Council Minutes

EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES

April 30, 2002

The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5^th Avenue North , Edmonds , followed by the flag salute.

COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON , FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. The agenda items approved are as follows:

(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #55046 THROUGH #55223 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 22, 2002 , IN THE AMOUNT OF $222,123.20

(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JERROLD N. SPROAT ($638.07)

(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH S.M. STEMPTER ARCHITECTS FOR THE EDMONDS LIBRARY ROOF REHABILITATION DESIGN

(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN OF WILLOW CREEK STORMWATER OUTFALL EXTENSION

Item H: Appropriating Funds for Joint Appraisal with the City of Edmonds and Edmonds Public Facilities District and Authorizing Selection and Negotiation of Appraiser

Councilmember Petso explained she could not support this item unless a funding source was identified for the City’s portion of the cost of the appraisal. She noted the agenda memo indicated the expenditure required, amount budgeted, and appropriation required were zero; however, it appeared the cost would be $12,000 - $15,000.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROPRIATE THE CITY’S PORTION FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 FOR THE JOINT APPRAISAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM H. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows:

(H) APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR JOINT APPRAISAL WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING SELECTION AND NEGOTIATION OF APPRAISER

Port of Edmonds Commissioners present were Mary Lou Block, Bruce Faires, Dean Nichols, Fred Gouge, and Ken Reid. Port of Edmonds Executive Director Bill Toskey and Deputy Director Chris Keuss were also present.

Mauri Moore, Local Government Liaison, Sound Transit, explained Sound Transit began 2002 with a number of successes as well as facing a number of challenges. The Sound Transit Board has given staff milestones to meet in 2002 including the train north to Everett, a third train south to Tacoma, and two light rail milestones – breaking ground for the central link light rail system and continued construction on the Tacoma link light rail which should begin service in approximately 1½ years (mid-2003). She encouraged Councilmembers to ride Sounder to the south.

Ms. Moore explained while waiting for Sounder to the north, Sound Transit provides fabulous bus service to Snohomish County , serving approximately 22,000 riders. Sound Transit has also built HOV lanes, Park and Rides, transit centers, and the Pacific Avenue overpass in Everett .

Val Batey, Project Manager for Sound Transit Sounder Commuter Rail Station at Edmonds, explained the Edmonds commuter rail station was one of 12 Sound Transit funded stations along the 82-mile Sounder commuter rail line that connects 10 cities in 3 counties from Everett to Lakewood . Sounder currently operates weekdays during peak commuter hours. At full build out, Sounder will run 12 trains each weekday between Everett and Seattle with intermediate stops at Edmonds and Mukilteo. At full service, 18 trains will operate between Seattle and Tacoma each weekday and four trains that operate from Everett to Tacoma .

Ms. Batey explained Sound Transit was in the process of negotiating an agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) for the tracks between Everett and Seattle to accommodate Sounder commuter rail service along with the freight service. The Sound Transit Board Chair has committed to signing an agreement with BNSF by yearend 2002. That agreement will include negotiation of a construction schedule to begin construction as soon as possible. She was hopeful that construction of the improvements can begin early 2003. She explained the current schedule indicates service would begin on the Seattle to Everett line in late 2003 with limited service (1-2 trains per day).

Ms. Batey explained Sound Transit requested the City’s cooperation in establishing a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to assist in the station design process. The Edmonds CAC, a 20-member committee comprised of elected officials, Port Commissioners, residents, business owners, neighbors of the station, and riders, worked to develop a station design the community could be proud of. Representatives from Washington State Ferries (WSF) and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) also attended CAC meetings. She explained the CAC participated in all areas of the design process from selecting the design team to seeking solutions to parking and access issues, to the details of selecting the design to light poles. A subcommittee of the CAC was formed to select an artist to produce art funded by Sound Transit’s art program. Following the selection a bronze sculpture entitled, “Standing Wave,” a private fundraising effort was established to match the funds provided by Sound Transit to allow the sculpture to be commissioned in a larger size.

Ms. Batey explained the design criteria for the Edmonds station included providing safe access for pedestrians and other non-motorized customers, bus and cars to the station; providing enough parking onsite for the commuter rail and Amtrak uses; providing two 600-foot platforms for Sounder trains and maintaining the platforms for the existing Amtrak service and ensuring both were compatible at this location; providing adequate weather protection for transit riders; providing the shortest and safest transit transfer distance for bus to train transfers; and maintaining the Amtrak station building after the addition of a second mainline track that exists to the east of the existing track.

Ms. Batey explained the design team, lead by Streeter and Associates, worked with the CAC and Sound Transit to complete the preliminary design in late 2001. Highlights of the design include a pedestrian oriented station that matches the existing street grid of the City, improved pedestrian crossings including pedestrian gates at the railroad crossings at Main Street and Dayton, redesigned parking lot to the south of the Amtrak building that met the City’s landscaping and stormwater requirements (a total of 156 spaces will be provided with the new site design), station structures, canopy shelters, light poles and sign poles that reflect Edmonds’ marine oriented character and connections and are compatible with the surroundings including Brackett’s Landing, off-street bus area to allow transfers to occur closer to the train platforms, and modifications to the Amtrak building that allows existing Amtrak ticketing and baggage services as well as model railroad club activities to continue.

Ms. Batey explained in December, approximately 100 people attended an open house sponsored by Sound Transit and the CAC to display the design to the Edmonds community. The Architectural Design Board also reviewed the station design on April 17, 2001 , and approved the preliminary design.

Ms. Batey explained because federal funds are used for the station, federal guidelines must be followed. One of these steps has been completed – value engineering was performed on the station in an effort to identify cost cutting and safety issues that could improve the station and bring the cost within budget. Once final design authority is issued by the federal government, likely summer 2002, final design of the station will begin. She anticipated the final design process would be completed by yearend 2002. Sound Transit would like to begin construction in early 2003 but must wait for BNSF to develop their construction schedule for the second mainline through Edmonds . Sound Transit will also consider phasing work in this area or possibly identifying an interim platform location so that service can begin as soon as trains are operating on the Everett to Seattle line. Ms. Batey distributed a site plan and a prospective of the station from the north.

Commissioner Faires asked what compatibility and flexibility was built into the design to allow it to be moved should the multimodal facility become a reality. Ms. Batey answered one of the design criteria was to design as many elements of the station at this location that could be used at a new platform at the multimodal station, and keep the budget for construction of the station as low as possible so that any cost savings could be applied to a new multimodal station.

Commissioner Nichols asked whether service would begin prior to installation of the second track. Ms. Batey responded that was subject to negotiation; Sound Transit has asked to be allowed to start initial service without all the improvements in place, including the second track segments. Sound Transit was successful in negotiating this in the Seattle to Tacoma line; service began approximately one year before construction of the improvements began.

Commissioner Reid asked whether the train would stop in Edmonds if service began prior to construction of the improvements. Ms. Batey stated Sound Transit was asking BNSF to assist in determining how to serve Edmonds as soon as the trains were operating on the line, either at an interim platform location or a phased construction of the Edmonds station.

Councilmember Petso asked whether the project increased or decreased parking. Ms. Batey replied parking would be decreased in the north lot although that was not necessarily a result of this project; the addition of a second mainline track through the station would eliminate all parking spaces in the BNSF right-of-way along the north side of the Amtrak station, approximately 80 spaces. The station’s preliminary plans have an off-street bus transfer area that will eliminate the remaining spaces in the City’s right-of-way on Railroad Street on the east side of the tracks. With the redesign required to meet the City’s storm drainage and landscaping requirements, the south parking lot will be reduced from 159 parking spaces to 156. She noted consideration is being given to using the WSDOT lot immediately south of Skippers to address parking issues in the area.

Councilmember Petso asked how many parking spots would be lost. Ms. Batey responded approximately 100 parking spaces would be eliminated on the north side of the Amtrak station. Councilmember Petso asked whether the remaining parking spaces would be available to the general public during non-commuter times. Ms. Batey stated the spaces were first for commuter rail riders; depending on what the City wants to do in this location, Sound Transit is open to negotiating parking use agreements which has been done in other cities.

Councilmember Petso inquired at what point in the process would the City request the public be allowed access to the parking at non-commuter times. Ms. Batey assumed that would be discussed during the permit process.

Commissioner Faires explained the Port was in the process of preliminary design of a parking lot at the northeast corner of the Port property most adjacent to the station and would be very interested in integrating any information Sound Transit has developed regarding parking demand. He encouraged Sound Transit, the Port, and the City to work together to incorporate Sound Transit’s needs into the parking lot design. Ms. Batey offered to share parking demand information as well as a study on current parking usage.

Council President Earling commented that although the project was behind schedule, one of the main reasons was funding shortfalls as a result of the passage of I-695. Ms. Batey explained Sound Transit had been in a partnership with WSDOT to pay for the improvements required on the tracks to accommodate passenger rail and freight rail. When I-695 passed and the MVET was repealed, WSDOT was left with a deficit in their budget and they could no longer partner with Sound Transit for the improvements which caused considerable delays in negotiations with BNSF. She was hopeful the transportation packet on the fall ballot would be successful as it contained funding for these partnerships. She noted the listing of salmon as endangered species also affected the timeline, adding approximately one year to the environmental review process for the Everett to Seattle corridor.

Commissioner Reid asked what parking demand Sound Transit expected after one year and whether Sound Transit had plans for patrolling and enforcing the use of the parking lot to avoid its use by ferry commuters. Ms. Batey answered Sound Transit was very protective of parking for commuter rail customers and wanted to ensure parking was available in a convenient location for commuter rail users. Therefore, Sound Transit will be diligent about posting the parking regulations and will patrol the lots to ensure parking is not abused. Ridership projections, based on 12 trips per day, estimate 350 boardings at the Edmonds station; approximately 150 of those will arrive by car and 130 of those will need to park their vehicles (the remainder will be drop-offs).

Councilmember Wilson inquired about the impact on the schedule if the transportation package did not pass this fall. Ms. Batey answered they were pursuing other funding avenues as well as discussing phased improvements during negotiations with BNSF. She acknowledged it could result in another delay. Council President Earling explained there were a number of potential funding sources and Sound Transit was working on several at once. He noted a regional transportation package being developed by the Snohomish County Executive included $15 million for commuter rail.

Executive Director Bill Toskey reported the Port operates and owns the north seawall, the vertical structure that separates Puget Sound from the north portion of the marina. The seawall has reached the end of its life and requires replacement. In discussing various alternatives with the City, it was determined the City had a stormwater line to the north that also needed replacement. As one project could not be done without significant impact to the other, consideration was given to doing the projects together. He noted there were no policy differences but there were technical/legal issues to be resolved such as the land ownership issue because the boundary between the Port and the City’s properties did not exactly coincide with the structure. This has since been resolved by agreeing once the project is constructed, the area will be surveyed and the Port and City provide each other the appropriate easements. The Port and City’s attorneys are in the process of drafting the appropriate legal language. Once this is completed, design of the project will begin. One firm will do the design of the entire project, the Port will manage the design, and the City will reimburse the Port for the City’s portion of the project.

Mr. Toskey summarized at the conclusion of the project, there would be a new seawall that protected the Port property and inside the seawall would be a new stormwater line that would be a better location environmentally (out of the eelgrass beds) and would be easier for the City to maintain.

Mr. Toskey explained it was currently taking 2½ years for projects with positive environmental impacts to receive a permit for construction. Once the project was designed, he anticipated a 2-3 year delay to obtain the permit for construction.

Observing that the project had a positive environmental impact, Councilmember Petso asked whether it was possible to obtain any grant funding for the project. Mr. Toskey answered grant funding would be sought but most of the project would not be eligible as it was a replacement of an existing structure and the benefits were minimal compared to the total cost.

Council President Earling inquired about the estimated construction time for the project. Mr. Toskey estimated once the permit was obtained, construction would take approximately one month.

Commissioner Faires suggested Mr. Toskey describe the possible impact on the fishing pier and walkway and temporary interruption. Mr. Toskey explained regardless of whether the project was done jointly or individually, the fishing pier would be interrupted for a short period of time. At the conclusion of the project, walkway users could look at the natural shoreline area on one side and the marina on the other.

For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Toskey explained the Seattle Office of the Corp. of Engineers did not prioritize projects; projects were reviewed as they are received. Therefore, a simple project could be delayed by a more complex project that was received earlier.

On behalf of Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, Development Services Director Duane Bowman reported Mr. Clifton has been working on the Edmonds Crossing project, a major planning effort to relocate the Edmonds ferry terminal to Pt. Edwards property. He described Mr. Clifton’s efforts with signatory agencies to resolve several issues in order to move forward and issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Mr. Clifton has met with WSDOT staff on the overall process and timeline associated with the preliminary and final EIS and negotiations with the tribal representatives have been opened. In late March, Mr. Clifton met with the new WSF Director and with WSDOT Northwest Regional Director to discuss the Edmonds Crossing project. Mr. Bowman explained there was $2.2 million in the Statewide transportation package for the Edmonds Crossing project.

Mr. Bowman displayed Alternative 2, the preferred alternative for design of the Edmonds Crossing project. He explained the City has applications pending for development on the Unocal property. He noted the Council was in a quasi-judicial role with regard to one of the applications. Unocal has applied for a code amendment to establish zones for the property that would be consistent with the City’s Downtown Waterfront Plan and would establish uses for the upper yard and lower yard. This is a quasi-judicial matter that will be presented at a public hearing before the Planning Board on May 8. The code amendment would address establishing the zone and types of uses that were allowed in the zone. The proposal was MP-1 for the upper yard and MP-2 for the lower yard, which would include the multimodal project. The site specific rezone Master Plan for the site would require future uses be consistent with the adopted Master Plan and the Master Plan must be consistent with the adopted Downtown Waterfront Master Plan.

Commissioner Block asked whether the first step was modification of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowman explained the current Comprehensive Plan designates the property as a Master Plan development; therefore, no Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. What must be accomplished is, 1) establish zones that implement the Comprehensive Plan and 2) establish a Master Plan for the property.

Commissioner Reid inquired about the status of the EIS for the Edmonds Crossing project. Mr. Bowman answered the signatory agencies continue to debate some issues and, until all agree, the Final EIS cannot be issued.

Commissioner Gouge asked the timeline for the Edmonds Crossing project. Mr. Bowman stated the project was several years away due to the Final EIS and funding to construct the project. Council President Earling described efforts to identify funding including an effort by Congressman Jay Inslee, as well as funds in the regional transportation project for the Edmonds Crossing project. He clarified the proposed Snohomish County transportation package included $50 million for Edmonds Crossing and $70 million for commuter rail.

Commissioner Reid commented the projects in the transportation package were only advisory; once the public voted, the legislature/DOT would have the authority to develop/approve a list of projects. Council President Earling agreed, noting the WSF Director and WSDOT Director supported the Edmonds Crossing project.

Councilmember Orvis referred to the spirit of cooperation regarding the seawall and asked why the Port had not passed a resolution opposing Brightwater. Commissioner Reid answered the Port Commission has discussed that issue. He clarified that because they have not adopted a resolution opposing Brightwater did not mean they were in favor of Brightwater, it meant they had adopted a different strategy than the Council.

Councilmember Orvis asked whether the Port was cooperating with Metro. Commissioner Reid answered that if allowing the placement of a meteorological station on their property was cooperating, then yes. He assured the Port has dealt with Metro the same as any other governmental agency that requests such rights.

Councilmember Orvis asked Commissioner Reid to describe the difference between the Port strategy and City’s strategy. Commissioner Reid answered he could not. Councilmember Orvis commented the issue was not strategy but whether the Port was for or against Brightwater. Commissioner Reid disagreed, explaining the Port was an independent unit of government and it was within their authority to adopt a resolution and to this point they have chosen not to.

Council President Earling pointed out the Port has taken a separate position based on whatever information they feel they should consider. He summarized the Council had taken a decisive position and the Port’s position was different.

Commissioner Block asked whether there was a current estimate for the design and construction of the Edmonds Crossing project. Council President Earling answered current estimates were $145 million to $160 million in today’s dollars and that amount would continue to increase the longer the project was delayed.

Commissioner Nichols inquired about the height of the ramp onto the ferry. Mr. Bowman answered it would be elevated to maintain a consistent elevation from Pine Street to the ferry dock. He noted the elevation would be a minimum of 32-feet to clear the railroad tracks. Commissioner Nichols inquired whether the bus terminal would be multi-storied. Mr. Bowman answered structures on the site could be multi-storied.

Mayor Haakenson offered to have Community Services Director Stephen Clifton make a presentation regarding Edmonds Crossing to the Port Commission.

Commissioner Gouge asked whether there would be an emergency exit at the south end of the marina. Mr. Bowman answered there has been a great deal of discussion regarding that issue. He noted the elevation required to make that transition would be significant.

Mr. Toskey displayed an aerial photograph of the area, explaining this was not a project but a conceptual idea. He noted there were multiple property owners in the area, including private property owners, WSDOT, the City, BNSF, and the Port. He explained the Port was open to working with the City and/or others to assist in any way possible to develop the entire property or portions of the property due to their belief it is one of the most critical pieces of property in Edmonds. He explained there were three potential private investors willing to partner with the Port and there could be as many as five. Mr. Toskey noted this site was no longer being considered by the Public Facilities District (PFD) which had been an issue for some of the potential partners.

Responding to Councilmember Plunkett’s question, Mr. Toskey identified the property the Port owned south of Dayton, which was leased to Harbor Square and the athletic club. He acknowledged the Port did not own any land north of Dayton. Councilmember Plunkett asked how the Port would assist with development of the area. Mr. Toskey answered the Port could take the lead or a supporting role, noting the Port had project development experience and funding capabilities that may be easier to access and that were more flexible than the City. Funding capabilities include industrial development bonds, revenue-bonding capacity, and voted G.O. Bond capability as well as the ability to make business arrangements with private parties. He clarified the Port was not proposing anything other than a cooperative arrangement to improve this area.

Councilmember Plunkett asked what the Port proposed as the next step. Mr. Toskey suggested the City, the Port and other parties discuss issues. He noted some of the issues were private business matters and would not be open to the public until they progressed further. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Port had had discussions with private property owners. Mr. Toskey answered they have had some discussions with private property owners but were open to suggestions and proposals.

Council President Earling commented another of the benefits of the Edmonds Crossing project was potential redevelopment of this private property as well as the ferry holding lanes, extra parking, commuter rail station, etc. He summarized there were opportunities for positive redevelopment in that area that would generate tax dollars for the community.

Commissioner Faires recalled the 3CHPAC committee (which evolved into the PFD) recognized if the area developed on its own, it may not be optimally developed and that an opportunity existed for stakeholders to determine the highest and best use for the property and develop plans to achieve that.

Councilmember Wilson observed it appeared investors were not interested in the project if the PFD project were to locate there and asked if investors had the same reaction if the ferry terminal remained in its current location. Mr. Toskey answered the investors were very interested in the Sound Transit project and were less concerned about the timing of the Edmonds Crossing project. He clarified Sound Transit was the key to investors’ interest in development of this area.

Deputy Director Chris Keuss commented there were few times in the history of a City when a project such as this came up that could make such a difference for the future. He noted the property owner of the Safeway property was interested in redevelopment, the Port was interested in assisting, Sound Transit would soon come on line in this area, and there was the possibility of the property manager at Harbor Square being interested in the process.

Fire Department Battalion Chief Robert Schmitt recalled over 20 years ago he made a presentation to the Council as well as to the Port Commission regarding a fireboat. The Council agreed the fireboat was a good idea, as did the Port who provided moorage for the boat. He noted what has stayed the same over that time was the Fire Department’s concern over access issues and emergency response issues.

Battalion Chief Schmitt referred to Fire Chief Tomberg’s notes, asking that both agencies understand the Fire Department cannot be effective or timely if they could not reach the emergency scene or cannot observe and attack problems from a 360 degree perspective. He noted at the Port, the Fire Department had a 180 degree offense as the Fire Department did not have access from the water side via a fireboat. If the Fire Department was not able to cross the tracks due to a derailment, the same problem would exist. He explained their standard operating procedures outlined ways to get the equipment across the tracks in the event of a derailment but it resulted in a time delay. The Fire Department requested all future development plans be viewed from the perspective of the impact on the Fire Department’s ability to respond west of the tracks and address emergencies from a 360 degree perspective. He summarized the Fire Department must get their concerns on the record so when the inevitable change by disaster overtakes that confined geographic area, regardless of the mechanism, the Fire Department will have advised the leadership of the community of their concerns and recommendations before the fact.

Commissioner Faires agreed it was worthwhile to look at what type of emergency access possibilities existed to move from ground level at the Port over the tracks should the multimodal become a reality. Mayor Haakenson commented this issue needed to be addressed long before planning for Edmonds Crossing occurred; something needed to be done now. He said the answer was to have apparatus stationed on the other side of the tracks as the Fire Department could get firefighters across the tracks if they were blocked but may not be able to get equipment across.

Councilmember Petso shared discussion the Public Safety Committee had regarding the presence or absence of water rescue capabilities. She noted as the Port increased services such as kayak rentals, etc., water usage also increased and there may appear to be a burden on the Fire Department to be able to do deep water rescue. She promised Fire Chief Tomberg at the Public Safety Committee meeting that she would raise the issue with the Port and would expect to work with the Port on a solution. She noted, according to Chief Tomberg, should a kayak get into trouble off the Edmonds waterfront, there would not always be anything that could be done by the Fire Department in a timely manner to achieve a good outcome. She said that was not satisfactory to the Fire Department or to the Council as community leaders. She pointed out the need for the City and Port to work together to identify opportunities to provide these services to the Port area.

Commissioner Faires explained the work boat was currently available to the Fire Department. He acknowledged this was not a specific solution to the problem but the Port had done its best to cooperate to make equipment available for emergency services as well as allow it to be stored on the west side of the tracks. He noted the real issue was specific equipment that may be necessary to increase those capabilities such as a fireboat and associated logistics. He commented that would be an appropriate topic for an in-depth discussion.

Commissioner Gouge advised the Commission was not adverse to providing a slip for a fireboat, noting they currently provide an area for equipment, etc. Mayor Haakenson asked if this were true for a fire engine. Commissioner Gouge answered the Port would provide the space if the City built the building.

Councilmember Plunkett commented if the Port encouraged more people to be on the water, they needed to consider safety for those people, beyond encouraging the City to get a fireboat or build a building. He anticipated some funding from the Port and cooperation would be necessary to provide adequate emergency services. Commissioner Gouge commented the City also encouraged people to use the waterfront, pointing out the Underwater Dive Park, Brackett’s Landing, etc. He agreed the Port and City needed to work together to address this issue.

Battalion Chief Schmitt noted this was the same conversation that occurred 20 years ago, the Port would like the City to pay and the City would like the Port to pay; the Fire Department only wanted a boat and access.

Mayor Haakenson thanked the Port Commissioners for participating in the first joint Port Commission and Council meeting.

Mayor Haakenson reported the Washington Tea Party’s Town Meeting was attended by over 200 people including four state Representatives, one State Senator, a County Councilmember, and a KIRO TV/radio news crew. He noted the meeting was filmed and would be shown on Channel 21 at 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for the next few weeks. He encouraged anyone who had not yet jointed the Washington Tea Party in their quest to keep the Brightwater treatment plant out of Edmonds to visit their website, beautifuledmonds.org or call his office for contact information. Mayor Haakenson extended his thanks and appreciation to the Washington Tea Party for their efforts.

Council President Earling announced Councilmember Dawson was absent due to illness.

Councilmember Orvis expressed his appreciation for the good things the Port does but felt their silence undermined the desires of the Council as well as the public not to have the Brightwater treatment plant sited in Edmonds.

Councilmember Wilson commented the Port was in the process of selecting a new Executive Director to replace Mr. Toskey who will retire in June. The Port will be interviewing candidates over the next three days and a decision will be made mid-May.