $39,100,000 as required, if it stays in the same location. One thing
that was not touched upon was that there is available from the State funds
for cleanup of pollution of the Sound --about from 30-40 percent of that figure.
We're talking about $13 to $14 million. This is available only if the
submittal of completed plans and specifications is ready by July 1, 1988. Now,
it's going to be extremely difficult to meet that schedule, even though we keep
the plant where it is. If we try to move it even across the street, which is
what Harbor Square would involve, we aren't going to make that deadline. And
this $13 million is going to be seriously jeopardized by failure to do so. So
let's take a good long second look at this. Any talk about putting that
sewage plant anywhere except where it is right now is going to cost us plenty.
And, if $13 million isn't plenty, I'm living in the wrong era. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. Bill Mathias.
BILL MATHIAS
I'm Bill Mathias, 540 Holly Drive. I've spoken to some of you folks before
and probably will again. Also, I think a number of you would recognize my
address as being in the bowl area and just about in front of the present sewer
plant. I really see nothing wrong with it where it is. I'm strongly opposed
to changing the location at this time. Basically, I'm from the pocketbook
point of view. It just seems to me that going into a new phase, namely moving
at this time, is shortsighted, to say the least --put it on that basis. I feel
that your costs certainly would be more. We know that our sewer rates are
going to be vastly expanded, and it's going to hit everyone whether they can
afford the additional raise in sewer rates or not. But it is going to hit
them. Another cost factor that has just come to my mind recently, or come to
my attention recently, is the thought of lidding there. If I understand
what's being said, it's going to cost around $5 million or so to lid that
thing. Add that to the $39 million or $40 million that we're talking -about
already, and it makes a fairly decent additional percentage to bring in there.
So, again, I would say let's not move the plant. Let's go ahead with the
present site as has been planned for quite some period of time.
My comment that there has been some talk of only an additional $600,000 if
we move the.plant across the street. Well, some of you know from your own
personal moving that even if you move across the street it's a traumatic
experience. There's a lot of planning, a lot of doing, a lot of running back
and forth,.and a lot of costs. You can almost move across town as cheaply as
you can move across the street. But, if the plant were to be moved, we still
have to face the unknown of additional pumps to get over the beam --the hill
between the Harbor site and the water. And we understand that the cost of
those additional pumps and related facilities could run into the neighborhood
of $2.4 million that would be in addition to the $39 million and the $5 million,
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
'Page 9 APRIL 28, 1987
if it were decided to go ahead. So, I would really urge you to validate the
present site and forget about moving across the street. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Chris Matt.
NPP� MATT
My name is Chris Matt, and I reside at 9211 216th. I have a wonderful speech
here that I have been working on all night, and I have decided not to read it.
I have been struck by the gentleman who just spoke before me. I think that's
an excellent example.of what we're dealing with here. The gentleman doesn't
realize that the $5 million for lidding is included in the $39 million figure.
People don't know what's going on here. I do. I've been here. Most don't.
They don't have the specifics. They cannot make a rational decision because
they don't know where we stand and what's going on. And I think they need to
know. More effort has to go into it before we make any kind of real decision.
Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. Dick Hill.
DICK HILL
I just spoke.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Oh. Okay. Dick Beselin.
DICK BESELIN
Dick Beselin, 1108 - 12th Avenue North. You know, so far we've talked about
cost. There's a certain thing about effective --there's a term called 'effec-
tive cost,' and that relates to what it's going to cost 20 years from now.
What's it going to cost us as a community to have a sewage treatment plant in
the middle of town? What's it going to cost to be on a piece of property '
that's going to be far more valuable in a period of time that -might be better
put to use? I don't care if it's for parks; I don't care if it's for some
other city civic use. But, I think we're going to regret possibly 20 years
from now looking back and saying, 'Hey, we just --Edmonds has its own WPPSS.
I think that's what we're heading toward. I strongly support a study. I
have not yet known of or heard of any effective study that is conclusive,
that one can take a look at and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of
moving or not moving the plant. I'm not saying we should move it; I'm not
saying we shouldn't move it. But I think we should study it --by somebody who
can give us a logical, effective, productive study that we can all look at
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10 APRIL 28, 1987
and say, 'Hey, this is the best choice. None of us, I don't think, here can
say that we've seen that comparison. We talk about putting a lid on a --a $5
million lid on the present site. How far can we move it for $5 million and
get it into a site where we don't have to put a.lid on it? How far can we go?
Can we go a block, two blocks,.two miles? Where can we go with it? But I
think the point is if we look back --I saw some pictures that kind of struck me
a few weeks ago where the original sewer treatment plant was, and the picture
is taken some 20-25 years ago. It wasn't at a major intersection. It was a
place where, as I've used the example, 20 years, you followed the signs to
Edmonds. Fifteen years ago you'd go down until you smelled something and you'd
turn right. Five years ago, you'd go down and when you smelled something you'd
turn right or your left and your in Edmonds. Twenty years from now when you
follow the signs to Edmonds, and you smell something, you're there. We're
going to be --it's going to be right in the middle of it. And I think that
again, maybe where it is is the best location. But I'm not convinced that I've
seen the data that supports that. I really think that we should spend a few
dollars--$39 million is a 1qt. I can remember back the controversy over the
Kingdome, and the example was used by Jeff, I believe --somebody earlier. There
were a lot of studies as to where the best location was. Unfortunately, maybe
they didn't spend the money for the aesthetics that they should have. But,
just the same, I think we have to give consideration to that fact.
Another thing that interests me, and I was probably one of the first to suggest
that probably Harbor Square would be an alternate site, or one of the few, a
month or two ago. I was surprised to talk to a staff member just a week or so
ago. And he said, 'Well, why do you wan't it thereV I said, 'I don't
necessarily want it there. What's the objection?' He said, 'Well, the smell.'
I said, 'Hey, wait a minute. I thought the smell was gone.' 'Oh, no, not at
all. There's going to be smell, there's got to be some smell.' And I said,
'Hey, where does this come from? I haven't heard this one before.' But I'd
like to have this --if this is a fact, I don't want it in Harbor Square; I don't
want it where it is. But if that is apparent, I'd like to have that answered,
first of all. Because I think we're all conce-rned about that. And. if we can
be assured there's no smell, I think we have one set of circumstances. If
there is a smell, we have another set of circumstances. But, I'm certainly
not satisfied.
And as far as public input, I.had no notification whatsoever to participate in
anything. And we are an adjacent property owner to that whole project. I
didn't know that it had even come down and had been voted on until I got home
last summer. Admittedly, I was gone, but I do agree that I don't think that
there has been adequate input. And as far as the survey is concerned, it
isn't going to cost $3.96 a month; it's going to cost $4. I'd like to have
a breakdown of that. It's exactly $4 a month more and that's pretty conclusive,
but if that's what I have to pay to make this city something better --hey, we
can do away with the sewer charge altogether. Just shut her down; let it run
down the street. I'd rather pay $4 more to see this city being something that
I can look back on 20 years from now and be proud of --and knowing that we made
the right decision. Thank you.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11 . APRIL 28, 1987
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Stan Olsen.
STANFORD OLSEN
My name is Stanford Olsen. I live at 16605 - 74th Place West in Edmonds. I
feel a unique association with this waste treatment facility, having been
involved in its initial construction 25+ years ago. People working with me
and for me were involved with the equipment that went into that, as well as
the Lynnwood sewage treatment plant. And, if I'm not mistaken, I appeared
before Council or with Council in 1978 in some areas of this. I'm a little
concerned about the presentation made by staff with regard --we'll hit first
and we'll hit the bond market, and this and that and the other thing. The only
thing I can say is bull. If you can anticipate the bond market, you're in the
wrong business with public works and engineering. There is a very great concern
that I have on the depth of the consideration and study that has gone in to say,
'We're going to put it.where it is now.' I have looked at that site; I have
looked at the facility. I am familiar with the technology that has gone into
its design. I would be very interested to know of the design flaws in it. I'll
talk to you later about that.. I have seen nothing that gives me a comparative,
what I consider a comprehensive option analysis of A, B, C, or D. Mr. Hahn said
Union Oil has its problems. All God's children got problems, but that isn't
enough to wipe out something else. I also got the understanding that the
technology has changed to the extent that the existing --I assume primary --
clarifiers and grit removal equipment are obsolete and not going to be used,
so they're going to have to be wiped out anyway. Well, if that's the case,
why constrain a new design to a facility or to a location that is locked in.
Let us look carefully at our options available. I am not that concerned about
the federal grant dollars, or for that matter the state grant dollars. There
are other players, other than Metro and ourselves, some even still fighting
the idiocy of requiring secondary treatment for effluence into Puget Sound.
I will editorialize by making one statement. We will wake up 20 years from now
and find the gross pollution into Puget Sound is not coming from primary
treated sanitary sewer effluence, but it's coming from nonpoint pollution in
general runoff of the streets and whatnot. And then you will move like Chicago
has had to move. You should be moving on that today. The moving will not
necessarily cost us more money. I have seen nothing more than just an off-
the-cuff comment --well, you know, we give this up, so it has got to cost us
more. I cannot just subscribe to that. So I guess I have got to agree with
what I see this community 20 years from now, having seen it 25 and 30 years
more in the past, is the waste treatment facility right down in the heart of
town. I think it is a wrong decision to have it there without a lot more
study and a lot more understanding of the options that are available to us.
And, again, if it would cost six bits, four bits, a dollar, two dollars to put
it into a location that is going to be better in the long run, then I would be
willing, and I think most of the taxpayers and the sewer ratepayers in the
City of Edmonds would be willing to pay the costs that are necessary to do it.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 12 APRIL 28, 1987
I.
So let us not look just at the immediate. Let us look seriously at the 20 to
30 years., Study this well now. So I strongly urge you to consider this in
another vote and then look at the options. And come forward, please, with
options A, B, or C. Now, this is not something that is going to cost a long
time or take a lot of money. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Paul Kavadas.
PAUL KAVADAS
I'm Paul Kavadas. I live at 217 Alder Street, #305, which is to say I live
at the sewage treatment plant. It's my next door neighbor. The fact is it
was there before I was. I haven't spoken to you too often. I think the last
time I spoke to you was during 1984 at the time that you were proposing to buy
the property immediately to the south of the existing plant for the stated
purpose of the expansion of the sewage treatment plant. And the Public Works
Department went to some considerable lengths to meet with all of us who live
in that immediate neighborhood --a far better job of publicizing those meetings
than I would say generally is done --to assure us that your intention was to
acquire that land for the eventual expansion of the treatment plant. And that
in the interim, you were going to use that land for a materials storage yard
for which you showed us some very pretty pictures of what you were going to
do in there. And, by the way, the yard that's there is remotely related to
those pictures. We have been gritting our teeth --and I will admit gritting is
a good word --with the present materials yard. But, my wife leaves at 5 in the
morning, and it hadn't occurred to me at the time that those sanding trucks
were going to be down there at 3:30 in the morning loading up, but at least I
know that the roads have .been sanded in the morning because I know where they
started from.
But, it seems to me that the City made a commitment many years ago as to where
this expansion was going to be made, if and when it occurred. Yes, there's a
smell there. I would be delighted to see that smell go away. I will be amazed
if it goes away entirely. But, if you do propose to go to some other site,
there are a great number of us who are property owners that are your neighbors
that are going to be very, very much concerned with what proposal you plan for
that property, because you told us what you were going to use that land for.
It seems to me that at this point in time, to propose to throw the schedule to
the four winds and go off on a study of alternate sites, the least of.which it
seems to me is Harbor Square --what do we gain by moving it across the street
to Harbor Square? Just as visible. I think we're wasting time at this point
to decide to do another study. This begins to look like I-90, and there's
enough studies of I-90 to have made a papier-mache floating bridge. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Gail Lindal:
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 13 APRIL 28, 1987
GAIL LINDAL
My name is Gail Lindal. I live at 8227 - 212th -Sout
I am a resident of Edmonds, and I'm currently on the
the Chamber of Commerce'. As a resident of Edmonds,
the treatment center in downtown Edmonds. But I do
information on the cost of the relocation and of the
make a good decision as to whether it should be move
enough information at this time.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Michael Pederson.
MICHAEL PEDERSON
hwest, #301, in Edmonds.
Board of Directors in
I am opposed to having
feel that I need more
relocation itself to
d or not. I don't have
Michael Pederson. 86.23 - 204th Street Southwest in Edmonds. Some of you know
me. I was chairman of the Architectural Design Board for three or four years.
I would like to say that I've heard more in here than I've ever heard in.the
past about the project. Yet, I still hear a lot of bits and pieces and I'm
hearing more now. And I would like to reinforce that I believe, too, that
more studies should be made of this. I don't believe they need to belong or
drawn out, and I might even reflect on what . . .
END OF TAPE 1, SIDE 1
more valuable than a site for a sewage treatment plant. That happens to
be located in a part of town where I think the public should be very concerned
about what it's used for --whether it's used for business, a public park, an
open space, even a parking lot. I think that would be an improvement over
using it as a sewer treatment plant. I have no idea whether the sewer treat-
ment plant has any odors. I, don't even know whether the sewer treatment plant
is going to be objectionable as far as the environment is concerned, because
we haven't even got an environmental impact study on the other site which is
over at Harbor Square. Is that true? I think one should be taken. I think
the site over at Harbor Square is a better site from the point of view of
planning. I think as far as the city's concerned, they should look at this
as a planning problem, as well as a sewer treatment problem. And look at it
from the overall point of view, such as cost. What's the form of the plant
going to be? Is it going to be ugly or is it going to be architecturally
pleasing? The function --Now does it function in the city? If it's located in
the middle of town like that, it doesn't look to me like that's a good way to
use a site that's worth a lot more aesthetically. Besides, financially it's
worth more to the city and to the public. Time -wise --I think like Mr. Beselin
said, some years down the road we're going to find out that was a mistake.
And he called it WPPSS. I don't think we can be pardoned if we make a very
quick decision on this and decide to build this thing right in the existing
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 14 APRIL 28, 1987
site where I think a lot of people have objections. And I think --actually
what I heard was that the public was asked on a water bill whether they
wanted to spend a certain amount of money. I don't even --I just shredded
that in bits and pieces. And I think asking the public if they want to spend
$6 million on the water bill --yes or no -=I think is a very poor way to talk
to the public about the project. I think they deserve something better than
that. I think that's all I have to say. But I guess what I'm really trying
to say --I think from the planning point of view the City should take a look
at that site where it is now and look at it for other reasons beside some
that are self-serving, some which I think are incomplete, and some which I
think --some reasons I don't think people really know or have been given any
direction by anybody how to review the thing. I don't think anybody's ever
presented it as a complete picture. I think.they pick at it as far as money's
concerned or as odors are concerned or this and that. But nobody's looked at
the big picture, and the big picture is planning. The City has a job to plan
for the future. And when it comes time for a sewer treatment plant to be put
in, so we've got 5 million bucks extra to spend someplace so that the City
a few years down the road is a heck of a lot better place. to live than it
would be if they have a treatment plant sitting right square in .the middle
of everything. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Julie Stutz.
JULIE STUTZ
I'm Julie Stutz. I live at 18102 - 85th Place West. I'm also Director of
the Edmonds Main Streets Project. I'm here as a resident and as the Director
of the Main Streets Project. I would like to thank the Council for taking
the responsibility to hold this hearing. As Peter has said, this project has
been in the planning for many years, and there are people in this audience
who live in Edmonds now who weren't here then. And I think to be able to hear
all this information together so there can be some real good input questions
answered --there are a lot of., questions that people have. I've been hearing
it from business people; I've been hearing it from residents. And it would
be really nice to be able to make an informed decision. So. I thank you again
for holding the hearing.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Dean Echelbarger.
DEAN ECHELBARGER
My name is Dean Echelbarger. I live at 555 Alder Street. I am neither a
proponent nor an opponent of this. I really came tonight to get more
information so that I might be more capable in my own mind. And I'm a little
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 15 APRIL 28, 1987
sorry to say that we were not given that information. The only information
that I think I've gotten from tonight's meeting is the fact that there is a
tremendous amount of confusion and varying ideas of what it is and what it
is not going to cost. Ithought that there was an analysis relative to
leaving it at that site and changing it to the Harbor site. And I think that
that is what is needed. I wonder if this sewer site isn't somewhat like
remodeling an old building. Sometimes you're better off to start from
scratch than you are to remodel. And I would hope that before you people
whom we have elected.to spend our $40 million --I hope that before you spend
our $40 million you have made the proper decision, because I think that most
everybody would agree that the present location is really not a very good
location aesthetics -wise for the City. But if that is overridden by the
economic benefits of leaving it where it is, why I think that probably we
would all be in favor of leaving it if it was an overriding economic decision.
Thank you.
MR. HAHN
Mr. Mayor, before you continue, I just want to make it clear. I thought the
purpose was to hear the people in the audience. We do have a matrix that
compares the sites, and if time allows after everybody has made their comments,
I'd be very happy to provide additional facts in about 10-15 minutes and give
people sort of a background in that sense, too.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
The hearing is for input right now, but we can go into an informational mode
later on as we have at other meetings. Right now we're just taking input and
not going to give out information. We want to hear from you. We can get in
information later on.
Judy Ameta.
,1I M AMFTA
I just came hear as an observer and to learn more about this. I don't really
feel qualified to talk . . .
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay, thanks, Judy. Dick Beresford.
DICK BERESFORD
My name is Dick Beresford, and I live at 9317 - 192nd Place Southwest in
Edmonds. I've lived here for 15 years. I'm very pleased with the prospect
of living in Edmonds. I'm proud of the way that Edmonds is developing. I
think that I speak --well, I know I speak for an awful lot of people in saying
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 16 APRIL.28, 1987
that no one wants to live next to or conduct a business near a sewage treatment
plant. And so, if it is at all cost-effective to move the sewage treatment
plant to any other site, other than a site in the middle of the city, I think
that would probably be consistent with anyone's desires. And the major
concern here is whether or not such a move like that is cost-effective. And
as I understand it, we just simply don't know whether it's cost-effective or
not. So I would request that first of all.the Council open up this issue
regarding the siting and commission the appropriate study to determine what
those costs are and then follow --and then given the fact that we finally know
what those costs are, then make an informed decision. I just think it would
be irresponsible on behalf of the Council not to.have those facts at the time
they make such an important decision regarding the development of this city.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Thank you. Doug Dewar.
My name's Doug Dewar. I live at 21631 Macau, and I have a business at 100 -
Second Avenue South. I'm also a member of the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
Board of Directors. I reiterate what a lot of people have said tonight. I
think there's a great deal of confusion as to cost and what are the costs of
the alternatives. what really are the alternatives? I personally am concerned
(1) about the aesthetics, of having a sewage treatment plant in that location.
I'm also concerned about traffic disruption during the period of construction
of that sewage plant. i think that's a cost that maybe we haven't even talked
about tonight, a hidden cost. And I feel we really need to have a lot more
study before we commit to spending $39 million or whatever the cost is.
I don't know what the cost is.. I'd like to hear if we do know the cost of the
alternatives.. I think that's very important. But once we know the costs of
the alternatives, then we can decide if it is worth it to move it. But I
think the aesthetics say we should try to move it unless the cost is way out
of sight. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Jerilyn Brusseau.
JERILYN BRUSSEAU
My name is Jerilyn Brusseau. I live at 806 Cary Road, and I have a business
at the corner of Fifth and Dayton. I've been a resident of Edmonds for 15
years, and I've owned my business for nine years at the corner of Fifth and
Dayton. I'm on the Board of Directors of the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and
also on the Board of the Edmonds Main Streets Project. I would like to ask
you to consider aesthetics in making this decision. As you and all of us here
know, Edmonds has really been coming to life in the last ten years in terms
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 17 APRIL 28, 1987
of its desirability as a tourist/recreation facility. People come from far
and wide to visit our town, which has really contributed greatly to a
flourishing business economy. And I'm very concerned about the existence of
the sewage treatment plant on the main route to the Edmonds ferry. It is also
on the corner of the main route between Harbor Square and the downtown Edmonds
business area, which many people have worked very hard over the last several
years to promote in terms of trafficking and encouraging people driving from
Harbor Square to downtown Edmonds to complete their shopping, their visiting,
their service needs. I feel very strongly that the disruption of traffic
is a very important issue here. As a business owner on Dayton Street, I'm
not sure how many times Dayton Street has been torn up in the last few years,
but it has been several. And it has been substantial. And any interruption
to traffic will have a bearing on all of the businesses between Harbor Square
and downtown Edmonds. I ask you to vigorously pursue the relocation of the
sewage treatment plant, to explore the alternatives in terms of cost. I feel
that the people who live here are very quality -oriented. People come to
Edmonds because it offers clean air, clean streets, nice people, happy faces.
They're oriented toward quality, and I think it's really important to add
maybe a couple of dollars to our water bill, and many of us are business
owners and we're going to pay twice. So we'll be paying several dollars more.
But I would rather do that and 20 years from now, as Dick Beselin said, have
something we can feel responsible for that we actually vigorously pursued,
that we can put our signature on. I'd rather leave something positive for my
kids than something that everyone's going to wonder where we were at the time.
So please consider aesthetics as you look at this project. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN ,
I'm not sure I can pronounce this. Sheila Bray?
SHE RA BRAY
I see a need for more information, too, and I would prefer my time for .
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Harley Bray.
HARLEY BRAY
I'm Harley Bray. I live at 9116 - 192nd Street Southwest in Edmonds. I've
lived in Edmonds for only six years, but I have to say it's the first town
I've ever seen that has a sewage plant right downtown. I've seen a lot of
towns. I get the feeling that the engineering staff is kind of locked into
this site. They have bought a site just south; they've apparently spent a
lot of time and probably money on plans for it. But you know the old saying,
a smart man will change his mind. And maybe a smart community will change
its mind. I think, if at all possible, you should not have a sewage treatment
plant in the downtown area. That's all I have to say. Thanks.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 18 APRIL 28, 1987
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Jackie Thomas.
JACKIE THOMAS
I'm Jackie Thomas at 645 Alder Street. I'm not used to standing up here and
talking, but I am definitely against not having more study on it. And since
I'm going to be paying the bill, I want to know the comparisons. And as the
gentleman before me said he moved here, I moved here eight years ago. In no
other city I know of where I had lived had a sewage treatment center in the
middle of such a beautiful town as this. I walk down that street all the time,
and the odor, and even when we have guests from out of town, and I take them
down there, and they're going --What is that? Oh. Yes, it's right in the
middle of our business district. Isn't that nice? I think more study has to
be done. And it's very nice to say 15 minutes after the meeting that you would
tell us what it is. What about people who are not here? We have not been told,
so please consider it. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Dave Earling.
DAVE EARLING
Dave Earling, 8629 - 187th Place Southwest, Edmonds. It has been alluded to
a bit tonight, and I'd like to spend a little bit more attention defining what
the business community has tried to put together over the last several years.
We've tried as best we can -to make Edmonds more attractive for its.residents
and for people from out of the area. In concert with that, we've tried to
define where the center of the.downtown business district is. As best as we
can determine, it runs Fifth Avenue from roughly Pine to Main, down Main Street
to the waterfront, across the waterfront to the Port, and then up Dayton to
about Fifth or Sixth. We are extremely conscious of trying to move people
around this downtown central core. We've tried as best we can over the years
to pursue that end. The biggest advance we've obviously been able to make
recently with.that is the trolley. We now have something in town that can
physically move people around town. We all know that over the last several
years Dayton has been torn up several times. I have asked in two different
meetings if Dayton will ever be torn up or if business will be stopped or if
traffic will be stopped. And each time they said no. I still don't believe
it. Maybe it's a definition of how long it's going to be down. My contention
is that if it has to be down for two or three weeks every few months or if it
has to be down for one month a year or if it has to be down for three days every
two weeks or whatever the combination is, it will adversely affect the traffic
flow that we've tried to create. People will.grow to understand that there
might be.a problem in going the way they want to go, and they're going to go
someplace else. A good example of that --someone comes to Harbor Square or the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 19 APRIL 28, 1987
waterfront to shop. They start back up Dayton; they figure there's going to
be a problem and they turn right and they're out of town. I really think we
owe it to ourselves to really consider that. We are finally beginning to talk
to business owners in town, and this last year we're seeing dramatic increases
in many of their businesses, both in volume and in profit. Profit increases
ranging from 10 percent to 70 percent. And I think it would be a disaster if
we're looking at a four-year project that in my mind is a given, that we're
going to disrupt traffic and we're going to disrupt business. I also would
like to join in concert in urging you to really study the Harbor Square site.
People have said it's not very far, that it's not going to be seen. But if
you really go down there and look at the site, there's a great contrast in the
two locations and visibility to the public. I don't care what goes in in the
site should it be moved. A park, anything that's people oriented, if it
becomes some kind of business, that's fine, too. But it's got to be people
oriented to enhance that movement of people around within the business community.
I hope you'll seriously consider looking at a cost analysis. And I understand
that there are matrixes that are available, and I understand that I've heard
the comments that it's going to cost $5 million roughly to do this or to do
that. I really don't know'what it costs. And as Jackie Thomas just indicated,
there is a great confusion among the populace out there. The people who might
be here at a meeting maybe understand what's in that meeting at that day at
that time. But there's 28,000 to 29,000 people out there that I don't really
think know what's going on. I really hope we can focus on the issue --whether
that sewage treatment plant should be there. And I hope that the cost is not
too expensive that we'll use a little vision and get it out of town.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Roger Hertrich.
ROGER HERTRICH
Roger Hertrich. 1020 Puget Drive. I'm very happy this evening that we all
could attend this hearing. I appreciate the chance, finally, for people to
turn out. It seems, though, that over the last couple of years that there
has been very few of us that have been interested enough to come down to these
meetings to give input, to talk to our Council people, up until this last month
or so. And I'm glad that all of you here have this opportunity to express
yourself. I hear a lot of what I call confusion. Well, people are generally
confused if they're not aware of what's going on. And the only way to really
find out what's going on is to come to your City Council meetings and pay some
attention, rather than wait until the last day. I personally am all for
moving the sewer treatment plant, all the way out of town, all the way to
Seattle. But I'm a practical person, and I know we're caught up with a
situation where we have what we have and we have to do the best with what we
do have. And I've heard a lot of questions tonight. Probably by people who
haven't heard the information before. The only question that I've heard here
that really hasn't probably been answered is --What is the ground like at the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 20 APRIL 28, 1987
Harbor Square area? And I think most of us that have had any idea at all or
looked at it know that it's swampland that has been filled. We don't know
how deep that is; we don't know what the soil conditions are. And I would
just guess that if you built a plant at that site it's going to be on pilings.
We have a lot of either/ors in this case. I'd like to address a few of them.
Basically traffic. How do we choose? Either we disrupt Dayton Street, or
we disrupt Harbor Square. Harbor Square has one entrance. Dayton Street has
more than one. And I wouldn't want to have a business in Harbor Square if
the traffic was jammed up at that one entrance with trucks and construction
vehicles. I think .I'd want to move onto Main Street. Smell. The smell may
be the same either location, and from what I understand, the smell will be
considerably less than what we have today, due to secondary treatment. Cost.
We know what we have. It's either $39 million or some.unknown. That unknown
has been expressed with figures of how much extra does it cost to pipe the
sewage across 104. What is the cost of tearing up 104? What is the cost of
building on the piling, if you have to build --or is it even buildable? What
do the extra pumps cost in order to get it out to Puget Sound; if you have to
buy new pumps?
One of the things that has not been addressed this evening is height. One of
the reasons that I've heard people mention --you .turn at the smell, or something
like this to identify our sewage treatment plant. I didn't really know it
was there, except for the small plume of smoke that leaves that site. And that
smoke will basically be eliminated to a great degree, along with the smell,
with the new facility. What we have behind those trees is a structure that's
half buried. The height is not a prohibitive height. Height is a big question
in our city. We've had one gentleman who lives right near there, and he seems
to be apparently happy to have something he knows is going to go in, and he
knows how high the present site is, and he knows how high the future site is
going to be. What we have in Harbor Square is the possibility of a site that
is higher because it may be built on pilings. Aesthetics. Well, I find a
higher building certainly.less aesthetically pleasing than a lower building.
Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Mr. Hendrickson.
MIK HENDRICKSON
I'm Mik Hendrickson. I'm the Marina Manager for the Port of Edmonds. I've
come here this evening to address the Council on the proposed alternative site
of Harbor Square for the secondary treatment plant. The commissioners for
the Port of Edmonds have not yet come to a final decision as to the future use
of the property in question. The property in question was deemed surplus by
commission action, commission resolution,, excuse me. Currently, the Port is
involved in a long-range planning process. This Puget Plan will address the
future land use of all. Port property. It is important that any consideration
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 21 APRIL 28, 1987
and discussions regarding use of the 3.5 acres next to Harbor Square be
initiated with the Port as soon as possible and not assume that the Port of
Edmonds views the use of that site appropriate for a plant. The Port of
Edmonds wants to send a clear message to the City Council that it intends
to cooperate.with the city to provide public services, as well as create a
healthy business atmosphere in the Edmonds community. The key is communication.
We need to keep each other informed so we can avoid misunderstandings and
facilitate the cooperative effort. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Charles Rezba.
CHARLES REZBA
My name is Charles Rezba. I live at 510 - 12th Avenue North. I also have a
small business at 111 West Dayton. I want to start off by saying my wife and
I have lived here for 16 years and each year that goes by a new development
has taken place that has enhanced this city. And I want to congratulate any
of these people that are here tonight that have participated and are responsible
for things like our new library, the curbs that allow handicapped people to go
up and down in wheelchairs, the flowers on the street corners, the expense that
business owners have gone to to modernize their storefronts to make it more
enhancing. And all in all, I'm very happy, and my wife and I are happy, to
live here, and we plan on spending the rest of our days in Edmonds. I've heard
that there's some confusion about this plant. There should be no confusion
about it. It doesn't belong where it is. It smells, it stinks, it doesn't
belong there. I've congratulated people here tonight on things that have taken
place in Edmonds. Do you people want to be responsible as being the elected
officials that approved a plant in the middle of downtown Edmonds, that smells?
There's no denying --I go to work by it. It smells. Sure, there are a lot of
people that are neighbors of this plant, and I think that.they have good reason
to be concerned with their water bills. However, and the unknown of having
higher water bills at our stage of life does give cause for panic. People have
a budget, but you people have the responsibility of continuing what your fore -
bearers have made of Edmonds. And I don't want to use snob appeal, but we're
almost a La Jolla of the city of Seattle --of Washington State. Some people
might not think that's worthwhile, but when you say you're from Edmonds now,
people look up and congratulate you for living in a fine place. So, I don't
know what happened to the consideration for this sewer plant being next to the
Gulf Oil plant. I,don't know why that was ruled out, or.even if it is ruled
out. But there's tanks there that store gasoline, and if we're going to have
tanks for sewer plants, they belong up there, next to that plant.
Now, there's one thing that you should consider, and that is that if we give
up the present plant, you're going to have that property that you can turn
back to some sort of usage --retail shops or a park --and you would derive income
from the taxes, you'd derive some capital to defray the costs of your new plant,
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 22 APRIL 28, 1987
so that is --no one has come out and said well, you know, we might get
$8 million for the present site now when we put it up for sale. And that's
one consideration. The plant doesn't belong where it is now. It's absurd
to even consider that site. Thank you very much. I think I've had a lot
to say, but I just thank you for letting me speak. We don't belong with
that plant in the middle of downtown. We're going forward. Don't set this
town back to where it was 20-30 years ago. We don't belong having a city
with.a sewer plant right downtown. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Erling Helde.
ERLING HELDE
My name is Erling Helde: I live at 210 - 3rd Avenue South, one street east
of the present sewer plant. I met a fellow the other day, he says, 'Where
is that stinkin' smell coming from?' It came from Poulsbo. He's used to
clean air. But I live up there and I don't detect any stink or smell. Very
little. But I just want to say this --that a greater number of people that
are settling in Edmonds are senior citizens on a fixed income. And I'd hate
to think that I'd have to go back to a porta potty because I coul.dn't afford
to move this sewer plant and costs are millions of dollars more. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. Is there anyone else that didn't sign up that would like to speak?
Sir.
DAVE FORTISE
I certainly don't have any speech. My name is Dave Fortise, and I live at
813 - 12th Place North. My wife and I came to Edmonds about a year ago, after
looking the Seattle area over rather carefully. And we came for one reason.
This is an especially nice town. When you talk about this is a typical day
in Edmonds, this has real meaning. But one thing I can assure you is that a
sewage treatment plant in a downtown area --there's nothing special about that.
In my work with the company I.was employed with in the East, I was involved
in waste treatment, and I've visited a lot of sewage treatment plants. They
are not good neighbors. While there are improvements in design, you cannot
get rid of the odors totally. I know of no town in the East that puts the
sewage plant right in the downtown area. Now, I can plead ignorance because
I've only been here a year, but I can say that I don't think I've been exposed
to the basic facts on What the alternatives are. People have talked about
cost-effectiveness. I think when you're going to spend this kind of money,
and we're going to be spending it for a long, long time, and our taxes, that
we have a right to have the options laid out for us. What is the cost going
to be? What properties are available for an alternate site? And without
that information, I don't see how any of us can make a decision. I think
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 23 APRIL 28, 1987
the Council, which as I understand is divided on the issue itself, could
benefit from a poll or whatever is practical jurisdictionally, where you find
out what the citizens of Edmonds think about this. I have full respect for
the City Council, but I do think that on an issue that's this important, that
the feelings and wishes of the people that are going to pay the bill should be
considered. So, I just ask that this thing be thoroughly considered and that
new consideration be given to alternate sites. Thank you very much.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. Yes, sir. No, this gentleman is coming up. There are about four hands
up there, and they're all gentlemen.
BOB CHANDLER
My name is Bob Chandler, and I live at 9532 - 231st Place Southwest. I've
lived here about three years, and I really love Edmonds. And I think Edmonds
has a great future. And I think one of the things we need to consider is the
fact that 20 years ago they put a privy on the edge of the lot. Today, it's
in the front yard. Twenty years from now, it will be in the living room. I
don't care whether it's got a lid on it or not, it doesn't belong in the living
room. I also think the fact that that property has a value now that will
greatly increase if that plant moved, which should be taken into consideration
as far as the costs go --should be considered. I think there has to be a better
place to put it, and I think we won't know where that place is until we have
closely looked at all of the alternatives, without bias or prejudice, and then
come to the conclusion of where it's going to be and how we're going to commit
to at least the next 20 years. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Jack.
JACK BEVIN
My name is Jack Bevin. 19210 - 94th West. I at one time owned the property
that the city purchased, and I can dispel the gentleman's concern about the
pilings. You're going to get it there, also. The same fill that filled
Harbor Square also filled that piece of property. It was --Mr. Joplin had his
asphalt plant down there and needed additional space to put fill out of the
Port. And I said go ahead.as long as you leave it to grade. So much for that.
I had the privilege of serving on.the Council at the time when Councilman
Don Tuson promised the people that the plant odor would disappear, and that's
some 20 years ago. It has never happened. Now, you're forced possibly with
subjecting the people in that neighborhood with possibly ash and/or noise
to go along with the odor. That plant should never have been there. Thank
you.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 24 APRIL 28, 1987
1
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Yes.
MIKE COOPER
My name is Mike Cooper. I live at 820 Maple Street in Edmonds. The acronym
WPPSS seemed to be pretty fitting with what happened to our nuclear power
plants in Washington State. I'm hoping we don't come up with some kind of an
acronym for our sewage treatment plant that fits together with it when we're
all said and done here. You know, I've got to tell you that this has been a
confusing issue for me because last.week I wanted to move and yesterday I
didn't and today I do. And I think that's probably the way the. City Council
has been going on this issue. Tomorrow, they might want to do it again a
different way, or next week when they meet again. I think the City Council
ought to seriously consider moving the sewage treatment plant,.but not to
Harbor Square. The sewage treatment plant doesn't belong anywhere in the bowl
in downtown Edmonds. I've lived here in this part of Edmonds since 1965,.and
it didn't belong there when it was built, like the gentleman before me said.
It doesn't belong there now; it doesn't belong in Harbor Square. Roger said
it belonged inSeattle. That's a good place for it. I don't know if that's
practical, however. I don't know what the alternative sites are. I don't
know what the problems with the other alternatives were. But it doesn't belong
down here. I want to see it moved out of town, wherever it's practical and
economically feasible. To move it to Harbor Square, in my mind, is ridiculous.
We shouldn't spend one penny of the taxpayers' money to move that thing across
the street --not one penny of the taxpayers' money. If we're going to move it,
let's move it out of town.. If we're not going to move it, let's bite the
bullet, make it as beautiful as we can make it and leave it where it is, if
that's what is practical. But let's get a move on so we can meet the
guidelines that were established by the federal government. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. Bill.
BILL MCLAUGHLIN
My name is Bill McLaughlin. I'm President of the Edmonds Main Streets Project,
and I have a letter here from Edmonds City Clerk that basically says, 'In
response to your letter of April 10, to the Edmonds City Council President, the
City Council has scheduled a hearing to obtain public input.' So, I guess my
letter is why we're all here tonight. And I do thank the Council for being
responsive to the Main Streets Project. And for all of you for being here
tonight. We had a presentation at.our board meeting when this model was shown
and the whole project was described.. There were many questions that the board
had. The Edmonds Main Streets Project board did not take a stand on whether
to move the project or move the plant or leave.it at its present site. What
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 25 APRIL 28, 1987
we did say, emphatically, was that there needed to.be more public input;
there needed to be more facts made available. I appreciate the input from
the public. I think it is now up to the City Council and the engineers and
the Planning Department to give us the facts and to answer the many questions
that were raised tonight. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Joan.
JOAN LONGSTAFF
My name is Joan Longstaff, and I live at 809 Fir, and I own a residential
real estate office and the property at 524 Main Street. The real estate
office is a home that was built in 1890. It was a single-family residence
for 70 years before it became a fine art gallery and now my residential
real estate office. I'm very proud of our community. I was with a large
national real estate company located in Seattle: And I believe what we do
as realtors as we help market communities, we help families try on for size
the different communities and then the right property within the community.
It has really been my pleasure over the last six to seven years to help many
families understand the life-style that's so special that all of us who live
here enjoy. I've been really thrilled to see how this community has pulled
together to retain the charm and the specialness and the uniqueness that we
all enjoy here in Edmonds. And that's as we pull together --the Chamber, the
Council, the Main Streets, and the private residents --to do our planning to
enhance and retain what's already here. And I would just urge you to look
very carefully at this site. As I drive people through our community and to
the waterfront and show them the fine dining experiences that they can have
right here on our water, when I talk about Fourth of July parade and the
scouts doing a picnic in the park, that's all a part of the life-style that's
so special to us here in Edmonds. And somehow, we've got to work together
to develop the downtown community --which is special. There are very few
communities that have a downtown shopping community right on the water.
That's part of our uniqueness. And we must all pull together and give strong
consideration to retaining and enhancing that. It's going to be an expensive
proposition for our children later if we don't look into that planning now.
Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. Anyone else care to speak? Yes, sir.
JIM STACEY
I'm Jim Stacey, and I just opened a new business, my wife and I, in Harbor
Square. We recently moved up from Tacoma, and I'd hate to think that I just
moved a new business into a location that people coming from Seattle don't
know whether they went south to Tacoma or went north to Tacoma. Thank you.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 26 APRIL 28, 1987
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Anyone else care to speak? Yes, sir.
BOB NOACK
Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Bob Noack, and I live at 317 Third Avenue
South, Unit 103. I'm a neighbor to the sewer plant. I've been listening this
evening and approximately 33 people have spoken. One of the major things that
has come out tonight is that the majority of the public would like to reopen
the site selection. I believe that the Council should consider that a very
major item. I realize that this may delay some of your planning on the present
site, but I do believe that the reopening of the site selection would benefit
the City of Edmonds. Thank you.
END OF TAPE.1; SIDE 2
1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 27 APRIL 28, 1987
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. We'll close the public hearing.
MR. HAHN
I realize that many of you had no way of knowing all that has gone into the
planning. I forget the gentlemen's name, I think it was Mike Cooper who said
let's move it out of town or Seattle, and Roger Hertrich mentioned that. In
fact, that was the very first option that we looked at. And that option was
looked --and I'm very serious --that option was looked at in 1985, at the
beginning of this latest round. It cost the City Council $25,000 to look at
that option seriously. And it was an option that I think all of us saw as
really one of the best possible options we could have. Because i think
everybody on the Council and everybody on the staff would prefer not to have
a treatment plant here. And the results of that, which were known in about
September of 1985, were that regardless of cost, in other words, even if we
were willing to pay a premium to really get rid of this treatment plant, it
was not a possibility because Metro is not willing to take us. And so --and
the costs were much more. That was done. A detailed cost study was done.
So that was number one.
The second site that was most seriously studied, and studied in detail, was
what's known as the Union Oil site. Somebody mentioned it as the Gulf Oil
site, but it's the Union Oil site. I apologize for not perhaps giving a best
visibility of that, but I think most of you know where that is. And the
reason that was a viable site --it was a viable site in '79 and '78, and again
today --because it indeed was away from the core. Let's face it. If Dayton
and Second is the middle of downtown, 200 feet away is also close to the
middle of downtown, and Harbor Square is not the back woods. Harbor Square
is a viable and important area in Edmonds as well. So Union Oil became a
serious consideration because Union Oil was off the beaten path. Although,
somebody mentioned looking 20 years ahead. Twenty years ahead, Union Oil
might not be Union Oil, either. In any case, we looked at the detailed costs
of moving to the Union Oil site. We also looked into the desirability or the
willingness of the Union Oil Corporate Headquarters to sell the site and avoid
substantial damages which would have driven up the cost of the site. Those
costs were derived, and they were estimated to"be something like 3.66 million
additional dollars for the direct costs and additional costs involved with site
acquisition litigation delays, and so on. That was our most serious candidate.
We then looked at an additional site which is not on that map which is about
a mile and a half or two miles around the bend along the railroad tracks on the
water. It's in Woodway. It's below the bluffs. That site was looked at by a
design team and the City Engineer, Bob Alberts, myself, and the Mayor of
Woodway. We walked it. And that site, again, would be excellent in terms of
being out of the way. It might as well be Seattle for all we would see of it.
That site had tremendous additional costs for a number of reasons. In the
interest of time, I won't go into them. But it was clearly an expensive site
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 28 APRIL 28, 1987
that while serving us in the sense of being out of our midst, it would not --
it just was not attractive from a cost-effectiveness point of view.
Now, the last site we looked at, and I will kind of summarize this using this
table, that we looked at sort of last, was Harbor Square. I think there are
many factors in looking at these sites. There are 13 that we listed as
criteria for looking at sites. And they are, for no special reason, in this
order. Site buildability, environmental concerns and reviews, construction
costs, risks in scheduling delays, plant visibility --visibility is a very
important factor. We drove around the city to see how much of both sites can
you see the most from other locations than just in front of the site. And I
think if you did that you would be surprised. You would be surprised at how
much more visible the Harbor Square site is from everywhere. And I'm not just
talking about people who go out of the city coming in from the ferry on 104
and people who go to Harbor Square. Everybody up on the hill will get a much
better view of the treatment plant at Harbor Square than they would at the
present site. That's just one of the factors that we would consider in terms
of aesthetics and impact. We looked at accessibility. We heard a lot about
Dayton Street and we're very concerned with Dayton Street. Let's not fool
ourselves. This plant, unless we construct it out of town, is going to have
a tremendous construction impact on the city. And it will have an impact on
Dayton Street, and anybody who thinks it's not going to have any impact, it
won't happen at either Harbor Square or at the present site. And there is
only one access into Harbor Square. And even if we get some special permission
from the state to move it off the highway,'we could do that just as well on
the other side of the street and move it off the highway for the present site.
So there will be impact. In addition to accessibility, we looked at land use.
The key issue, as Mr. Earling pointed out and many of you said, what do we want
to be where? What's the best ideal place? We all agree that these sites are
not perfect, far from it. We all agree on that. We all agree that from a land
use point of view, Union Oil would have been better; Woodway, indifferent,
assuming it was acceptable to Woodway residents; but the present sites would
have been a problem. What about future expandability, either because we're
mandated to add something in the process or because we have to expand for
capacity? We looked at that as an important consideration. Community
acceptability I rate very high for Union Oil. I think we all agree that's a
plus. Seattle gets a better plus. The Woodway site high community accept-
ability, I would think, but it would be nice of us to talk to Woodway. Harbor
Square --we heard pluses, we heard minuses. Remember, once this becomes the
real site, if Harbor Square becomes the real site, there will be other
opposition. Other people who realize that now they'll have a great view of a
treatment plant, they will also want lids; they will also want capping. So
that's a factor we counted here. Neighborhood compatibility. Buffering. What
can we put between the plant and its immediate neighbors? At Harbor Square,
it would be right up against buildings. At the present site, of course, it's
against buildings. It's buffered a little bit by the Public Works yard, but
clearly not the best situation. We all recognize that. And the last category
we had was grant levels, which admittedly deals with the cost-effectiveness.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 29 APRIL 28, 1987
Now, what I think I need to emphasize as sort of a parting comment in my recap
is that there's a great deal of uncertainty in studying any of these sites.
Even if you studied --put additional money into any of them, Union Oil or
Woodway, or so on, there are additio:nal uncertainties that you wouldn't know
until you actually went into predesign, until you actually went in and did
soil borings and water table determination, and you really knew the additional
construction impact of being on fill. Somebody mentioned that the existing
site that we're talking about has fill. The part that is the fill will only
have basically a wood frame administration building on it --not the heavy parts
of the treatment plant. The heavy parts of the treatment plant will be where
the present treatment plant is. So that's a real consideration, that's a real
unknown. You would almost have to go 10-20-30 percent into design to have
precision on your numbers to the extent that you would know anything. We hear
a lot about how attractive and how desirable and how much --somebody said we'd
get eight million for the present site --maybe, maybe we will. I don't know
that. There's another site that's on the other side, on the north side of
Dayton Street, very nice grass area which you've probably seen, and I don't
know why it's been sitting there for years. Maybe there's a reason for that.
But I don't know. Somebody mentioned having a park at the present site.
Maybe a park is just as well at the edge of the marsh, which is the Harbor
Square site. So these criteria kind of summarize some of the considerations
we've taken. And they're admittedly difficult ones to synthesize into a simple
decision, because you don't have the precise costs. And I think that's what
needs to be emphasized. And that's going to be difficult to do, no matter
how much more study you're doing. I really wish we could move it out of town.
Several of you said that that's the best alternative. I think that's just a
difficult decision, but this matrix at least tries to qualitatively put
together these criteria. It doesn't necessarily lead you to one conclusion
or another. I'm just not sure it does, because so much of it is subjective.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Peter, I want to, if we can, I want to open some questions here, because I
think some people have some questions they'd like to ask. So if we could do
that. If you could ask your questions, we want some information to pass
through here, too.
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
Peter, are you saying that the cost factor is the only factor keeping us from
moving to the Union Oil site? That's all the problem is?
MR. HAHN
No, something else came up which the Council had.become aware of, and there's
so much of it that it's impossible to summarize. Snil contamination became
a problem. When we talked to Union Oil, all of their sites anywhere wind up
having a contamination problem. You're talking about disposing of hazardous
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 30 APRIL 28, 1987
wastes. Hazardous wastes --there's one disposal site in the Northwest, that's
Arlington, Oregon. That's far away. Lots to take there. And that adds up,
and that's a cost that's unknown. I didn't even talk about that, but I think
we actually have that as an 'Other Unknown' under Union Oil.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL
Mr. Mayor. Point of order.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
We closed the public hearing. I'm going to open it back up now, because we
do want you to get some information here, and we had closed the public hearing.
So I'll accept a motion to reopen the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCILMEMBER DWYER, TO REOPEN THE
PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING. MOTION CARRIED.
1. MIKE PEDERSON (Too far from microphone to hear every word)
After hearing everybody speak tonight, I get the distinct impression that
somewhere in the city there is not much interest in the Harbor Square site.
I would like someone to justify why there. isn't. . . Environmental Impact
Statement . . . I think should be reviewed very, very closely because there are
reasons for using that site that I think are very important that haven't been
brought up tonight, but they should be . . . You talk about accessibility; you
talk about the form this thing's going to take; people are talking about odors.
I don't think people are as concerned about odors as they are about . . . I
think the Harbor Square site is a far better location . . . I would think from
a planning point of view . . . Harbor Square . . . That's not the best in town
by any means, but it sounds like . . . played around with this other thing
any longer. We've got two choices . . . But if that site over there at Harbor
Square is a possibility,.I think you should address it .
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Stan.
STANFORD OLSEN
I'm Stanford Olsen. I am a little confused in seeing a great number of
subjective value judgments being made by engineering people. And I say this
in a very considered --I have a couple of degrees in engineering myself. I am
also familiar with facilities in being from Douglas County, Nevada, where they
pump the sewage clear out of the basement. The people are making the decision
after having been presented with the options available. We have not been.
presented with the options available. There has been nothing --this matrix,
it's the first time I've seen this. Yet it stops short of the best engineering
testament of plots for plan A, B, C, or D. And I am perplexed and I would
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 31 APRIL 28, 1987
wonder why it cost $25,000 for Metro to tell us no. In my dealings with Metro,
everything is negotiable, and there is something that maybe it will be. But I
have not seen something that presents the options to Council in a clear-cut
fashion that permits a decision to be made.
MR. HAHN
I would only say that there have been costs developed that you didn't see but
the Council has.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
Mr. Mayor, may I make a statement?
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Sure.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
Mr. Olsen, it's the first time I've seen this matrix, also. So we're in the
same boat. And I would just add --the gentleman that just spoke here, I would
have to say that this evening is the first real opportunity that some of us
on the Council have had where we might possibly be able to move this thing off
dead center and look at some other sites. And it's because you folks came to
this meeing, to and behold. And it's been so frustrating for us, and I'll
have to tell you in all honesty and with no malice that the administration has
not helped us pursue other sites. We have not been able to get information or
even appropriate any money to study. We've tried to do that, tried to do it
a couple of times. But it just hasn't happened. So I'm every bit as frustrated
as you folks are. But, perhaps from this evening, we can move forward and get
some facts and make some decisions based on some logic.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Yes, sir.
rH11rK RF7RA
I'm Chuck Rezba. I spoke before. I have very strong feelings about having
the sewer plant at its present location. And I also have some feelings about
the Harbor Square location. The gentleman, I think Mr. Hahn, said that it
would be like $3.9 million to use Union Oil. 3.9 is only 10 percent of the
cost of this, and to come up and say 'contaminated soil' --dump the contaminated
soil in your sewer tank and then lid it over. But the Harbor Square situation --
first of all, the Port has made it known that they might have an objection to
a sewer plant there. The Post Office was interested in that site. There was
some conversation about possible tennis courts or storage or further expansion
by the Harbor Square management on that land. So there's a need for a critical r
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 32 APRIL 28, 1987
amount of retail space to move in that area to make it a viable shopping area
for the future. And I think that we should preserve that Harbor Square land
for something better than a sewage site. So I would suggest to the Council
that they consider making an in-depth study of the Union Oil location. That's
all I want to say. Thank you very much.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Yes, sir.
COMMENT (Unidentified person)
Someone up there mentioned a point of order awhile ago. It strikes me as . .
as a resident of the City of Edmonds at a public meeting for public discussion
here to have a representative of the city taking an advocacy role in favor of
not even considering another site. It strikes me that employees of the city
are here to provide information to the residents of the city so they can make
a value judgment here. And to have someone sit here and advocate a particular
position like that, I find objectionable. This man, this first public comment
up here, this man asked a question. It appeared that all we're talking about
is 3.1 or 3.9 million dollars, and he didn't get a straight answer to that.
And those are the kinds of questions we need direct answers to. Not somebody
advocating a particular point of view.
DICK BESELIN
I would just like to see a study that was done by someone who has gone through
this before, who can say that they have done a number of sewer treatment plants
or projects of a similar nature and size of 30 to 40 million dollars. I feel
that it's --not made light of it. It's like building and remodeling a house
yourself, and after redrawing it, you find that the bathroom's in the middle
of the living room. And you say, what the hell, the plumbing's a regular
. . . You take it to an architect and someone who knew what he was doing could
redesign the house and put the bathroom where it should be. And that's about
as clear as I can put it.
COMMENT (Unidentified person)
. . . the last speaker's comments. Edmon
States to experience the axe of the EPA.
cities. It',s not going to be exactly our
faced --Do you build where you are? Or do
experience might be valuable. The second
could..be an aesthetic question, depending
happen to this sludge from your site for
MR. HAHN
Js isn't the only city, in the United
I'd like a discussion with other
situation, but other cities have
you build a new plant? There
is a question for Mr. Hahn. This
on your answer. What's going to
the secondary treatment plant?
That's one of the items that still needs to be looked at in some detail. The
option that we've --call it a preferred option --so far has been incineration.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 33 APRIL 28, 1987
The reason incineration was chosen --I don't know if you care to know. Okay.
Incineration was chosen because it had predictability, it had control of the
city, it didn't depend on all sorts of external factors, such as regulatory
permitting kinds of functions. The main alternative being land application.
And land application, you know, these 20 years it's okay. Next month, no,
it's not okay. Whereas with incineration that can happen, too. Incineration
you don't know what the air -quality standards are going to be. But, at least
without domestic sludge and a low level of metals, we're not likely to be
violating air -quality standards very soon. So that seemed to offer an
attractive option. However', having said that, we're still looking at other
options for a variety of reasons. One being sending sludge to Metro, because
they have a complete sludge management program in which we could participate.
So there are a lot of options still being looked at. And I want to emphasize
staff is not at all opposed and has never opposed any options regarding any
aspect of this planning proce.ss. And I'm sorry you got that impression, but
I've never said that we shouldn't study anything. And I think you understand
why this hasn't --or why this has gone ahead.
Right, there would be approximately four. If there was sludge disposal to
Metro, say, or to agricultural lands out in the County, you're talking maybe
four or five loads a day. And this is at a fairly future --you know, at a time
of growth. So immediately there would be maybe two or three truckloads a day.
Obviously an impact, but not --you can judge for yourself whether four a day is
too many.
Right, and that's the reason incineration was selected as a preferred
alternative, because it had --that was one plus.
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
The question is where will the incinerators be sited?
MR. HAHN
Right now the incinerator --are you familiar with where it is? It would be
approximately 120 or 150 feet south of that. So that it would be the southwest
corner of the site.
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
Do you consider an incinerator in downtown Edmonds to be that special?
MR. HAHN
I don't understand what you mean by special..
COMMENT (Unidentified person)
Special is affecting the quality of the City of Edmonds.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 34 . APRIL 28, 1987
MR. HAHN
Do you mean the plume, the visibility of the plume? Or do you mean the odor?
COMMENT (Unidentified person)
I mean fallout from the incinerator, possible odor from the incinerator.
Anything that's associated with the incinerator is not necessarily good --not
special.
MR. HAHN
Right now what the main product is that you see in the white plume is steam
vapor. It's --I don't know how much that's going to change, but you really
have considerable advancement in odor control or scrubbers that can reduce
the impact. But I think I'd be sorely misrepresenting it if I said that there
would be no plume, no odor at all. But, in fact, the odor does not mainly
come from the incineration. The odor comes --and the person who lives next to
it might be familiar with it --the odor is mainly from where the raw sewage
comes into what's called the headworks. And we've, in fact, done some work
on that this past year. But we'll try to do our best to control the odors.
I think that's where a lot of the mitigation costs will have to go..
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
Will. there be any continuous fallout from the incinerator?
MR. HAHN
I will let our consultant answer that. He knows.
CONSULTANT
No, it will be equipped with the most modern scrubbing devices available, and
the particulate fallout will be far less than any .of the applicable standards.
And the ability is there to eliminate the plume, if we want to heat the off -
gases, which is a fairly low capital investment but costs fuel to heat it. So
those options are available. There's just no good way to get rid of sludge.
You've got to truck or you've got an incinerator, it won't go away.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Laura.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL
Mr. Mayor. I can say I, too, am confused. The reason I'm here is for an
informational gathering session and hoping that you folks out there who elect
me will give me your input and your information. We have been really groping
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 35 APRIL 28, 1987
for that. Now, Peter, let me just clarify something. You said 'perhaps we
will go incineration.' In the plan and in the design plan, we have
incineration. All right. And we also had to crank that into the grant, which
was allowed. Well, now you're saying we may not go there. So, you see folks,
I get a little shaky here and there when I think I have the plan down. Just
a minute, Peter, I know you want to rebut. Incineration, folks, is the most
expensive way to go. And by the way, we have a great design team and contractor.
They've heard me say this, folks, over and over. And I have no problem with
them, so they can plug their ears or whatever. But I'm going to tell them -
anyway, and tell you what I feel on this. Incineration is the most expensive
route to go. All right. EPA has already said we have to worry about air
pollution, air quality. That incinerator is going to pollute the air. Do you
know how fine EPA is getting down? Did you read in the paper the other day
where now we have to worry about belching cows because they're putting methane
gas into the air. I thought --Oh, brother, I mean the Maalox is going to have
a big market or whatever in the grain business. I say that because we're going
to be three to four years into construction on this plant. If incineration is
disallowed within the next ten years as EPA --any of us that have attended these
national conferences and state conferences, now we're in it again. So I'm
saying look at incineration carefully. It's the most expensive way to go. It's
going to take up a good share of the site. It's going to have a smokestack or
stacks that are going to be larger than the one we have, slightly taller than
the one we have, so I just say that on the one point of incineration. I won't
take any more time at this point, but you'll be hearing from me later. Thank
you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Point of order. According to our meeting rules, we have to adjourn the meeting
at 10 o'clock and then go on from there.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER
Mr. Mayor, I would move that we continue the meeting until there are no more
public questions.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
Second.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay, all those in favor?
MR. HAHN
Opposed? Motion carried.
Mr. Mayor. In terms of --Ms. Hall is right. Ms. Hall is absolutely right about
what she's saying on incineration. In fact, the Department of Ecology did not
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 36 APRIL 28, 1987
prefer us to use incineration. Not for the air -quality standards, necessarily,
but because it costs so much more. It doesn't cost --it's approximately ten
percent more. Okay? They want us to look at land application. But land
application has other problems, such as the gentleman mentioned --truck traffic.
And you just have to weigh one against the other and see which one is more on
balance, more attractive to the city. And neither is really a very great
prospect. And I think the reason we made a commitment to ecology to study it
is because they said --Okay, we'll let you go ahead with incineration for now,
but please keep looking at it and exploring all other options, such as Metro
being a very viable one for us, recognizing that we'll have four trucks a day.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Yes, sir.
DICK HILL
My name is Dick Hill I spoke before. I would like to rise to the defense
of our Community Services Director . . . Peter always is doing his job. .
An intent or a seeming intent . . staff . . . for information.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Jeff.
JEFF PALMER
I'm Jeff Palmer. I was the first speaker tonight, and I,also think that Peter's
done a lot of hard work. He's not in an enviable position. He gets questions
and responses and criticism, not only.from members of the public, but.also from
various members of the Council and I'm sure from his own staff from time - to time.
He's done a good job. But I think what the cry is that we're hearing tonight
is that the public, by and large, are not satisfied with the degree of analysis
that we have now. That.we would like to see the site issue reopened and that
we, by and large, believe that additional information is needed on alternative
sites. That was my recommendation at the beginning tonight, and it's my
recommendation now. I think it's about that time in the evening where I'd
like to hear from some individual Council members their opinions on those two
issues. Thank you.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Yes, sir
DOUG DEWAR
Jeff, you were asking a couple of questions of Peter. Very sincere questions.
You talked about the Woodway site being more costly. How much more costs
are you talking about for the Woodway site?
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 37 APRIL 28, 1987
MR. HAHN
The costs that were developed for the Woodway site were about the most --you'd
almost literally have to say off the top of your head. As Casper said, unknown.
But, no, realistically, on the direct costs which is just the conveyance costs.
Meaning you know how much farther you have to carry the material --that's a
good word for it, material --in terms of just straight distance and so much pipe
and stronger lift stations and that sort of thing. We assumed that cost alone
could easily be 6 to 10 million dollars. That's a pretty good guess. But,
far more important were the costs of --basically, there's no road to get in
there and build it. There's actually no easy way to get the pipe in there
that's going to get into the site. The hillside needs to be stabilized, so
it doesn't cover the plant. The railroad moved its own track to an embankment
about 200 feet west of the bluff. And we wouldn't want to be any more covered
by the bluffs than the railroad wanted to be covered by the bluffs. The site
is very wet. There's water on both sides of the embankment and two very large
culverts that connect the Sound and the site which is what we call the Woodway
site. By the time you do the de -watering, the pilings, or whatever, I'm not
saying it cannot be done. Anything can be done. But you're talking --I would
be amazed if it was under 10 million dollars. And we just used a very, very
rough range for the direct and indirect maybe being 10 to 20 million dollars
more. This is on top of the 39 million, which is the estimated cost now.
DOUG DWYER
Does the $39 million include a lid or is that . . . ?
MR. HAHN
The $39 million includes an item called contingency, which is 5 million
dollars. There are two ways to look at that. The contingency can be for
unexpected problems, or it can be for unexpected or expected opportunities.
In other words, when you start building, you might uncover conditions which
you were not counting on. That's normally what contingency means. But,
realistically, I think that there would be a good amount of that $5 million
in the contingency that would be available for considerable lidding, decking,
or whatever aesthetic treatment is required. But also, the cost estimate
itself is probably comfortable enough that a good number of the mitigating
measures could be incorporated even without tapping the $5 million.
LAURA HALL
Mr. Mayor. Further clarification on t.hat--As chair of the hearings for the
_short lifters, for the design teams, and the contractors, we asked each and
every one does the $39 million include the lidding? And they said no.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 38 APRIL 28, 1987
DOUG DEWAR
And finally on
with building
removed before
MR. HAHN
the Woodway--or the Union Oil site, do you see a problem there
on contaminated soil? Would the contaminated soil have to be
There were two things to the Woodway site. One was the direct extra costs of
transporting to that site. That was $3.66 million. And that was done with
a fair amount of detail and precision, actually sizing the facilities you need
to get to the site.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER
Did that include condemnation, Peter?
MR. HAHN
No, that did not include condemnation. Condemnation, in this case, the
damages that we would be looking at would not just be based on the raw cost
of the land. The fact is that it's a very unique facility for the Union Oil
Corporation to have, you know, waterfront tank farm and trestle facility,
piping facility, and waterfront loading and unloading. We would have paid
very heavy damages; we would have been in litigation. We contacted Union Oil
a number of times, and they made it very clear --and this is interesting to
you as members of the community --that those tanks, which are so visible to us
on top today, might very well be phased out and moved down to the flat part
that we were considering for the treatment plant. The reason, from their
point of view, was that they wanted to have more efficient, automated tanks,
reduce their labor costs, and, while they didn't say that all of their.
hilltop tanks would be eliminated, their goal was to bring more of them down
and perhaps someday we would have a more pristine hillside or have land
available for other uses. But they had a definite use --the point is that
they had a definite use for the area that we had designated as being for the
plant. And if they were not willing to part with it, then we would have had
to go for expensive condemnation procedures. And then the contamination came
on top of .that. We never even looked at the costs of removing the contaminated
soils from the site. That came up more recently. And that's not in the
dollar amounts I cited. And that's an unknown. We'd have to figure that out.
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
What are the acquisition costs? Don't you have a figure?
MR. HAHN
Oh, just for an estimate, we used $3.6 million for the direct, and the total
was $7 million. So the figure we used for comparisons which was documented
was $7 million for additional costs at Union Oil.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 39 APRIL 28, 1987
DAVE FORTISE
You know, it's obvious in listening to this discussion that you have
information that we don't have. Where someone dillies around here and which
was does Union Oil whatnot. It seems to me that you could do the community
a big service through.the Council if you could summarize in.highlighted form --
and I don't mean a 50=page book --in a few pages as to the four sites that you
considered and the problems that you see with them. And if they're unresolved
problems, what could be done to resolve them. I think then we'd all have a
better feel as to what we're doing and what are the problems of these sites
outside of the present one. I think this would be a.great service if it's
possible.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON
Mr. Mayor. Well, I just might say that what Union Oil obviously is doing is
posturing to create the value of their property. That's what they want --is the
higher price for the property. It isn't to say that we can't condemn it. And
Peter, do you know for a fact that that soil's contaminated?
MR. HAHN
If you mean, have I taken cores? No.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON
Do you know for a fact?
MR. HAHN
No. No.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON
He doesn't even know that it is contaminated. Then it probably isn't.
MR. HAHN
I think it probably is, Mr. Wilson.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER
He knows that someone from the Union Oil Company who would know has told him
that. I think that's incredibly cynical and unfair of you to characterize
it that way, Jack. -
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON
No. Quite the contrary. If he can stand there and tell people that it's
contaminated, and he doesn't know, that is indeed not fair.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 40 APRIL 28, 1987
C
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER
You want a soil boring. And his answer was that Peter Hahn hasn't gone out
and done a soil boring. I think that's --I don't know. I think we can do
better than just hang him out to dry and beat on him with sticks for awhile
here for repeating to the public something that someone in a position of
responsibility told him.. If he didn't.tell us that, and we did acquire the
site, and it proved to be contaminated.just like they told us, then we should
beat him with a sticks.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Dan.
DAN WOODSIDE
Dan Woodside, 530 Fifth Avenue. Outside of the site, a few weeks back I was
here listening to the group.here:tell
us about the different breakdowns in
cost. One
thing that really
caught my eye was sales tax.
Now, I brought up
the point
to several Council
members, and they told me --no
you only have to
pay sales
tax on the design
costs, which is about $150,0.00.
I asked the
question
of Mr. Gordon Culp,
and he said no --the sales tax
is on the entire
project.
Total $34 million
roughly --sales tax came out to
be 22 million
dollars.
Why do we have to
pay sales tax on something that is federally
mandated
upon our city?
MR. HAHN
If you want me to answer that --the answer is correct. There was a bill in
the legislature that would have had us pay sales tax on services. And that's
I don't even know if that's still alive in the new --It's not, Ms. Hall says.
So, therefore, the answer is it's the law, really. Whether it's just or not.
In many states, in fact, in many states --I've worked in one other state --that
was not the case. Municipalities were exempt from all sales taxes. So I
think it just happens to be the way the Washington State law is written. If
there's any way we could get out of it, I'm sure we'll try.
COMMENT (Unidentified person)
I think you should put it down as resale, because basically you're going to
be building the plant, and you're going to be charging everybody.for the
sewerage.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay, we have two people --Mike and then Dick. Mike can you restate your name?
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 41 APRIL 28, 1987
MIKE PEDERSON
Mike Pederson. I feel like we just saw an example of something we're all
talking about. I don't want to pick on Peter Hahn, because he is in a very --
how will I say . . But he told us that site was contaminated, and I think
the message we all got is that he knew for sure that it was. What it turns
out to be is that somebody has told him that. So it turns out to be simply
hearsay. So what the public knows right now is that site over there at Union
Oil. .
Excuse me. This is the Terminal Manager who is a fairly responsible official
of Union Oil telling Gordon Culp and Bob Alberts and myself. Now, I'm not
saying that I will go ahead and do everything from that point on, as if it
was the gospel truth.
MIKE PEDERSON
That's not what I'm picking on. What I'm picking on is if you got to go spend
this kind of money . . . this serious and critical, we want to know. Go get
a testing laboratory and find out. Don't take the word of the manager .
MR. HAHN
But, remember, there was a decision already made based on the $7 million which
never considered the oil contamination. The $7 million was responsible for
saying --for having whatever decision was made. No decision was made on the
contamination. The contamination issue.came up way later, kind of after all
the other costs were put together. So we did not say --Oh, gee, this guy told
us it's contaminated. Let's forget the whole thing. It was really kind of
at the last moment that that was added.
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
So what's the real reason we're not going to consider that site?
MR. HAHN
I assume the 7 million dollars.
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
Okay. I guess we have one more question. How can we afford to put a plant
down in Metro in Seattle, but we can't afford . . .
MR. HAHN
How come we can afford? I'm sorry.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 42 APRIL 28, 1987
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
I heard at the beginning that we had considered using Metro and pumping our
sewage down to Seattle. That should cost more than $39 million.
MR. HAHN
The reason that was done is because it was --there were a lot of questions
whether that was a real opportunity for us to join Metro and get rid of the
treatment plant. I think we all started with an effort to want to get rid
of the treatment plant. And so the very first thing we wanted to do while
Metro was still putting together its plan, was to say --Are there any circum-
stances under which Edmonds can eliminate its treatment plant and join Metro?
Everybody here probably thinks that's a good idea, if it worked, out. Number
one, it didn't work out on the costs. But, more importantly, number two,
regardless of the costs, even if we were paying a 10 or 20 million dollar
premium, Metro said we don't want you. So if the costs were huge --they didn't
want us anyway. So that was not pursued. And that position, if anything,
has been strengthened by Metro.
MIKE PEDERSON
Okay. Well, that's what I wanted to get clarified, because I think there's
a question about how confined are we? . . . Are.we looking anywhere else in
town, out of.town,
MR. HAHN
Maybe Mr. Culp, whose job was to start out --I think he reviewed. Well, why
don't you tell us how you reviewed the sites, starting with the '79 report,
because you did the work. Now I can get mad at you.
MR. CULP
Yes, we did start with a review of all the sites we looked at in 1978-79, in
the original facility plan. That was the starting point. The sites,
basically, that they narrowed down to were the Harbor Square site, the existing
site, Union Oil site, and a site up on the corner by the fish hatchery --were
the sites that they considered in 1979. And at that time, the City Council
selected to leave the plant where it is --the existing site. So we were hired
two years ago and reassess that study, take a fresh look with --you know, Bob
has a big aerial --to start with a fresh photograph of the entire site, which
we did. And in September 1985, we had a hearing on the screening of sites,
and we had boiled it down to Union Oil and the existing site as two promising
for further consideration. And the Union Oil costs were estimated at a 7
million dollar increment. In September '85, we received from the City Council
to proceed at the existing site.
END OF TAPE 2, SIDE 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 43 APRIL 28, 1987
MR. CULP
. . . We started with that blank photo that you see there, and looked at every
bare spot we could find and to assess the possibility of other sites. I hate
to be the bearer of bad news, but there aren't any good sites.
MIKE PEDERSON
I have one more statement to make. Somebody made the comment earlier that
our sewage costs are extremely cheap. Is that what I heard?
MR. HAHN
Right. That comparatively, for what it's worth, comparatively they are low,
actually they are low, and they will be low under secondary treatment.
MIKE PEDERSON
Okay. I just want to bring something up . . . I think this community .
build something that will be worthwhile. And arguing over nickels and dimes --
this is really important.. It's more important than just the money involved.
It's more important as far as the whole city is concerned . . . I think we
can afford to get the job done right.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL
Mr. Mayor. Mike, if I can just add to this. In 1986, April 24th, Alderwood
Water District paid bi-monthly on their sewer rate $25; Edmonds paid $14.91.
Lynnwood $15.20; Mountlake Terrace $19.60; Olympic Water View $18.80. So you
see we're the lowest of all. Now, getting back to sites. You see, we are
blind -siding one complete plant to the north, aren't we, folks. Twenty-five
percent to Edmonds and we're in with that. All I'm saying to you is when we
get rate structures, we're only dealing with $39 million. Why are we
.neglecting the site to the north? That has to be tallied in, folks. And any
sewer studies you deal with, they want the combined figures, and that, Peter,
would skew that $1,600 that we are dealing with in the formula. So I'm saying,
we're into a plant with Lynnwood. Let's back it up a little bit. Isn't this
a regional issue? We don't own Puget Sound. We share it. And I maintain
Lynnwood should not be building a humongous plant on one side of 99, we on the
other side when we already share one to the north, where we have other
districts to the south of us and they, not knowing where they're going to go,
do we have them pay upfront money? Do we have this financed by rate structures?
Do we consider the plant to the north? I want to make one other statement.
When we're talking about out -of -the -pocket, that's why we're having this meeting,
folks. We're mindful of the dollars that you people and we are going to have
to spend over time. And when I heard the Governor speak the other day, he
stood up and was touting his educational package, saying --Boy, we've got to do
this or all of the kids are just going to go out of here illiterate and the
whole bit. And I agree to a point. But I got him aside afterwards, and I said
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 44 APRIL 28, 1987
You know what, Booth? When you're talking to my community, you're talking
education, yes. We're already bowing our backs to a $72 million levy. But,
in our town, we're faced with a 40 million dollar secondary sewer treatment
plant, with another levy on the horizon. I said --You could do us all a
favor if you went to Andrea Beatty Reinacher and said --Back off. Just give
us five years. We will comply with secondary sewers. In fact, we'll comply
with tertiary. And did you know that's what's next to come on line. This
site will not accommodate tertiary.
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
Will you explain what that is?
COUNCILMEMBER HALL
All right. That is when we get down to the technical part where you leave
me. Primary, you get out the big doodoos. Right? Secondary, the littler
doodoos. All right, then we have metals, we have arsenics, we have all this
type thing. That's what tertiary will get rid of some. I have to put it in
terms where we can understand; okay? All right. Some municipalities around
this nation have gone one fell swoop to tertiary. And I'm sure Gordon and
this group have probably gone to tertiary. Why in the heck aren't we doing
that? While we're doing this, I say if they can't throw in --and Gordon hears
me say this all the time --I'll negotiate with them. Throw in tertiary, throw
in the outfall--we're going to have to tear up Dayton Street again and extend
the outfall--tack into Lynnwood or do whatever you have to do. Then maybe
I'll stand this $40 million. But, folks, if you can sit out there and let
EPA and some of these people come in and tell you roll over for $40 million
and keep the plant where it is, I can't believe it. I mean, if we're going
to tool up that plant, the most I want to spend on that site is $10 million.
I'll tell you another thing. Since Culp and them have built other plants,
why are we paying for another design plan? I don't do that. Builders don't
do that every time they build a house. Yes, it's a different terrain, but
the same can go for building any other structure...We have some big vats,
we have clarifiers, we have a huge smokestack and a burner that will burn the
heck out of that sludge, and some pipes that run on out to the Sound. Now,
how creative can you get? And I'm saying to them --Go where you built another
plant, bring that blueprint to me, I'll put a little sketch over.here, and
you tell me as an expert if that's going to be okay. And that's probably an
oversimplification, but I don't feel that $40 million is going to do the job.
That is for starters. That's not M and 0. You're shaking your head, sir.
And I wish you could attend some of the meetings I have. I wish I could be
that complacent. I'm just trying to say let's get all the facts on the table.
Let's not be pressured by little peanuts of grant money that's dangling out
there. That grant money could be our folly.
CHARLES REZBA
I have a question for the expert.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 45 APRIL 28, 1987
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
Which one?
CHARLES REZBA
I kind of object to us just throwing out the Union Oil property by saying it's
got contaminated soil. If it does have contaminated soil, nobody's doing
anything about it now. Why don't we just berm it up and make a fence around
the contaminated soil --which is only hydrocarbons anyway. Nothing that's going
to poison anybody. It's just oil . . . so why not berm it up six feet all
away around the whole property and put that forth in the recommendation? Isn't
it a viable recommendation?
MR. CULP
Well, if you think the secondary treatment rules don't make a lot of sense,
when you get in the area of contaminated soils, we're off in Alice -in -
Wonderland -type regulations now. And we have done a lot of work for industries
dealing with similar problems. And to my knowledge, I've not seen any core
samples from the Union Oil site that show it's contaminated. But, based on
our experience with other similar facilities, a facility that's been handling
oil for 30 or 40 years, the probability of that soil be.ing contaminated is --
I can extrapolate if I mix water and flour and put it in the oven, I know
what I'm going to get. The chances are very good it's contaminated. Now, the
rules that are odd --if we didn't have to disturb the soil, fine. If we didn't
have to move a particle of dirt there, we'd be okay. There would be no soil
disposal cost. But the time when we go in and turn the first shovelful of
dirt to excavate and install some of our facilities, you can't take the dirt
that you excavate and let it lay on the ground. You have to haul it to a
hazardous disposal site. Now, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in
terms of the potential environmental impacts --that dirt I just dug out of the
ground, it's been there for 30 years, and the fact that I disturb it suddenly
makes it a very hazardous material. That's the law, unfortunately. So the.
problem comes because we have to disturb the soil to install pipes and tanks.
And every bit of dirt that we take out of the ground has to be hauled, if
it proves to be contaminated, to Arlington, Oregon.
QUESTION (Unidentified person)
It can't be left on the site?
Y
MR. CULP
No, it can't once it's disturbed.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Bill.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 46 APRIL 28, 1987
CI
lJ
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER
What we're really talking about i.s social cost and economic cost. I think
that the social cost has not been addressed. Except, they have been addressed
as far as people on fixed income, and that is a major concern to the Council.
But I've been trying to get closer site analysis for a long time. I've asked
a lot of questions and everything I've asked I've gotten good answers from
the staff and from the consultants. But I know that I don't have all the
facts, so I don't see how the public could have all the facts. The reason I
have harped on Harbor Square is for six months I wanted to look at other
sites, and I've given up on the other sites based on the information I've got.
I have no other choice. Harbor Square --Mr. Culp has taken it upon himself
without us authorizing any money for him to go look at Harbor Square. And he
has come back with figures that interest me. There are some concerns with
those figures, but I'm also faced with an EIS. And an EIS --this entire
project has been grant and mandate driven. And I feel that the EIS is a
critical thing. If we force that on the community, we can lose the grant and
we can lose the mandate. But we may not. So that's the hard thing to measure
here. We don't know where we are. Back in 1978, this Council sat here and
had an option of going to Pine Street or staying where it is. And it voted,
according to the record, to stay where it is, even though the cost at that
time, as stated in the record, was less to go to Pine Street. And it got
right back down to the fact again --you've got to go to an EIS. You're going
to have to lose time and you'll lose the grants. Well, we didn't get forced
and we didn't act. So we sat in complacency. And John resurrected this
thing and tried to bring it back out again. Finally, we were given a reprieve
for awhile, but it's back on us. The time is against us. But I've constantly
thought, even while we were moving like Seattle is --the whole City of Seattle
Metro is constantly looking at other options, including Richmond Beach, even
though the contracts have been let and signed. And I think Mr. Culp can be
looking at Harbor Square and talking and see. It's a soil situation that
looks similar. The costs are so close that I think it's worth looking at,
and I've really been perplexed by this not willingness to parallel anything.
And I think that's all I've asked for. Because I think it can be done. We
may lose some money. If we come to that point, we'll have to give up. But in
the meantime, we can be parallel investigating these sites. And that's why
I've stated what I have.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Does anybody have any more questions out there? Yes, ma'am.
KELLY MITCHELL
My name is Kelly Mitchell. I live at 221 Eighth Avenue North. I would like to
thank the Council for opening up this meeting tonight. I am disappointed that
there are certain members who felt that this meeting was not important enough
to attend and hear our opinions on it. I would like to say that one point that
seems to be important is the fact that senior citizens might have problems
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 47 APRIL 28, 1987
making payments. The PUD does have a situation where you can donate money
in your bill to help compensate those who can't pay for.it. And I would
be willing to put in an additional portion on my bill to make up for those
people who can't. And I would like to leave that with the Council that it
be an option.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST
Mr. Mayor, I think we should just clarify the record. One of the Council
members, Mrs. Jaech, is in Memphis and will be there for two weeks. Mr.
Ostrom, I don't know if he contacted you, Jack, or the City Clerk. However,
she is out of town for two weeks on a training class.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
Mr. Mayor, I'd like to mention a couple of things that people might be
interested in. We've been told that the construction on the present site to
build a new secondary treatment plant over/around the present facility while
it continues to function will add approximately a half a million dollars to
the cost of the project. If the project was built someplace else, I'm led to
believe we could alleviate that $500,000. Another thing that you might be
interested in --it would appear that, let's take the Harbor Square site, for
example, that the value of our property is probably more than twice as
valuable as the Harbor Square property, which means you could buy the Harbor
Square property and if you elected to sell or do something with the other
property, you would have the value there to again make at least perhaps another
half a million or more. My next three quick questions are just addressed to
Gordon Culp. Gordon, if it was even contemplated at this facility down the
road, which I think would be a grievous mistake at the five million dollar
number --you ought to be moving the plant, if you're going to think that way.
But, if it was contemplated, wasn't it brought out that something had to be
spent now to receive that cap. And what would that cost factor be?
MR. CULP
Well, it would depend o
the facility. If it wa
use, which was the five
would have to be spent
later add that heavy a
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
n the type of cap, Mr. Wilson, you're going to put on
s the structural -type lid that would support the park
million dollar lid, probably about 20 percent of that
initially to put the footings in so that you could
lid.
So that would be like a million dollars.
MR. CULP
Yes, that's right. A rough estimate.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 48 APRIL 28, 1987
1
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
Okay. Question #2, in regards to tertiary treatment. We talked about this
at great length. Tell us about tertiary treatment on that site. It
potentially can be done, but it is not easy to do. And if it was done, it
couldn't be done after the capping, could it? It would be a very difficult
thing to do.
MR. CULP
Well, tertiary is a broad category. It depends on --within that level, there
are several sublevels of treatment. Depending on the level of treatment, it
might still be possible to accommodate it. If you had to go to the maximum
conceivable type tertiary treatment, it still wouldn't take near as much
room as the secondary plant. But it would probably cause you to encroach on
the Public Works space just across Second.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
In other words, to further enlarge the plant.
MR. CULP
That's a possibility. And those types of requirements, I think, are
speculative at this point. But one needs to think about them, and depending
on how far they go with that requirement, it could potentially cause you to
encroach on to Second Street or across.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
My final question would be --Could you give myself and the public some idea
of what it would cost to do a study on Harbor Square, keeping in mind our
frugal budget? So that you could give us some facts.
MR. CULP
We did take some preliminary looks at that. One of the big unknowns there
is the EIS question. Exclusive of the EIS costs. This can be quite expensive
and quite time-consuming. I better look over to make sure I'm not --we were
in the range of around $50,000 for complete: Is that in the ballpark?
There's geotechnical work that needs to be done before you can make a reasonable
decision on that site, including soil borings. And to get the level of detail
to the comparable level to what we'll.know about this site so you could compare
apples and apples, it would be in that ballpark.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
How much time, Gordon?
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 49 APRIL 28, 1987
MR. CULP
What were we looking at? About --exclusive of the EIS which might take months,
it's about 8 weeks.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Whose decision is the EIS your talking about?
MR. CULP
That's the States eventual decision. You can do a preliminary analysis, and
if you find that there's no significant impact, you'll be excused from the
EIS requirement. Mary Lou is the expert on that, so she could fill you in on
the details of the procedure, but that's a simplified version. If you find
a significant impact, then you're into the EIS.
MR. HAHN
Clearly, there would be a significant impact. And even if you didn't call it
an EIS, if you think of the Hanchett subdivision, we never did an EIS. Well,
you might as well have. I mean you did everything except call it that. So,
in effect, the studies would be, you know, complex and take time.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
I still have the floor. I want to address a couple of questions to Peter.
Peter, in regard to the DOE grant. You mentioned $1.5 million. Can you
guarantee us that we will get $1.5?
MR. HAHN
Yes, that's the bird -in -hand category. Yes, that was approved. It expired
June 30th, as far as the State grant, but ours is granted.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
Okay. And in regard to the problems that we're having with the other agencies
on the site there, if we don't get them to agree with our proposals about
their sharing their capacity level of the bond and that sort of thing, will we
be able to bond this project with that trouble over our head?
MR. HAHN
Well, I think they would certainly have a problem, yes.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
Would we have a problem?
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 50 APRIL 28, 1987
MR. HAHN
A lot less than theirs. I think we'd be able to do a project, a project that
would be possibly scaled down. And the answer is yes. If you recall from
Mary Hughes' study, it was a question of --a question came up. Our agreements
expire at the end of the '90s, and do we absolutely need to extend the years?
We had agreements with five jurisdictions, and that's what we're talking about.
Weasked the question: Would.we be able to bond? And she said yes. It's
better if the agreements were extended, no question about it. But we would
still be able to bond, because our portion of the costs would still go on,
you know, beyond that.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
Peter, in regard to the costs of the land under the existing plant, and if we
build there, it's my understanding that the other agencies aren't interested
in reimbursing us for our own land, which has become very valuable. They've
been using our land at our expense for 20 years. But they aren't interested
in paying us for their share of that project.
MR. HAHN
That's correct. You're absolutely right. They've made it clear in their
position papers. We've gotten position papers from two of the joint agencies,
and they said such things as they don't want to pay for any land; they don't
want to pay for moving a site; they don't want to pay for decking. So, they
want another cheap ride. It hasn't been free. They have paid a good --I want
to make sure people in the audience don't think that Edmonds citizens have
paid everything. They have not. But we can certainly get a fair deal, and
that's what we're trying to do. And that's why these questions.
MIKE PEDERSON
How much money are they dangling in front of us? How much is the grant?
MR. HAHN
The grant for the design, which we received, is $1.5 million.. That's guaranteed.
As soon as the design is finished, which has to be by July 1 of next year,
we're eligible to apply for what are known as construction grants. The level
of the construction grants has not been determined precisely as yet. And it's
not going to be for a little bit of time. Right now, the best estimate I can
give you is 30 to 40 percent of approximately $34 million. So you're talking
anywhere from ten to fourteen million dollars would be the level of the grant.
MIKE PEDERSON
Okay. How much money is that per ratepayer?
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 51 APRIL 28, 1987
MR. HAHN
Very quickly, you're talking ;bout a reduction of a third, which means that
instead of paying about $20 a month, you'd be paying --and remember, the $20
includes collection costs, too --maybe you'd be paying around --let's call it
a $13 to $16 range. I think $16 is a little high. Maybe $13 to $15 range.
This is very --don't quote me on this, because we haven't analyzed it in this
detail yet.
MIKE PEDERSON
. . . that I said before, and I think Laura said the same thing. All this
is based on getting monies from the federal government --State government,
okay . .
MR. HAHN
If we successfully compete for it, yes.
MIKE PEDERSON
You're saying how many dollars for ratepayers less do we need. $7, right,
at the most?
MR. HAHN
The decrease would be maybe as much as $5 or $6 a month, if we get the full
grant that we're hoping to get.
MIKE PEDERSON
Okay. Let's take a look at the question 20 years down the road what is the
accumulated value of all that. If we say, okay, we're going to consider the
money we're getting from the State --it's really viable, and we're going to
base everything on getting that. Do you think that's nearsighted or far-
sighted?
MR. HAHN
I'm not sure what you're asking.
MIKE PEDERSON
Maybe it's like we're saying: Why are we worrying so much about that grant?
Maybe the problems we've got could be more efficient than just the attention
being paid to the grant . . . We have low rates now . . .
MR. HAHN
That's a fine question, but don't feel you have to address it to me:
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 52 APRIL 28, 1987
1
MIKE PEDERSON
But I think the point I'm trying to make is maybe
maybe we're being farsighted. I think . . from
again is: How much money does it take to build a
. . ..How much is it going to cost to do what we
Levy bonds. Meet the deadline to get money from
But, I think in the long run, to build the right
in the right way and put it in the right place, I
more grateful for that than getting a few million
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER
we're being nearsighted,
a planning point of view
plant to fit your needs?
really want to do? . . .
the State. Maybe we can.
thing and do the right thing
think we'll all be a lot
dollars out of the State.
I just want to keep us with those folks, because it's already quarter to 11
and they've been sitting down a long time. And I just want them to get their
chance. Well, we're paid to be here, and they're here . . .
PAUL KAVADAS
Paul Kavadas, 217 Alder. I would like to suggest to the Mayor and Council
that since you have constructive knowledge from several people, there's a
very good likelihood of running into a contamination problem if you look
seriously at the Union Oil property. Before you go off on these cheap shots
that have been taken on that subject, if you take a good look at what the
City of Seattle has gotten themselves into with Gas Works Park.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL
Yes. What I'm trying to get a handle on, and Mr. Mayor, I don't know whether
in your deliberations you've taken this into consideration with the Lynnwood
plant. You see, we're talking about rates, and we're talking about based on
the $39 million, Peter. We've got to look to Meadowdale. That's a new area
that's going to be developed. And it's going to be developed quite heavily.
We're into the plant with Lynnwood. They've expanded the plant. They started
out with 25 percent, and now it's down to, I think, about 15-20 percent. If
they have to expand that plant, what kind of charge is there going to come
back to us. That's another charge that I'm concerned about. I'm concerned
about capacity. Is it not true, Mr. Mayor, that we have had word that they
are nearly up to capacity in the Lynnwood plant?
MR. HAHN
We have answers to both of your questions.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL
Okay. You're going to answer then. Okay?
EDMO.NDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 53 APRIL 28, 1987
MR. HAHN
If I may. We've had probably weekly conversations with Lynnwood. The answer
is yes we're close to capacity.. And yes we'll be getting additional capacity
as secondary is built. There is also some expansion of capacity. And the
important question that you raised just before was --What is the effect of the
Meadowdale area and the Lynnwood plant? And you're correct. That's not in
the $39 million. However, the ratepayers --and I don't know how many of you
are from that area --but the ratepayers who are in the Meadowdale service area,
the Lynnwood service area, Bob and I estimated that their rates would be very
equivalent. In other words, that what we're projecting today as a $20 a month
rate, that when the plant is complete will, in fact, pay for the total cost
of the Lynnwood upgrade. Now their upgrade is less than ours, because they
have a more modern primary plant. So, if anything, their rates could be a
little bit smaller because of that. So there's not going to be an additional
impact. If anything, the rates will be a tiny bit, like 10 or 15 or 50 cents
less when they're folded in. Because we all pay one rate in Edmonds. We don't
pay a rate depending on where you go. So that's an excellent question. We've
been looking at it based on the comments you made a few weeks ago.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Roger.
ROGER HERTRICH
Mayor and Council. We've sat here a long time tonight and passed a lot of
time thinking about delays and more time. And those of you . . . interest
rates. Maybe someone could tell me how much more the plant is going to cost
us if we wait another year before we try to sell bonds. How much more is it
going to cost to Does anybody have an answer on this?
COUNCILMEMBER HALL
Well, if we did, we wouldn't be sitting here, would we, Roger? I'd be in the
Bahamas.
ROGER HERTRICH
Do you know how much you're going to sell the bonds for at the present time?
And how much would a year's delay --we're going to anticipate rising interest
rates. That's the knowledge of anybody that watches anything that goes on in
the financial world. How the interest rates are going up. And so one or two
points, or how many --How much more money is it going to cost us while we delay
the process? That's my point.
MR. HAHN
I don't think any of us would be foolish enough to try to guess what's going
to happen in the bonding market. The bonding issue is a little bit separate
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 54 APRIL 28, 1987
from the issues we were talking about tonight. And I think the Council has
been through a deliberation as far as when to bond. So the real issue is --
and that's an important --and what you're saying is important because they're
low now and why bond three years from now when instead of 8 percent we might
be paying 10 percent. It's anybody's guess. And we've had a financial study.
Again, for those of you in the audience who are not familiar with it, the
Council asked for an independent financial analyst to do a complete study of
every conceivable way of financing this so that we would come out the best.
And that's going to be answered in that study, as far as when to bond. As
far as the delay costs, that can only be speculated on. In the interest of
time, I'd rather answer other questions. There would be costs, no question
of that.
MIKE PEDERSON
Mike Pederson. I'd like to ask Mr. Culp to finish what he said earlier. He
was talking about the question of expanding the facility and adding tertiary
to the project. What's the likelihood that the City will be looking
at that prospect in the next few years, and how much space do we have available
in that current site . . . ?
MR. CULP
Well, actually, the current site would probably be the most flexible of any
of the three we've talked about here tonight, because we have the City -owned
property across Second Avenue. The Harbor Square site, when you look at
this --we'd be into the marsh to try to expand there. Union Oil, we'd have
the conflicting use of Union Oil. So, of the sites, the existing one, should
those possibilities come up, is certainly as good, and maybe a little better.
My own personal opinion --I've been in this business for more years than I
want to admit--25 years I've been in the waste -water business --my personal
opinion is that the likelihood of a tertiary requirement on the City of
Edmonds in the next 20-year period is. remote. It's not impossible. The
regulatory agencies do bizarre things, but they gave up on trying to prove
the benefits of secondary treatment in terms of water -quality improvement
and just said --You shall do it. That's the law. So to go to the next step,
when it's difficult to demonstrate an improvement from going to secondary,
to go the tertiary step I think is unlikely. But it's not impossible. And
one that you need to think about in planning.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay,, we'll take one more question from the audience. Well, do you feel you
got a lot of information.tonight? I've heard this before, but I want to know
did you feel you got a lot of information? Good.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 55 APRIL 28, 1987
COUNT, LiMEMBER DWYER
Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Yes, Steve.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER
My motion extending the meeting was to extend it until the termination of
public testimony. Therefore, we're either done or we call for a motion now.
Given that we're two members shy, and it's 11 o'clock at night, I move that
we continue the Council portion of this issue to the May 12 agenda, which is
the first available agenda when we'll have a full Council.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER
I'll vote for that, providing they listen to the tapes.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER
Okay. If they don't listen to the tapes, then we'll have Peter beat them
with sticks.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Steve, May 12 is a work meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER
That's fine. We've had the public, I think to the point of exhaustion on
their part.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN
Okay. All those in favor? Opposed? Carried. Thank you all for coming.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL
Thank you.
Th.i.s transript is subject to May 26, 1987 approval,
J&UQUELINE G. PARRETT, City Clerk
E ONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
age 56 APRIL 28, 9 7
1
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor
1