04/28/1987 City Council (3)THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
MAY 5, 1987 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 28, 1987
(SPECIAL MEETING)
A special meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naught -
en in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library following the regularly scheduled Council
committee meetings. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor Jo -Anne Jaech Mary Lou Block, Planning Div, Mgr.
Jack Wilson, Council Pres. Lloyd Ostrom Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director
Steve Dwyer Tony Russell, Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Laura Hall Stud. Rep. Bobby Mills, Pub. Wks. Supt.
Bill Kasper Chris Beckman, Engineering Coord.
John Nord.quist Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards, Recorder
The purpose of the special meeting was to conduct a public hearing on secondary wastewater treat-
ment plant alternate sites, current costs, future business considerations, and. amenities,i.e.,
"capping" the plant,
Mayor Naughten read a letter into the record from Bjorn Thuesen which stated, in essence, a re-
quest that the City take into consideration the aesthetic quality of the secondary wastewater
treatment plant.
Council President Wilson read a letter into the record from Rob Morrison which had been sent to
the Enterprise stating that he believed a final decision should be made at the hearing if all
current facts and figures were available. If not, the facts should be presented within two weeks
of the date of the hearing. Mr. Morrison said he would vote to relocate the plant to Harbor
Square only if the costs were not exorbitant..
Councilmember Wilson also read a letter into the record from Harve Harrison who strongly urged
the Council not to expand the treatment plant at the present location.
Community Services Director Peter Hahn reviewed the chronology of events relating to the secon-
dary wastewater treatment plant. He reported that the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 which
required all cities in Washington State to implement secondary treatment. In response to that
Act, the City of Edmonds authorized Reid, Middleton & Associates in 1976 to prepare a Facili-
ties Plan for sewage and wastewater treatment and disposal. In 1978, the Council, after several
public hearings, approved the present site for secondary treatment. In 1982, the City applied
for a waiver under the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act from the requirement to implement
secondary treatment but was denied in 1985 and was ordered to proceed with secondary treatment.
The Council then approved a contract with Culp, Wesner, & Culp in 1985 to prepare an engineer-
ing report as an update to the 1979 Facilities Plan.
Mr. Hahn reviewed a schedule that was formulated by Staff and Culp, Wesner, Culp in order to
meet the completion date for the plant. He noted that the plant must be completed by April 1,
1991.
Mr. Hahn said the cost effectiveness of the plant was a primary concern because it would reflect
the rate that tax payers would pay for secondary wastewater treatment. If Federal grants monies
are received, he said the direct local contribution for tax payers will be lower. In addition,
the design of the project will be reflected in those rates. Mr. Hahn said in order to insure
that costs will be controlled, the Council spent many hours selecting a design team. He noted
that the City is in a very good position to receive those grant monies but that the projected
rates are very good even without grant assistance.
Mr. Hahn said the facility will be designed with the sensitivity of the public in mind. He said
there are pungent odors at the present site because the facility is antiquated and has design
flaws. The design process of the new facility will involve extensive public participation.
Mr. Hahn said as a planner, he would prefer that the secondary treatment plant was located away
from the City. However, alternate sites were analyzed but proved to be unfeasible.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Hahn introduced Gordon Culp, Bruce Wiley, and Brian Hemphill of Culp, Wesner, Culp; and Bob
Alberts, City Engineer.
Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Ave. W., said the public has not had an opportunity to fully partici-
pate in the issue of siting of the secondary wastewater treatment facility. Ile said his atten-
dance at City Council meetings probably exceeds several Councilmembers' attendance, and only two
or three public hearings have been scheduled regarding that issue.
Mr. Palmer said reliance on a single "slanted question" of the citizen survey was not what he
would consider a responsible way to determine site location. He requested that further investiga-
tion with respect to site location and funding be conducted. He noted that a lot of information
has been received. If that information was revealed to the public, he said the decision on
siting may be different.
Mr. Palmer said he did not believe it would be economically beneficial to redesign the present
plant, particularly when considering that alternate sites may be available.
Stewart Sierer, 9.615 Blake Pl., suggested that relocation of the treatment plant may give the
City an opportunity to sever its present affiliation with the participating agencies and enter
into a different agreement with them.
Finis Tupper, 711 Daley P1., said he had full confidence in Mr. Hahn and the City regarding the
issue of secondary wastewater treatment.
Mr. Tupper said there has been more than adequate opportunity for public input. He said there
has also been media coverage that has kept the public fully apprised of the issue.
Mr. Tupper said he felt that the citizen survey constituted a representation of how the citizens
felt about secondary treatment.
Dick Hill, 1242 Coronado Pl., said the data pertaining to secondary wastewater treatment has
been based upon construction at the present site and that grant monies may be eligible if documen-
tation is submitted to the State by July 198.8. He expressed concern that the grant may be jeopar-
dized if the plant is relocated because the schedule will fall behind.
Bill Mathias, 540 Holly Dr., said his home is located in front.of the existing facility. He said
he was strongly opposed to site relocation, noting that additional costs incurred by relocation
would be between $2 to $3 million.
Chris Matt, 9211 - 216th, said a majority of the public does not have sufficient information to
make a rational decision and should be made fully aware of all information compiled to date.
Dick Beselin, 1108 - 12th Ave. N., referred to a term called "effective costs", which, he said,
related to the effect of the treatment plant on the community in the future.
Mr. Beselin said he was not advocating location of the treatment plant at the present site nor
relocation to another site. He did, however, strongly support a study which would address the
advantages and disadvantages of any site that the plant would be located on.
Mr. Beselin said he did not believe that the public has been given ample opportunity in the past
to voice its opinion. He requested that the public be better informed of the data that has been
compiled thus far.
Stanford Olsen, 16605 - 74th P1. W., said he felt a unique association with the issue of secon-
dary wastewater treatment because he was involved in the initial construction of the present
facility.
Mr. Olsen expressed concern that bonds will not be issued until after the project has gone out to
bid. He also expressed concern regarding the depth of study that was conducted with respect to
the site location. He requested that a comprehensive analysis of alternate site locations be
conducted and be made available for public review. Mr. Olsen said he felt the decision to con-
struct the secondary treatment plant at the present site would be an erroneous decision if the
data of the study he suggested was not known. He said lie would be in favor of absorbing addition-
al costs, if incurred, to locate the facility to the most favorable location.
Paul Kavadas, 217 Alder St, N305, said the treatment plant is his nextdoor neighbor. Ile re-
called that the property immediately to the south of the plant was purchased for the express
purpose of expanding the existing treatment plant. He said it seemed to him that the City made a
commitment many years ago as to site location. Mr. Kavadas said the surrounding property own-
ers will be very concerned with the future use of that land if the City .decides to relocate the
treatment facility.
1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 APRIL 28, 1987
Gail Lindal, 8227 - 212th S.W., #301, said she serves on the Chamber of Commerce Board of Direc-
tors. Ms. Lindal said she was opposed to 'siting the facility in downtown Edmonds. She re-
quested that additional information regarding site location and the location of the present facil-
ity be set forth for the public's review.
Michael Pederson, 8623 - 204th St, S.W. said he had obtained more information at the public
hearing that evening than he had in the past.
Mr. Pederson said he felt that additional studies should be conducted. He said the present site
location could be put to a better use .than a treatment plant and that the Harbor Square site was
a better location from a planning standpoint.
Julie Stutz, 18102 - 85th Pl. W., Director of the Edmonds Main Streets Projects, thanked the
Council for taking the responsibility to hold the public hearing.
Dean Echelbarger, 555 Alder St., said he was neither a proponent nor an opponent of site location
of the secondary treatment plant. He said he was in attendance to gather more information.
Mr. Echelbarger said he felt that additional information regarding site location was necessary.
He believed that a majority of the citizens agreed that the present site was not desirable but
would acquiesce to that location if costs to relocate were excessive.
Dick Beresford, 9317 - 192nd Pl. S.W., was in favor of relocating the plant away from the
downtown area. He said a major concern, though, was the cost- of relocation. He requested that
the Council commission an appropriate study to be made to determine what those costs would be.
Doug Dewar, 21631 Macau, said he served on the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and
owns a business at 100 - 2nd Ave. S. Mr. Dewar said there is a great deal of confusion regard-
ing costs and site alternatives. He expressed concern regarding the aesthetic quality of a site
at "that location" and about the disruption of traffic during construction.
Mr. Dewar said he felt that additional studies were needed to address the cost of alternate
site locations before a decision is made.
Jerilyn Brusseau, 806 Cary Rd., said she owns a business at 5th and Dayton. Ms. Brusseau
said she serves on the Board of Directors for the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, as well as the
Board of the Edmonds Main Streets Projects.
Ms. Brusseau said Edmonds has come to life in recent years in terms of its desirability as a
tourist/recreation town. She expressed concern regarding the existence of the treatment plant in
the heart of the City.
Ms. Brusseau said she felt very strongly about the disruption of traffic when construction
commences. She noted that any interruption of traffic to Dayton Street will adversely affect the
economic welfare of downtown businesses. She strongly urged the Council to pursue relocation of
the treatment plant and to explore the costs of site relocation.
Harley Bray, 9116 - 192nd St. S.W., said Edmonds is the only town, that he is aware of, that
has a sewage plant located in the downtown area. Mr. Bray said he felt that the plant would be
better located at another site away from the downtown area.
Jackie Thomas, 645 Alder St, said ad.ditional studies were necessary.
Dave Earling, 8629 - 187th Pl. S.W., said the business community has attempted, over the last
several years, to enhance the City not only for its .residents but also for out-of-towners, as
well as to provide transportation to the downtown area.
Mr. Earling said disruption to Dayton Street will adversely affect the traffic flow that the
business community has endeavored to create. He noted that the volume and profit ranges of local
businesses have dramatically increased over the last year by 10%-70%.
Mr. Earling urged the Council to conduct'a feasibility study of the Harbor Square site. He said
the present site should be people oriented if the plant is relocated.
Mr. Earling said the public was not well informed about the issue of secondary wastewater treat-
ment.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr„ expressed his appreciation for the opportunity for public input.
He said there did not seem to be very much public interest on the issue of secondary treatment
until just recently.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 APRIL 28, 1987
Mr. Hertrich said he was in favor of relocating the treatment plant out of town. He conjectured
that the plant would be built on pilings if it was located at Harbor Square because he said the
land is swamp land and must be filled.
Mr. Hertrich made the following observations: Harbor Square has one entrance. Dayton Street has
several entrances; odor will be mitigated when the secondary treatment plant is constructed; the
cost to build the secondary plant at the present site has been projected at $39 million whereas
the costs are unknown if the site is relocated; the height of the facility at Harbor Square may
be considerably higher than the plant at the present location because it may have to be built on
pilings.
Mik Hendrickson, Marina Manager, Port of Edmonds, said the commissioners of the Port have not
yet determined the future use of the Harbor Square site. He said the Port is willing to cooper-
ate with the City Council to provide public services, as well as create a healthy business atmo-
sphere in Edmonds. He urged the Council to contact the Port regarding the Harbor Square site.
Charles Rezba, 510 - 12th Ave. N., said he owns a business at 111 West Dayton. He said he was
in favor of relocating the treatment plant.
Mr. Rezba noted that elderly citizens are on a fixed income and are concerned about higher
sewer rates.
Mr. Rezba said the aesthetic quality of the City continues to bloom with each new development
in the City. He said it is the Council's responsibility to continue the efforts that its
forebearers have made in beautifying the City.
Mr. Rezba reminded that Council that income would be derived from not only the sale of the
property where the present facility is located but also from future use of that property, which
the City could utilize to defray the cast of the new plant.
Erling Helde, 210 - 3rd Ave S., said he lives one street east of the present facility and
does not detect any odor.
Mr. Helde noted that a great majority of Edmonds residents are senior citizens. He said he
would hate to resort to a porta potty because the costs incurred by relocation amounted to
millions of dollars more.
Dave Fortise, 1813 -12th Pl. N., said he and his wife moved to Edmonds approximately one year
ago because of its uniqueness. He said there was nothing special about a sewage plant located in
downtown Edmonds.
Mr. Fortise said the citizens have a right to have all of the facts made available to them with
respect to the secondary wastewater treatment issue.
Mr. Fortise requested that the issue of secondary wastewater treatment and alternate site loca-
tions be further investigated.
Bob Chandler, 9532 - 231st P1. S.W., was in favor of relocating the plant. He said the value
of the property where the existing plant is located will greatly increase if the plant is moved.
He said the appropriate location of the plant cannot be known until all .alternate sites are con-
sidered without prejudice or bias.
Jack Bevan, 19210 - 94th W. , said he was the former owner of the property which the City pur-
chased. He said the same fill that was used at Harbor Square also filled the City's property.
Mr. Bevan said he served on the Council at the time that Councilmember Don Tuson promised the
citizens that the plant odor would disappear. Mr. Bevan said the plant should never have been
build at its present location.
Mike Cooper, 802 Maple St., said the Council should seriously consider relocating the plant but
not to Harbor Square. He said a sewage plant does not belong anywhere in the downtown area. Mr.
Cooper said if the plant is not going to be relocated, the City should "bite the bullet" and
design it as attractively as possible and commence with construction.
Bill McLaughlin, President of Edmonds Main Streets Projects, said he received a letter from the
City in response to a request he made that a public hearing be scheduled on secondary wastewater
treatment. He expressed his appreciation to the Council for responding to his request and to the
public for attending the hearing. Ile said it is now up to tlae City and its staff to provide the
facts and answer questions that are raised at the hearing.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 APRIL 28, 1987
Joan Longstaff, 809 Fir, said she owns a real estate office at 524 main Street. Ms.
Longstaff said she is very proud of the community. As a realtor, she helps market communities
to families and to locate the right property in a community for a family.
Ms. Longstaff said she has been thrilled to see how the community has built and maintained the
unique quality of the City. She urged the Council to give careful consideration to site location
and to help retain and enhance that quality.
Jim Stacey said he recently opened a business at Harbor Square. He said he would hate to think
that people would not know if they were traveling either north or south to Tacoma when going to
Harbor Square.
Bob Noack, 317 - 3rd Ave. S., N103, said one of the major issues that was apparent in listening
to public input that evening was the desire for additional information with respect to site selec-
tion.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Hahn reviewed the wastewater treatment facility sites that were considered. He said the
first option for site location was in Seattle. The cost of that analysis was $25,000. However,
Metro, as it turned out, was not willing to engage in wastewater treatment with Edmonds. The
second site that was considered was the Union Oil site because of its location away from the
downtown area, unlike the Harbor Square site. He said costs to construct the facility at that
location were estimated to be an additional $3.6 million. The Woodway Railroad site was also
considered but the costs were prohibitive. Harbor Square was also considered.
Mr. Hahn reviewed the criteria for site review as follows: 1) site buildability, 2) environmen-
tal review, 3) construction costs, 4) risks in scheduling delays, 5) plant visibility, 6) land
use, 7) other unknowns, 8) future expandability, 9) community acceptance, 10) neighborhood compat-
ibility, 11) buffering, 12) grant levels, and 13) accessibility.
Mr. Hahn said the Harbor Square site was considered to be more visible than the present site and
accessibility was restrictive. He said the plant would have a tremendous impact if it was con-
structed at Harbor Square.
Mr. Hahn emphasized that there is a great deal of uncertainty in studying any site until
predesign is actually initiated.
An unidentified man inquired if the only factor in not selecting the site at Union Oil was the
cost factor. Mr. Hahn replied negatively. He said there were numerous other factors, one of
which was soil contamination.
Councilmember Hall raised a point of order. She noted that the public portion of the hearing had
been closed.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF
THE HEARING, MOTION CARRIED.
Mike Pederson said he got the impression that there was very little public interest regarding the
Harbor Square site after listening to the public that evening. He said, however, that site
should be reviewed very carefully because he believed it was the most suitable location for a
secondary treatment plant. He requested that the issue be reviewed further and the facts made
known to the public.
Stanford Olsen said he possessed several degrees in engineering. He expressed concern regard-
ing the great number of subjective value judgments made by engineering people. He said the citi-
zens have not been presented with the options that are available, which would allow a rational
decision to be made.
Mr. Hahn noted that options were made available to the Council, albeit not to the public.
Councilmember Wilson said that evening was the first opportunity that some of the Councilmembers
have had to review site alternatives. He said Administration has not helped the Council to pur-
sue alternate site locations.
Chuck Rezba noted that the cost to build the treatment plant at the Union Oil site was $3.9
million, which was only 10% of the cost of the proposed site. He said the Harbor Square site
should be preserved for a better use than a treatment plant, noting that the Port of Edmonds has
not expressed an interest in utilizing that site for that purpose. : Ile suggested that an
indepth study regarding the feasibility of the Union Oil site be conducted.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 APRIL. 28, 1987
An unidentified man said he resented the pasture of a City official in advocating
nonconsideration of another site. He said Staff should provide information to the public so
they can make a value judgment rather than advocate a particular point of view.
Dick Beselin recommended that a study be conducted by a person with the appropriate credentials.
An unidentified man inquired if discussions with other cities who have engaged in secondary
wastewater treatment facilities have. taken. place. He said their experience may be valuable to
the City.
An unidentified man inquired how the sludge would be handled from the secondary treatment plant.
Mr. Hahn said that issue must still be addressed. He said incineration has been discussed be-
cause of its predictability and independence from external factors. He noted that other options
are still being pursued.
Mr. Hahn emphasized that Staff has never opposed any option regarding any aspect of the planning
process.
An unidentified man inquired where the incinerator would be located. Mr. Hahn replied approxi-
mately 150 feet south of the present location. The unidentified man inquired if an incinerator
in downtown Edmonds would affect the quality of the City. Mr. Hahn said there is a considerable
advancement in odor control that can reduce the impact. He noted that odor emanates not from the
incinerator itself but from the raw sewage entering the head works. The unidentified man in-
quired if fallout could be expected from the incinerator. Mr. Culp said fallout will be far less
than any applicable standards. He said options are available to eliminate the plume.
Councilmember Hall stated that incineration is the most expensive alternative available. She
said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that cities address air quality, and
incineration will pollute the air. She recommended_ that the issue of incineration be carefully
considered, noting that it may not be allowed in the future.
Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUN-
CILMEMBER WILSON, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL NO FURTHER PUBLIC INPUT WAS OFFERED. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Hahn said the Department of Ecology (DOE) prefers that incineration is not used because the
costs are approximately 10% higher and not because of air quality concerns. He said DOE prefers
that land application is reviewed. Mr. Hahn said, however, that land application poses other
problems, i.e., truck traffic. He said each option must be weighed.
Dick Hill, in response to the previous statement that Mr. Hahn had advocated a certain position,
said Mr. Hahn was simply doing his job.
Jeff Palmer said Mr. Hahn has done a lot of hard work and has done a good job.
Mr. Palmer said the public is not satisfied with the degree of analysis that has been conducted
and would like the site issues reopened.
Doug Dewar inquired how much more costly the Woodway site would be to develop. Mr. Hahn said
costs to develop the site would be $10 to $20 million in addition to the $39 million. Mr.
Dewar inquired if the $39 million included lidding. Mr. Mahn replied affirmatively. Council -
member Hall noted that the design team and contractors were asked that same question and their
response was negative. Mr. Dewar noted that Mr. Hahn had previously stated that the soil at
the Union Oil site was contaminated and would have to be removed prior to construction on that
site. Mr. Hahn said there were two points regarding that site, one of which was the $3.6 million
cost of transporting materials. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if condemnation was included. Mr.
Hahn replied negatively. He said Union Oil contemplates that a number of their tanks will be
relocated to the area that was considered by the City for the treatment plant, and Union Oil was
not willing to part with that parcel of land.
An unidentified man inquired what the cost would be to acquire the Union Oil site. Mr. Mahn said
the additional estimated cost was $7 million.
An unidentified man said Staff would be doing the community a great service by providing, in a
summarized form, the data regarding the alternate site locations.
Councilmember Wilson inquired if Staff new firsthand that the soil at .the Union Oil site was
contaminated. Mr. Hahn said Staff did not conduct soils tests. Councilmember Wilson stated,
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 APRIL 28, 1987
then, that Mr. Hahn did not know for a fact that the soil was contaminated. Councilmember Dwyer
noted that Mr. Hahn, as well as other Staff members, was told by the Union Oil Terminal Manager
that the soil was contaminated.
Dan Woodside, 63.0 - 5th Ave., said Mr. Culp had stated, in response to his question, that sales
tax of $2.5 million must be paid on the project. He inquired why the City must pay sales tax on
a project that has been mandated by the Federal government. Mr. Hahn said the City must pay that
tax because it is required by Washington State law.
Mike Pederson suggested that Staff determine from firsthand knowledge if the soil at the Union
oil site is contaminated. Mr. Hahn reminded Mr. Pederson that the site was considered
unfeasible based on the additional $7 million to acquire that.site and not the soils issue.
Mr. Pederson inquired if the two sites are the only viable alternatives. Mr. Culp stated that
all of the sites (Harbor Square, the present site, Union Oil, and the site by the fish hatchery)
were reviewed in 1979. The sites narrowed down as the most promising were the Union Oil site,
which would cost an additional $7 million, and the existing site. Mr. Pederson said the City can
afford to get the job right because the sewer rates in Edmonds are lower than other surrounding
communities' rates.
Councilmember Hall inquired why the "site to the north" has not been taken into consideration.
She maintained that the cities of Lynnwood and Edmonds should not build separate plants when the
two entities already share a plant to the north. She noted that the present site will not accom-
modate tertiary treatment. She inquired why tertiary treatment has not been addressed.
Councilmember Hall inquired why the designs formulated by Culp, Wesner, Culp for other s.econ-
dary treatment plants could not be applied to the plans for the treatment plant in Edmonds rather
than starting from scratch.
Charles Rezba inquired if the Union Oil site could be bermed up 6 feet around the entire
site. Mr. Culp said soil that is excavated from a contaminated site must be taken to a hazardous
disposal site. Once the soil is disturbed, it cannot be left on the site.
Councilmember Kasper said he has asked many questions and received appropriate answers from
Staff, but he said he knows he does not have all of the facts and, therefore, the public cannot
either. He noted that Mr. Culp has reviewed the feasibility of the Harbor Square site on his own
initiative and at no cost to the City and has brought forth data that Councilmember Kasper said
interests him. He said the City should parallel Metro's action in continuing to investigate
alternate sites until a final decision is made.
Kelly Mitchell, 2218 - 8th Ave. W., thanked the Council for holding the public hearing. She
said she was disappointed that several Councilm.embers did not feel the meeting was important
enough to attend.
• Ms. Mitchell said the PUD has a program where citizens can donate funds through their power bills
for people who are unable to pay their power bills. She said she would be willing to donate
money to aid senior citizens who are unable to pay their sewer bills.
Councilmember Nordquist clarified that Councilmember Jaech is in Memphis, Tennessee. Councilmem-
ber Wilson, in response to Councilmember Nordquist's question, said Councilmember Ostrom did
not contact him or Staff regarding his absence.
Councilmember Wilson said the Council has been told that the project will cost an additional
$500,000 if it is constructed at the present site. He said, however, the land at that location
is probably twice as valuable as the Harbor Square site. Councilmember Wilson suggested that the
funds from the sale of the .present site could be utilized to acquire the Harbor Square site and
with funds left over.
Councilmember Wilson inquired what the unknown factor and cost would be if the present facility
was capped in the future. Mr. Culp said if the cap was the structural -type lid that would
support the park use, which was the $5,000,000 lid, approximately 20% of the cost would have to
be expended initially to put the footings in. Councilmember Wilson inquired about tertiary treat-
ment at the present facility. Mr. Culp said tertiary is a broad category and has sublevels of
treatment. He said it may still be. possible to accommodate tertiary treatment depending on the
level of treatment desired. If the maximum conceivable treatment was desirable, Mr. Culp said it
would not utilize as much room as secondary treatment but would probably encroach on the Public
Works site. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the cost that would be incurred to conduct a
feasibility study on the Harbor Square site. Mr. Culp replied approximately $50,000, exclusive
of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Mayor Naughten inquired about the time involvement
to condut that Naughtencinqui inquired wrho would determine repliedapproximately
an p EIS
irnwas
el ecessaryWeeMr. Culp replied sive of an EIS. Mayor
repl i d the State,
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 APRIL 28, 1987
Councilmember Wilson inquired if Staff could guarantee that the City would receive the $1.5 mil-
Iion grant from DOE. Mr. Hahn replied affirmatively. Councilmember Wilson inquired if the
project could be bonded if the contracts with the other participating agencies are not consummat-
ed. Mr. Hahn re -plied affirmatively. Councilmember Wilson said he understood that those agencies
were not interested in reimbursing the City for their share of the costs if the secondary treat-
ment plant is built at the present site. Mr. Hahn concurred.
Mike. Pederson inquired about the grant monies available. Mr. Hahn said the design grant is $1.5
million. The City will be eligible for construction grants after completion of the design, which
may be 30%-40% of $34 million. Mr. Pederson inquired to what extent the grant would affect sewer
rates. Mr. Hahn said monthly rates may be reduced from $20 per month to approximately $13-$15
per month. Mr. Pederson said the City should focus on the project from a planning point of view
rather than the grant money issue.
Paul Kavadas requested the City to consider the circumstances at Gas Works Parks in Seattle when
discussing the Union Oil site.
Councilmember Hall expressed concern regarding the rates that Edmonds citizens in, Meadowdale may
have to pay if the Lynnwood plant is expanded. She inquired if that plant is near full capaci-
ty. Mr. Hahn replied affirmatively. He said additional capacity will be available when the
secondary treatment plant is constructed. The rates of the Meadowdale residents, he said, will
be equivalent to the rates that were projected for secondary sewer treatment at $20 per month.
Roger Hertrich inquired what additional costs would be incurred by rate payers if bonds are not
issued for another year and what the bonds will be sold for if sold at the present time. Mr.
Hahn said Staff cannot surmise what will happen to the bond market. He noted that the Council
requested that an independent financial analyst conduct a thorough study of financing options.
Mike Pederson requested Mr. Culp to expound further on the issue of tertiary treatment. Mr. Culp
said the current site would probably be the most flexible site to build a tertiary treatment
plant on. He said, in his opinion, the likelihood that the City will be required to build a
tertiary plant within the next twenty years is remote.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO CONTINUE THE COUNCIL PORTION OF
THE ISSUE TO MAY 12, 1987, CONSIDERING THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR AND THE ABSENCE OF TWO
COUNCILMEMBERS.
Councilmember Kasper seconded the motion provided that the absent Councilmembers listen to the
tapes of the meeting. Councilmember Dwyer concurred.
MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
These minutes are subject to May 5, 1987 approval.
,ffACQUtLINE G. PARRETT, City Clerk LARRY S. NAUGH EN, Mayor
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 . APRIL 28, 1987