Loading...
08/25/1987 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL SEPTEMBER 8, 1987 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 25, 1987 The special meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:00 pm., by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Jim Barnes, Parks and Rec. Div. Manager Jack Wilson, Council President Peter Hahn, Community Services Director Steve Dwyer Art Housler, Admin. Services Director Laura Hall Bobby Mills, Public Works Superintendent Jo -Anne Jaech Scott Snyder, City Attorney Bill Kasper Bob Alberts, City Engineer John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Planning Manager Lloyd Ostrom Alice Brown, Recorder HEARING ON LOCATION OF SECONDARY SEWER TREATMENT PLANT. AND COUNCIL DECISION Mayor Naughten requested that those in the audience who wished to participate in the public hearing portion of the meeting sign up on the sheet provided, to speak on the subject of the location of the Secondary Sewer Treatment Plant. The Mayor also asked the participants to limit their presentations to five minutes. Mayor Naughten introduced Gordon Culp, of Culp-Wesner-Culp, who served as the engineering consultants on the Sewer Tretment Plant waste water siting project since 1985, stating that the audience would be given a brief overview of what has transpired to date. Mr. Culp explained that in their capacity as consultants they were not advocates of either site, but were presenting the results of their consulting work showing the pluses and minuses. He asked that the audience set aside the image of the present treatment plant, as the new plant will neither look nor smell like the existing 30 year old plant. It will be an odor -free plant. Slides were presented as a visual aid, differentiating between the existing site at 2nd and Dayton, adjacent to SR104, which had been expanded somewhat in 1979 where gravel and building materials are stored, and the second site, "Pine Street Site", adjacent to the intersection of Pine Street and SR104, a 4.5 acre parcel owned by Union Oil company. He noted that the fish hatchery currently on this property would be relocated without disrupting its function, adding that Union Oil would be willing to sell to the City under certain restrictions in the event this site is selected. A slide showing the Dayton site, "Proposed Site Plan Option 1", pictured the site as though you were looking down on it, with the arrangement of the buildings and equipment. An architecturally pleasing barrier of landscaping was depicted around the exterior of the property, and showed where the administrative building would be installed. AlMost all of the existing treatment units would be demolished in order to upgrade to the level of the treatment to the secondary level which is required. The present roof should be replaced, as it is not functional for containing odors. All odor generating portions of the plant would be under cover and controlled in a positive manner. A slide showing the Pine Street site showed the sewer elements or conveyors which must be considered. Mr. Culp stated that approximately one-half the water comes from Mountlake Terrace, and could be drained into Pine Street by gravity. The flows from Edmonds congregate by gravity, and would have to be pumped over to Pine Street, with pumping station to remain at the Dayton Street site to get the sewage over to Pine Street. One and one-half million dollars would be saved if the Pine Street location were chosen, due to the gravity pipeline. Other alternatives would be to pump out through Union Oil and along Admiral Way. Pumping it out would be more costly, but is an alternative. A slide entitled "Preliminary Plant Layout" showed the Pine Street location, as though looking down on the wetlands. There are approximately 4.5 acres in the parcel, but all of the acreage cannot be used due to the setback requirements from the wetlands. It would leave approximately two acres of usable land. The plant would fit, but the environmental environmental aspects which may be required on the setbacks may cut down on the space. The hatchery would be relocated to the north adjacent to SR104, and access to it will need to be determined, perhaps to run the access to to the east of the plant and the State highway right-of-way, but it is expensive because of the steep embankment. A slide entitled "Cross Section Profile Alternative 1" showed that the Pine Street site slopes quite steeply. An alternate would be to bury the plant deeper into the hillside, to reduce the visual impact, but would add $6 million to the cost. A slide entitled "Cost Differences for Pine. Street" was shown: Savings $ 2,212,000 Effluent Pumping Station Site work reduced Added Costs $ 5,707,000 Raw Sewage Pump Station to the outfall now separated Primary clarifier -- replace existing clarifiers New effluent sewers New effluent pipeline Relocation of Fish Hatchery (perhaps $200,000) Environmental Impact Statement Site acquisition A slide entitled "Edmonds Monthly Rate Impacts" was shown, comparing Dayton and Pine Street locations, and Mr. Culp explained these are cost estimates as they exist now: If at Dayton Street, $39,000,000; if at Pine Street, $42,500,000. With Design and Construction Grants: Dayton Pine Street* $18.10 $21.10 Without Grants: $22.00 $24.85 *High profile option A slide entitled "Schedule Impacts" for the Dayton location was shown, and Mr. Culp briefly recapped the scenario for implementation of the project, explaining that the original date for completion of the plant is April 1, 1988, but because the City of Edmonds applied for and was granted an extension of three years, the date is now April 1, 1991. This is set forth in a Compliance Order to Edmonds, a legally binding order issued by the State of Washington. He stated that we are basically on that schedule for the Dayton Street site, with the preliminary work being basically completed, with finalizing to be accomplished the first week of September. The Department of Energy (DOE) has stated that if any one of the deadlines is missed; they will impose a building moratorium on all jurisdictions served by Edmonds. Pertaining to the Pine Street location, the "Schedule of Impacts" are basically the same as for Dayton Street, and Mr. Culp stated that_ the —DOE will not review the engineering aspects of the project until all the environmentai-'wor-k is accomplished. This would mean that most phases would be behind schedule. There would b`e a -possibility that the schedule could be mitigated with the DOE, but an extension is.highly unlikely, even if it was taken to a higher level for determination. During the time of the environmental study, there would be a moratorium on building, if we do not comply. A second choice would be to gamble by starting a final design on Pine Street without knowing if we would ultimately get it approved from an environmental standpoint, and this is risky. A slide entitled "Planning Considerations" was shown, with the considerations being: EIS, Shoreline Management Plan amended, the engineering report and pre -design revised, rights -of -way and easements, as well as the site itself, would need to be obtained. A slide pertaining to "Construction Considerations" was shown, indicating downtown impacts, plant operation, 0.5 mile of SR 104 for pipelines, closing one lane of Dayton Street for new outfall for approximately one month, and hatchery relocation as a few of the considerations. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, August 25, 1987 A slide was shown listing "Other Factors" involved to be plant expansion capability, visual impacts, and social benefits. A slide was shown listing the main "Risks" to be the compliance schedule, the potential for added delays, the costs, and the grants . Mr. Culp concluded his presentation at 8:26 p.m. Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing portion of the meeting, stating that 11 people had signed up to speak, and he would allow five minutes for each person, in order to allow for each to be heard. Mr. Paul Roy, 830 Alder Street, stated he had lived in Edmonds for 30+ years, and was -of the opinion that moving the plant from Dayton to Pine Street would not be the answer. He felt the "unknowns" were too numerous, and the money should be spent on the upgrade to avoid the odor. He stated that a survey of the community some years ago indicated that the community felt it should be left where it is, and hoped the Council would do the practical thing. Ms. Evelyn Jasper, 224 Third South, #301, stated she owned the five-plex building behind the Treatment Plant, and in 10 years only one of her tenants had ever complained about the smell. She was in favor of leaving the plant where it is. Mr. Jim Korbein, 11333 Makah Street, Woodway, stated he lived across from the existing salmon hatchery, and felt that in view of facts presented the Pine Street site could not be justified since it would be so expensive. He added that the negatives outweigh the positives, and he would leave it at the Dayton location and was opposed to the Pine Street location. He added that if community acceptance is a priority, it should be taken into consideration, as the Pine Street site is a pristine area, enhanced by the wetlands. Mr. Jimmy Riecken, 721 14th Way S. W., (Westgate area) reviewed the situation with the cemetery and the Sewage Treatment Plant, stating they have .both existed many years, and people still built around them. He stated that the residents survey of 1986 confirmed that the Dayton Street location was the one that the people wanted, and hoped that the Council would spend a minimum of the taxpayers' money, and leave the plant at Dayton. Mr. Dick Hill, 1242 Coronado Place, was present, stating that he was the President of the Edmonds Council of Concerned Citizens. The Board of Trustees of this organization has been doing research on the proposed moving of the plant to Pine Street, and after looking into more of the facts, the worse it seems. He spoke of the view from the Edmonds City Park, and felt it would effectively ruin this park, and wished to address the visual aspect. He felt it should be left where it is. Mr. Alan Mearns, 20315 - 92nd West, spoke regarding what he felt to be a third alternative which had not been discussed, and that was to build "neither plant". He urged the Council and citizens to read a report entitled "Marine Environmental Data", which he had obtained from the Library, and reconsider responding to the state and building the plant. If we have not harmed the water quality, and we meet the water quality criteria, he felt there were environmental benefits to be derived by not building. Ms. Lynn Dimmick, 213 Elm Street, has lived in Edmonds for 30 years. She expressed concern about the stream, stating she never had felt that the existing sewage plantwas bad to look at, and really could not see taking out what is there. She wished to have the existing site improved, but leave the plant there. Ms. Irene Nagy, 371 - 4th Avenue South, stated she was raised in Budapest, and that the sewage treatment plant was in the middle of the city, and no one ever. objected, and she felt the odor would not be objectionable to anyone, and if it would cost less to leave it where it was it would help ease the burden on senior citizens on limited incomes. Mr. Richard Schaertl, 811 Somerset Lane,stated he was opposed to the $3.5 million dollar cost overrun, etc., to a project in which the real estate is owned and under control of construction deadlines. He felt that the environmental aspects would be too great. He questioned why you would leave a neighborhood in which you have been accepted, and go into one where you are unwanted. The Sewage Treatment Act was intended to upgrade, and not relocate. Mr. David Webb, 920 Dayton Street, stated he felt the earlier speakers had expressed his feelings quite well in favor of leaving the plant where it is. Mr. Sid Locke, 110 Pine Street (cater -corner from the plant), felt that what he had not heard anyone say, was that while there were objections to the height of the proposed plant, no one had addressed the fact that Union Oil can build a tank up to a height of 48'. He EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, August 25, 1987 asked the consultant about pumping all of the sewage, and asked about pumping outfall. Mr. Culp explained that Mountlake Terrace flow comes in by gravity from the east, and Edmonds' flow is too low to go by gravity, and must be pumped by high tide one-half of the time. Operating costs are factored in --it is not just capital, and show the differences in pumping, and the differences in labor. Mr. Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Avenue West, had comments on the process, and stated he felt the Council should take some decisive action. He asked that they start focusing on the citizens of Edmonds, the smell, the view, and utility work in the community. Other communities get all the benefits, but the costs of mitigation should be spread and shared by the other entities or participants. Mr. Jack Station, 217 Alder Street, stated that he lives 150' from the plant across the street, and that the smell never lasts long, and most people with whom he has spoken feel the same way, that they wish the plant to remain where it is. Council Member Jaech read a letter from Eunice Wickstrom, 328 Third Avenue South, "Edmonds City Council: In regard to Edmonds' Sewer Treatment Plant, I say leave it where it is and get on with updating this plant. It is costing plenty each day and more so as we hold it up. Why should a sewer facility cost $39.1 million. Why what real estate or developer wants the 2nd and Dayton ground to build on. Sincerely, Eunice Wickstrom". Council Member Ostrom stated he had received 12 letters from citizens, all of whom support leaving the plant where it is, and one letter stating they were in favor of the move. He also received a petition with 12 signatures of people who live in close proximity to the plant in favor of leaving it where it is, as well as one phone call in favor of leaving it where it is. Council Member Nordquist stated he had received a letter from Elizabeth Mathay indicating that she favored leaving the plant where it presently is, and also received word from Dorothy Cribbs who opposed moving the plant from its present location, as well as a letter from H. Dunnigan, and a memo from Mrs. Olson, both writing in favor of keeping the plant at its present location, and against moving it. Council Member Wilson stated he had received letters both for and against the proposal, which he would give to the Clerk. Council Member Hall stated she had also had similar correspondence to give to the Clerk. Mayor Nauqhten acknowledged the oresence of Scout Troop 301, who were to receive their Civics Badges for attending a public meeting. The public hearing portion of the Special Meeting on the Secondary Sewer Treatment Plant was closed at 8:55 p.m. Council Member Jaech synopsized the events leading to the public hearing, noting that the results that came from the other site (Pine Street) were predictable, since moving the site would cost money. Since everyone around the plant wants it to stay, and from the testimonials given, cost and environmental factors being considered, and the unknowns which would need to be addressed, and further that the additional property was purchased with the full intention to have it if we were forced to go to secondary sewer treatment (which has been the case), COUNCIL MEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OSTROM, TO FORMALLY ANNOUNCE OUR INTENTION TO LEAVE THE SITE FOR THE SECONDARY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT WHERE IT PRESENTLY IS, AND CONTINUE TO PROCEED WITH THAT, AND DISCONTINUE SPENDING MONEY ON OTHER SITES. Council Member Hall stated she had not received a recommendation from the Mayor until this point. Mayor Naughten replied that if the Pine Street site proved out to be buildable, his feeling was that it is a better site location -wise than Dayton in looking 20, 30 or 40 years down the road. He further stated that if this is going to cost more money now that we have the facts, that the City should go back to the people and poll them and give them the new informa- tion, letting them decide. Council Member Hall stated she agreed with Mr. Riecken, inasmuch as we should "spend the minimum". She -added that she had spoken over the weekend with professionals who have built sewage treatment sites, and the feeling was that the plant is doing fine. Since the EPA and DOE have stated that our section must be cleaned up, have we improved since earlier readings were taken? One of the professionals with whom she spoke stated that less monies EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, August 25, 1987 could be used, and felt that $40 million was too high, and that an upgrade could be accomplished for less. She emphasized that she hoped that people would really question the cost and refuse to pay the $40 million, and further that she did not like the bulk of the buildings on the Pine Street site, and still had some unanswered questions. Council Member Wilson felt there were misconceptions on the costs of the products, and using their figures. He asked Mr. Culp if Edmonds' share is $4.3 million (comes out to $2.90/month). Since at present we are not asking for other entities to equally carry their share for piping, land costs, pumping or other fixed costs, are we carrying the whole load, to which Mr. Culp replied that no contributions to the $4.3 million in the $2.90 had been asked of other entities. Council Member Wilson further questioned that if we go to other entities for money, and happily we will, the excess costs would be down from $2.90 to approximately $1.50, and whether within that figure if the Pump Station figured in, to which Mr. Culp replied that the pump station is figured into the $4.3 million. The difference between $42.5 million and the $39 million is the total difference in the project and costs including all the pumping facilities and all the force mains -- a difference of $3.5 million. The Edmonds' share was greater than the total difference because Edmonds would be the only ones using the pumping stations and was added to give the $4.3 million. Council Member Wilson reiterated his question of the fact that in the $2.90 they (other entities) are not contributing, but at the $1.50 amount they are contributing, stating that now we are down to an increased cost of $1.50 to the ratepayers --almost anybody can live with that amount. He cited that currently there is a committee functioning in this city that looked at the present site for beautification, and the number they are kicking around is $900,000. In addition, now, to anything read in the newspapers, there is additional cost and will probably be $2 million. Council Member Wilson's next question to Mr. Culp was how much even if it was $1 million, of that $1.50 would $1 million represent in cost, to which Mr. Culp replied "about $0.70 for every million dollars." Council Member Wilson stated that if you moved the plant and did not spend the $1 million, you are down to $0.75. Council Member Wilson took it a step further, mentioning the swap with Metro, which would enable us to dump off effluent to the eastside -- not our problem any more. According to Council Member Wilson's calculations, the cost savings in the next 20 years in looking at this very serious scenario, would be $1.1 million dollars on the Ballinger lift station, approximately. There are three miles of pipe upgrade down Edmonds Way which will need to be done for increased flow with preliminary estimates of costs to be $1.5 million, but this could be low based on $800,000 cost for projected outfall. Using the projected figure of $1.5 million, that is $2.7 million dollars saved. The Ballinger Station upgrade would cost about $300-$400,000, and the redundant force main on Highway 99 would cost $200,000. There is a low key scenario there in 20 years of saving $3.1 million if the plant was moved, and if the swap (Metro) was done, making it cheaper at Pine Street. Council Member Wilson noted that there is some risk involved with the EIS, but that with regard to aesthetics, that the plant site is 20'-25' below the road level, and would be relatively easy to screen. A wall of trees could hide the plant entirely. He stated that he was disappointed in the amateurish job done on the appraisals. Council Member Ostrom stated he felt that the figures could be shown to prove anything, and that most of it was conjecture. Regarding asking other entities to participate in costs, he did not feel that they should have to pay for the plant being moved. Regarding mitigation costs, he noted there is a committee working on sites and sounds, and that a committee would need to look -at that as well. Council Member Ostrom expressed the opinion that the fact is that someone wants the plant moved, even though most people who were surveyed do not want it moved. A decision made a year ago and pressures should have no bearing, as this issue was resolved a long time ago. Since he had no doubts, he desired to vote on the motion. Council Member Dwyer spoke regarding the question of costs, and stated that two weeks ago an extensive report on Pine Street from Culp had been received outlining the costs to Edmonds for the Dayton location ($39 million), and what is really important to the ratepayers is the $18,253,000 for the Edmonds' cost. Regarding the Pine Street location ($42,515,000),- the Edmonds cost is $22,544,000 (a 23.5% increase), if we sell the Dayton Street site. If we don't sell it, the increase to Edmonds ratepayers is 31%. Regarding the cost of the plant being less than $39 million, as alluded to, Council Member Dwyer asked that those who felt it could be built for less please bring someone to the meeting who can show the Council how to build it cheaper. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, August 25, 1987 With reference to the site, Council Member Dwyer listed reasons for leaving it where it is to be: 1) The costs; 2) it is accepted where it is; 3) the status of the permits, as we are already on line and everything is going fine; and 4) that is where the people want it to be (the survey, public hearings, etc. bear this out). Council Member Hall spoke with regard to looking down the road to the future, and posed some questions such as if Union Oil sells the property, will it be "condo terrace"? Can the Planning Department come before the Council to show the zoning in case Union Oil sells? She felt that the citizens have spoken and that $40 million is still a problem, with a contractor being able to do the job for $15 million. Council Member Nordquist stated that the record is in, and there are those who want to delay, but the city cannot afford it. He felt it would be an ecological disaster if the Pine Street site is pursued. Council Member Kasper stated with the negative declaration on the EIS, the city felt _ obligated to study another site as well as Dayton Street. He read a statement as follows: "As you know, no EIS was ever completed on either Dayton Street, but Mr. LaTourell, our Master Planner in 1978, stated that if Dayton Street was to remain the treatment site when the new plant was built, it would require a full EiS. To me the issuance of a negative impact study was a mistake. There is no doubt in my mind that Dayton Street has a higher economic impact. From a cost standpoint they are probably.really a wash. However, from a social and tax impact, Pine Street in my mind has the least overall impact when the expense of cost and maintenance are measured over time. However, in my studying closely the new 404 Section of the "Clean Water Act", as well as the "Environmental Protection Act", both Acts now require us to choose the site that least damages the habitat. There can be no net loss of site'saquatic functional value without compensation. This gives us a new unknown cost potential. On top of this unknown, Section 404 requires, regardless, the using of the site if a less sensitive alternative is available. We have this alternative site in the existing Dayton Street site. Therefore, I feel that regardless of economic impact, we must stay with the Dayton Street site. However, I also feel all entities should share in all costs to make Dayton Street as palatable to the citizens of Edmonds as possible." Council Member Kasper further stated that to him, the Pine Street location looks right. Within the last few months requests to get a site which will not damage the ecology have been emphasized, and from this standpoint he felt that the Dayton Street site was the better alternative. He stated he had a problem with the motion, since it does not mandate that other agencies who will fully benefit are not obligated to participate. COUNCIL MEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALL, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT OTHER ENTITIES SHALL PAY FOR THE MITIGATION FOR THE SITING OF THE DAYTON STREET PLANT, NECESSARY TO MAKE THAT SITE COMPATIBLE, CONSIDERING TREE REMOVAL, LANDSCAPING, ETC., SUCH COSTS SHALL BE BORNE BY ALL ENTITIES WHO PARTICIPATE. Mr. Hahn stated he believed they had taken care of this aspect at their May 26, 1987 meeting. The other jurisdictions are awaiting a decision. Council Member Wilson noted that only five months ago the Pine Street site became available, and working within time constraints precluded some of the preliminary work. He stated he felt the town deserved better. He mentioned that two of the present Council Members had been on the council at the time of the decision in 1978. There were those who knew of the site. Council Member Nordquist explained that the Secondary and Primary Treatment were two different issues. In 1978 the Council stated that it was too expensive because they wanted to have two sites and run a big pi a back and forth. The Council stated at that time that it was too expensive, concluding that it is all in the record. Council Member Ostrom spoke with regard to the amendment, and stated he did not want to vote for it because the Council should be voting on the motion approving the site of the plant, and then talking about the mitigation process. Council Member Hall disagreed, stating she felt it was the cost of doing business. All those that enter in and have letters of understanding should understand it. These letters are with Ronald, Woodway, and verbal from Olympic. Council Member Ostrom explained to those present at the meeting that the City of Edmonds does have memoranda of understanding with the other entities. He desired to discuss these points at a work meeting, rather than this meeting. A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS WILSON, HALL, AND KASPER VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS NORDQUIST, DWYER, JAECH AND OSTROM VOTING NO. MOTION TO AMEND FAILED. THE MAIN MOTION THEN PASSED, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS DWYER, HALL, KASPER, OSTROM, JAECH, AND NORDQUIST VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WILS014 VOTING NO. The meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m. These minutes are subject to September 8, 1987 approval. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, August 25, 1987 CQU LINE G. P RRET, City Clerk . R NAUGHTETa Mayor AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING - COMMITTEE MEETING FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE WORK MEETING (Fourth Tuesday of each month) AUGUST 25, 1987 1. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE 7:00 p.m. - Frances Anderson Center - Conference Room 201 Agenda: (A) STATUS UPDATE ON COMPUTERIZATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAM RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES (B) STATUS UPDATE ON COST COMPARISON OF CITY'S BENEFIT PROGRAMS (C) DISCUSSION ON FORMATTING OF SIMIANNUAL REPORT OF THE CITY (0) REVIEW WARRANTS, PETTY CASH, AND CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURES FOR JULY/AUGUST 2. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITEE 7:00 p.m. - Small Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building Agenda: (A) REVIEW REQUEST FOR RESTRICTED PARKING AT INTERSECTION OF 84TH W./218TH S.W. -BECAUSE OF SIGHT IMPAIRMENT 3. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE 7:00 p.m. - Large Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building Agenda: (A) REVIEW OF PROPOSED ROAD REHABILITATION BOND ADVISORY BALLOT 8:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. -- Large Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building 1. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM TO AUGUST 4, 1987 MINUTES (REQUESTED BY COUNCILMAN WILSON) 2. HEARING ON LOCATION OF SECONDARY SEWER TREATMENT PLANT, AND COUNCIL DECISION The three City Council committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only, and are not public hearings. All committee meetings, however, are open to the public. L PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE