Loading...
07/31/2001 City Council1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 31, 2001 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5r" Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Pro Tem Michael Plunkett, Council President Pro Tern Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Orvis, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Greg Wean, Acting Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Zach Lell, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Mayor Pro Tern Earling extended the Council's heartfelt sympathy to the families of Mark Hilde and Gerik Baxter, former students at Edmonds-Woodway High School, who were killed in a traffic accident in southern California over the weekend. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested that Item G be pulled from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL ppmve 7/24101 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DULY 24, 2001 r (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #49569 THROUGH #49709 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 23,2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $292,242.63 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 1 laim for amages I(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DR. CONNOLLY (Amount Undetermined) Waterline Replace- (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2001 WATERLINE ment REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Admiral Way Sewer (F) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE ADMIRAL WAY SEWER Replace- ment REPLACEMENT PROJECT Berson (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH EGS ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE Center PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON Electrical CENTER ELECTRICAL SYSTEM RENOVATION ($97,230) System Item G: Authorization for the Mayor to Sign an Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Regional Water Supi)ly for 2001 Councilmember Petso stated she would abstain from voting on this item as she has participated in the matter as a Commissioner for Olympic View Water District. Emergency Regional COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM Water PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO Supply ABSTAINING. The item approved is as follows (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY FOR 2001 BrightWater Treatment 3. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON COMPATIBILITY OF BRIGHTWATER TREATMENT Plant and PLANT AND EDMONDS CROSSING Edmonds Crossing Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained this item was scheduled at the request of the Council to discuss the issue of compatibility between the Edmonds Crossing project and the BrightWater Treatment Plant as well as an opportunity for the public to provide input. He explained this item would consist of four segments, 1) the background and description of each project, 2) discussion of issues related to compatibility and conceptual plans provided by Michael Popiwny, King County Wastewater Treatment Division, 3) public comment, and 4) the availability of King County staff, City staff, and consultants to answer questions. He introduced others present including Jerry Weed and Doug Playter, CH2M Hill Consultants, Bill Joyce, City Attorney, and David Souse, Department of Ecology. Mr. Clifton explained the City's position has been to avoid expansion of the present ferry dock at Main Street. On April 23, 1989, the City expressed this position in a letter to the Washington State Ferry System, outlining the "four no's", specifically 1) no second slip, 2) no dock expansion, 3) no overhead loading, and 4) no commercial facilities at the existing location. As a result, the pedestrian ramp installed a few years ago in the existing location was designed to be a relocatable structure. He explained a 1992 study concluded that relocating the ferry terminal was feasible. In 1993, the City, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Community Transit (CT), signed a memorandum of understanding that called for the cooperative development of solutions to existing conflicts. In response to the agreement, preliminary engineering and environmental analysis of alternatives for expanding the existing ferry terminal began in late 1993 and continued in 1994. Since 1994, further environmental review and facility definition resulted in a recommendation that an alternative site be developed as a multimodal facility. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 2 The City Council reaffirmed the four no's in 1995. In 1998, a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was issued that contained alternatives for relocating the existing ferry terminal. The built alternative considered in the EIS would establish the proposed multimodal center by relocating the existing Main Street ferry terminal to other nearby locations, specifically the mid -waterfront and also the Pt. Edwards sites. These alternatives were selected as a result of an extensive screening process and reflect considerable public comment, traffic and environmental analysis, and design refinements. Of the alternatives considered, alternative #2 at Pt. Edwards (Exhibit A in the Council packet) is the preferred alternative of the Edmonds Crossing Technical Advisory Committee as well as the Oversight Committee. Mr. Clifton explained the Edmonds Crossing project was intended to provide a long term solution to current operations and safety conflicts between ferry, rail, bus, and pedestrian traffic within the downtown Edmonds area by integrating those uses in a single complex. A realigned SR 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street would provide access under either alternative. The new complex would provide an upgraded ferry terminal designed to meet the operational requirements for accommodating forecasted ferry ridership demands, passenger service and commuter rail for Sounder, a transit center that met local and regional transit system loading requirements, facilities for accommodating vehicular commuters and walk-on passengers of the available transportation modes, parking drop-off areas, retail concessionaire space, waiting areas, and a system linking these facilities to allow safe movement of users. Mr. Clifton described the background and project description of the proposed BrightWater facility. He explained King County embarked on a Regional Wastewater Services Plan designed to address the region's long term wastewater needs. To ensure that quality wastewater services are in place to protect public health and the environment and to accommodate growth in the north service area (King County and Snohomish County), the regional wastewater sewage treatment plant calls for the construction and operation of a new wastewater treatment plant facility by 2010. In late 1999, King County began a 3- year search for a site that could accommodate the new plant. Exhibit B in the Council packet contains a summary of the BrightWater siting decision process. During the spring of 2001, the King County Executive announced seven candidate sites (Exhibit C in the Council packet). The list has since been reduced to six, one of which is located within the City, specifically the Unocal property. He referenced an informational brochure regarding the site included in the Council packet as Exhibit D. In fall 2001, King County and Snohomish County Executives will present 2-5 proposed final candidate sites and related systems. Near the end of 2001, King County Council will act on the recommendation and approve 2-5 final candidate systems, which will be followed by an environmental review. In 2003, the King County Executive will determine the final location for the BrightWater facility. According to King County, a minimum of 25 acres is required to locate a treatment plant on the six remaining sites. King County believes the Unocal property has sufficient usable area for the proposed plant. A potential building site would include both flat and terraced areas. It is anticipated the facility will include a variety of elements such as an administration/maintenance building, influent pumping, primary and secondary clarifiers, aeration basins, filtration areas, digesters, solids handling building, odor scrubbers, and disinfection. Mr. Clifton advised 63% of the wastewater treated by the facility would be generated within Snohomish County. King County anticipates the project will initially be able to treat 36 million gallons per day and 54 million gallons per day by 2040. The BrightWater facility will treat approximately 15% of the average amount currently treated by both the Renton and WestPoint treatment plants. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 3 Regarding compatibility, Mr. Clifton explained whether the City took a position supporting or opposing the BrightWater treatment plant, one of the worse situations would be for the King County Executive to announce in 2003 that the Unocal site has been selected and the City had not yet asked King County to consider whether the BrightWater treatment plant could be constructed alongside the Edmonds Crossing project. To avoid this, the City requested King County study whether the treatment plant could be developed on the same site as the proposed Edmonds Crossing project without compromising the overall design and function of the Edmonds Crossing facility. Mr. Clifton emphasized that this request was made to explore possible scenarios and to provide the City Council with as much information as possible, not as an indication that the City supported locating the BrightWater Treatment Plant on the Unocal site. On June 19, 2001, King County, Washington State Ferries (WSF), CH2M Hill, and City staff met to discuss whether the two facilities could be constructed on the same site. At the meeting, King County provided two preliminary, conceptual layouts depicting how the Edmonds Crossing project and the BrightWater Treatment Plant could relate to each other. City and WSF staff raised issues regarding the layout related to alignment of the holding lanes, parking, bus access, multimodal operations, access to the site, overall function of the treatment plant, etc. Based on the comments made during the meeting, King County requested their consultants prepare new conceptual plans, which are on display tonight. Michael Popiwny, BrightWater Siting Project Manager, King County Department of Natural Resources, Wastewater Treatment Division, displayed a map of the siting area and the location of the six sites under consideration. He explained since the sites were identified, each has been reviewed in more detail including environmental and technical analysis. In addition, a series of public meetings regarding each site have been completed, and the financial analysis of the systems related to each site has begun. By mid -September, King County Executive Sims and Snohomish County Executive Drewel will announce the systems recommended for further consideration. He estimated 2-3 systems including a site, conceptual conveyance routes to and from the site, and a marine outfall would be identified. By mid - September, the King County Council would confirm these are the appropriate sites to proceed to an EIS. Following approximately one year of environmental analysis, a final site, conveyance and marine outfall would be selected by the end of 2002 or early 2003. For the sites that continue on to the EIS process, a series of community design workshops would be held for each of the proposed locations. This would allow King County to work with the community and local jurisdiction to develop the design appropriate for that site. Mr. Popiwny referred to diagrams of the Edmonds Unocal site, emphasizing this was not a design solution, only a depiction of whether it would be possible to collocate the wastewater treatment facility with the multimodal terminal. He said their engineering staff believes it would be possible to integrate the facilities if the Unocal site was selected and the community, local jurisdiction, WSF, and Sound Transit viewed it as an appropriate alternative. He displayed a site map and described the features surrounding the Unocal site including the wetland, existing hatchery, and tidal stream connecting the wetland to Puget Sound. He commented the hatchery, wetland and stream were viewed as potential opportunities for enhancement. He identified the Town of Woodway on the site map, the Port of Edmonds, abandoned tank farm, existing unloading pier, and adjacent rail line. Mr. Popiwny displayed a diagram of a terraced wastewater treatment facility located on the Unocal site. He explained the taller buildings were shown against the hillside to keep a low profile to the facility. He displayed a diagram of the upper level, noting a portion of the multimodal terminal covered part of the wastewater facility. He noted the diagrams depict the facility at its full expansion; the first phase was planned at 36 million gallons of wastewater per day with expansion by 2040 to 54 million gallons per day. He identified the expansion areas on the map. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Popiwny explained this facility as a land use had a very low traffic impact after construction of the facility was completed, approximately 2-5 truck trips per day and 25-30 staff on site to operate the facility. In addition, very good odor control was possible on this site due to new advances in technology. Mr. Popiwny reiterated the diagrams were not designs, King County would work with the surrounding community, the local jurisdiction, Sound Transit, and WSF to develop a design that was workable for all and would integrate the wastewater treatment facility and the multimodal terminal and associated commercial buildings. Mayor Pro Tem. Earling recalled the four no's were developed to halt expansion of the ferry dock at its current site due to the jeopardy it placed the downtown business community in. The long-term desire of the Council has been to move the ferry dock from its current location. Mayor Pro Tern Earling requested staff describe the role of the Technical Advisory and Oversight Committees and the membership of the committees. Mr. Clifton explained the Technical Advisory Committee consisted of representatives from WSF, WSDOT, City staff, City consultants, and representatives from Kingston to refine issues during the EIS process. The Oversight Committee includes legislative representatives, WFS, Lynnwood Mayor Tina Roberts, Edmonds Mayor Gary Haakenson, City consultants, City staff, City Attorney, Representative Mike Cooper, Department of Ecology, a member of the WSDOT Commission, etc. The Edmonds Crossing preferred alternative was presented to the Oversight Committee earlier this year and with the exception of the Department of Ecology, there was unanimous support for the preferred location. He noted the Department of Ecology abstained as they participate on the Signatory Agency Committee and are currently working on the preliminary final EIS. Mayor Pro Tern Earling asked Mr. Popiwny to address mitigation at other facilities and mitigation the community could expect to be associated with a wastewater treatment plant facility. Mr. Popiwny explained the King County ordinance that approved development of this facility required that a minimum of 10% of the cost of the treatment plant be used for mitigation. If the facility costs $350-$400 million, there would be a minimum of $35-40 million in mitigation associated with the facility. The WestPoint facility, also located on the waterfront, is surrounded by 26 acres of parkland and public trails. A freshwater wetland was created and mitigation continued into Discovery Park providing a roadside trail from the park to the water. A waterside improvement fund for the City of Seattle was also established totaling $35 million. Further mitigation included the odor control systems and architectural treatment of the facility. Mr. Popiwny reviewed elements of mitigation including ensuring the facility fit appropriately on the site and within the community (i.e. architectural treatments), odor control systems, related traffic improvements. For example, a public pool was constructed in the community adjoining the WestPoint facility to help compensate for the use of the waterside area. In Vancouver, Washington, a water resources education center was constructed and staffed as part of the mitigation for the treatment plant as well as a waterfront park developed on the Columbia River. In San Francisco, the facility was buried and topped with the San Francisco Zoo. In San Diego, the facility was constructed to look like an office park and integrated into the adjoining office park. Mayor Pro Tem Earling asked Mr. Popiwny to comment on the footprint of the BrightWater Treatment Plant as compared to the WestPoint or Renton Treatment Plants. Mr. Popiwny explained it was estimated a minimum of 25 buildable acres would be required for the first and second phases of the facility as well as space for water reuse, and other associated facilities and processes. The 25 buildable Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 5 acres includes additional space for possible increased water quality standards in the future should the requirements for treatment of the wastewater be upgraded. He said sufficient acreage was available on the Unocal site while accommodating the multimodal terminal. He noted the 26-acre WestPoint facility treats an average of 133 million gallons of wastewater per day. Councilmember Miller commented that during his tour of WestPoint, he noticed although it was a large facility, it was not visible until it was approached from the park. He noted there were mild odors at the WestPoint facility and asked Mr. Popiwny to comment on new odor control technologies that are available. Mr. Popiwny answered the WestPoint facility was King County's original primary treatment facility that was upgraded to secondary treatment. He said when retrofitting an older facility, it was more difficult to add odor control equipment that was tightly sealed but was easier to do when developing a new facility. Further, new technologies continue to evolve. Councilmember Miller recalled not all processes at WestPoint were covered; the aeration ponds and secondary clarifiers are exposed to the air and there was some odor associated with those processes. Mr. Popiwny answered the most odor producing components of the facility would be covered (i.e. the primary treatment, the influent pumping, etc.). He said the secondary clarifiers were not covered in some locations because they were very low odor producing. He explained King County has committed to very high odor control standards on the BrightWater site and will be determining the appropriate types of odor control for each site. Possibly in a more densely populated area such as the Edmonds Unocal site, more portions of the facility may be covered than on a site with more land area and less density such as the Route 9 site. He summarized an odor control system would be developed that would be appropriate for the site. Councilmember Miller referred to the rendition of the Edmonds Unocal site, noting the bottom terrace was covered with parking and ferry access but the other terraces were exposed. Mr. Popiwny explained the drawings were not intended to illustrate mitigation or vegetation. He said the design of a facility could be developed so that it disappeared behind walls of vegetation or looked like part of the multimodal terminal. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with whether the size of the treatment facility would allow sufficient space for the multimodal facility. She asked how many acres were dedicated for water reuse. Jim Getts, CH2M Hill, identified the reuse facilities (filtration units). He estimated the reuse area was approximately 'h acre. He advised that included the filtration and necessary pumps, but not storage as it was anticipated water would be treated and conveyed offsite. Councilmember Petso inquired how many acres were dedicated to expansion in the event higher water treatment standards were required. Mr. Getts answered the secondary treatment process removed the organic components but nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphates remain in the wastewater. If nutrient standards were imposed, nitrogen could be removed in aeration basin but additional facilities would be required for phosphate removal. Councilmember Petso observed the diagram showed 12 secondary clarifiers but when the multimodal was integrated on the site, the number of clarifiers was reduced to six. Mr. Getts explained six of the clarifiers were under the Edmonds Crossing grade. He also identified the location of the effluent pumping. Councilmember Petso asked for a diagram that illustrated all the treatment plant facilities/processes and the multimodal facilities so that she could be assured it would all fit on the site. Mr. Popiwny agreed to provide drawings that provided more detail on each level. He reiterated the drawings were only conceptual, not design. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 6 COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Petso asked who determined what constituted appropriate mitigation. Mr. Popiwny explained there would be a complex effort to determine appropriate mitigation, working with the local jurisdiction, a series of community design workshops, etc. to determine how to best mitigate the facility including prioritizing issues. An agreement would be reached between the community and King County that outlined the mitigation activities that would occur as part of the development of the facility. Councilmember Petso clarified the City Council did not have the power to determine what mitigation would occur but would have the power to provide input into the process. Mr. Popiwny advised an agreement would be negotiated with the City of Edmonds if the Unocal site were selected, a process that would include the Council and Mayor. During the later stages, he envisioned a Community Advisory Committee would be established for the final sites. Christie True, King County Wastewater Treatment Division, explained King County would be required to obtain numerous permits, including federal, state and local permits. Therefore the City had jurisdictional authority over permit approval for the facility. She envisioned a Conditional Use Permit would also be required for a treatment facility. Often mitigation was established as permit conditions, not only at the time the facility was constructed but also for operating conditions. Councilmember Petso inquired about noise impacts from the treatment plant. Mr. Popiwny anticipated there would be no noise impact outside the buildings. Councilmember Marin commented the Edmonds Crossing project was a high priority to the Council. He noted the diagrams displayed demonstrated the treatment plant equipment could be accommodated on the site but the holding lanes were illustrated with sharp turns and the two level parking and short term parking were omitted. He preferred the Edmonds Crossing design be overlaid on the BrightWater design. Mr. Popiwny answered the drawing displayed was one of several configurations that were analyzed. He indicated King County would work with technical staff to study the concept in more detail. He reiterated their intent would be to develop the design with the appropriate parties rather than King County developing a solution. Councilmember Marin preferred the next generation of drawings depict elements in the Edmonds Crossing in configuration similar to the preferred alternative. Mr. Popiwny said the drawings illustrated a different configuration of the same elements. Councilmember Marin recalled the Council was impressed with the odor control mechanisms at Renton and WestPoint and the indication of even better odor control at other facilities. He said before the Council would support the BrightWater facility at Unocal, there would need to be assurance that the maximum odor control measures would be in place to assure the community there would be no odor. Mr. Popiwny advised King Co. was committed to no odor from this project. He cautioned, however, that although equipment redundancies were provided, there were incidences of equipment failure. Although he could not assure there would never be any odor from the treatment facility, he was committed to developing a facility that used the best available technologies that was odor free 99% of the time. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett asked the current zoning of the Unocal property. Mr. Clifton answered it was private property, zoned Waterfront Commercial. Council President Pro Tern Plunkett Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 7 asked whether a treatment plant could be developed in that zone. Mr. Clifton answered yes, via a Conditional Use Permit process. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett referred to Ms. True's comment regarding the City's control via permitting. He commented if a project met the regulations established by the City, the permits would need to be approved regardless of whether a Councilmember liked the proposed project. City Attorney Zach Lell answered the permit process was largely ministerial and the discretion of the permit agency was limited by the existing regulations. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett asked why mitigation funds would be used for odor control. His expectation was that the $400 million project cost would include the necessary odor control. Mr. Popiwny explained mitigation elements include odor control systems, traffic improvements, visual mitigation, possibly offsite mitigation, onsite community integration mitigation, etc. He acknowledged odor control was one of the mitigation elements. He stated the 10% of the total project cost to be spent on mitigation was a minimum; sufficient mitigation to address all impacts must be provided even if the cost exceeded the 10% minimum. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett preferred the $40 million in mitigation be used for elements other than odor, visual or noise control such as matching funds for the multimodal facility. Mr. Popiwny answered King Co. was responsible to the rate payers; State law regulated the use of mitigation funds to address operational or construction impacts of the facility. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett noted the result was that the mitigation funds would be used for elements that should be done anyway. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett asked whether the mitigation funds could be used as matching funds for the multimodal facility. Mr. Popiwny answered City staff would need to appropriately define what elements could be used as a match. He said the integration of the two facilities on the site could lower the overall project costs. At the request of Council President Pro Tem Plunkett, Mr. Popiwny agreed to provide information regarding odor emissions from the San Francisco, San Diego, and Vancouver treatment plants. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett asked whether the Council could ask King County drop the site from consideration later in the process if the Council decided it did not want the treatment plant at that site. Mr. Popiwny advised the Council could express its opinion to the King County Council and the King County and Snohomish County Executives, but this was an essential public facility that would be sited on one of the sites. He explained their goal was for the facility to be accepted by the community and eventually considered an attribute to the community. He said whenever the Edmonds Council expressed an opinion regarding the project and the Unocal site, it would become an important part of the decision - making process. Mayor Pro Tem Earling recalled during the tour of wastewater facilities, it was explained the mitigation for the Renton facility was approximately 10%. Mr. Popiwny agreed, noting the mitigation at WestPoint was approximately 30%. Mayor Pro Tem Earling commented the WestPoint site had some similarities to the Unocal site, along the water, tucked into a hillside, and adjacent to a residential community. Mr. Popiwny responded this illustrated the different mitigations appropriate for the site to integrate the facility in the two different locations. He observed the Unocal site may be one that would require more mitigation particularly if the multimodal facility was integrated in the design. Mayor Pro Tem Earling asked staff to respond regarding revenue generated by the BrightWater facility. Mr. Clifton cautioned the figures were preliminary and it was nearly impossible to calculate exact Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 8 numbers. Assistant Admininstrative Services Director Jim Larson distributed an analysis of expenditure and revenue impacts, noting the net impact to the City of construction of the BrightWater facility would be very similar to the impact of a residence development at the Unocal site. The analysis illustrated a 30- year impact (the life of the treatment plant prior to expansion). He summarized there would be a slightly better impact on City finances from BrightWater versus a residential development without consideration of mitigation funds that may be provided. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett asked whether the availability of the Main Street ferry terminal property for development was considered in Mr. Larson's analysis. Mr. Larson answered no, his analysis only addressed the direct impacts of the facility and did not include any economic forecast regarding the impact on downtown or other development that may occur as a result. Mayor Pro Tem Earling asked whether a model of property projections (i.e. commercial with residential above) could be developed using the existing zoning of the holding lane area, former Safeway property, etc. He commented this could be similar to the analysis done for residential development on the Unocal property. Mr. Larson commented the rule of thumb for residential development was that it did not pay for the demands for services it created whereas commercial development could create more revenue than the demand it created. Mayor Pro Tem Earling requested staff develop projections for development in the current holding lanes, former Safeway property, etc. Councilmember Petso recalled the plant manager at WestPoint acknowledged there was odor during maintenance, which occurred when flows were reduced (primarily during the summer when more people are outside). She asked how this would be addressed at the Unocal site. Mr. Popiwny advised that at WestPoint, maintenance occurs in the primaries which are located at the top of the basin. Another way to address this would be to place the primaries in an enclosed building so that the maintenance would not increase the release of odor. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett asked if Mr. Larson's analysis included only revenue to the City. Mr. Larson answered the analysis also included demand for services. For residential development, the average General Fund and Street Fund expenditure per capita was multiplied by the number of inhabitants that could be expected in the residential development that has been discussed. Demand for services for BrightWater were difficult to determine; his discussions with City Directors, particularly Police and Fire, have indicated there would be little to no impact on services. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett stated there also needed to be analysis of the impact on the private sector. Mr. Larson commented that type of analysis would be best done by professional economists. For Council President Pro Tem Plunkett, David Peterson, consultant to the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development (EAED), advised Mr. Larson's analysis considered both cost and benefit and the EAED analysis has only been on the benefits for the City, Snohomish County, region and private sector. He commented he and City staff could work together on the analysis Council President Pro Tem Plunkett was referring to. He noted any private development on the Unocal site would result in more revenue than BrightWater but once the expenses were considered, it was a wash until mitigation was considered. Mayor Pro Tem Earling explained the Council's intent was to educate themselves on this matter before making any decisions. He commented the Council would also seek additional information regarding the Vancouver and San Diego treatment plants due to similarities with the BrightWater facility. Mayor Pro Tem Earling opened the public participation portion of this item. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 9 Robert Whiteley, 1411 N. 200th, Shoreline, retired Operations Supervisor of the WestPoint Treatment Plant, spoke as a concerned citizen in favor of the Unocal and Pt. Wells sites due to the theory "water runs downhill." He said the other sites would require uphill pumping to be treated and then pumped to the marine outfall. He said the additional, larger pump stations that would be required consume more electricity as well as result in higher operation, maintenance and capital costs. A plant located at or near sea level, close to the point of discharge would reduce operation and maintenance costs, energy costs, and capital costs. Frances Murphy, 5804 1681h SW, Lynnwood, President of the Brackett's Landing Foundation, commented she was supportive of the City's thorough, cautious investigation of the Edmonds Crossing and BrightWater Treatment Plant and was confident whatever decisions the Council made would be to protect the City. She commented the recent Census revealed the population increase in Snohomish County was 30.2%, requiring the processing of more sewage as well as more transportation facilities for the increased population. She supported the use of the Unocal site for a treatment facility and a multimodal facility if that was the conclusion the Council reached. Denis Murphy, 5804 168th SW, Lynnwood, supported the siting of the BrightWater facility at Pt. Edwards. He questioned the merit of comments on the ability of ferries to dock at the extension of the terminal. He looked forward to the use of the $40 million in mitigation funds. He commented on the overwhelming population increases in Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds, and Brier, noting the siting of the BrightWater Treatment Plant was a regional issue. He recommended the Lynnwood facility be included in the future use of the overall site. Jack Bevan, 19210 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented a recent poll he conducted revealed fewer than 50% of the public knew what BrightWater is. He said residents were concerned about the possibility of decreasing property valuations. He pointed out the importance of the Port of Edmonds taking a position regarding BrightWater. Mark Garland, 8903 1881h Street SW, Edmonds, recalled the City published a Comprehensive Master Plan for the Unocal property in 1992/1993 and he had been awaiting development on that site since 1993. He was dismayed by the discussion of developing the 53-acre hillside and waterfront property with a sewer plant. He disagreed with the multimodal plan, commenting even with mitigation funds, there would not be sufficient funds to build a new wharf, the breakwater that would be required, or other infrastructure for moving the ferry terminal to Pt. Edwards. He recommended the City reevaluate the plans for a multimodal facility at the Unocal site. Harold Huston, 836 Cary Road, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to locating a wastewater treatment plant on the Unocal site and said few members of the public were in favor of it. In his experience with constructing wastewater treatment plants throughout the United States, none were odor free. He urged the Council to go on record against this project. Deanna Dawson, 1015 12th Avenue N, Edmonds, League of Women Voters' Representative on the BrightWater Siting Advisory Committee, pointed out the importance of citizen participation on this project. She commented King County could determine whether the project was technically feasible but only Edmonds could make a decision regarding whether it made sense for the community. She encouraged citizens as well as the Council and Mayor to be involved in the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 10 Bob Schillberg, 23823 113th Place W, Woodway, Woodway Town Councilmember, explained Woodway has been investigating the Pt. Wells" site for a number of years and nominated it as a potential site for the BrightWater facility. He said the advantage for Woodway was the substantial natural buffer and mitigation provided by the facility. Woodway's staff and study committee have been authorized to include Unocal in their analysis. He noted residents in Woodway adjacent to the Unocal site had concerns with potential noise, odor, etc. from a treatment plant. He expressed Woodway's desire to be involved in any mitigation discussions due to the proximity of the Unocal site to residences in Woodway. Roger Oliver, 1031' 2°d Avenue S, Edmonds, pointed out if the ferry holding capacity was reduced by co -existence with BrightWater, the excess traffic would extend onto SR 104, a situation the City was already trying to eliminate. He questioned what percentage of the sewage came from Snohomish County and suggested the plant be constructed where the producers lived. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, referred to Exhibit C in the BrightWater materials, noting locations 1, 2, and 3 were known slide sites as exhibited in U.S. Geological surveys for this area. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said the four no's were created because the Council took a stand on the ferry issue. He suggested the fifth no should be no sewer treatment plant to avoid Edmonds becoming known for having two sewer treatment plants. Although the use of the Unocal property had been studied in the past, it had been several years ago and he. recommended a Comprehensive Plan update be developed for the property. He commented this was the first opportunity Edmonds has had to comment on BrightWater and hoped there would be more opportunities for public input. He summarized Unocal was the wrong place for a sewer treatment plant. He said mitigation was only a carrot and the City would not benefit from mitigation. Carol Hahn, 1031 2°d Avenue S, Edmonds, commented the preliminary drawings only reflected ferries and vehicular traffic but the multimodal facility would also include trains and buses. She pointed out that although the Edmonds Crossing Alternative 2 (Pt. Edward's site) was also a preliminary drawing, it incorporated more of the elements of a multimodal project. She noted Alternative 2 accommodated anticipated growth in ferry traffic but the BrightWater drawings did not. Mary Tippett, 21600, Chinook Road, Woodway, said there are often odors from the Edmonds Treatment Plant. She noted if BrightWater were constructed, there would be three treatment plants within a three mile radius. She anticipated odors would also emanate from manholes that would be required as part of the project. She summarized this was not an appropriate site for a treatment plant. She said her neighbors in Woodway Estates do not support the siting of a wastewater treatment facility on the Unocal site. John Quast, 15714 75th Place W, Edmonds, urged the Council to continue its efforts to gather information and weigh the pros and cons of the issue and to convene the information gathered to the community. Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, asked what mitigation would be offered to the residents in the surrounding area if their property values decreased. He recalled King County indicated at an earlier meeting that the treatment plant could be sited in Snohomish County because treatment was also provided for Snohomish County. He questioned why a treatment plant should be sited on the Unocal site when Edmonds had its own treatment plant and also treated sewage for other communities. He preferred the Unocal property be developed with uses more compatible with the community. He preferred federal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 11 and state funds be used to move the ferry dock. He questioned how much of the mitigation funds would need to be spent to eliminate odors. Darrell Marmion, 216 41h Avenue N, Edmonds, questioned how six of the secondary clarifiers could be located in the parking garage as shown on the preliminary drawings due to the odors they would produce. Jack Bjork, 731 Aloha Street, Edmonds, suggested the Council acquire information regarding how often certain odor levels would be exceeded and what guarantees King County would provide. He supported having this treatment plant located within the service area it served. He said any mitigation and possible benefits to the City from construction of the treatment plant would not be worth having a treatment plant located in the City. Joe Camden, 1021 A Avenue S, Edmonds, said if he had known Edmonds was a candidate for this type of facility, he would not have chosen to move his family here. He questioned how having two treatment plants in the City would affect the valuation of his property. Mike Ohl, 316 71h Avenue, Edmonds, commented more information was available via email and that all data accumulated over the past few years was available from King County. He pointed out that regardless of the location of the treatment plant, Edmonds would be affected by the marine outfalls. He urged the Council to ask King County for clarification regarding mitigation for the marine outfall. He noted the design presented by King County eliminated some beach access. Clare Whiting, 21605 Chinook Road, Woodway, said in the winter, the wind brings the noise and odor from the Edmonds Treatment Plant to their neighborhood. She commented Pine Street, the dog park, and the waterfront park was not shown on the plan. Hearing no further comments, Mayor Pro Tem Earling closed the public participation portion of this item. Mayor Pro Tem Earling assured the questions the public raised would be answered in the future. He encouraged members of the public to discuss this issue with their neighbors. Mayor Pro Tem Earling declared a brief recess. Eagle Scout 4. RECOGNITION OF NATHAN PROUDFOOT'S EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT — PRODUCTION OF Project— AN HISTORICAL FILM REGARDING EDMONDS Historical Film re: Edmonds Jack Hall, President of the South Snohomish County Historical Society, introduced Nathan Proudfoot, a 17-year old student at Edmonds Cyber School who became interested in the history of Edmonds when he visited the Edmonds Historical Museum. For his Eagle Scout project, Mr. Proudfoot chose to create a history video that could be used by students, teachers and members of the public. The purpose of the video was to educate the public about early history of Edmonds. Mr. Hall recognized the museum staff and volunteers for their assistance as well as other scouts and parents from Troop 300 in Edmonds and the students and technical instructors of Edmonds Cyber School. He advised copies of the video would be available at the Edmonds Library and to teachers in the Edmonds School District through the Instructional Media Department. Mr. Hall welcomed the Proudfoot family. Nathan Proudfoot presented the video regarding the early history of Edmonds. Mayor Pro Tem Earling expressed the Council's appreciation to Mr. Proudfoot for his creation of the video and for making it available to the community. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 12 V COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. REPORT FROM THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Advisory Council President Pro Tem Plunkett advised the Historical Preservation Advisory Committee was Committee established by ordinance and appointed by the Mayor. He introduced the members of the Committee Darrell Marmion, Brad Butterfield, Virginia Cassutt, Roger Hertrich, Chuck LaWarne, Steve Waite, and City staff members Rob Chave, Chanda Earhart, and Star Campbell. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett explained the four goals of the committee were to, 1) inventory existing historic structures; 2) review existing City code; 3) review possible voluntary incentives and 4) make a recommendation to the Council regarding historic preservation. He explained the committee was divided into three subcommittees, survey, incentives,` and education. Darrell Marmion explained the goal of the Survey Subcommittee was to provide an overview of the number of historic structures that remain in Edmonds. He commented this was only a survey of structures built in 1950 or earlier and not an inventory. The information was developed from the on-line Snohomish County Assessor data. He summarized the data, indicating the oldest building identified was built in 1872 and that approximately 24 buildings remained that were constructed prior to 1900. He displayed a chart illustrating the number of buildings constructed within each decade. He displayed and reviewed a map illustrating the geographical location of buildings. Mr. Marmion displayed photographs of several older buildings in the City constructed from 1872 to 1912. He noted the survey resulted in a sense of urgency due to the many historic buildings that have been demolished in recent years. Since the committee was formed seven months ago, six demolition permits were issued for buildings built in 1950 or earlier and there are other structures at risk. He displayed photographs of older buildings in areas at risk, primarily in the BC and RM zoned areas. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett (Incentives Subcommittee) explained there were volunteer incentives to encourage property owners to preserve historically designated properties. Edmonds could become a Certified Local Government, a State recognized designation that requires an ordinance to create a permanent Historical Board and apply for State recognition. Once Edmonds received recognition, State grants were available to prepare a professional inventory. The City would also receive technical assistance and training for employees and/or Boardmembers, and would be eligible to compete for additional grants. Once a Historical Preservation Commission was in place that could designate historical sites, the sites would be eligible for a special tax evaluation. To be eligible, the property must be listed in a local registration established by a Certified Local Government. He summarized the Certified Local Government and special tax evaluation were two voluntary incentives that could be utilized to assist in maintaining historical resources. Roger Hertrich commented there were other ways the City could assist a property owner who retained an historic building, for example, provide leeway in parking and ADA requirements. Steve Waite explained the Education Subcommittee developed three primary goals, 1) create an awareness of what historical structures can provide the community, 2) encourage participation and preservation of newly recognized cultural and historic structures and places, and 3) promote through publicity existing historical buildings and places. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 13 COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Waite explained the loss of an historical building could result in the loss of a sense of place, loss of cultural heritage, and a loss of unique and defining characteristics of the community. He explained another aspect of education was to make property owners aware that their building was an asset that needed to be enhanced rather than allowed to decay. A property owner's involvement in historic preservation could create a sense of pride for himself and the building as well as the community at large. Other opportunities include informing citizens and local government and exploring public/private partnerships. Chuck LaWarne referred to the four goals established when the Council formed the Historical Preservation Committee, noting the committee completed the survey of existing structures more than 50 years old. The Committee was in the process of reviewing existing codes and policies on historic preservation as well as reviewing incentives for preserving historic buildings. He advised the Committee planned to forward a recommendation to the Council regarding the Certified Local Government and establishment of a permanent Historical Preservation Committee. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no members of the audience who wished to provide comment. rd# 3371 7. SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 3371 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS WASHINGTON Granting a GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO BLACK ROCK CABLE, INC. TO OPERATE Non- AND MAINTAIN AN OPEN VIDEO SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, SETTING FORTH exclusivFranchise THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE GRANT OF FRANCHISE AND Black Rock k FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE Black Rock Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised this was the Second Reading as required for the proposed franchise agreement for Black Rock Cable. He recalled at a previous meeting the City Attorney provided several reasons for supporting the proposed franchise agreement. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3371, GRANTING A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO BLACK ROCK CABLE INCORPORATED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON- EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO BLACK ROCK CABLE, INC. TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN AN OPEN VIDEO SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE GRANT OF FRANCHISE AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Implementa- 8. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR BOND CAPITAL PROJECTS ion Plan for Bond City Engineer Dave Gebert explained the purpose of this item was to obtain Council approval of Capital Projects milestone dates to accomplish several high priority capital projects which Council authorized staff to proceed with funded via a financing plan for bond issuance or Public Works Trust Funds. He listed the projects including the Frances Anderson Center improvements (seismic reinforcement, window replacement, plumbing replacement, restroom remodel, electrical and lighting, and stairwell enclosures), Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 14 street overlay acceleration, replacement of the library roof, downtown sidewalk improvements, and sewer meter rehabilitation. Mr. Gebert referred to the Implementation Plan, noting the milestone dates were established with several issues in mind including limitations of staff (ability to do only a certain number of projects), the need to maintain public services, and to minimize disruption as much as possible. Regarding the seismic reinforcement of the Frances Anderson Center, he explained subsequent to the June 26 Council meeting, the Public Works Director received a structural engineer's report that estimated the cost for the seismic reinforcement to be approximately $615,000 including engineering. The Public Works Director proposes applying for a FEMA mitigation grant for funding to accomplish the reinforcements and to use the funding identified in.the Council action as well as funds available in Fund 116 Cash Reserve for local match of the grant. Staff anticipates design of this project in summer 2002 and construction in summer/fall 2003, allowing time for staff to apply for the FEMA grant. The design of the Francis Anderson window replacement is being done in-house and is expected to be completed in fall 2001 with construction in spring 2002. Construction of the plumbing and restrooms in the Frances Anderson Center is anticipated to occur in fall 2002. If a walkthrough with a plumbing contractor determines design is not necessary, this project may progress more quickly. Regarding the electrical and lighting project in the Frances Anderson Center, the award of the electrical consultant contract to design the project was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Mr. Gebert anticipated design would be completed in January 2002 and construction in August/September 2002. Regarding the Frances Anderson Center stairwell enclosure, Mr. Gebert explained that subsequent to the Council's action approving funding of the project, staff evaluated the project further with the Fire Marshal and Building Official and concluded this project is not required by the code. Therefore, staff proposes to cancel this project and use the $30,000 toward the local match required for the FEMA mitigation grant for the seismic reinforcement of the Frances Anderson Center. The street overlay acceleration will be pursued via the normal annual cycle and the $250,000 applied to the first year to accomplish overlay projects in July and August 2001. This will allow the City to increase funding for overlays by $250,000 per year for 2003 and 2004. Mr. Gebert explained the library roof project presented several scheduling constraints because the work must be done during good weather (July — September), the busiest time for scheduling activities. As the Parks and Recreation Department begins taking reservations for the following year on August 1, staff would need to advise customers tomorrow if the roof replacement was scheduled for 2002. Due to the amount of design work required to define and identify the project and develop the bid package, staff recommends the roof replacement be delayed until 2003. Sidewalk repairs were originally intended to be repair of deteriorated sidewalks in -kind. Subsequently, staff realized there may be an opportunity to combine this project with the street tree plan that is being developed as well as incorporating public art. Therefore, staff plans to discuss the scope of this project with the Community Services/Development Services Council Committee in September. Regarding the sewer meter replacement project, Mr. Gebert advised Treatment Plant Manager Stephen Koho plans to award the design contract for the sewer meter replacement later this year with construction in fall 2002. Mr. Gebert requested the Council approve the proposed timelines identified in the Implementation Plan. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 15 Councilmember Petso asked why the estimate for seismic repairs to the Frances Anderson Center were $500,000 short. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the intent was to identify seed money for seismic repairs as staff was unaware of the magnitude of the project when the financing opportunity arose. He explained the intent was to obtain a FEMA grant, which requires a 25% local match. Councilmember Petso observed the total for the short term repairs to the Frances Anderson Center had increased from $1.2 million to approximately $1.8 million. Mr. Gebert agreed. Councilmember Petso asked for clarification as to why the stairwell project was no longer needed. Mr. Gebert answered further review by the Fire Marshal and Building Official determined the code did not require the stairwell enclosures. Councilmember Petso asked why funds would be borrowed for projects that would be delayed for several years. Mr. Gebert advised one of the conditions addressed in the financing plan provided by Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler was to borrow the funds while interest rates were very good. Further, one of the conditions of the bond was that projects be completed in three years; therefore, one of the criteria for selecting projects was that they could be completed within three years. The Public Works Trust Funds have a four-year requirement. Mayor Pro Tem Earling requested staff provide periodic updates on these projects. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE SCHEDULE PROPOSED BY STAFF. Council President Pro Tem Plunkett complimented staff on their efforts, particularly the layout of the Implementation Plan. He supported further consideration of incorporating street trees and artwork into the sidewalk improvement project. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with the amount of money being expended on the Frances Anderson Center now and in the future. She was also concerned with the attitude of borrowing funds and then figuring out what to do with the money. Although she appreciated staff s efforts to obtain a grant for the seismic reinforcement of Frances Anderson Center, she preferred this project be removed from the list and reevaluated due to the significantly increased cost. She indicated she was unable to approve that project without a better understanding of how it affected other Frances Anderson Center projects. Mayor Pro Tem Earling suggested staff provide an outline of increased costs at a higher interest rate. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Earling recommended the video of tonight's meeting be provided to Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Orvis to allow them an opportunity to hear the discussion and public input regarding the compatibility of the BrightWater Treatment Plant and the Edmonds Crossing project. He requested staff address the questions raised by Councilmembers and the public as soon as possible. He also suggested staff develop a timeline. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 16 thtWaterent Seattle Public Access Channel BrightWater Treatment Plant 1 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Miller thanked Mr. Clifton and King County for their presentations regarding BrightWater. Although he was opposed to siting the BrightWater facility at Unocal, he acknowledged his responsibility as a Councilmember to participate in the due diligence process. He requested Mr. Clifton communicate with the King County Council and BrightWater Siting Committee that there were Councilmembers with serious reservations regarding the project, particularly with property valuations, views, odors, and other negative impacts on the community. His goal was to ensure King County was aware this was a due diligence process and that all or any Councilmembers may not be in favor of the project. Councilmember Miller advised the public hearing scheduled for August 7 regarding AT&T Broadband programming of the Seattle Public Access Channel had been rescheduled for August 21. Councilmember Petso advised she was also opposed to the BrightWater facility at Unocal and requested when staff communicates with King County, her concern that the property was too small to accommodate both uses be relayed. She was also concerned that there were too many nearby residents and uses at the Unocal site. She recalled the other treatment plants the Council toured had large buffer areas; however, there were residents immediately adjacent to the Unocal site as well as ferry users. She said the limited size and lack of a buffer at the Unocal site were sufficient to disqualify the Unocal site from further consideration. She expressed concern that if the City said no to the treatment plant, the result would likely be condominiums. She recalled the public comments indicated citizens were interested in planning for this parcel and recommended staff and the Council pursue a planning effort with regarding to the Unocal property. She expressed her appreciation to the King County staff for their efforts to educate the Council and the public about the BrightWater Treatment Plant. Although King County has assured they want to be good neighbors, she noted it may not be possible on this site due to the adjacent land uses. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:52 p.m. ,Gl�i4a� ,G • �_,iG� SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 31, 2001 Page 17 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 51h Avenue North , 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JULY 31, 2001 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2001 (C) Approval of Claim Checks #49569 Through #49709 for the Week of July 23, 2001, in the Amount of $292,242.63. (D) Acknowledge Receipt of Claim for Damages from Dr. Connolly (Amount Undetermined) (E) Authorization to Call for Bids for the 2001 Waterline Replacement Program (F) Authorization to Call for Bids for the Admiral Way Sewer Replacement Project (G) Authorization for the Mayor to Sign an Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Regional Water Supply for 2001 (H) Authorization to Contract with ECS Engineering, Inc. to Provide Professional Engineering Services for the Frances Anderson Center Electrical System Renovation ($97,230) 3. (45 Min.) Informational Report on Compatibility of BrightWater Treatment Plant and Edmonds Crossing* *Public Comment Will Be Received 4. (20 Min.) Recognition of Nathan Proudfoot's Eagle Scout Project - Production of an Historical Film Regarding Edmonds 5.- (20 Min.) Report from the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Page 1 of 2 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 31, 2001 Page 2 of 2 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 7. ( 5 Min.) Second Reading - Proposed Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, Granting a Non-exclusive Franchise to Black Rock Cable, Inc. to Operate and Maintain an Open Video System in the City of Edmonds, Setting Forth the Terms and Conditions Accompanying the Grant of Franchise and Fixing a Time When the Same Shall Become Effective 8. (10 Min.) Implementation Plan for Bond Capital Projects 9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min.) Council Comments Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 77170245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.