Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
Box 521 - M. Resorts Exhibits
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY M RESORTS, LTD. AT MAY 1 McCALL CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING (ON CUP 99-2 AND APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION / GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) 1. Figure 1: "City of McCall - Effluent Storage Impoundment and Disposal System Improvements" from City of McCall, Contract Documents, J-Ditch Phase II Improvements, Vol. I (hereinafter "Contract Documents, Vol. I"); 2. Figure 2: ("Effluent Storage Impoundment Site Plan") from Contract Documents, Vol. I; 3. Figure 4: ("Impoundment Site Plan") from Contract Documents, Vol. I; 4. Figure 5: ("Cross Sections and Details") from Contract Documents, Vol. I; 5. Figure 7: ("Landscape and Wetlands Mitigation Plan") from Contract Documents, Vol. I; 6. Figure 8: ("Wetland Mitigation Cross Section and Details"); 7. Whitetail / "J" Ditch Lodge to Dike Section, Sheet 1 of 2 (Toothman-Orton Engineering Company, April 22, 1999) 8. Whitetail / "J" Ditch Lodge to Dike Section, Sheet 2 of 2 (Toothman-Orton Engineering Company, April 22, 1999) 9. Colored Version of Figure 7, Contract Documents, Vol. I; 10. Colored Version of Figure 8, Contract Documents, Vol. I; 11. Conceptual Mitigation Plan Whitetail / "J Ditch" Phase II (Toothman-Orton Engineering Company, February 23, 1999) - consisting of 3 sheets, titled "Concept #1", "Concept #2", "Concept #3"); 12. 11 x 14 Color Photograph (marked on back as M Resorts Photo #1); 13. 11 x 14 Color Photograph (marked on back as M Resorts Photo #2); 14. 11 x 14 Color Photograph (marked on back as M Resorts Photo #3); 15. 11 x 14 Color Photograph (marked on back as M Resorts Photo #4); 16. October 22, 1998 Star News Viewpoint ("Sewer Pond Plan Makes the Most Sense"); 17. April 15, 1999 Star News Viewpoint ("The Reasons Bezates Site is Best for Ponds"); 18. April 22, 1999 Star News letter to Editor by Kirk Eimers ("McCall Seeks to Protect Taxpayers"); 19. July 23, 1998 Star News Article ("Disputes Stall Sewer Pond Project"); 20. July 23, 1998 Star News Articles ("Pressure for Sewer Decision Builds"; "Council Members Disagree on Next Steps"); 21. July 9, 1998 Star News Article ("P&Z Denies Relocation of Dirt, Plant); 22. Typical Berm Cross -Section; 23. Typical Berm Planting Detail; 24. Conceptual Mitigation Plan - Concept 1, Preliminary Opinion of Construction Cost (February 23, 1999) - 3 pp.; 25. Memorandum dated April 23, 1999 from Richard F. Orton, Jr. to Steven J. Millemann (2 pp.); 26. Memorandum dated July 31, 1998 from Larry Peterson to City Manager; 27. Correspondence dated April 19, 1999 from Stephen E West to Steven J. Millemann; 28. Correspondence dated April 27, 1999 from Steven J. Millemann to Stephen E. West; 29. Correspondence dated January 28, 1999 from Steven J. Millemann to Mayor Kirk Eimers; 30. Correspondence dated March 11, 1999 from Steven J. Millemann to Mayor Kirk Eimers and members of the City Council; 31. Correspondence dated March 18, 1999 from Susan E. Buxton to Steven J. Millemann; 32. Correspondence dated March 26, 1999 from Richard F. Orton, Jr. to Ronald J. Golus; 33. Correspondence dated April 23, 1999 from Bruce J. Cassidy to Richard F. Orton, Jr.; 34. Correspondence dated April 28, 1999 from Steven J. Millemann to Mayor Eimers, Members of the City Council, et al.; 35. City of McCall Value Engineering and Financial Impact Analysis for the Wastewater Facility Improvement Project (RH2 Engineering, May, 1998); 36. Minutes of the January 14, 1999 (mis-titled 1998) McCall City Council Meeting (14 pp.); 37. Minutes of the February 25, 1999 McCall City Council Meeting (7 pp.); 38. Minutes of the April 6, 1999 meeting of the McCall Planning and Zoning Commission (7 pp.); 39. City of McCall Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Denial of a Conditional Use Permit, dated April 20, 1999; 40. City of McCall Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding a Recommendation of Appropriate Zoning Designation Upon Annexation, dated April 16, 1999; 41. City of McCall "J-Ditch Phase II Improvements" Bid Results; 42. Memorandum in Support of Motion for Possession, filed in City_ of McCall v. Bezates Land & Cattle Co. (Case No. CV-98-332C); 43. Affidavit of Andrew K. Locke in Support of Motion for Possession, filed in City of McCall v. Bezates Land & Cattle Co. (Case No. CV-98-332C); 44. Affidavit of Kirk Eimers in City of McCall v. Bezates Land & Cattle Co. (Case No. CV- 98-332C); 45. Appraisal of Property located at 291 Wisdom Road, McCall, prepared by Judy Leister for City of McCall (August 19, 1998); 46. Consent Order in the matter of City of McCall Wastewater Treatment Facility (Idaho Department of Health and Welfare); 47. United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Cooperative Agreement, with Attachment A (16 pp.); 48. Letter from Moore & McFadden, Chtd. to Steven J. Millemann, dated March 3, 1999, with revised Cooperative Agreement attached; sting 18." Diameter J-Difch Ayr Effluent Pipeline Existing Mixing Station 4-1 (Effluent Discharge Point) FIGURE 1 - CI 0 0 a a v 0) O C) � O O d is C 0 ° 2 i 0-o 0 N U O G woos Q CQ ° 3 O O V° woo U N %� L 0- a3)-0 c0 4. Pk 11- O „, 03 c0 o ui 0 O 110 Tr TtA m. 09 O V° t‘a Q o r� ° 0 r U N0 co U_ .O O� 0 7 G - '0 -0 ✓ O> 0) 0 G o i 00,0 rn Z0 la d ✓ V o G N a3�EQ�s 0) 0 G 0 i0 O' tO 0 a� 'O �d O 0•.✓.0 N O . 1:5cd�N N 400.O oO E 4 'Ft, C0 O ✓•0 O) 0 t0 N 0 CP 0 y 3 •O '0 TZ 3c�oSp.N •0 Q G O� O p 0 4 Cl Nfl d0 c0 0 4 0 16 �°od93 0 LN G -) 0 d 600E 4.0 9 (3)0 Nam. 0) cd� 0�~ ° •o 4) a) a) wm40 414 vc: O 411 ;14 a) cf) z • s6 o•v, 0 a3= m 00= . SU>.'4 z 0 0 w w o z z= a c� 0 �, a,'° ° o 11 ,0 0 .. 0 0 w o. a a4 •A 0 p cd 06 • .;.s0 m o o > s. °' gy m . °N' api 0 0c>. o 0 0 O oonw,ZMM o'"�:�VW71.Z>,(9° C)3 n°a,0 pwZ0 ay 0 U 0 XCnT5w W 0 U' y O W s. aI P wa m., = N O 0=0 s.. 0c�a�a:ws.rn s.aoa�OO auj4a'tO ° i. tz O m ° gi p 'O �, .>, O L V 'O a4 : 3 N uJ r o N U t i, �..+� N tUq'�xti4Uz..�'.c�S: °w,020ac�NNco� s.�m° 0 wom„aofz ww'dam©°�'•c4o�'°a� .5^o ° v°, >5°'>, OUU=v,a,Z�C c�o3 '"M(ioCA,-, 3a0i �' m,� •izl a) tO.� 3 i �w 00 pp.° g>,� rDC)'-���n a� �n o -a' .x .Nr M d� S.. 0 o — 0 o aO w s-, N+�-'^^— w_. OAS 0) - Q'nooC ob"n3g3c'a.�'c'ai •>oEon�v�, ual w•o'ua •o�jo d san Oa o`°' c°a�� °+3 :2 aio3.>�,°0 Sal cn w m U x $.., .• i~ •:. O cv ai ° +O- = 'v, y 3 c8., • c134 Zch.EwZZa p a, C O 0 O O a� U y?� o ��OCISZ vi -°>����'waU�N�oaia0i'�3�N� N���•o3= �• oo y0Fonv,Fa�s• a�v,�v�Ec4o �WM M,�Uo 0�W3 �'me.. .,W.a�Cv�`�v,^.Zoom= s.=0Q Zoe • 0 0"O 0 0'i ow c�v 64- O 4 o E43w d op v a) 0 0c..00coo°oa°,,-.0'dovc..'b•>$'�,aA� °aai�nov°i'm ,�E �0 0 _A.. y o moo 0.- ono y iD a�w ��o �. �,... a>;O • w4-.0; a›..-. s.0n3� w0ao'"o3xv, ,.'&)Q,,a°.'o 00 0G G$.d wc�0s~pa� c'c,•s a5mUow=a.j0 3� ce• p "c��• 6 cc/ �, c%W' .0 a' Ow ° `" � �`' W U 400 0 - 0':,a.,a) yo 0 0 c.�mcZc on0a:'d^o "'Ea•oas3 0 .-- 0'.. 0.., O CL' 0 a o p co b 3 co w co ... p o �.-o=wo°'3w= aw �•,�a 3 0c Oocc>3 0) oa' �, o 0 x�,... os.., io::O., a. >,b00 a�s0 c°i0 �°'a'O,.,c°v,�m v°,c�c4o4v,w o 0a> U4ac�oo° Z4—' c0i>;c�4 QU,v�~'s: �0° p v,c��owoaa� as0 c,y""�, c�AUmv,a cd E N c� ... ., 4, on m= o E° vi 03 m N N Et.,) d v, z N vi U .L"0��cdhc� ,�,y ^O°s~UcCuJo cS�.'�s.• s.•'0� °°``.y'O COU..O v, Nv,c1O0+,0W V•Ow11,0 yam. O C M 0, mOv,W+-.s. O pUp .�, U X O s. cC O a> Cn •y O uJ ,L w , as S.U. w >, y u Z co --. 0 S. O c� U c� a p ;=, • al 0 s. O� em s. U. U d y O ++ ,coa, ri, o'o u1 E A NO. S.U. O V] o • Sr Z'cJ z 'b V 'O 0 m .'. N 'C E Cn� ° a'd O cC p .�, z .r aA s" a� ., 0 3 g V U o m w.� 0... C a0 -. a0 ° o ,0.a' w W+ a3i � 'o c3 a� 3 Z y.-. ,° oo sn4a) oao�, y �,_sa .0 .V+pp US`o.,..0 NbCNb0�ba'-'0.�^O°gyp W >, as 0 O v, c s , O C o ° 'd z ... •o .N E 0 w 4 •o a� Scilcs = 'a • U �^ �; CA i. S: U v, f~ w' i~ U O ›''O V : rr w Z • •SVI < •y O C C G S: E C„ N O On � .10 W ) uJ O E tdi, 'S"" '-' N x• E"Ut40�0O�F awO'!Lor5.Z3 ;..N'00m m .ScaEo N4Up'0 0cOOaxC~a Exhibit 16 i 0 cU /1\ 4512 CL 0 ■_ O fA 0 O a) 0.Of c0 0 o co-0 '� V �' 2 0I (}r � tiO .. p .. Z o o F a U0xcr~a2W U Z c �Eo,cto O E7� 0 a uz c Z c yai c t LL m 'cci„ Urn as a oC C (a Z a> Eo N •E '2nQl c —tV?yuli gy1114Coc��E� ,� E' `o 3 2 'cis t N y Z7 o Si c co111) s m'-c 3•cc 0 r °Y c EL 3caSct manym 'cVrn w c 3 2,Z5m3' o�c wpm 3 a� cc o.Ec° ,...55 5�-- E y c3.d m m a„_2„ a_ as -o In 6 EC �� , c0 2 y co o g •c Q U 40 CD ro as M O d a) Q 2 O N 0« v7 co y -0 a) Y L c6 ro �7 al f6 (O t ■— = o O C O a) a)a) • C W 0_ 0)p �ettttfff ff , 41( m -o N a) co a §§ c y Q ?, cEo N c�i e�� °e•°.e.° �i� O co 3 O V p C t O C y 0 O ° O 11J ��`0 3 �cp wa� y �O F- a3 o a' �• . Ll7 YL n H C >,o now �W Z c 3 io .v. E^ �i c >. N N o y f" U p y : : O O I. :::# "Itgonsaisto"3,,e','• Cit= O o— n 3 7-0 c �Q 0 U) U >0o cNn° cn'ai U dn'aE e c 4)G dN 0 1, 0 d d °,�'� ca��Ooy v 1 motAcpC▪ N ..A ^ .N • "' , .0 ca p a 0 6i O+Rs a> 1, y p, a) iA .0 O N +s � � a1 0 � 0 ° . 5 y "'p.w p„as fys••d0psv.No ...d �co0�$'pN.ds'.cd O y di 'a :' N c 0' cd N O o• � c -. y � .1... d p a� D, � 0 c6 0 o •A �' amn>°�0 "°off 0..o.AycNdy�Gc3 .o°'0s' ed°' o OQ00s IA o +.. p N N m ,' o o s' d• P. ,' a+ G � God s~.''o��'>Q�'�-`'�'oy `'�'�e.CN`%'�dG�'cdr.��a>�ca d � W r, W N d � so. GO+ ~''tiQl Gyp a' 6i' 440 `a * G ✓ , � 0't ..+ o ..' G'Gd a 6? d a) 0, ., 7�y�¢'UO+p� a Q o d �.� U... 0 o7+a> .00 -'"' 0 opo o•�'U EGG .,G •'''a'3 AAood'dda'S ".1 0 O� . 0 p0 G y N cd y.3 SI O N G d ". ') ''' os~w p'''AA 043 0v. 3 y00°1° oU o c�d2':'OG� 'd UFO a)..•3AV. 'P"c�u' d d ✓ 07.t/3 t • y ✓ Ti,,,- .d N'U co y • as b0 d �'�' °�p0p s'4, �' ,3j� �, a U y 3 O N�..a)0 101 mN`O') �rsd'aA$ya>� yay>py�N,cs 0 oW 4101111/4 0 *'j3ta>,� 3m'aG:"o�'N•dcGncGaou��°'Ni,�';°'°N'�'�.-s: v s- - .,..- a> a- �.. y .., v, .....• y � c6 � s- - P+ ;.. •- o ';� w y-: � U8""d � °� ' � a °� (� W Cn to . s. 0 171 4. t] � a> G � � N ot, .. v °' Q' U A L' d W ,,A t e..A C H � A y N .c: ,�, v o•' d o A. 4 ,y1 A •' A O�✓'�!.1 a°' O y Q13dN'n'0� .0 °Ry aN� d :p �' ' >a>'d� O y,�E''.�G. -� 'dpGHs~cdy''opG�Ns' mc6Nr' a>a 40 Q N . n3)0 5. osd Oup S� • y i^'d aj ,0, cn y..� s. Ned y 6> cd rt a ,3Gd W w d 0 o.gN . °>yOW C6'o.ayWp�o '�Ndr' ��°JoOpip as SA °a>�d G°>sQnpo¢a of+ 'a'4aa>o'opNs.cl)wd �-. paasdd5110Gm7 o);t '0 o 01l) 0 N W4a. "" 00.0 Cu VI). `10+"' 0N y o U E..,B.O.✓0.1 Vs`�, s.. L,�ooGo�'3cC°�G°>N°O U.-'• � a),N�WoNm°°A�°ca 0� ''�, o i, toad o °' G,x `�' o N o y °� ��, o d o �G'd n '3 th 0 o a� . w N vs 0 'O °' 5 6> i • � °' G cam .sw 4.) U UN,,'; ;' ow U W, ' d cd y 0 �'� 0 O N� :� `'» p N U w •°° cd v, A. +„ pNj m • •O�o ('�' 8-00t6> 0N,�a>00 cdA -ocd OjUcd 0`�'° + Z-"0.i'^N +'0o4'b'°;;G- i0pr'Go00 tnGN� Gpts)0 fLtG•°>yco• a) �� ° v N� 6> N a 0 �`d• " o`° �p s1m `A ouA�G y cd a> 0 3 cd 0' i�'d �' o G x yy � y 0 J✓ ,' N S °> 1 i ✓ N O U +j r+ �'d.r.Gi�. NU a> d c` v14 v �'fP 00�'S6t1)'c>� �. a>N v� � N NN�d�cOno6$" Gil s• y G 0. U .�..' o p c6 p a> a>'O is qbG3 a0' %.%1 ,GGcnGNtVw„.0 ,r.Aoo .y GOGNr.,�¢ `n U-N'wN ., ow7'V'0G���0 �°>cd �°r,..' G 03 .,dd,N,m O.� 4,i+.ry O c6 cd-- cd%S+ s• p,dpWcn G 4 •rs t N�+G e �,"�✓i w t m•r' U °> o .�' .✓ °> U v, ,✓ r' m .� a> c6 .✓ .p +' s' N N .✓ 4 ,.' Opc>yo :e -.S•4c6• d'd N�w"G o°c°'t�•sN Nmi' 41) U °i�N o�u'o�o+�'v ��y°>"�✓��d� o %'Qcdv UU 0'd�� 4 a. .00 01,4) of��a ..dsG $•00' ,0Ncd'0..11'e a>Ga3cdcoG G3 .-'ccqyv0.0;•+0 A 0.'Gya'dV0,03p op°> CO .'ona �0m tiltu0-'id04>We Ca4> ° 0.04+0 c'0`d0' >•idAc>� Na> ✓p�'�3 o�' �' o 1,>'C�5op 3cnp"3o� Go;3 o00 a) �•'...0 c�'d,= 3 o0 oa�,...-%4)e cd�U �o��W'.�,'','dG�',, WGav�6;;��� °>�0.,Aai`dAANo'd ca11,0Z p ., ¢ S W %w ��p 7,'d w, d N �'d u1 2S O O r, G °> p N Ui � N � �r,� x y w N O �` y V ,, , c, 0 x °J N 11 5 tt? .0 A-. 4) w cGd O N U Ns.G ov,y.✓ Nm $.. N,Ta3cd 4ai 0em.,'o is .e. ,' c6 .� O �' oO W m � -y . • A -?- 0' 3 .Q G ui ay> o°OP.. �'�Un>%:t%; .00oo AA o�'> dyo°o.03oa>S0o�'�oa> o�ai 004 Oy� ° ypS�r+�d S+G� di V Nd✓L+, N0 s'O NQ+GpN� �' �, cil y.. 6> �`Vi0k co 001 UAL. Q�.3' a'°,,> H 0w00 10-s O0as ... .. N %:a N0NO,y �cdcd 00$4d oycdfN., GWy 0":,01•10. p 0''°"'0 o" g81 .0 a3�, C:'`Z..•90: a>o ,FAO" 2Anu0 0TA'0'0 I0Hw.G.'00 w ° sG 0co vaibit,11 Z D N -O 011114St 011111 O Lcn o c') --15 _. N ib Z N D 30 \ a''N 30 E \ rein 7*SOS o cow• d warn o oa�ca Zdo ,+ O pl N O D tr N�+✓W Gcerr yN'OG U W O c'-►'O'OOrN O G as 0-0 0o -co0� ��ocv a)yN e�U ZN c o Q7 9'O G2 oY i6 V la 7 O ai 4 e N w'' o J a a�°•G o o m e Lis s Ltfl a� o°' O <t a' 3 -� W— `� " V 7 a)d -a O `.-G C °�'cd%T �%a'3N Eo.� is a) iO N N Nca c c7 m ' G N t6 G r D N O G c6 N L E G N N i' 3 N'; to N G ►•s '� �O S. Q N a0 r o r vNo��oo a,- N ofl0d 3 j N N p N -- a) 4 U D O N a��°el��futf �•f N 1.Q3 O fl G N fl G D+ '� • �i is Q G° ° O o U O Q .... 9 ,.�'` gee ••• P '•. • N „, 3 �t6 d tC N O 4 N ." '�:.' i S. J % `� I. a) N ( 7 - c4 E is v : F" : r s�y,. It D G cA p r p O� lit J N iti G d d = O• , P • O ii/CA jelhoollli D°' m° D it a/ E 0 ✓ N O c w O ie C' a o 0 T ?� CO L O G t0 G U �G p Li- O d 3 O •o 1^ .• 4f •• .1! T 2i cd 'i0 d N G O O cC C- 3 0 ••°• '� ,`� _ y �'f tC N N U G -o u- 7^ cj GO N ✓ �IpO(e' ••••o••. °� tb d aa LSa-D Oa .0a p Q nee*sffpgti 01•�4, 44° i21O T �N yo N o e u,Nf? 03 0-06�0 N O a) 'a Q O 0 McCall seeks to protect ratepayers To the Editor: To the citizens of McCall: Last week I reported to you my reasons for voting to move the storage lagoons from the Seubert to the Bezates site. This week I would like you to know the steps your city council has taken to protect sewer rate payers. • The previous council was forced by regu- lations to install Phase I of the J-Ditch, which = involved a pipeline to farms south of McCall and the irrigation systems for ground appli- cation of the effluent. To finance Phase I the city applied for and was awarded grants plus , borrowed roughly $3 million. To date there has been no increase in sewer rates to city customers to pay for that loan. The Payette Lakes Water and Sewer Dis- trict raised their rates in July 1998 by $4 per month to pay for their portion of the loan. The , city will soon need to do the same. Recogniz- ing a sewer rate increase was almost cer- tainly unavoidable, your present council un- dertook in 1998 an evaluation of sewer opera- tions and maintenance to see if savings could be achieved. As a result of a difficult process of bidding for sewer operations and mainte- nance, the city took back the operating re- sponsibility of the sewer system and saved at least $70,000 per year or roughly $35 per year per household or $3 per month. This step was taken to minimize the impact ofrate increases related to the $3 million loan. The required amount of any sewer rate increase will be established this summer dur- ing the budgeting process. While this was going on, city staffand council were planning for implementation ofJ-D itch Phase II, which involved building storage lagoons for storing the effluent during the non -irrigation season. Because of the extreme hardship placed on city rate payers by the water treatment plant, your council negotiated a Consent Order with the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality which states we will add to our present sewer system (e.g., lagoons, etc.) only with grant and gift funds. In other words, no McCall rate payer funds will go into building the lagoons. This was done precisely to protect rate pay- ers. , Further, the agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation which is supplyingthe grant' funds for the storage lagoons eliminates any, mandatory maximum storage lagoon capac- • ity. In other words, we need only build that capacity which can be built with grant and gift funds - once again protecting rate payers. We intend to get our effluent out of the North Fork of the Payette River during 1999, en- tirely on grant funds. There are a few neighbors opposed to this project, however, it appears that it is in the best interest of all the citizens to accomplish the removal of effluent from the North Fork of the Payette River. Last week our interim City Manager, Bill Robertson, and I, traveled to Washington, D.C., to procure additional grant funds (1) to allow us to more fully mitigate the project for neighbors of the lagoons, (2) to provide for infiltration funds to tighten our sewer system so groundwater does not get in, (3) other capacity enhancements: once again on grant funds. We have been assured by our representatives that our needs are fully rec- ognized and that we will receive our delega- tion support. Throughout the entire process, your city council has taken all required steps to assure that sewer ratepayers are impacted as little as possible as we respond to continuing federal mandates. Rest assured we will continue to keep your best interests as our primary focus as we go forward into the future supplying your utilities at the lowest possible rates. Kirk Eimers, Mayor City of McCall Exhibit 18 .. cyC L .,�. O O Rs U T^, C u] '-'' •� ¢' L >, .. L U .-, o as °'v c a� s°.` ° Nc.°. •• a a 3`0 .c o c 3 c n Us. al.,,.�s.E 3�. wcs%a),,f cc.,yooAs...a.>y cc• _ �� 3p�.�M C � � � = C U � � � a� y ° > � y � co • o :, 'cs afli o o ->, >' �a ° c i >, y b � ai 1-4 ai .0c a)�c>,oh-am3'als0 U30�oy�c""y o0 ago � �4-1 c�� n -- cc O cn w y o c c CA c..., ° 'cn p U o ccj U °L,, ° U O 0 a, N C .,� a� D ( ,C pA o � � CID 6 O � � U o a C^ n °° O.° o sy. ) 0 o c, N �,�a'�; %ui3o0�O�.^°.gip �_ cc...� a) a cn4t=o°A c y cn a> _Dons. S. mx ° a+ o o °;.. >,�_ n Cs N cy� 3 C "04 y ° �° ^a cn L �qwo as N o00 ��scav y~' oc�yca . iQa•,oU •� cy 0o` cu,ma'i o � bca y c -�0w ai 0 cp ai �">+a 3 =•o 3 � c � � cw.0 ct =i 0co O_'UOcc . ca �0O.. a;C �w�>w�.) sx.. ctca i��.viwb 'rnClccCpcC Ll o C ., o us x ' j >,•� a) s O ••� •G o, • cn c,) y O 'O O VJ .n .O a2 -`n on ° o y C C a) C >, y U U • = c. as O s, a' . as C U aa)i O s. `-' 'as pus ai -3 • 6Li d p ' ' cC O ^C a) ^ Gzl �.. 'c_' 'L7 U E.. 'C ., ...' U E s. •� .U-, C�a ° 0..= :e-, i y U 'G C t2 �^ y U y c ^ U U as F ....0-.y c_ C O `° c to °� a°i . u aoi {.4 y.u, a' a' � - cc.= - y O d aa) a'z o oG ,_, O>x U U c E 0 ca 's. cs, s. c; c aA q .c 3 oA 3 3 3 C cn ., ^a > = c a w "",w 0`. c�ai UCc U�d�.r Cd dyCAy _tn G :� —,>"� ai '~ ac O c� -C ^ y �7a• o= c y C +. o ca >, °i30.1 ao�cc w 0 ca'Caviw •, m__ �,°icon c-a °'.. ul ° N �+ a� 3. c cc 3•N w a� s: .9 cis s: yr" —ci)C C s. U 0.I�OAa;Oy ny ��y�O w c 3�� �s� /�� voy a� yq y I •0 _ J =••., .-' .- r 6 ° 3 RS •E Q� C cc U c $.. C .w a) G,, is w U Z'. °. '� r-+ i.. 's. ° L '� OA ° ��0 'fC •L a> O I.. y .. pn 0 n y h U y •n U 0 .� V) O U O .-+ oA • Y� cz Qi Ri i.. '�r�.,pccc ate... p`' � Ct �^ nY"'y� (ctn it IL. y U Q) �ai�cc.)-ccc yc0o�0UQacio �� •=cmwous N v7 • w nC (� C w .`=-' uA... o u, p 2 co, � ^.. ^^ y O•0 p O d =CA °. 110 ca c�c >, y U .cm.cJ a Cp L m .. ' .0— U '0 U tti CZ :J - 4.. 10. C� n. =y 7U mow.: $. 0 E d = sy. y .° 3 m 1 II �' cn = E o cc C c c°= �,^o� o v�i y .-..-.0 ...t0�, �° °m om 0° i e✓ i�.c ys.`'ya>odg� 3Tja o ���.��oo �" a�i o c y cLi Ps*c a'3 „o a)as� Mccaim occ y�c G3 3 a= L M o •c$ -o w —• .-' r. :/� Ca 64 �^. •--, ,-� f'. e._, to c/7 �'.. N �-. Ci) 404 r>' U ci)c U 'i7 c .0.+ U U - .- c00 O r �, ^ U ca . r� U cc U 'L7 M O .� L". p- 0 p •p " ... M y y .� y y• C 5 .- „�_,' U cc i to e) C ' O as ,:z ca ,2j c3 w ` C CA O a O U c p o t up C G7 s. w o ^ s. o. p cC C' O cc V) S ^ `'�- , O0 v cn 07 a) s. GY, ca Cs a ct ..0 w c6 lifl .7:1It 3 v°i .� C cc C7 L. y �_ ^" •w • ,C cV CAR" E „', = _ U p O L y S..E s~ �, oA s°, +U•+ cc : CA .-' C cc ^O •s. 3 ."' ..-xU>�00oycn bU'EEccu c03 coyJcc'• s.°Eo c� Nopco o2, Gigs:co o s.3o yw �� ca cc3,Cd a.^: U Li cc s. 3 3 ,� 3 .d p ca E oA^ E m 0•-•- aci y ~ �w g- �� �cnb d d b U to ^ c c oc.) ca yc„ 0.w,'C'd "'pUcC..... _ L::s. tcnvoi==tn 1 w c ^gip o' dap=o C=�3cOUv,t).opcn,�s.cc^cca E,1%, vi 3 �Q vi e9'CS mp y'ya� oA aoD'" a> cc 3 - cg y.43•E c,x c m �� a; asU,U tz y 'C O U U .0 s. = .-, .. O C L. G, CU p ,. ca C .L. E ca p 1 '� a,:`, -' — Os+•�> Ccn oU y..+ .0 .atnUC.OtnU.. �aono ��3�owEr�y aF,0 cc G,Cgosy.-a�i0 .d>bc.con c=',E,2 �.E'c: c wwmat EcnwEt 2 •� i33mp.� �.cec�a E oAU�❑ i�ci oc'as� �cU�a) s~wEs: ACC!~^y.�� -•Eoo y•tn caipcc. cow o'"s.c •cco c>ceca= icoc a> s� to ca:. U� o s. " 3 cc E o s. cc o to w m cc U �`• y b s� cn cc b Co o-c v m a mca: ocD c c oa dZS � ..� a> 3 U a. =� ~ o o n C� ca>ooUUc oA: sa>, o� o3z. �+ U �L� � 3 c p ca to tom tocis � <„ y w Ez yowccncw'cnaiE-cu '� c°. comic t�,�E :�=a)vyNi5>.a0' oK a3 cn >, U Ci 3 as s. ob n a) c p o cs-p C Cr. c .c al• o•c.� 3 a) .0 N Uo. yE o 0 .E yyv yce c �'�c... a) a) so s-3 c.� ;- N y � ° a> y ca N.= ca >, a � s" iUC: C s. ca c c � s. u °' a t� vci o°• o cAaC) o,d o �.`ac a>i `a �y ��° 3 c cn �� 0 v y cc ., . 3 •'- E r. m U n1 U O� A. .yC,a.0 �� ^ 3 ° voice m.>�� ca o: o cv`E•sn•�0,5:q o a 2 c..°ti �0 F. .... c•a a) E. y =�.. C s. >,0 a)Q� cc n c•ai� O�w .�E- c �.J y 0.--..�� a'p c .„,, a L. w 3 :, •� U 3 o a0 O c +�-, sy. t� U V) a, � '0 0. 4 ,• �.�•,s:�cio "°� a'3W E b•o° aicn aci��.c+�A c Exhibit 19 PAGE 18 - THE STAR -NEWS - THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1998 Pressure for sewer decision builds Tempers flare as engineers disagree with study findings The pressure on the McCall city council to solve the J-Ditch sewer project problems is mounting as the timeline for meeting the Bu- reau of Reclamation's deadlines shrinks. The city now has a little more than two months to award a con- tract to build the first storage lagoon by the bureau's Sept. 30 deadline. Otherwise, the city might jeop- ardize an award of $2.5 million from the bureau, and an additional $3.6 million for the second storage cell. The agency objections the city received were based on incomplete engineering designs, said George Wagner, vice president of JUB Engineers, which made the initial designs on the sewage ponds be- fore the city ordered them to stop working in February. Wagner said the details of how the engineers would have dealt with agency complaints would have been included in later designs that would have been presented had their work not been stopped. The geotechnical analysisonthe Seubert site, which had been the designated site for the sewer ponds until the discussions about pos- sible earthquake risk early this week, was performed by Strata Inc., of Boise. City Manager Brian Olson's objections to the Seubert sitewere based on a review of the Strata report, done by Kleinfelder Inc., of Boise. I'm a little surprised and dis- heartened that our report has been reviewed without our knowledge," said Bob Howard, of Strata Inc. "I think that that's extremely unpro- fessional." Howard said his firm did labo- ratory tests from materials taken from the site. "Soil strength is a a decision today," Howard said. component of how compact it is," Howard said that JUB and he said. According to Howard, the Strata had regular meetings in on -site soils would be adequate if which the IDWR was included. At they were compacted. the very first meeting, Hornbaker Their study assumed a7.4earth- raised the issue of the 2-to-1 slope, quake, not a 6.0 earthquake, as the Howard said. Idaho Department of Water Re- "So their concerns are not new sources figured. concerns?" Eimers asked. "We think the site can be engi- "Yes, and we think we've ad- neered to accomplish your goals," dressed them," Howard said. Howard said. "I absolutely do not "You'remakingadecisionbased agree with the statements that have on various regulatory bodies' 'ob- been made." jections,' " said Bill Killen, attorney Mayor Kirk Eimers asked and former Mayor of McCall. Howard if he could clearly state "We've heard all these before and what he meant. "I'm saying, you I'm worried that you're making a folks would be real stupid to make quick decision." Council members disagree on next step McCall City Council members revealed deep differences of opin- ion in meetings held Friday and Monday on how to resolve earth- quake risk in the city's stalled sewer project. "People have been kept out of the loop, not all of the parties have been privy to information, and this has got to stop," council member Marilyn Arp said. "At this point in time, I feel absolutely stampeded into a corner on this timeline." "I think the harm in delaying the project is an unknown. I get the impression that someone doesn't like the (site we've already chosen) and has gone to a lot of problems to prove they don't like it," Arp said. "I see no reason whatsoever to change our direction," council member Ralph Colton said. "If we went ahead and did it and (the dam) broke, who's hanging out to dry then?" asked council mem- ber Allen Muller at Friday's meeting. The city would be liable, Muller said. Muller was not at the Monday meeting. The various agencies have known for a long time about these problem areas, said Ted Whiteman, manager of the Payette Lakes Wa- ter and Sewer District. "I don't understand why all of a sudden it's become a deal killer." The council decided to try to hold an emergency meeting next week with all the parties involved in the J-Ditch project. Mayor Kirk Eimers urged pa- tience while the council tried to make a difficult decision. "Let's come to the meeting and try to find a solution for the city of McCall and leave our personal junk out of it," Eimers said. 1 Exhibit 20 949 �&Z denies relocation of dirt, plant Intense objections in public hearings deciding factor for unanimous vote BY COREY WICKS Thc S WI-^cw- The McCall Area of Impact Plan- ning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously Monday night to deny the rezone of a piece of prop- erty that could have led to the relocation of an asphalt plant near the Blue Jay Subdivision. The McCall City Council will now consider a petition, which was filed by the city, to rezone the prop- erty along Boydstun Street. P&Z Administrator Andy Locke said the soonest that the council could hear the rezone retition would be :he first week in August. "Somebody could get an attor- ney and tie this whole thing up for a while pretty easily," warned P&Z commissioner Joe Johnson. Johnson was concerned the city had an apparent conflict of inter- est in sending its own petition to the city council to decide the mat- ter. Valley County Commissioners would be a more impartial body to make the decision, Johnson said. The city filed the petition to re- zone the property near Blue Jay following its agreement to pur- chase the gravel pit property owned by J.P. Seubert of Cottonwood. The city wants the land with the inten- tion of building the sewage lagoons for the second phase of the J-Ditch Project. The city was asking for the land near Blue Jay Subdivision to be rezoned from residential to indus- trial in order to pile 770.000 cubic yards of dirt to be removed to build the sewage storage cells. The city intended to relocate Seubert's as- phalt plant to the rezone site because the second storage cell would be built over the location where the plant currently sits. Under its agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the city has until Sept. 30 to award the construction contract for the first storage cell. The bureau recently gave the city $2.5 million to build the first cell. "I know how the guy felt when he was trying to split the baby," P&Z Chair Julie Eddins said, com- paring the P&Z's dilemma to King Solomon's famous Biblical case. Eddins, however, said she had heard enough public comments against the rezone petition to help her make a decision. ;oi,.nvn na.:de the ,auti0n i.o deny the rezone petition and Com- missioner Bill Erlebach seconded. The commission voted 4-0, with Commissioner Barbara Knipe ini- tially abstaining and then joining in to make the unanimous vote. P&Z members recommended that the city council recognize the need for a conditional use permit to relocate the asphalt plant in the rezoned property. Also, the P&Z said council mem- bers should realize that the city code provides no guidance for con- sidering "upzone" procedures, or raising the zoning of an area to a more intensive use, the P&Z said. Federalpermits also may be needed to fill in wetlands on the site, they said. The P&Z suggested council members read the minutes of the meetings closely so they can get a feel for the considerable amount of public comment on the topic. Exhibit 21 1 ec'712, S �+ Exhibit 22 7 O kt a0 �A. Q tl4 tt N � IP tit_ uks 0. .b -o I 1 _zt 4 / 4 Vt •, • .• • . .• .. P - 3 • • JI ., •.. • • .. (,_.) / +:1 / 14,,,..rirf : . .i Z 4 •. • • • • S� :.bid I.•o �. • . • • • •• i 1 •_•••• $�1 a - •.. .. -�, 9 t l'i' !,1,1 • 1.4.41 I. -- ; .1 :•\ 6 1 1. \ 41 • I 111T- • \ T. \ 1 • It . • ..' TATARIM4 1-401-AtigyGKLE • • ••,•" . ••• i'-s' Lov&sttLe g •I • ••• < 11.1.*-210 • .1 .I 3:1 •1 I.. 1 A• I • Exhibit 23 • 1 • H U Oc. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �+ O C in O to V1 V1 V1 • N V1 COI rl " O C C2 O C + >s V o C N m O C O 1 -L.+ at 0 O O N .O v1 V1 v1 O pp v1 V1 Q\ N C\ �p d M N 0 C Ot a /—/��� O - .4 V w 0 C M N �'' C i •C in 41 �' iU.. U U U U U U U V1 en >' G L� at U ma W e ui ui ci W U rr C'S E. C 04 .~ N 0 0 U C.) O -0 .0 40E �ca)a)as;4toa)� 0 : a. a. N. a a Cn n V s.. U¢¢c7,0 x 0 0�e 0.0 Q+ L y C E E O v y 0 ) U o � 'e c •'= C: 00 E E- '0. 3 u N Ui z .ea C a 0 Extended Price 0000a000 00 N © O O N m rn m O C\ c+ c+ c+ t� vo 00 O r 00 en 6 y 64 EA 44 69 69 EA 44 6V9 664 °, ° n t� t� 00 N VI CA 69 64 69 69 69 69 Description Berm Earthwork 0 0 b0 Landscape Materials Pond( 0 Ornamental Boulders ez in M M N e• N N GC in .— ET N4 15% Contingency In er 00 00 6A U 0 z I. This preliminary opinion of construction cost is based on the conceptual mitigation plan dated 2/23/99 and is subject to modification once more detailed design plans are completed. 0 Mitigation Plan Exhibit 24 Extended Price c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 V N N N N co • ^• 4: 7 Nc�1 W. N N N N 69 44 64 6i3 69 69 69 69 64 69 WI O O O 0 0 0 WI 0 0 0 0 0 U O O C C C N O O O v> O O ..▪ .., O• � O O tr$ oo vt vi vi N 0 = 69 cx1 Meas. Unit Description 69 69 69 69 44 64 69 y4 44fel b9 0 N H .^= L .0 L- L L V U Ca CL LLl W LL ELL] 0 Q Berm Earthwork O co 00 Landscape Materials Ponderosa Pine Ornamental Boulders GO O O 00 00 00 c/3 ,46 .o 69 15% Contingency cif a) O z 1. This preliminary opinion of construction cost is based on the conceptual mitigation plan dated 2/23/99 and is subject to modification once more detailed design plans are completed. 0 00 0 GO ao 0 0 E 0 .0 cis 3 m 0) m E GO c 5 5 O' GO E: GO 000 G T. A O .0 L7 c0) E 2 P 0 o O 3 J V L o y _� N Extended Price 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 En c o 0 0 0 ,,, 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 '� pp 0c 0 o 0 �n o 00 0oo Le) o O O h et fV h O. �^ • ‘4I. Go 669 69 69 69 64 6N4 6N9 b 9 6 9 EA c. 0 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 644 0 0 0' 000 N S N N ONO 0 C`i en cv 69 69 69 69 69 69 4 69 69 0 0 N 0 0 v) v.) v.) h C wp N O\ ch tt en en en N N :C an s u s 0 s s s ›' t. 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 v! of RI L Q ci W W W c:i W W ra Description Berm Earthwork Landscape Materials Ponderosa Pine c 0) aaa e O x au 00 • 0) p- y" 0. ` c/) • Ln a) ¢ Q c = O = k O . a0 a, 0 E= 0 E Z 0 c� • 31) in ct E▪ .a 0 • u U z c .(0 0 c 0 i 1 0 0 0 N U Ornamental Boulders 15% Contingency a0 0 y a) 0 z I. This preliminary opinion of construction cost is based on the conceptual mitigation plan dated 2/23/99 and is subject to modification once more detailed design plans are completed. m 0 a) E N U N 0 a 0 00 �o 00 as y 00 .0 as > a 0 R 0 0 a- c m 0 a- cu V1 V C� G N 00 c t 13 Liz 0i E � © 0 • y O O .0 O 8 =C 7 fV 1 Alitiguliwt Plug lisliuwle.xls 9 14:33 Toothman-Orton Eng Co. 208 323 2399 P.01 TO OTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE MILLEMANN FROM: RICHARD F. ORTON, JR. VA) DATE: APRIL 23,1999 SUBJECT: J-DITCH EXCAVATION We have run approximate earthwork computation for the excavation area shown on Figures 7 and 9 of the RH2 plans. There is approximately 200,000 yards of excavation material available according to those design plans. A copy of the hand computations is attached for your reference. Pik: L1990011Wplllet.Milli-mum memore.-Dfl mumwesian 9/00S-90-101 Exhibit 25 Toothman-Orton Eng Co. 208 323 2399 P.02 00,-99 14:33 Project so< Date LI 03 /C1c? Ci)e Toothman-Orton Engineering Co. .1.13C(Sed On PI c,Ar - t ryd Sec . rale Ave r cur_ AQ.e.rrtgie. ASSigo"rte. L._ Cros & or Ar Ar .e ts)4 Page 1 of 1 Prepared by _i (") Sec F 5SL) D s tancc 'Pe rN # it, Area_ . 0f 0 a c-frc»( rir,ate k)4.)r rn Cros s A 5$1,ime 1;( e of 0 oTerC)")cr,Ctie(Vi. SCAA:th OC CroSec. via n 6 e rage ?Ind Arc 0 ) sSD + • fNA Delo a-) 70•'tit) 5 Ave v-cto `7dirc , k S—)00 Pi- -7 Li-4.2 I -71S0c) i Scccr a „ • -..- • • - - - - - • - r0 rnoril trawl 7-71,! • ckA.e...casiie c. (.2 • ••• . JACK GANTZ - Council's P -uest t^ aluate more sites G (;) Page 1 r 1z. z, From: LARRY PETERSON To: Clty.manager@mccall.id.us Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998 8:24 AM Subject: Council's Request to evaluate more sites Dear Brian, The council has directed you to further investigate additional sites and to further evaluate the Seubert site per recommendations from IDWR and Kleinfelder. J am concerned about the time line again as it relates to both the BOR funding cycle and the recently signed Consent Order. Under the Consenst Order the City must submit a Design Build Project Report by • September 8, 1998, for which ever site is to be used. Choosing a site which requires a CUP from the •:ounty, will jeopardize the City's ability to keep on the schedule in the Consent Order. As you recall. from the Value Engineering exercise, a conditional use permit would take about 18 months to process, with no guarantee it will be issued. Also, as we teamed in the Value Engineering exercise, alternate sites will -equire a revised FNSI and a modification to the Facility Plan Study. The farther from the Seubert site the City goes in selecting another site, the more extensive will be the revisions and documentation needed to satisfy the FNSI and revised FPS. Sites close by, with the ability to rapidly annex to avoid the time sink of the CUP process, having minor revisions (therefore less time to complete) to the FNSI and FPS, should help any nearby sites score much higher in your evaluation. Also, DEQ has not made a determination on the grant eligibility of costs associated with redoing the FNSI and modifications to the FPS, or for doing geotech and other engineering studies related to altemate site selection. Any change from the approved Seubert site will require an evaluation of the eligibility of such additional costs. I will do some checking to determine this for sure, but do not assume that DEQ can can reimburse some or all the costs of evaluating several altemate sites. DEQ is hopeful the City can see its way through this last issue about site selection soon, and continue on with design and build of the winter storage cells. We are always willing to help where we can. Please be sure we are kept in the loop regarding your decisions on site selection. Best regards, via email, hard copy to follow Larry S. Peterson, P.E. Regional Manager -Engineering CC: CONDE, DOUGLAS, GANTZ, JACK, JERREL, WILLIAM, K... Exhibit 26 ,a12t STATE OF IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1445 North Orchard • Boise, Idaho 83706-2239 • (208) 373-0550 April 19, 1999 Steven J. Milleman Milleman, Pittenger & McMahan, LLP Attorneys at Law PO Box 1066 McCall, ID 83638 Dirk Kempthorne, Governor MILLEMANN PITTeENGER~ammistrator APR 2 1 1999 RE: Water and Sewer Line Construction at M Resorts Whitetail Property Dear Mr. Milleman: McMAHAN In your March 11, 1999 letter to Mayor Kirk Eimers, and members of the McCall City Council regarding the M Resorts Whitetail Development- you wrote on the first page (copy attached): "Most of the water and sewer limes have been laid, to avoid haying to later tear up the road and fairways." A review of our plan and specification approval records indicates that DEQ has not reviewed or approved sewer or water plans for the construction for this development. According to Idaho Code Section 39-1 18, it is illegal for any public water system or sever facility, even on private property, to be constructed unless plans and specifications are reviewed and approved by the DEQ in advance. In a recent discussion with Mr. Bob McKenna, he indicated that the lines have not been installed. Please clarify the status of the water and sewer lines proposed for the Whitetail Development. Thank you for your assistance. Sincer• ly, tephen E. Regional Administrator West SEW:LSP:djb Attachment cc: Larry S. Peterson, P.E., DEQ Boise Regional Office Douglas F. Manchester (via FAX 619-696-7100) Mayor Kirk Eimers, City of McCall Exhibit 27 " M I L L E M A N N , P I T T E N G E R & M c M A H A N , L L P A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 7 0 6 N O R T H F I R S T P O S T O F F I C E B O X 1 0 6 6 M c C A L L , I D A H O 8 3 6 3 8 S T E V E N J . M I L L E M A N N G R E G O R Y C . P I T T E N G E R B R I A N L . M c M A H A N A M Y N . P E M B E R T O N A p r i l 2 7 , 1 9 9 9 V I A F A C S I M I L E ( 2 0 8 ) 3 7 3 - 0 2 8 7 S t e p h e n E . W e s t R e g i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t o r S t a t e o f I d a h o D i v i s i o n o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y 1 4 4 5 N o r t h O r c h a r d B o i s e , I d a h o 8 3 7 0 6 - 2 2 3 9 R i 7 Z D P m T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 8 ) 6 3 4 - 7 6 4 1 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 8 ) 6 3 4 - 4 5 1 6 E - M A I L : m p m @ c y b e r h i g h w a y . n e t R e : W a t e r a n d S e w e r L i n e C o n s t r u c t i o n a t M R e s o r t s W h i t e t a i l P r o p e r t y D e a r M r . W e s t : I a m i n r e c e i p t o f y o u r A p r i l 1 9 , 1 9 9 9 c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r i n q u i r y . I n r e v i e w i n g y o u r l e t t e r w i t h B o b M c K e n n a , I d i s c o v e r t h a t I e r r e d i n o n e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h I m a d e i n m y M a r c h 1 1 , 1 9 9 9 l e t t e r t o M a y o r K i r k E i m e r s a n d m e m b e r s o f t h e C i t y C o u n c i l . T h e w a t e r l i n e s w h i c h h a v e b e e n i n s t a l l e d i n W h i t e t a i l a r e n o n - p o t a b l e i r r i g a t i o n l i n e s . N e i t h e r p o t a b l e w a t e r l i n e s n o r s e w e r l i n e s h a v e y e t b e e n i n s t a l l e d a t W h i t e t a i l . T o f u r t h e r a n s w e r y o u r q u e s t i o n , t h e W h i t e t a i l p r o p o s a l c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t w i l l b e s e r v i c e d b y m u n i c i p a l w a t e r a n d s e w e r s y s t e m s , n a m e l y , t h e C i t y o f M c C a l l , f o r w a t e r , a n d e i t h e r t h e C i t y o f M c C a l l a n d / o r t h e P a y e t t e L a k e s W a t e r a n d S e w e r D i s t r i c t , f o r s e w e r . T h i s w i l l b e c o m e m o r e o f a n i s s u e a s P h a s e I I o f t h e P L T D i s s u b m i t t e d f o r g e n e r a l p l a n a p p r o v a l , i n a s m u c h a s P h a s e I I c o n t a i n s f a c i l i t i e s w h i c h w o u l d r e q u i r e c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e p u b l i c s y s t e m s . P h a s e I c o n s i s t s s o l e l y o f t h e 1 8 - h o l e g o l f c o u r s e , m a i n t e n a n c e b u i l d i n g , a n d t e m p o r a r y p r o s h o p . T h u s , t h e r e h a s b e e n n o p u b l i c w a t e r s y s t e m o r s e w e r s y s t e m y e t c o n s t r u c t e d o n t h e W h i t e t a i l p r o p e r t y . P l e a s e r e s t a s s u r e d t h a t , a s h a s b e e n t h e c a s e i n t h e p a s t , a s M R e s o r t s p r o c e e d s t o t h o s e p h a s e s o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t , a l l a p p r o p r i a t e d e s i g n a p p r o v a l s w i l l b e o b t a i n e d . O n a s e p a r a t e t o p i c , a t y o u r r e q u e s t , B o b M c K e n n a a n d I m e t w i t h y o u , M a y o r E i m e r s , B i l l R o b e r t s o n , a n d H u g h M c N a i r o n M a r c h 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 a t t h e C o u g a r M o u n t a i n L o d g e . W e w e r e t o l d t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e m e e t i n g w a s t o e x p l o r e p o s s i b l e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e c o n c e r n s o f o u r c l i e n t a n d o t h e r s r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p o s e d J D i t c h s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g , y o u t o l d u s t h a t w e w o u l d r e c e i v e t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1 . A C o s t A n a l y s i s o f t h e f o u r m i t i g a t i o n p l a n s w h i c h M R e s o r t s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e E x h i b i t 2 8 - ••,a Stephen E. West Apri127, 1999 Page - 2 City, DEQ and BOR; 2. An analysis of potential available funding sources for those mitigation plans; 3. The Cost Effectiveness Analysis of reducing the profile of the storage facility and utilizing mechanical dewatering. You will recall that this is the Cost Effectiveness Analysis which we requested of the City in February, which we were told on February 25 had been authorized by the City Council, and which we were again told by Mayor Eimers at the March 23 meeting at Cougar Mountain Lodge had been prepared; 4. The Engineering Analysis which accompanied and justified the decision to move the facility from the Seubert site to the Bezates site, if, in fact, one exists. You will recall that we have been requesting this document since our initial meetings with the City in February; and, 5. A specific proposal from the City/DEQ regarding how the City intends to mitigate the impacts of this facility. We have received none of the information listed above. I was prepared to attend the meeting which you had scheduled for April 14 at the Cougar Mountain Lodge. I had my secretary call on April 13 to confirm that the meeting was still on. She was advised that the meeting had been canceled. I left a message for you on April 19 inquiring as to whether we were going to receive any response or whether any further meetings were proposed. I still have heard nothing. Please advise as to whether we should anticipate receipt of any of the above information. Very truly yours, STEVEN J MILLEMANN SJM/rm cc: Brad Raulston Bob McKenna v Mayor Kirk Eimers Bill Robertson _ McCall City Council Members Stephen West Letter MILLEMANN, PITTENGER & McMAHAN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 706 NORTH FIRST POST OFFICE BOX 1066 MCCALL, IDAHO 83638 STEVEN J. MILLEMANN GREGORY C. PITTENGER BRIAN L. McMAHAN AMY N. PEMBERTON January 28, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor City of McCall P. O. Box 986 McCall, ID 83638 Re: Bezates' Condemnation Dear Mayor Eimers: 412 r14 l -64 TiAstIPL TELEPHONE: (208) 634-7641 FACSIMILE: (208) 634-4516 E-MAIL: mpm@cyberhighway.net I am writing to you on behalf of M Resorts, Ltd. who, as you know, is a client of this office. The purpose of this correspondence is to outline and preliminarily place the City on notice regarding my client's concerns regarding the City's plans for the Bezates' property. At the outset, let me assure you that M Resorts has no desire to wind up in an adversarial position with the City of McCall. To the contrary, the purpose of this correspondence is to endeavor to clearly communicate M Resorts' serious concerns regarding the City's proposed use of the Bezates' property and the impacts of such use on M Resorts' adjoining property. It is our hope that these concerns can be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of both the City and M Resorts. Our understanding is that the City is in the process of acquiring 160 acres, more or less, of property currently owned by the Bezates Land and Cattle Co. The City intends to construct two effluent storage lagoons on the property which will, essentially, occupy the entirety of the property. The preliminary sketches which we have reviewed would suggest that these lagoons will be constructed predominantly above -ground, resulting in a berm twenty to twenty-five feet high and approximately twelve hundred feet long running parallel with the northern boundary of the Bezates' property. The lagoons would be utilized to store effluent during the months that the effluent cannot be used by the J Ditch irrigators. M Resorts owns property located adjacent to and immediately to the north of the Bezates' property. M Resorts has received preliminary plan approval for a three-phase Planned Unit Development on this property, which is known as the "Whitetail Planned Unit Development". The City has granted general plan approval for Phase I of the Whitetail PUD. Well over one Exhibit 29 C.? January 28, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor Page - 2 million dollars has been expended by M Resorts on preparation of the golf course and infrastructure related to Phase I. This includes all preliminary work necessary to actually construct the golf course, construction and paving of roads, installation of power, and installation of a portion of the infrastructure associated with water. As you know, the Whitetail PUD includes an 18-hole golf course, a lodge, an associated retail complex, and free-standing cottages. The Whitetail Development was planned, and the investment thus far associated with the development has been made, upon the reasonable assumption that the land uses on the adjoining Bezates' property would range from agricultural to residential with, at worst, a recreational business use comparable to that contemplated by the Whitetail project. I mention the latter only because, in the public hearing process as a result of which the Whitetail Planned Unit Development was approved, a representative from Mr. Bezates stated that a comparable type of development was being planned for the Bezates' property. From the minimal preliminary sketches which we have reviewed, it is clear that the City's proposed use of the Bezates' property will significantly and negatively impact the Whitetail property. We are in the process of conducting an engineering and land -use analysis of the specific impacts which the City lagoon project might have on the Whitetail project, as well as the potential mitigations thereof. We will most certainly make all such analysis available to you and the Council as it is completed. Preliminarily, it appears to us that the impacts of the City's proposed effluent storage lagoon project on the Whitetail property will include the following: 1. Effluent storage lagoon number 2 calls for a twelve hundred foot long berm, from 20 - 25 feet high, to be placed essentially on the southern boundary of the Whitetail property. This rather massive wall of dirt will have significant aesthetic impacts on, and will unquestionably degrade, the value of the Whitetail property; 2. The Whitetail property rises in elevation from south to north. The approved uses of the Whitetail PUD include a lodge. The combination of the elevation gain and the location of the lodge will result in the most valuable improvements within the Whitetail PUD looking directly into two huge rectangular lagoons. Because of their shape and our understanding that they will be full only during the winter months, the aesthetic impact on the proposed Whitetail improvements will be significant; 3. Depending on whether the lagoons are lined, and depending on the levels and gradients of ground water hydrology in the area, there is a distinct potential for ground water contamination from the lagoons. M Resorts is near the conclusion of a three-year process of obtaining permits from the Idaho Department of Water Resources for the construction of a series of wells which will provide both irrigation and potable water for the Whitetail PUD. Any ground January 28, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor Page - 3 water contamination caused by the storage lagoons could have dire consequences to M Resorts. Hopefully, our review of more detailed engineering data will alleviate those concerns; 4. The Whitetail PUD is located downwind from the prevailing southerly air flow. Any odors emanating from the lagoons will unquestionably migrate directly onto the Whitetail property. Once again, we will be in a better position to specifically evaluate this concern once we have reviewed more detailed engineering data regarding the City's lagoon project. M Resorts also has a number of questions regarding the Project which do not relate directly to impacts of the project on the M Resorts' property. Rather, they are questions and concerns which one would assume any informed taxpayer and rate payer within the City of McCall would have about the Project. These questions include the following: 1. On what basis has the City concluded that the Project can be constructed with the monies available? 2. How can the City be confident that the Project can be completed within its budget when the ultimate cost of acquisition of the property has not yet been resolved and will not be resolved, absent a settlement, until a trial is held on severance damages months from now? 3. Absent a settlement of the pending condemnation action, if the amount ultimately awarded by the jury for compensation and severance damages exceeds the amount budgeted by the City for property acquisition, from what source will the additional monies come? As I am sure your attorneys have advised you, the ultimate judgment in the condemnation action can be executed on just like any other judgment in a civil case. 4. Does the City's budget for the Project include money for mitigation of the impacts of the Project on adjoining properties? If not, what will be the source of the monies for such mitigation or the diminution in fair -market value of adjoining properties which might be caused by the Project? 5. Although we are certainly well aware of the time constraints under which the City is operating, is it prudent for the City to proceed with a "quick -take" of the Bezates' property and thereby irreversibly commit itself to the construction of the storage lagoons on that property, before it has obtained approvals from Idaho DEQ and the Army Corps of Engineers? 6. Once the City has completed the quick -take of the Bezates' property, how can the Council thereafter possibly act as independent and impartial quasi-judicial decision makers on the subsequent applications for annexation and for the necessary Conditional Use Permit related to the Project? January 28, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor Page - 4 In order to complete a proper legal land use and engineering analysis of the concerns and questions raised above, we need to obtain copies of a number of documents relative to the proposed storage lagoon project. To the extent necessary from your perspective, please consider this letter to constitute a request for public records, pursuant to Idaho Code § 9-338. The documents which we need to have provided to us include the following (my reference below to "the Project" is intended to include any and all activities, improvements, or ground alterations which the City plans for the Bezates' property): 1. Any wetland assessments which have been conducted relative to the Project; 2. The City's Application for a Section 404 Permit from the Department of Army, Army Corps of Engineers; 3. The City's Application for a Dam Safety Permit from the Idaho Department of Water Resources; 4. Any site evaluation which has been prepared relative to the Project; 5. The City's Facilities' Plan and pre -design for the Project; 6. The City's Amended Facilities Plan for the Project; 7. Any water rights applications which have been prepared on behalf of the City relative to the Project; 8. All conceptual, schematic and preliminary layouts for the proposed improvements on the Project; 9. The most recent detailed cost estimate available to the City for the Project; and, 10. Any other non-exempt documents or records which relate to the City's proposed use of the Bezates' acreage. As I am sure you can understand, time is critical in this matter. Therefore, I would respectfully request your staff's response to the aforesaid records request within three (3) January 28, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor Page - 5 working days, as provided in Idaho Code § 9-339. Thank you for your consideration of this correspondence and for your and the Council's continuing hard work during this difficult time for the City of McCall. Very truly yours, STEVEN J. MILLEMANN SJM/dm cc: Douglas F. Manchester (Via Facsimile: [619] 696-7100) Bob McKenna (Via Facsimile: 634-7504) ' = Marilyn Arp (Hand -delivered to City Hall) Ralph Colton (Hand -delivered to City Hall) Allen Muller (Hand -delivered to City Hall) Ray Venable (Hand -delivered to City Hall) Andy Locke (Hand -delivered to City Hall) Carla Donica (Hand -delivered to City Hall) Dave Bieter, Moore & McFadden Chtd. (Via Facsimile: 331-1202) Susan Buxton, Moore & McFadden Chtd. (Via Facsimile: 331-1202) s: if ;a te MILLEMANN, PITTENGER & McMAHAN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 706 NORTH FIRST POST OFFICE BOX 1066 McCALL, IDAHO 83638 STEVEN J. MILLEMANN GREGORY C. PITTENGER BRIAN L. McMAHAN AMY N. PEMBERTON March 11, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of McCall P. O. Box 986 McCall, ID 83638 Re: Proposed Storage Lagoons TELEPHONE: (208) 634-7641 FACSIMILE: (208) 634-4516 E-MAIL: mpm®cyberhiphwey.net Dear Mayor Eimers, Councilwoman Arp, Councilmen Muller, Colton and Venable: I am writing. to you on behalf of M Resorts, Ltd., to summarize my client's and my grave concerns regarding the actions which have thus far been taken in furtherance of your construction of storage lagoons on the Bezates site, and to ask that you take certain specific actions. As you know, the M Resorts Whitetail property directly fronts nearly five hundred feet (500') of the north end of the proposed lagoons and another several hundred feet of the property which has been designated as a supplemental borrow site for material to build the berms. Whitetail, a Planned unit Development, has received preliminary plan approval from the City, for all phases. Phase I, which contains the property directly fronting the Bezates property has received general development plan approval, which is the required entitlement to proceed with Phase I of the project. In furtherance of that entitlement, Mr. Manchester has expended approximately $1,000,000.00 in the planning and preparation of Phase I of the development. This includes in excess of $300,000.00 expended for planning and design of the golf course. In addition, the golf course has been cleared, grubbed, and preliminary graded. The entrance drive has been constructed and paved. Most of the water and sewer lines have been laid, to avoid having to later tear up the road and fairways. A Section 404 Wetlands Permit for the project has been obtained. A permit from the Idaho Department of Water Resources is in the process of being obtained, for deep wells on the property. I cite the fact of this investment not because I desire to discuss the monetary damages which will occur to the Whitetail property if the lagoons are constructed as currently designed; but, rather, to explain that Mr. Manchester has a huge stake in what occurs on the Bezates property. On January 23, I wrote to you, expressing our concerns about the City's plans to "quick take" the Bezates property and the potential impact that action would have on the various pending permitting and approval processes. I have continued to express those concerns in meetings with the City Attorney, the City Engineer, the Mayor, and Andy Locke. The response Exhibit 30 March 11, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor Page - 2 of the City, thus far, has been: to go ahead with the quick take; to submit an application for a Conditional Use Permit, which proposes no impact mitigation plan and, in fact, dispenses of the issue of impact with the statement that Whitetail guests will not notice the twenty-five foot (25') high berm located approximately fifty feet (50') from the property line; and, to solicit bids on a project which, as described, contains absolutely no attempt to mitigate impacts on my client's property. Our conclusion from these actions is that the City does not intend to alter its course, nor to recognize as valid, let alone address, any of the concerns which we have expressed. The purpose of this correspondence is to eliminate any possibility that we have misinterpreted the City's actions. Regarding the quick take, our concerns are both legal and equitable. The purpose of the statutory quick -take process is to allow the condemning entity to take possession of property at any time during a condemnation action_ upon establishing certain threshold requirements. As I am sure your attorneys have advised you, the statute provides that, in order to effectuate the quick take, the City must deposit with the Court a sum equal to the fair -market value of the property to be taken, without regard to the severance damages which may or may not be awarded for the impact which the taking will have on the balance of the landowner's property. This fair -market value is established either by agreement between the City and the landowner, or by Order of the Court. In this case, the City has, by agreement, deposited a sum equal to in excess of 58,000.00 per acre to effectuate the quick take. Although I certainly do not have access to the City's appraisal. my familiarity with property in the area would suggest that, for a property of this size, it would be difficult to justify any value in excess of 54,500.00 per acre. Not only has the City tendered the entirety of its land acquisition budget, according to its Amended Facilities Plan, but it still must risk the decision of a Valley County jury on whether fair -market value, together with Mr. Bezates severance damages, exceeds the amount deposited. I do not know if a trial date has yet been secured; however, based on Judge Carey's calendar, I would anticipate that you will not go to trial and find out your ultimate land acquisition costs until well after you have commenced construction of the project. Given that the quick take can be effectuated on short notice at any time throughout the condemnation process, we cannot imagine why you would have wanted to place yourself in this position. Perhaps even more importantly, we firmly believe that the quick take constitutes a violation by the Bureau of Reclamation and you of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (the "CEQ Regs") regarding the NEPA process in which you are currently involved. NEPA and the CEQ Regs contemplate that the NEPA process be complete before decisions are made and before actions are taken. Section 1506.1 of the CEQ Regs specifically precludes actions which limit the choice of reasonable alternatives being taken prior to the issuance of a Record of Decision. The reason for this is quite fundamental. The very purpose of the NEPA process is to outline alternatives and options, provide accurate scientific data and cost projections regarding those options and alternatives, allow for informed public comment on the options and alternatives, and thereby March 11, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor Page - 3 provide the most intelligent basis possible for the decision maker to ultimately make the decision. One of the cornerstones of the NEPA process is a thorough, complete and unbiased evaluation of reasonable site alternatives. By acquiring this site prior to the completion of the NEPA process, you have predetermined the outcome of the alternative site analysis. I believe this is a direct violation of NEPA and the CEQ Regs. The quick take also has serious consequences in terms of your ability to sit as quasi- judicial decision makers on your application for a Conditional Use Permit, both from a conflict of interest point of view and from a due -process point of view. The conflict of interests include the fact that the City of McCall now has a direct economic interest in the outcome of the Conditional Use Permit process. The due process considerations are obvious. The investment of more than a million dollars in the purchase of the site makes it impossible for you to fairly and impartially review the Conditional Use Permit Application and the many issues which it raises. It is critical that a complete and dispassionate presentation and review of the advantages and disadvantages of at least the Seubert site, as compared with the Bezates site, be performed before you commit yourself to the purchase of the property or to the letting of any contract for construction of the project. Many of the assumptions which apparently prompted Mr. Olson to initiate the move from the Seubert to the Bezates site have now been found to be in error. These include the following: 1. That the Bezates site would involve only minimal berming and would thereby, eliminate any design challenges associated with the berming on the Seubert site. We now face a berm which, on the south end of the lagoon, is well in excess of thirty feet (30'), and, on the north end, is in excess of twenty feet (20'). Moreover, we now face a failure scenario which results in the flooding of residential areas, rather than discharge into the river. 2. That the Bezates site would, because of its size, allow for significant setbacks of the lagoon from adjoining residential areas. Adjoining property owners were told that setbacks of one thousand feet (1,000') would be in place. The lagoon, as now designed, is less than one hundred feet (100') from Mr. Manchester's property line. 3. That the construction of the lagoons on the Bezates site would be less expensive than on the Seubert site. There is no engineering basis for such an assumption. The evidence to date suggests to the contrary. Land acquisition, to date, without having yet gone to trial, is more than $400,000.00 higher than on the Seubert site. Litigation has ensued and will most certainly continue on all discretionary approvals associated with the Bezates site, which will have significant direct costs impacts. Mitigation of impacts at the Bezates site, due to the adjoining residential and Whitetail properties, will be considerably more expensive than at the Seubert site. These are but a few of the cost issues. March 11, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor Page - 4 4. That the Bezates site was necessary to allow for construction of lagoons which could hold the 353 million gallons required under the Bureau of Reclamation Cooperative Agreement. Whether or not the Seubert site can accommodate the same capacity as the Bezates site is an engineering question. The fact which has changed is that the City is no longer obliged to provide 353 million gallons of storage. The Amended Cooperative Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation gives the City considerable flexibility in that regard. 5. That the Seubert site was not feasible due to the problems which arose in the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of the rezone application. In fact, I am advised that, after the Planning and Zoning hearing, Mr. Seubert presented at least two options to Brian Olson which would have avoided the rezone issues. I am further advised that Mr. Olson did not ever present these options to the Council for review. It has been suggested to me that the City cannot now attempt to rescind its quick take of the property, even if it desired to do so, for two reasons. First, it is suggested that, if successful, the rescission of the quick take will expose the City to liability to Mr. Bezates for damages. This assumes, of course, that Bezates will not voluntarily agree to rescind the quick take at this point in time. If the rescission were granted over his objections, then I must wonder what damages Mr. Bezates could possibly assert, other than the attorney's fees and costs which he has incurred specific to the quick take itself. Second, it is suggested that the agency deadlines for completion of the first cell of the project preclude any further analysis of optional sites. I believe an analysis of optional sites is not discretionary; it is required by NEPA. Moreover, the prospect of a timely completion of the project is much greater on the Seubert site than on the Bezates site. This is true for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you will face litigation on the Bezates site. If the City continues on its current course, I have very little doubt that the City will defend an action in federal court to enjoin any further expenditures and to enjoin the continuation of the NEPA process until the City unravels those actions which are in violation of NEPA. The City will further face a judicial appeal of a Conditional Use Permit, if one is issued under these circumstances. Moreover, if the Record of Decision does not require substantial reworking of the environmental assessment, that decision will also be challenged in Court. I believe that these actions will be taken by all surrounding neighbors, Mr. Manchester, the West Side Coalition, and Ann Lloyd -Edwards. Stays of any permits issued and approvals granted will be sought. My discussion with citizens and decision makers and review of documents suggest to me that the City will not face this scenario, should the project return to the Seubert site. How, on what grounds, and with what consequences might the City seek to unravel the quick take? First, I find no authority which would suggest that, if the quick take is rescinded, the City has in anyway forfeited or waived its right to seek a quick take at a later date, if its objective review of alternative sites still leads it to the conclusion that the Bezates site is the appropriate site. As to how the rescission could be effectuated, should Mr. Bezates not be willing to agree, then the City can certainly ask the Court to relieve the City from its Stipulation on the grounds March 11, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor Page - 5 that, since entered, the City has received substantial comment as part of the NEPA hearing and comment process which suggests to the City that the quick take of the property may have been in violation of NEPA and the CEQ Regs. We would certainly support such a Motion by the filing of an amicus brief. With these thoughts in mind, we hereby request that the City take the following specific actions: 1. That the City immediately move to rescind the quick take, either by agreement with Mr. Bezates or by a request for appropriate relief from the District Court; 2. That the City agree that the quick take will not be reinitiated until such time as the NEPA, annexation and CUP processes are completed to a final conclusion; 3. That the City agree to take no action on bids which are received pursuant to the current solicitation for bids or, alternatively, to reject all such bids; 4. That the City agree to amend or replace its current solicitation for bids after the NEPA process has been completed to its final conclusion, so that such solicitation can contain all essential ingredients of the project and can be made specific to the site which is ultimately selected; 5. That the City advise the Bureau of Reclamation, in writing, that it believes a thorough and current alternative site analysis of at least the Seubert site, as compared to the Bezates site, should be conducted as part of the current NEPA process; 6. That the City join us in requesting a suspension of the current NEPA process until the above -stated actions have occurred, including the completion of the alternative site analysis, with additional notice and opportunity for public comment being afforded thereafter as part of the continuation of the NEPA process; 7. That the City suspend the current review and public hearing process on its Conditional Use Permit Application until a complete alternative site analysis has been completed and subjected to public comment; I apologize for the lateness of this correspondence, in relation to your meeting tonight. However, we cannot wait until your next meeting and risk hearing that contracts have been let or that further action has been taken which commits the City to the Bezates site and only the Bezates site. Therefore, I ask that these action items be placed before the Council tonight for their discussion and decision. I will be in attendance at tonight's meeting; and, I would be happy to March 11, 1999 Kirk Eimers, Mayor Page - 6 answer any questions which you or the Council might have about the requests made herein, either during the public comment period or in an executive session. Very truly yours, STEVEN J MILLEMANN SJM/dm cc: Douglas F. Manchester (Via Facsimile: [619] 696-7100Pt " Bob McKenna (Via Facsimile: 634-7504)a -QGI , Ja Marilyn Arp (Hand -delivered) Ralph Colton (Hand -delivered) i.9' ' Allen Muller (Hand -delivered) �� Ray Venable (Hand -delivered) Priv Andy Locke (Hand -delivered to City Hall) Susan Buxton, Moore & McFadden Chtd. (Via Facsimile: 331-1202, and hand -delivery) Bill McCurdy (Via Facsimile: [208] 344-7077) 191,4-7 Bill Robertson (Hand -delivered to City Hall) /9-14 .'MILLEMANN PITTENGER & MOORE &. McFADDEN, CHAR TE: EU ) 2 2 1999 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE CAPITAL CENTER, SUITE 910 999 MAIN STREET, BOISE, ID 83702 TELEPHONE: (208) 331.1800 FAX: (208) 331.1202 DAVID H. BIETER SUSAN E. BUXTON JOHN J. MCFADDEN *$ MICHAEL C. MOORE BRUCE M. SMITH PAUL A. TURCKE 'Also Admitted in Oregon Also Admitted in Washington March 18, 1999 Mr. Steve Millemann Millemann Pittenger & McMahan P. O. Box 1066 McCall, ID 83638-1066 McMAHAN MONA DOBARAN MACK Of Counsel Re: McCall/J-Ditch Project Dear Mr. Millemann: We have reviewed your letter dated March 11, 1999, and provide the following comments. The City will not be conducting its public hearing before the City Planning and Zoning Committee on the question of annexation, comprehensive plan amendment, rezone upon annexation, and conditional use permit for the winter effluent storage ponds until April 6, 1999. The recommendation for Planning and Zoning must go to the City Council and at least a 15-day published notice must be undertaken prior to conduct of a public hearing before the City Council. We doubt this public hearing before the City Council can take place prior to April 24, 1999. As you know, the City of McCall is not required to abide by the procedural constraints of the National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 4331, et seq. ("NEPA). However, since the federal government, through the Bureau of Reclamation ("BOR") is providing federal funding for the winter effluent storage lagoons - J-Ditch project Phase II, the BOR believes it must comply with NEPA and has produced a supplemental environmental assessment tiered to its previous environmental assessment for the winter storage ponds. We do not expect any final BOR action which would be ripe for judicial review until around April 1, 1999. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") has its own requirements for an environmental information document and facility plan review, and we expect a final agency decision from DEQ at the same time as the BOR decision around April 1, 1999. It is our Exhibit 31 Steve Millemann March 18, 1999 Page 2 understanding that DEQ's decision has an administrative appeal process available after their final decision is made. Your letter contends that the City would likely not violate the Consent Order if it decided to stop the project now. We respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Consent Order's plain language. Instead, we believe that in the event the City does not make all reasonable efforts to complete Cell One by October 1, 1999, and Cell Two by October 1, 2000, the City would likely face an enforcement action by DEQ, the EPA, and potentially third parties for violation of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"). Violation of the CWA carries with it penalties of up to $25,000 per day, per violation. The City could face numerous violations each day depending on the determination of the EPA and DEQ of the number and scope of such violations. With regard to your suggestion that the City rescind the quick -take of the Bezates property, neither your letter, nor our research provides a legal mechanism to undertake such action. It is our understanding that Mr. Bezates and his legal counsel, Don Copple, would likely oppose any such action. The City appears to have little choice, short of complete indemnification by your client as requested above, but to wait and see the outcome of the BOR and DEQ final environmental decisions. I understand that there is a mitigation meeting scheduled next week with the City, DEQ, Westside Coalition, and your clients. We are hopeful that this meeting could provide some solutions agreeable to your clients, Westside Coalition, the City, DEQ and BOR while also addressing the concerns of all commmenters. We appreciate you taking the time to write your letter and visit with the City Council in executive session about your threatened litigation. Very truly yours, MOORE & McFADDEN, CHARTERED Susan E. Buxton SEB: de cc: City Council Bill Robertson, McCall City Manager Bureau of Reclamation Department of Environmental Quality TOO MAN-ORTON ENGINEERING CPANY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 9777 CHINDEN BOULEVARD BOISE, IDAHO 83714-2008 208-323-2288 • FAX 208-323-2399 March 26, 1999 Mr. Ronald J. Golus Snake River Area Office Bureau of Reclamation 214 Broadway Avenue Boise, ID 83702-7298 RE: J-DITCH PROJECT McCALL Dear Mr. Golus: MILLEMANN PITTENGER & MAR 2 9 1999 McMAHAN I am making the following list request under the Freedom of Information Act. This request is in conformance with our telephone discussion of March 10, 1999. You and your agency's prompt response to this request will be appreciated. 1. I would like a complete accounting of all grant funds administered by the Bureau of Reclamation under Cooperative Agreement 1425-8-FC-10-03720. This accounting should include all reimbursables to the City of McCall and to the Bureau of Reclamation of work accomplished on the project. 2. I would like a copy of the current Cooperative Agreement under negotiation between the City of McCall and the Bureau of Reclamation for the remaining $3.6 million. I understand this Agreement is in draft form and may be subject to change as negotiations proceed. 3. Was the current Cooperative Agreement modified in writing before the Seubert site was abandoned? 4. Is there any documentation for the decision to abandon the Seubert site? Can you direct me to any study, letter, memo, drawing or other work product that would justify abandoning the Seubert site? 5. The project goal, as stated on page 3 of 12 of the mentioned Cooperative Agreement, is to reduce phosphorous loading of Cascade Reservoir. The project, as contemplated, may remove McCall phosphorous loading from the Payette River, but it does not remove it from Cascade Reservoir and the Cascade Reservoir drainage. Please provide a copy of any letter, report, memo or other work product that demonstrated how the project objective of reducing phosphorous loading to Cascade Reservoir is to be accomplished? Exhibit 32 TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEEEG COMPANY o Mr. Ronald J. Golus March 26, 1999 Page -2- 6. I would like to obtain copies of all status reports filed with the Bureau of Reclamation. In particular, I am concerned with those status reports that document the City's compliance with state, local and federal requirements. 7. Can you supply copies of OMB Circular A-128? 8. The existing Cooperative Agreement provides that the $2.5 million administered by the Bureau of Reclamation may be used for land acquisition. Please provide a copy of the rules and regulations governing acquisition of land for this grant. 9. The existing Cooperative Agreement specifically requires the Bureau of Reclamation representative to make an interpretation of McCall's obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act, "If it is necessary to make changes to the non -irrigation effluent storage facilities plan of development ..." see page 8 of 12, item 2, Representative's Duties. In our discussion, you stated that you did not have any documentation for the change from the Seubert site to the Bezates site. Please provide any opinion or recommendation either prepared by or prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation relating to NEPA compliance including, but not limited to all correspondence, notes, e-mails and any other work product prepared or received by any Bureau of Reclamation employee relating to NEPA compliance by the City of McCall. 10. The "Responsibilities of the City of McCall", on page 4 of 12 of the current Agreement, required that the funded project must conform to "IN FACILITY PLAN REPORT AND ADDENDED REPORTS, prepared for the City of McCa11 by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Boise, Idaho, and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT document". Furthermore, one "Reclamation responsibility", page 3 of 12 is to "...ensure that the City fulfills its responsibilities as set forth in the agreement." Please provide any documentation that the Bureau of Reclamation has performed its responsibility to assure that the City of McCall pursued a project described in the referenced report? 11. Has either the Bureau of Reclamation or the City of McCall made a request to amend the Cooperative Agreement pursuant to Section 11.B, page 5 of 12 of the Agreement? Provide copies of all such requests. TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINE G COMPANY Mr. Ronald J. Golus March 26, 1999 Page -3- 12. Please provide all documentation you have performed under Section H, page 7 of 12 of this Cooperative Agreement. 13. Please provide copies of all scientific and administrative advice requested by the City of McCall and provided by the Bureau of Reclamation under Section 4 of 12 of the existing Cooperative Agreement. If you have any questions regarding these requests, please contact me directly. Sincerely, HMAN-ORTON F GINEERING COMPANY Richard F. Orton, Jr., PE/LS RFO:ps Cc: Steven J. Millemann File: I:\99008\wpf les - Golus letter 31099 99008-80-101 Apr-26-99 14:51 Toothman-Orton Eng Co. 208 323 2399 P.02 77aurel��,v� i otpatyeiie or na 4401111,. -�* oft: PN-7602 RIM-6.10 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Pacific Northwest Region 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100 Boise, Idaho 83706-1234 Mr. Richard F. Orton Toothman-Orton Engineering Company 9777 Chinden Blvd Boise ID 83714-2008 APR 23 1QQ° Subject: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (99-19) Dear Mr. Orton: This letter acknowledges your FOIA request of March 26, 1999 requesting documents on the J-Ditch Project McCall. We are taking a 10-day extension under 43 CFR 2.17(c) in order to properly process your request due to the need to consult with another agency. A final reply will be sent to you on or before May 7, 1999. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please feel free to call me at (208) 378-5120. Sincerely, Bruce J. Cassidy FOIA Officer sinning, Exhibit 33 CraD imma+c+f semau t� J MILLEMANN, PITTENGER & McMAHAN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 706 NORTH FIRST POST OFFICE BOX 1066 MCCALL, IDAHO 83638 STEVEN J. MILLEMANN GREGORY C. PITTENGER BRIAN L. McMAHAN AMY N. PEMBERTON Hand Delivered Kirk Eimers, Mayor City of McCall P.O. Box 986 McCall, Idaho 83638 Hand Delivered Bill Robertson, City Manager City of McCall P.O. Box 986 McCall, Idaho 83638 April 28, 1999 Hand Delivered Fefar,VB TELEPHONE (208) 634-7641 FACSIMILE (208) 634-4516 E-MAIL mpm@cyberhighway.net City Council Members City of McCall P.O. Box 986 McCall, Idaho 83638 Via Facsimile (2081331-1202. & via U.S. Mail 1 Susan E. Buxton & David H. Bieter Moore & McFadden 999 Main Street, Suite 910 Boise, ID 83702 Re: City of McCall CUP 99-2 Application; Application for Annexation and General Plan Amendment (J Ditch Storage Facility) Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing to you on behalf of M. Resorts Ltd., which owns property adjacent to the site of the proposed J Ditch Storage Facility. As such, M Resorts is an "affected person" within the purview of the Local Land Use Planning Act, Idaho Code 67-6521, as regards the City's aforesaid pending Applications. The purpose of this correspondence is to request the following: 1. That the City Council refrain from and disqualify itself from sitting in any quasi- judicial or decision -making capacity on the pending Applications, for the reason that to do otherwise will violate M Resorts' right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution, and for the further reason that the Council has a statutory conflict of interest on these Applications; 2. That, in the event that the Council should decline to disqualify itself, en banc, as aforesaid, then that Mayor Eimers disqualify himself from sitting in any decision -making or quasi-judicial capacity on the pending Applications, for the additional reason that Mayor Eimers' prior public and sworn statements regarding the subject of the Application preclude his ability to act impartially on the Applications. These pre -hearing public statements include, but are Exhibit 34 April 28, 1999 Mayor, City Manager, Councilmembers Buxton & Bieter Page-2 certainly not limited to: the Mayor's October 22, 1998 "Viewpoint" in the Star News ("We have concluded that locating the proposed effluent storage ponds on a 160 acre parcel less than one mile west of the existing ponds will serve our community for years to come ... We believe we have reached the best decision for our community after months of careful and deliberate review."); the Mayor's April 15, 1999 "Viewpoint" in the Star News titled ("The Reasons Bezates Site is Best for Ponds"); the Mayor's April 22, 1999 letter to the Editor of the Star News (stating the Mayor's reasons for voting to "... move the storage lagoons from the Seubert to the Bezates site"); and, the Mayor's sworn Affidavit, dated January 21, 1999, filed in the case of City of McCall v. Bezates Land & Cattle Co. (Valley County Case No. CV98-332C), in which the Mayor repeatedly states, under oath, that the Bezates site is the only site upon which the City can comply with Federal permits and construct the storage facility within budget. 3. That, in the event that the Council declines to disqualify itself, en banc, as aforesaid, then that Councilman Venable disqualify himself from participating in discussion or voting on the Applications, because Mr. Venable has a conflict of interest under Idaho Code, Section 67-6506, which provides that: A member or employee of a governing board, commission, or joint commission shall not participate in any proceeding or action when the member or employee or his employer, business partner, business(,) associate, or any person related to him by affinity or consanguinity within the second degree has an economic interest in the procedure or action. Any actual or potential interest in any proceeding shall be disclosed at or before any meeting at which the action is being heard or considered. A knowing violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor. Mr. Venable is employed by M Resorts. M Resorts has a direct economic interest in the outcome of these Applications, inasmuch as the value of the Whitetail property and the feasibility of the Whitetail project will be significantly diminished if the storage facility, as proposed, is built. 4. That the City's law firm, Moore & McFadden, recuse itself from representation of the City on matters related to these Applications, for the reasons outlined below. The following is an outline of the analysis and authority upon which these requests are based. The City of McCall has submitted two Applications for the J Ditch, Phase II Storage Facility Project. First, it has requested that the property which is the subject of the Applications be annexed into the City; and, second it has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to place the storage facility on the subject property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that, if the property is annexed, it should remain in its current R-10 and R-5 zones. The April 28, 1999 Mayor, City Manager, Counci members Buxton & Bieter Page - 3 Commission unanimously recommended that the CUP Application be denied. The issue is whether the Applications meet the standards of the McCall City Code and State law. The City of McCall has purchased the property which is the subject of the Applications through condemnation proceedings, for which it has to date paid $1,280,000.00. In her letter to me, dated March 18, 1999, the City's attorney, Susan Buxton, suggests that this action is irreversible. In the event that the CUP is turned down by the City Council, the investment made by the City of McCall is in grave jeopardy. While the City could resell the property in the event that its Applications are not approved, it risks incurring a major loss on its investment, as it has paid far in excess of fair market value for the property. The City's appraisal of the property (by Judy Leister) established a fair market value of $4,000.00 per acre, or a total of $640,000.00. Thus, if the City cannot now use this property for the storage facility, then, by the City's own appraisal, it risks losing $640,000.00 on a resale of the property. Additionally, the City has a deadline for completion of the project in order to obtain federal funding for the project. Although we find the position to be ill-founded, the City and its attorneys have consistently argued that failure to complete Cell One by October 1, 1999 will result in civil penalties of up to $25,000.00 per day. Given these facts, there is simply no way that the City Council can legally conduct its review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations impartially, without bias or predetermination, or as quasi-judicial decision -makers. To have the Council hear the Annexation and CUP Applications under these circumstances would run contrary to the Idaho Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. Boner County School District No. 82, 126 Idaho 490, 887 P.2d 35 (1994). In Johnson, the Supreme Court concluded "that a trial court may prevent a decisionmaker from participating in a due process hearing upon a showing that there is a probability that the decision maker will decide unfairly any issue presented in the hearing." Id. Quoting from Bowler v. Board of Trustees, 101 Idaho 537, 543, 617 P.2d 841, 847 (1980), the Supreme Court confirmed that "actual bias of a decisionmaker is constitutionally unacceptable." 126 Idaho at 493, 887 P.2d at 38. The Court then quoted from two US Supreme Court opinions, the first being Withrow v. Larkin, 421 US 35, 95 S. Ct. 1456 (1975): "Not only is a biased decisionmaker constitutionally unacceptable, but 'our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness."' 126 Idaho at 493, 887 P.2d at 38. Finally, quoting from Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 US 564, 93 S. Ct 1689 (1973), the Court acknowledged that "the inquiry was not whether the Board members were `actually biased. but whether. in the natural course of events. there is an indication of a Possible temptation to an averaee fnersonl sitting as a iudee to try the case with bias for or against any issue presented to [-the Personl."' 126 Idaho at 494, 887 P.2d at 39, emphasis added. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, § 13 of the Idaho Constitution, both expressly state that no person shall be deprived "of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Furthermore, "due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 13 of Idaho's Constitution, April 28, 1999 Mayor, City Manager, Coun i embers Buxton & Bieter Page - 4 envisions an opportunity, upon reasonable notice, for a fair hearing." Prather v. Loyd, 86 Idaho 45, 49-50, 382 P.2d 910 (1963). Although M Resorts' property will not be taken outright by these proceedings, it unquestionably has a constitutionally recognized and protected property interest which will be significantly affected by the outcome of these Applications. If the property owner's constitutional protections are not strictly followed, the Courts have consistently held the proceedings whereby said rights were taken to be ineffective, null and void. On point is Yellowstone Pipe Line Company v. Drummond, 77 Idaho 36, 287 P.2d 288 (1955). There, the Idaho Supreme Court reiterated that "due process of law envisions an opportunity upon reasonable notice for a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal," emphasizing that "due process of law is not necessarily satisfied by any process which the Legislature may by law provide, but by such process only as safeguards and protects the fundamental, constitutional rights of the citizen; ... rights cannot be denied or abridged in any manner except after due notice and a fair and impartial hearing before an unbiased tribunal." 77 Idaho at 41-42. Accord, Continental Oil Company v. City of Twin Falls, 49 Idaho 89, 106, 286 P.353 (1930); Bear Lake County v. Budge, 9 Idaho 703, 75 P. 614 (1904). See also, Angstman v. City of Boise, 128 Idaho 575, 917 P.2d 409 (Ct. App. 1996) (due process safeguards apply to quasi-judicial proceedings). In the instant case, in multiple Court submittals and in public and sworn statements, the City Council, the City Manager and their attorneys have vigorously argued their position that the subject property should be condemned, and at considerable expense. If the Applications are not approved, that very significant investment will be in great danger. Additionally, these same parties insist that anything less than a prompt commencement of the project will jeopardize grant funds and risk civil penalties. The facts establish that the Council, by its prior majority votes and resultant actions, is predisposed, if not compelled to approve the CUP; and, that in addition, Mayor Eimers' prior public and sworn statements create, at a bare minimum, actual bias by him in favor of the approval of the CUP There is simply no way that these parties can now "switch hats" and act as impartial fact finders. To purport to do so will not only deny my client the constitutional due process to which it is entitled, but will, further, subject the City and its officers to liability under United States Code 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Neither may attorneys of the firm Moore & McFadden, the City's current attorneys, represent it in the hearing, pursuant to Miller v. Ririe Joint School District No. 252, 99.4 ISCR 106 (February 16, 1999). In a prior action, Miller v. Board of Trustees, 99.1 ISCR 5, 1998 WL 887785 (December 22, 1998), Miller had sought to enjoin members of the Ririe School District Board from hearing discharge proceedings brought against her. Miller alleged that the School Board and its individual members were actually or probably biased, that they lacked impartiality, and that they had prejudged the issues in violation of her federal and state due process rights. Two of the of the five Board members were disqualified, but the remaining three were allowed to sit as decision makers at Miller's discharge hearing. Miller then sought, in the 1999 case, to 'April28, 1999 Mayor, City Manager, CouPmembers Buxton & Bieter Page - 5 enjoin the School District's attorneys from participating in the discharge proceedings on the basis that they had represented the Board members in the bias action. In deciding the case the district court discussed whether allowing the School District Attorneys to present the case against her after representing the Board in the bias action would create "an appearance of impropriety with violates Miller's due process rights." The district court also discussed Johnson, explaining that the case stands for the proposition "that a trial court may enjoin any imminent violation of due process in such a hearing," noting that there "exists in the present case the appearance of impropriety and the possibility of conscious, or even unconscious, bias on the part of the board in favor of the attorneys who represented them in a prior proceeding." The Supreme Court found that "[b]arring the participation of the School District Attorneys who had just represented the Board members in the bias action was the appropriate remedy." It went on to state that "[i]t was the bias of the Board that was at issue, not a conflict of interest on the part of the lawyers who were prosecuting the case. The School District Attorneys were clearly adversaries who were advocating a position against Miller. It was the possibility that the Board members might be biased in favor of the attorneys who had represented them recently in a proceeding by Miller challenging their fairness that created concerns which the district court addressed by issuing an injunction." In the instant case, Moore & McFadden have zealously and ably represented the City in its condemnation proceedings and the remainder of the hearings and proceedings surrounding the J. Ditch, Phase II Project. It is the possibility that the City Council might be biased in favor of Moore & McFadden, separate from any conflict of interest on the part of the attorneys that is at issue. In Miller, two of the five Board members were disqualified from sitting as decision makers at Miller's discharge hearing. It was likely, as would be the case here, that the remaining, apparently unbiased, Board members would be swayed by attorneys who had represented all of the Board, even those who had been found to be biased against Miller. For that reason, the City Attorneys may not advise any unbiased quasi-judicial fact finder that might hear the Applications. Finally, the City Council Members must refrain from participating in any discussion regarding or voting on the Applications pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6506. Again, that Section provides as follows: A member or employee of a governing board, commission, or joint commission shall not participate in any proceeding or action when the member or employee or his employer, business partner, business associate, or any person related to him by affinity or consanguinity with the second degree has an economic interest in the procedure or action. Any actual or potential interest in any proceeding shall , , .4pri128, 1999 Mayor, City Manager, Cou members Buxton & Bieter Page-6 be disclosed at or before any meeting at which the action is being heard or considered. A knowing violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor. Idaho Code § 67-6506, emphasis added. The Council Members' employer is the City of McCall. The City of McCall is not only the applicant, but also has a substantial economic interest in the outcome of the Applications. As such the Council Members have a conflict of interest, and may not vote on or participate in the proceedings. This reasoning does not suggest that the City Council would have a conflict on every application for which the City of McCall is the applicant. The important factor in the instant situation is that the City has a huge economic investment in the outcome; and it is perceived that only one outcome, namely approval, will protect that investment. In my twenty years of practice before Planning and Zoning Commissions, City Councils and Boards of County Commissioners in Valley County, this is the first time that I have been compelled to seek disqualification of a Council member or Commissioner. I do not so lightly. The singular entitlement that my client and any citizen has in matters such as these is the right to a fair and impartial decision maker on the fundamental question of whether these Applications meet the requirements of the McCall City Code and State law. As a result of your own actions, which we implored you not to take, you have removed yourselves from eligibility to serve in this capacity. Our disagreements on the merits of these Applications notwithstanding, you are legally and ethically bound to honestly acknowledge that you cannot do that which the law requires — namely, to deliberate without bias, predisposition or regard for the consequences of a denial of these Applications. I request that a response to the requests made herein be made by the Council, Mayor Eimers, Councilman Venable and Moore & McFadden, on the record, at the commencement of the May 1 public hearing. Very truly yours, SJ Jdm cc: Client C // l ma) , - 7 City of \AcCa Value Engineering and Financial Impact Analysis for the Wastewater Facility Improvement Project RH2 Engineering May 1998 Exhibit 3 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1- VE Process Recommendations 1 Section 2 — Financial Information 4 The Sanitary Sewer System: Department Revenue Summary and Departmental Budget Summary 4 Department Expenditure Summary — Sewer Fund 4 Fund 441 Sewer Fund Expenditures Detail 4 Appendix F — Project Costs 4 Appendix H — Project Costs (Accounts Administration) 4 Table 10 — Engineers Estimate of Annual O&M Costs 5 Wastewater Facilities Funding Summary — Phase I 5 Engineer's Preliminary Estimate of Construction Costs 5 Summary of Project or Equipment Requests — Capital Improvements Program 1998-2003 5 CIP from Public Works Director — September 11, 1997 5 Idaho Department of Health and Welfare — Repayment Schedule 5 Amortization Schedule — PLWSD Share of DEQ Revolving Loan for Wastewater Project 5 Loan Summary 6 Operating Fund Expenditure Summary 6 Department Revenue Summary — Sewer Fund 6 Fund 441 Sewer Fund Revenues Detail 6 Capital Fund Summaries 6 Connection Charge Calculation 6 Operating Fund Revenue Summary 7 Recommended Increases in Rates and Charges 7 Section 3 — Presentation of Project Status & Background by JUB Engineers Inc 8 City's wastewater treatment goal 8 Project Status 8 Service Area and Collection Systems 9 Description of WWT facilities prior to Facilities Planning 9 Population and Flow Projections 9 Future Flows and Wasteloads 10 Initial Evaluation of Alternatives 10 Slow Rate Alternatives Evaluated 10 Public Involvement Summary 14 Public Involvement and Conflict Resolution 14 VCSD & SCS & Irrigation District - Promote J-Ditch Alternative 15 Revised J-Ditch Alternative - Refined Slow Rate System Design Parameters 16 Regulatory Requirements 16 i CITY OF MCCALL VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Regulatory Requirements — 1995 DEQ Staff Evaluation 17 401 Water Quality Certification 17 Draft of Consent Order 18 Project Implementation 18 Revised J-Ditch Alternative - Facilities constructed to date 19 Revised J-Ditch Alternative -- Facilities under design 21 Saving Money 21 Saving Money -- High rate pilot study 21 Saving Money 22 Section 4 — VE Team Review of Proposed Project and Related Issues 23 Initial Group Statements, Issues and Concerns 23 Cascade Reservoir Issues 25 Review Project Goals and Objectives 28 Evaluation of the proposed future situation and design criteria for conformance to the goals and objectives of the project 28 Section 5 - Summary of Project Agreements and Unresolved Regulatory, Legal and Operational Issues 30 Section 6 - VE Team Development and Evaluation of Project Improvements and Alternatives 33 Primary Issues of Concern 33 Potential Litigation 33 Schedule Compliance 33 Best Possible Phosphorus Removal Processes 34 Endangered Species Act Impacts (related to river flow rates and removal of effluent discharge) 35 Definition of Emergency Discharge Under Proposed Project Agreements 35 Land Application Permit 36 Cost Summary Thusfar 37 Altemate Sites for Construction of Storage Lagoons 37 I&I Reduction 38 Summary of Recommendations for Minimizing Project Costs and Liability 39 Appendix A- Original Meeting Agenda Appendix B - JUB's Letter Dated April 23,1998 ii Section 1 — VE Process Recommendations VE PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations were reached by the Value Engineering (VE) Team during the three-day value engineering process which focused on Phase II of the J-Ditch project, specifically the development of lagoon capacity for the purpose of storing wastewater accumulated during non -irrigation months. As most recently developed by JUB Engineers (the engineer of record), the project estimated cost for Phase II is 6.8 million dollars; further, this work must be under contract by September 30, 1998 in order to meet the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) grant funding requirements. It is emphasized that the primary purpose of value engineering is to determine if improvements to the current alternative can be made and, if not, to so state. As a result of the three-day effort, it was concluded that the City of McCall should implement the following conclusions and recommendations in an expedited manner. 1. Reduce Inflow and Infiltration (I&I). The Payette Lake Water and Sewer District (PLW&SD) operates and maintains both the District and City collection systems and has concluded that minimal I&I exists in the District's system, since it is newer while substantial I&I exists in some parts of the City system. Specifically, an example of one area within the City's system, which under peak conditions, experienced approximately 200 gallons per minute of I & I could be replaced for 5134,000.00 based on District estimates. In performing calculations during the VE process, it was concluded that approximately three times the estimated cost could be saved by reducing the size of the lagoons, planned for Phase II of the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, the savings in operations and maintenance (O&M) costs over the next 20 years are likely to exceed the capital costs for I&I reduction. Further, Mr. Ted Whiteman, manager of PLW&SD, indicated that within one month additional prioritization including cost and estimated flow reduction for those areas of the City's system with highest I&I could be listed so that this can be considered in sizing of the lagoons and cost savings where available and justified can be obtained. The final consideration regarding I&I reduction is that this should be a continuing long term pursuit on the part of the City and District to determine the points in time where it is cost effective to reduce I&I. 2. Schedule Analysis. An evaluation of the time available for specific components of the currently planned approach, which is the conventional design, bid, and construct sequence for project accomplishment reveals, that there is approximately a six week period for concluding the property acquisition whereas initially it was believed that the City was behind schedule. Specific components of the project timeline were obtained from JUBs work plan/schedule. It was further concluded that, should the City not have the property acquired or at least an option to purchase the property, the City then should pursue 1) a design/construct process, or 2) privatization which includes design/build/operate and maintain, or 3) a time extension with the BOR and DEQ so that the same treatment process or an alternative may be pursued. 3 Negotiation Property Acquisition Based on Alternative Sites. In addition to the only site previously pursued, the VE team concluded that a second site, which for the purpose of avoiding value changes will remain unidentified, should be pursued since it appears to be a superior site in many respects. Comparison of the two alternative sites (Site 1 and Site 2) 1 CITY OF MCCALL/ VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS documented the advantages and disadvantages and corresponding value adjustments so that a bottom line comparison could be made. The result of this comparison revealed that Site 2 would save the City approximately $500,000 when comparing a completed lagoon project at each site. This is based on a number of different factors that are listed in other sections of this report; however the specific cost adjustments are not included so that the City's ability to negotiate is not impaired. 4. Pursue Land Application Permit. The currently planned approach does not include acquisition of a land application permit for the treatment plant effluent to be spray irrigated at various locations downstream of the plant. In order to avoid having to obtain a land application permit, the plant effluent must be diluted to less than 1/3 of the total irrigation flow which has substantial impact on the storage lagoon size and the frequency of "emergency discharges". Storage lagoon sizing is dependant on the timing of the area growing season and considering that there are approximately 100 days in an average year available for irrigation, it is important that effluent application begin as early as possible in the spring. The storage lagoon and irrigation systems were designed for average years. In wet years, irrigation requirements can be reduced by as much as half of an average year. Since the available area for effluent application and the dilution rate is limited, the total annual flow to the irrigation system will also be limited in wet years. When irrigation requirements are less than average, effluent discharge to the River or other locations will be necessary in order to maintain adequate storage capacity for the next storage season. The VE team concluded that the City, on behalf of those properties who will be using plant effluent, should pursue a land application permit in order to increase the dilution rate as needed to fully utilize all of the effluent for irrigation in wet years. 5. Pursue Design/Construction or Privatization. Design/Construction combines the contract for accomplishing these two elements of the project and in doing so provides 1) a shorter time frame for meeting the BOR grant requirements and 2) virtually eliminates the possibility of change orders since the contractor doing the design is also constructing the facility. Privatization is an extension of the design/construct approach and can include operation and maintenance and/or ownership for a specified period of time with transfer to the City at the end of the specified term. All of these alternatives are available to the City and should the property acquisition not be completed by May 14, 1998, as described previously, the City should then utilize one of the two alternatives listed here. 6. Pursue Additional Work and Negotiate Contract Modifications for Such. During the course of the VE process, it was determined 'that specific agreements including the consent order with the DEQ, the grant agreement with the BOR, and other agreements need additional information included or modifications so that these agreements are workable on both a long and short term basis. As an example, the City has extended a comprehensive indemnification to those farmers who spray irrigate with effluent. This indemnification potentially carries enormous cost exposure for the City. Unfortunately, it will be arguable as to whether the City truly has contributed to the further contamination or any other undesirable/unacceptable consequence of the spray irrigation. This is unrealistic considering that the plant effluent is water that can be used for irrigation and also contains nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) which in part substitute for the fertilizer requirement in order to grow crops. The VE team concluded that a comprehensive review of these agreements needs to be accomplished so that all financial, 2 VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT YSIS O SECTION 1 technical and legal exposures are identified for consideration by the City Council in making their policy decisions. 7. Pursue Public Education Processes. Many stakeholders in the Cascade Reservoir Watershed are actively pursuing and implementing phosphorus control activities. For example, the state is constructing artificial wetlands to capture phosphorus from some of the tributary streams. Sewer districts have been formed at both the north and south ends of the reservoir. The North Lake Sewer and Water District has successfully converted many homes from septic systems to sewers. The south sewer district is pursuing the same. A number of farmers and ranchers have already converted from flood irrigation to spray irrigation systems. Forestry Best Management Practices have been developed and are being implemented. There has been citizen involvement in these processes through the formation of the Cascade Reservoir Coordinating Council and Subwatershed Work Groups. However, during the VE process, it was evident that the general public, as well as agencies are not fully informed about the phosphorus control and reservoir management activities taking place in the watershed. The Department of Fish and Game noted that recreational use of the reservoir has been declining due to the persistent negative publicity and stigma regarding water quality in the reservoir. An aggressive, proactive, and positive public education and media program should be implemented. Such a program will increase awareness across the state regarding the problems and the many proactive and positive actions being pursued. Public awareness is key to gaining volunteer support, funding, enthusiasm and cooperation. 8. Emphasis on Long Term Management. Reclamation of the reservoir is a long term process which will require the commitment and energy of many people for years to come. The City is investing substantial financial resources to address a relatively small component of the reservoir degradation. In order to truly achieve reservoir reclamation, the many nonpoint sources of pollution in the watershed need to be addressed and in -lake treatments may be needed. The City is encouraged to promote and assist with other watershed phosphorus control activities. 9. Support State Program for Monitoring, Improving Knowledge of Reservoir/Watershed. The City actively support efforts by the state, University of Idaho, Soil Conservation Service and others to monitor the watershed streams, groundwater, the reservoir, soils etc. to enhance and expand our knowledge of the watershed. Only through continuously tracking the status of the watershed, and defining the effectiveness of Best Management Practices and other phosphorus reduction activities, can the City and other stakeholders effectively make management decisions for long term water quality improvement. 10. Utilize Valley Resources, Volunteers and Local, Highly Trained Individuals. During the VE process, it was brought out that there are many highly educated and skilled citizens in the City and watershed as a whole. Through public education and awareness efforts, citizens should be encouraged to participate and volunteer to assist with on -going watershed management, reservoir stewardship, and public relations activities. 3 U Z O U w Z Z O-J _o U w N�y ccU�� CO fY Z z 00 J U0 - Z < p oo r , Q cnF- `.1 2 a z w O c m }-- LL 2 Oo Z� OM I'- w-- 2 4 2 a. U 0 LL w J T U (I) ¢ J N CRITICAL PATH ITEMS QJ 3 co 1) Site Negotiation Q O C °' asv y 2 L t=i co < w Q 0 €O U cr a N < N >, Q V) O U a o O m U '5 <C a) O) V) (Q C7 Section 2 — Financial Information lNANCIAL INFORMA TI This chapter includes a financial analysis of the City of McCall sanitary sewer utility. The following tables were used to calculate rate and connection charge increases necessary to cover expected costs. The accuracy of the financial analysis is limited to the accuracy and availability of existing financial information. THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM: DEPARTMENT REVENUE SUMMARY AND DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET SUMMARY These tables were provided from the City to show historic and projected revenues and expenditures. The tables include values for both the operating and capital funds. These tables show that expenditures from the sewer utility have historically been more than revenues. DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURE SUMMARY - SEWER FUND This table summarizes the budget information provided from the City for the years 1992 through 1998. Both operating and capital expenditures are included in this table. FUND 441 SEWER FUND EXPENDITURES DETAIL This table shows the detailed expenditure information provided from the City for the years 1992 through 1995. Colors on this table correspond to those shown on the table entitled Department Expenditure Summary — Sewer Fund. Both operating and capital expenditures are included in this table. APPENDIX F - PROJECT COSTS This table is from the Seventh Amendment to the O&M Agreement between the City of McCall and Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District. These costs were included in the Operating Fund Expenditure table. APPENDIX H - PROJECT COSTS (ACCOUNTS ADMINISTRATION) This table is from the Seventh Amendment to the O&M Agreement between the City of McCall and Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District. These costs were included in the Operating Fund Expenditure table. 4 SECTION 2 PARTICIPANTS & MEETING AGENDA TABLE 10 - ENGINEERS ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL O&M COSTS This table is from Book 1 of the Facility Plan Report, dated. January 1995. WASTEWATER FACILITIES FUNDING SUMMARY - PHASE 1 This table summarizes the costs for design and construction of Phase I, as well as the revenues received for funding of Phase I. This table was originally prepared by the City of McCall on March 12, 1998. ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS These two tables show the estimated costs for the design, construction, and related costs associated with the implementation of Phase II of the J-Ditch project. In the financial spreadsheets, $100,000 was added to the Phase II estimate for disinfection, and $51,000 was added for value engineering. SUMMARY OF PROJECT OR EQUIPMENT REQUESTS - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1998-2003 This table was supplied by the City of McCall City Engineer and revised by RH2 Engineering to reflect most recent estimates. While the table shows a partial breakdown of the costs for J-Ditch Phase II, only the total cost of $6.9 million was used in calculations. The total cost of capital improvements over the next six years is approximately $8.5 million. CIP FROM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR - SEPTEMBER 11, 1997 This table was prepared by the City of McCal 's Public Works Director, and was supplied to RH2 Engineering by PLWSD. This table was not used in the calculation of future capital expenses. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE - REPAYMENT SCHEDULE This table shows the debt service schedule for the $3.14 million loan from DEQ to the City of McCall. The table was provided by DEQ to RH2 Engineering. AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE - PLWSD SHARE OF DEQ REVOLVING LOAN FOR WASTEWATER PROJECT This table shows the debt service schedule for the $0.6 million loan from the City of McCall to PLWSD for the District's share of the wastewater treatment plant improvements. The City provided the table to RH2 Engineering. 5 CITY OF MCCALL VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSI(114 S LOAN SUMMARY This table summarized the loan information for the loan from DEQ to the City and the loan from the City of McCall to PLWSD. OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY The Operating Fund Expenditure Summary shows the annual costs for operating the City's sanitary sewer utility. Actual numbers were used for values prior to 1998, and estimates were used for future years. Although capital outlay is shown on this table, costs for capital improvements are actually deducted from the capital fund. Depreciation is also shown on this table for comparison purposes. Much of the City's operating fund expenditures are paid to Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District for O&M services. DEPARTMENT REVENUE SUMMARY SEWER FUND This table summarizes the revenue information provided from the City for the years 1992 through 1998. Both operating and capital revenue are included in this table. FUND 441 SEWER FUND REVENUES DETAIL This table shows the detailed revenue information provided from the City for the years 1992 through 1995. Colors on this table correspond to those shown on the table entitled Department Revenue Summary — Sewer Fund. Both operating and capital revenues are included in this table. CAPITAL FUND SUMMARIES The Capital Fund Summaries show the annual costs and revenues for the City's capital improvement projects. Actual numbers were used for values prior to 1998, and estimates were used for future years. The capital expenses are summarized in the CIP table provided by the City of McCall. The capital revenue consists of state grants for capital projects. DEQ is expected to provide the City with 5.2 million dollars within the next two years for the implementation of Phase II of the J-Ditch project. Included in these tables are estimates of bond proceeds and payments. The debt service is for the bond proceeds plus an additional three percent to cover the administrative costs of selling bonds. CONNECTION CHARGE CALCULATION This table shows the sanitary sewer connection charge that must be collected from new customers for their share of the existing collection system. The estimated system value was divided equally among the projected number of system connections to determine the connection charge. The 6 SECTION 2 PARTICIPANTS & MEETING AGENDA system value was estimated from the existing system value plus the cost of the capital improvements over the next six years. The necessary connection charge was calculated to be $5,927. OPERATING FUND REVENUE SUMMARY The Operating Fund Revenue Summary shows the revenue received for the operations of the sanitary sewer utility. Actual numbers were used for values prior to 1998, and estimates were used for future years. Although intergovernmental revenues and bond proceeds are shown on this table, funds from these sources are actually used for capital expenditures. The majority of the operating fund revenue is comprised of charges for services, in the form of monthly rate revenue and connection charges. Other components of operating fund revenue include miscellaneous revenue, other financing sources, and a payment from Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District for the District's portion of the wastewater treatment plant improvements. The table also shows the rate and connection charge increases necessary for the next six years. With 'two 25-percent rate increases and one 18.9-percent increase, we estimate that the City will have sufficient operating revenue for the next six years. The sanitary sewer connection charge increases each year until fiscal year 2002-2003, when it reaches the necessary connection charge of $5,927. RECOMMENDED INCREASES IN RATES AND CHARGES The following table summarizes the rate increases and connection charge increases necessary to cover expected costs within the next six years. Monthly Rate Increase Monthly Rate Connection Charge Increase Connection Charoe Recommended Increases in Rates and Charges FY 1997-98 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Existing Estimated 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 $ 4.63 $ 5.78 $ 5.46 $ - $ - $ - $18.50 $ 23.13 $ 28.91 $ 34.36 $ 34.36 $ 34.36 $ 34.36 $ 625 $ 781 $ 737 $ 464 $ 511 $ 308 $2,500 $ 3,125 $ 3,906 $ 4,643 $ 5,108 $ 5,619 $ 5,927 7 Department Revenue Summary Sewer Fund Account Group FY 1995-96 FY 1996-97 FY 1997-98 Percent Change Actual Budget Budget Charges for Services $505,810 $514,050 $538,410 5% Intergovernmental Revenues $1,400,000 $95,000 -93% Miscellaneous $118,584 $108,480 $60,000 -45% Other Financing Sources $17,172 $3,250,000 -100% Totals 5641,566 $5,272,530 $693,410 -87% Departmental Budget Summary Sewer Fund Account Group Personal Services Supplies and Materials Contracted Services Utilities' (Repairs -Other Services and Charges Capita( Outlay Depreciation Debt Service Other Financing Uses Total FY 1995-96 Actual $78,927 FY 1996-97 FY 1997-98 Budget Budget Percent Change $77,095 $94,000 22% $20,381 $33,6601 $27,990 -17% $33,188 $162,290 $279,950 72% $46,246 $49,870 $49,870 0% $158,185 ' $40,820 $43,380 6% $1,363,815 $6,539,420 S2,672,500 -59% $145,951 $145,000 512,907 $130, 000 S- 538,415 S 1,859,600 $7,216,570 $175,000 $238,700 S-1 $3, 581, 390 21% 84% -100% -50% �rr�M F'•SC� cr,r 0c\, -0\a Anr, Q TT tT OD.- N CO CM O CO O O I- N ODL1N) Cto , La1) } < .- Il 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 64a9 69 O Cy) CD CO O VD COD 0 N m N CO O CO O , �4 Q) C7) 0) Cf) Cf) C*) co C`') CG CD LA-r) a) Q) -Cr CO r Cr) CO rr CO } m Cn Il 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 >tc:. CA COOCO CO O CO N N C) 0 CD E O O �- N CO O Cr) O 1- CO c7 7 O V CD r V O N N r N cn Q r , CO } 3 13 Il 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 64d9 69 r =lL O N 0 0 0 LC) N m L. N CO CA V 1� O -Q7 CO )[ Q CO O O CO -tYNi a) Uj to , m N �N CO OG7CO N 69 69 69 E9 69 Nb 69 i rn O O u) :°> tor) Ix) ea in O In O N tt .O Cn t1 , 1. f� 1� O -.; CV.11 N m .- CO N O CO _; inia_ 0 CJ) = .- N O CO m . Cn 69 69 69 69 69 - 69 N_ 1- 'Cl" V-- CA :7, r cII CV CD 1� Cr) CV ;;..rap.^ O O 0) CV I) O r — - O Q CO ti :-� 0 69 69 69 619 69 T. 69 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 CM Orn OD 0 OO M rn N c) u.) ^ a) - O N v co CO O N CO N LC) } m N OD LI 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6.#0 69 n CA a) CO N r- N N 0 0 -- ^O CO m O CD N CO CO MI 0 vC Cn a) C7) f� M CV Q) O. a) O O Ct=O CO r) "O I`,M CO er coM c Cf) - - N } m CO n LI 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 .. 69 O r- - CO co to 1� O N CO CO CO O O O O FY FY 1992-93 Account Group Personal Services Supplies and Materials Contracted Services Repairs -Other Services and Charges Depreciation Debt Service caw) n .iD VZV) 1c=") CTVIS CIXIM data\mcc\198-018\Budget Data.xls, Budget 5/11/98, 11:15 AM 21 F441 Sewer Fund Expenditures Detail Current Year Next Year Prior Year Amended Current Year Adopted Actual Budget Estimate Budget (1992-1993) (1993-1994) (1993-1994) (1994-1995) 135.020 Sewer Collection 4000 Personal Services 423.000 Worker's Compensation $ 403 $ - Total Personal Serwices $ $ $ 4300 Supplies and Materials 432.000 Department Supplies $ 3,885 $ 2,030 $ 2,030 $ 3,500 437.000 Postage $ - $ 1,525 $ 1,525 $ 1,525 Total Supplies and Materials $ 3,885 $ 3,555 $ 3,555 $ 5,025 4400 Contracted Service's 442.200 Engineering $ 9,205 $ 9,050 $ 9,050 $ 14,000 442.220 Sewer Master Plan $ - $ - $ - $ 442.600 Software Service A.greement $ 120 $ - $ - $ Total Contracted Services $ 9,325 $ 9,050 $ 9,050 $ 14,000 4500 Utilities 452.000 Heat, Lights, and U tilities Total Utilities $ 15,000 4600 Repairs. Other Services & Chas 450.000 Repairs - Buildings and Grounds 461.000 Repairs - Other Equipment 461.001 Repairs - Aspen Market Station 1 461.002 Repairs - Timberlost IV Station 2 461.004 Repairs - E. Lake Street Station 4 461.006 Repairs - Yacht Cluib Station 6 461.007 Repairs - River Station 7 461.008 Repairs - Rio Vista Station 8 461.009 Repairs - Rio Vista Station 9 461.011 Repairs - Floyd Street Station 11 461.012 Repairs - Smitty Avenue Station 12 461.020 Repairs - Emergencies 461.02A Repairs - Forestry Loop Station 2A 461.04A Repairs - Mill Park Station 4A 461.05A Repairs - Pine/Roosevelt Station 5A 461.07A Repairs - 100 kw Generator 7A 461.09A Repairs - 300 kw Generator 9A 461.10A Repairs - Portable Generator 10A Total Repairs, Othei r Services & Chgs 4700 Capital Outlay 476.070 Radio Repeater Total Capital Outlayr 4790 Depreciation 479.100 Depreciation - Buildi ings 479.200 Depreciation - Improvements 479.300 Depreciation - Equipment Total Depreciation $ 88 $ $ 1,503 $ $ - $ $ 5 $ $ 164 $ $ 30 $ $ 409 $ $ 453 $ $ 918 $ $ 982 $ $ - $ $ 3,641 $ $ - $ $ - $ $ 49 $ $ 29 $ $ 2,129 $ $ 1,740 $ 14,161 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 13,000 750 $ 750 $ 1,000 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 26,000 100 $ 100 $ 700 $ 700 $ 100 $ 100 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 200 $ 200 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 200 $ 200 $ 100 $ 100 $ 6,500 $ 6,500 $ 50 $ 50 $ $ 23,900 .:... $ 4,561 $ $ $ $ 4,561 $ - $ $ $ 390 $ 400 $ 400 $ 400 $ 76,338 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 2,612 $ 300 $ 300 $ 300 $ 79,340 $ 80,700 $ 80,700 $ 80,700 5/12/98, 5:27 PM data\mcc\198.018\Budget Data.xls, Expenditure Detail 3 4800 480.060 480.061 480.070 480.071 4900 490.100 490.200 135.070 4700 471.000 473.000 473.070 473.120 473.130 473.370 473.420 473.430 473.460 473.470 476.420 476.430 135.040 4000 411.000 411.010 411.020 411.030 411.040 415.000 419.000 421.000 421.100 422.000 423.000 425.000 425.100 428.000 Debt Service Principal - Deinhard Agreement Interest - Deinhard Agreement Principal - Treatment Plant Interest - Treatment Plant Total Debt Service Other Financina Uses Management Transfer Public Works Transfer Total Other Financing Uses Total Sewer Collection Sewer Collection Capital Improvements Capital Outlay Land Improvements Other than Bldg Boydstun-Dienhard Main Airport Sewer Project Kasper Street Line Replacement Concept One Sewer Project Shiner Creek Syphon Mather Road Project Highway 55 Lift Station Mill Park Village Line Generator Set Upgrade Lift Station 8 Total Capital Outlay Total Sewer Collection Capital Improvements Wastewater Treatment Plant Personal Services Salaries - Regular Sick Pay Vacation Pay Compensatory Pay Holiday Pay Salaries - Part Time / Temp. Salaries - Overtime F.I.C.A. Taxes Medicare Taxes Employer's Retirement Worker's Compensation Group Health Insurance Group Dental Insurance Unemployment Insurance Total Personal Services 4300 Supplies and Materials 432.000 Department Supplies 435.000 Motor Fuels and Lubricants Prior Year Actual Next Year Adopted Budget (1992-1993) (1993-1994) (1993-1994) (1994-1995) CuTf'ent Year Amended Current Year Budget Estimate $ (212) $ $ 4,991 $ $ - $ $ 6,518 $ $ 11,297 $ 2,265 $ 4,400 $ 5,285 $ 4,075 $ 16,025 $ 2,265 $ 4,400 $ 5,285 $ 4,075 $ 16,025 $ $ 46,140 $ 32,865 $ 32,865 $ 55,430 $ 42,400 $ 42,400 1 $ 75,265 $ 236,682 $ 223,495 $ 223,495 $ - $ $ 203 $ 6,000 $ $ $ 983 $ 70,000 $ $ 5,000 $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ 1,186 $ 81,000 $ 1,186 $ 81,000 2,465 4,240 5,600 3,750 16,055 $ 25,275 $ 57,200 $ 238,255 - $ 6,000 $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,000 $ $ 11,000 21,500 115,000 6,900 23,000 47,000 19,000 42,000 108,000 382,400 $ 382,400 $ 33,590 $ 36,260 $ 36,260 $ 39,375 $ 587 $ 1,450 $ 1,450 $ 2,390 $ 2,548 $ 2,925 $ 2,925 $ 3,120 $ 208 $ - $ $ 955 $ 1,396 $ 2,200 $ 2,200 $ 1,910 $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ $ 2,350 $ 2,660 $ 2,660 $ 2,660 $ 550 $ 625 $ 625 $ 715 $ 3,695 $ 4,340 $ 4,340 $ 4,340 $ 1,815 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,896 $ 4,090 $ 4,090 $ 5,290 $ 278 $ 420 $ 420 $ 460 $ - $ 750 $ 750 $ 1,000 111.11.1.11.111. $ 57,220 $ 690 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 932 $ 560 $ 560 $ 800 5/12/98, 5:27 PM data\mcc\198.018\Budget Dataxls, Expenditure Detail 438,000 Chemicals Total Supplies and Materials 4400 Contracted Services 442.030 Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests 442.200 Engineering 442.950 Professional Services - HazMat Cleanup 447.000 Travel and Meeting 448.000 Dues, Subscriptions, Memberships 449.000 Personnel Training Total Contracted Services 4500 Utilities 451.000 Telephone and Communications 452.000 Heat, Lights, and Utilities Total Utilities 4600 Repairs. Other Services & Chas 459.000 Repairs - Buildings and Grounds 460.000 Repairs - Automotive Equipment Total Repairs, Other Services & Chgs 4700 Capital Outlay. 472.080 Equipment Storage Bay 473.360 Sludge Handling System 474.100 Computer Equipment 475.030 Automotive Equipment - Push Mower 475.200 Tractor 476.080 Sickle Mower 476.280 Septage Waste Management Sys. 476.290 Pump Shroud / Shed Total Capital Outlay 135.140 4400 442.210 Total Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP Capital Improvements Contracted Services Engineering Facility Plan Total Contracted Services 4600 Repairs. Other Services & Chgs 461.100 Repairs - WWTP Total Repairs, Other Services & Chgs 4700 473.150 473.440 Capital Outlay WWTP Aeration System Upgrade Sand Fitter Replacement Total Capital Outlay Total WWTP Capital Improvements Total Sewer Fund Expenditures Prior Year Actual (1992-1993) $ 3,717 $ 5,339 60 72 458 590 Curr'ear Amended Budget (1993-1994) $ 4,000 $ 7,560 $ 3,000 $ 7,500 $ 400 $ 100 $ 650 $ 11,650 Current Year Estimate (1993-1994) $ 4,000 $ 7,560 $ 3,000 $ 7,500 $ 400 $ 100 $ 650 $ 11,650 Next Year Adopted Budget (1994-1995) $ 4,000 $ 8,800 $ 6,000 $ 7,500 $ 300 $ 300 $ 200 $ 600 $ 14,900 $ (125) $ 420 $ 420 $ 550 $ 27,943 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,000 $ 28,420 $ 3,658 $ $ 1,069 $ 1,200 $ 1,000 $ 20,000 1,000 750 21,750 1,200 $ 3,000 1,000 $ 2,000 2,200 $ - $ $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 1,000 $ $ - $ 2,000 $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ $ $ 6,000 $ 750 $ $ 21,750 $ 38,000 $ 89,387 $ 128,800 $ 128,800 $ 158,965 $ 72,881 $ 108,000 $ 108,000 $ $ 72,881 $ 108,000 $ 108,000 $ $ 72,881 $ 108,000 $ 108,000 $ $ 400,136 $ 541,295 $ 471,295 $ 779,620 5/12/98, 5:27 PM data\rncc\198.018\Budget Dataxls, Expenditure Detail Appendix F PROJECT COSTS (Collection System) (W.W. Treatment Plant) Personnel Costs: Lead Operator $40,111.88 $ 0.00 Operator(s) 30,761.72 $ 94,150.00 Management (Misc.) 23,000.00 $ 33,780.00 Summer Temporary Help 8,400.00 0.00 Total Personnel $102,273.60 $127,930.00 Transportation Costs: Pickup (per year) Fuel - $200.00/mo. (includes mileage allow) Accessories Maintenance Costs: Department Supplies: City budget figure Repair Costs : Minor Equipment: (City Budget Figure) (City Budget Figure) Telephone/Telemetry Costs: Service Cost TOTAL COSTS PROJECTED 5,159.88 2,400.00 3,000.00 $ 3,540.00 $ 8,000.00 6,850.00 $ 9,900.00 27,540.00 ' $ 23,780.00 / 5,000.00 $ 1,470.00 $155,763.48 $171,080.00 11 1 Appendix G PROJECT COSTS (WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT) As per City of McCall Budget Fund: 441Sewer Fund Dept: 135.040 Wastewater Treatment Plant $171,080 (per FY'97 Budget) Note: Amount shown above excludes power costs($31,000), and includes $10,000 of line 490.100, and $15,000 of line 490.200 (City of McCall FY'97 Budget) 12 Appendix H PROJECT COSTS (ACCOUNTS ADMINISTRATION) Personnel Costs A. Accounts Receivable 1. . Accnt's Receivable Clerk (Salary + Benefits) $24,676 B. Accounts Payable 1. Accnt's Payable Clerk (Salary + Benefits) $ 8.300 sub -total $32,976 ✓ II. Equipment Costs (Capital Purchase) A. Computer Hardware $ 3,000 B. Computer Software $ 2,500 C. Office Fumiture/Configuration $ 3.000 sub -total $ 8,500 III. Total (I. & II) $41,476 V Note: Account Administration task shall be effective not sooner than 3 months following ratification of City of McCall sewer user rate increase. Implementation costs shall be pro -rated to reflect appropriate fiscal timing for the task. 13 1 - . 1 l' r . Y Addendum #1 (Implementation Schedule) The terms of the 7th Amendment reflect dates of implementation to match the Fiscal Year of the City of McCall, namely, October 1st to September 30th of each year. The effective date of the collection system portion of the 7th Amendment shall be as described above. The effective date of the implementation of the Wastewater Treatment Facility operations portion of the 7th Amendment shall be January 1 of 1998. The appropriate budget adjustments to the fiscal portions of the Amendment which reflect Treatment Plant operations shall be pro -rated accordingly. The pro -rating shall reflect budgeted and utilized portions of the Facility's budget and shall be negotiated and modified to the satisfaction of both parties. After implementation of the Jan. 1, 1998 effective date of the Treatment Facility operation, the subsequent date of implementation for the 7th Amendment shall be Oct. 1 to match the City of McCall's normal Fiscal Year Process. Addendum #1 effective, date, , 199E Signed ( ! ( 4v Payette J./ es Wate d Sewer District date /vie: 7 City of McCall 14 of g� date t 1 0 • TABLE 10 Engineers Estimate of Annual O&M Costs J-Ditch Alternative Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost Labor 1 LS $65,000 $65,000 Lagoon Maintenance 1 LS $7,200 $7,200 Treatment Plant Power 1 LS $45,000 $45,000 _ Pumping Cost _ 1 LS $23,413 $23,413 Basin Maintenance 1 LS $12,000 $12,000 PumpMaintenance 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Effluent Line Maintenance 22,120 LF $0.35 $7,742 Storage Lagoon Maintenance 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Equalization Basin Maintenance 1 LS $8,000 $8,000 Monitoring 3,000 Per ACRE $0 - $0 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST : $187,400 City of McCaII Wastewater Facilities Funding Summary Phase 1 Receipts -To-Date DEQ Challenge Grant DEQ Loan Pay Request #1 DEQ Loan Pay Request #2 DEQ Loan Pay Request #3 DEQ Loan Pay Request #4 DEQ Loan Pay Request #5 DEQ Loan Pay Request #6 DEQ Loan Pay Request #7 DEQ Loan Pay Request #8 J-Ditch Partial #1 (BOR Grant) J-Ditch Partial #2 (BOR Grant) J-Ditch Partial #3 (BOR Grant) J-Ditch Partial #4 (BOR Grant) Eamings on Invested Funds Total Received to Date (3-24-98) Future DEQ Loan IDWR Grant Supplemental (BOR) Grant Total Future Receipts Total Receipts Payments -To-Date DEQ Return of Fee for 2nd Opinion JUB Facility Plan JUB Engineering Basic Fees JUB Project Inspection Bezates Const. Sand Filter Rehab. Warrington Const. J-Ditch Idaho Power - Paid by JDPAI Valley Soil & Water District PR #1 Valley Soil & Water District PR #2 Valley Soil & Water District PR #3 Valley Soil & Water District PR #4 Valley Soil & Water District PR #5 Valley Soil & Water District PR #6 Valley Soil & Water District PR #7 Valley Soil & Water District PR #8 Total Paid to Date (3-24-98) Future Warrington Const. J-Ditch Bezates Const. Sand Filter Rehab. JDPAI Engineering, Etc. JUB Valley Soil & Water District Total Future Payments Total Payments Net Receipts To -Date Future Total DEQ Loan $ 142,223.00 $ 395,780.00 $ 425,994.00 $ 342,213.00 $ 245,920.00 $ 571,023.00 $ 261,168,00 $ 187,193.00 $ 2,571,514.00 $ 569,336.00 $ 569,336.00 Grants $ 1,020,000.00 $ 350,000.00 $ 600,000.00 $ 400,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 116,150.00 $ 2,546,150.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 1,090,000.00 $ 1,190,000.00 Total 1,020,000.00 142,223.00 395,780.00 425,994.00 342,213.00 245,920.00 571,023.00 261,168.00 187,193.00 350,000.00 600,000.00 400,000.00 60,000.00 116,150.00 5,117,664.00 $ 569,336.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 1,090,000.00 $ 1,759,336.00 $ 3,140,850.00 $ 3,736,150.00 $ 6,877,000.00 DEQ Loan Grants Total $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 245,920.00 $ 245,920.00 $ 243,451.00 $ 243,451.00 $ 114,103.93 $ 114,103.93 $ 988,497.50 $ 988,497.50 $ 920,998.62 $ 920,998.62 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 651,304.12 $ 651,304.12 $ 402,575.15 $ 402,575.15 $ 454,532.96 $ 454,532.96 $ 441,824.67 $ 441,824.67 $ 239,777.35 $ 239,777.35 $ 52,205.44 $ 52,205.44 $ 182,967.95 $ 182,967.95 $ 94,762.99 $ 94,762.99 $2,512,971.05 $ 2,639,950.63 $ 5,152,921.68 $ 268,163.13 $ 2,879.50 $ 26,635.00 $ 297,677.63 S 2,810,648.68 DEQ Loan $ 58,542.95 $ 271,658.37 $ 330,201.32 $ 251,397.00 $ 350,800.00 $ 602,197.00 $ 3,242,147.63 Grants $ (93,800.63) $ 587,803.00 $ 494,002.37 $ 268,163.13 $ 2,879.50 $ 251,397.00 $ 26,635.00 $ 350,800.00 $ 899,874.63 $ 6,052,796.31 Total $ (35,257.68) $ 859,461.37 $ 824,203.69 5/13/98, 8:38 AM data\mcc\198-018\Financial Data.xls, WW Facilities Funding Engineer's Preliminary Estimate of Construction Costs J-Ditch, Phase II : Cell-1, Configuration 4 (Bottom "V' is North South) Item Exploration and Site Purchase Cell 1 Tract Plus Other Expense Total Site Evaluation and Geotec. Subtotal 118.76 Mgal Reservoir Construction Quantity Units Unit price Cost 1 LS 5625,000 5625,000 1 LS 3100,000 5100,000 $725,000 Clearing / Grubbing 13.5 ACRE 51,500 S20,310 Lagoon Excavation 233.400 CY $1.75 S408,450 Lagoon Fill 168,800 CY S2.25 5379,800 Chimney Drain 1 LS $105,000 $105,000 Emergency Overflow Spillway 1 LS $17,500 $17,500 Excavate and Backfill Liner Trench 2,925 LF $2.75 S8,044 Install 60-mil HOPE Liner 229,000 SF $0.65 S148.850 Effluent Structure - Structural 1 LS $75,000 S75,000 Effluent Structure - Mechanical 1 LS 5225,000 S225,000 Effluent Screen 1 LS $22,500 S22,500 Dike Stairway 1 LS 515,000 S15,000 Fencing and Gates 3.500 LF S11.00 S38,500 Top of Dike and Access Road Gravel Surfacing 1 LS 535,000 535,000. Subtotal 1 I $1,498,954 Underdrain First Cell 4" PVC 1,350 LF S12.00 516,200 6" PVC 1.350 LF 515.00 520,250 8" PVC 210 LF 318.00 53,780 10" PVC 420 LF 520.00 58,400 12" PVC 680 LF 522.50 515,300 18" PVC 250 LF 525.00 S6,250 Subtotal 370,180 Related Construction 'Other TOTAL Pump Station Mods. and Misc Yard Piping 1 LS 350,000 550,000 Disinfection Facility 1 LS 3100,000 3100,000 Fill 10 AC Site (Haul Cost Only) 115,564 CY 30.75 386,673 Fill 10 AC Site (Additional Excavate and Haul) 50.964 CY S2.25 S114,669 Subtotal 5351,342 Contingency (t 0 /a) 1 LS 5192,048 5192,048 BOR 1 LS 310,000 310,000 Bald eagle monitoring 1 LS 315,000 S15,000 Wetlands 1 LS 3100,000 5100,000 Engineering. Design 1 LS 3262,615 S262,615 'Engineering. Award and Construction 1 LS 3172,364 3172,364 Subtotal 3752,027 1 S3,397,502 3/23/98 f •prolects1113681admin cstesttrvSTOS-2.xls 4 1 �, -F i•i� 'T ice.. i \ f.' •1` �r�n�r.^nc a rr._ r�5r inns Engineer's Preliminary Estimate of Construction Costs _ J-Ditch, Phase II : Cell-2, Configuration 4 (Bottom "V" is North South) Item Quantity Units Unit price Cost Site Purchase Cell 2 Tract Plus Other Expense 1 LS $266,750 5266,750 Subtotal $266,750 245 Mgal Reservoir Construction Clearing / Grubbing Lagoon Excavation Lagoon Fill Chimney Drain Emergency Overflow Spillway Excavate and Backfill Liner Trench Install 60-mil HDPE Liner Effluent Structure - Structural Effluent Structure - Mechanical Effluent Screen Dike Stairway Transfer Structure Fencing and Gates Top of Dike and Access Road Gravel Surfacing Subtotal Underdrain Second Cell _ 4" PVC 6" PVC 8" PVC 10" PVC 12" PVC 18" PVC Subtotal Related Construction Pump Station Mods. and Misc. Yard Piping Other TOTAL 19.0 ACRE $1,575 $29,925 842,672 CY $1.84 $1,548,410 20,589 CY $2.36 $48,642 0 LS $110,250 $0 0 LS $18,375 $0 3,625 LF 82.89 $10,467 873,520 SF $0.68 $596,177 0 LS $78,750 $0 0 LS $236,250 $0 0 LS $23,625 $0 0 LS $15,750 S0 1 LS $42,000 S42,000 2,760 LF ' $11.55 S31,878 1 LS $36,750 $36,750 1,350 1.350 210 420 680 250 1 Install Fine Screening at Headworks 1 Subtotal LF LF LF LF LF LF LS LS $12.60 $15.75 518.90 $21 00 523.63 526.25 $52,500 $215,000 $2,344,249 $17,010 S21,263 53,969 S8,820 $16, 065 S6,563 $73,689 $52,500 3215,000 $267,500 Contingency (10%) 1 LS 5268,544 5268,544 Engineering, Design of Fine Screens 1 LS S30,000 $30,000 Engineering, Award and Construction 1 LS S170,000 S170,000 Subtotal 5468,544 53,420,732 3/23/98 f \projects\11368\admen\cstest\rvSTOS-2.xls r rn9 O O 0 0 0 O p O OOOp ���0 °Q pn 03. 7; y, O p 74 r 0 S 0 0 •Cn �' ` Q oO o co_ M ' : N EfY EFilEfa - N >��,k o N . . p ift1 U r ci' co EFt a) Y f� /� S. 0 s-10 0 O O 0 ; N 6 •) O N u) o O �N LC) ''" i Oiii +- p +�xc _ _ sv g C7 N 5"45�' -i'f O Cy c N1 p? # rl O 0 O CDra� G N 3 O O d) j:! (0 C� co j p O M CVsp U O ,- 4 to }(r 4O _ s p t- 'D y�' 0 0 Lcro -• sx f DODO O .N t3 s O p p 0 a a) G o C■Q)� ; O;�pco ;; d O' 't e. a) C lcoO ' '�o C 'o ;a vs, C fin. U W 0 as � ,. �' ' :ftv 0 Q IGV•. 3 o .0 •E ascbChop�otoO ,i. o p_>" yr Efl oT3 to , N p Q 0' p OW .Ce) EPr O 8 a, CI ttc In " d } rn r ifl 1'•• to r� t . H} 7ifa (0 o a' T o �./� a.)- M yr. .� G(11 i at G 1` � G — ra, Tc0 ca c 9 a) U O c0 ((1 U `y m _CIy U ,a� 0) m (a a >_ T ictr. au -75 mi D �TT Is, t aai 3 `m7 �3, L N,.0:,...„, i N Qj i3 C G o yr1f, 4? ■a) tt)*N3ycla LLI �= o C<y c:� - C.) C s-7 a0'1QGc0 S, GNa;NN N(-5NTo. Vs ct, otCn›. O AD NJ3 i ) OY e r: E 0 0. 0 cO 0 co C U 0 r N69. r E O O Q a) U) O O � O U 0) O O O cO cr) U O O 0 O O O o 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 x O O O 0000000000000 di O 0 0000000000000 alas O O O O O O O O O O cp. O O O co- O p IO O L) co Cr) O In coL) coO cor) O co O .— T 69 69 O T T 69. 69. 69. T 69. 69 N 69 T 715 69 69 43 C CO O O O ON NO CO N CI) 69. 64 U U 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 -0 CO CO C0 O 0 0 0 0 11) T N 69 64 Cl) O CO CO 69. 69- 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 COOCO CO 69 69 69 00000 00000 0 00000 O O co- O O co" O TCM O T T 69.69 64 ,^ 69 ER N C 4# a) a) E O J a) a) E E N E ,— Suxt aa)) a) O O m C E co NO co NO C1. N CID 4U CI) a) w as O — a) cc O cc O` O C= as a) C1 Es cc cc U `N`�3 O o a0 a) Q( a) 16 °) • a) a) ago — � a� [C � 3 L 3 s o a 3— 3—moo a, n a) a) a)a) cr) cc g'0 L "O LCr) QL-- J C 2 J C O a a- moUcO92 '92 CnCC O rn u • ULp O L ,(C75((nL= a) i L) U U F-O a) u) ••E'p U �.0 a)a)yQ) of) OO _ 8' >' to Q 2 a_ 2 a_ U a> D J I— CO J J LL J—, J 3 5/13/98, 10:39 AM Ir, 1.'3 03/98 10:52 V2083730576 ID DEG-2h'D FLOOR Vjoo2/o02 05/05/98 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE REPAYMENT, SCHEDULE CITY OF MCCALL LOAN #1894-04 Loan Amt.: 3.140.850.00 Term: 20 veers Repayment Frequency: Semi-annual Int. Rate: 4.50% Repayments to begin: 01/01/2000 DATE AMOUNT INTEREST PRINCIPAL 01/01/2000 07/01/2000 01/01/2001 07/01/2001. 01/01/2002 07/01/2002 01/01/2003 07/01/2003 01/01/2004 07/01/2004 01/01/2005 07/01/2005 01/01/2006 07/01/2006 01/01/2007 07/01/2007 01/01/2008 07/01/2008 01/01/2009 07/01/2009 01/01/2010 07/01/2010 01/01/2011 07/01/2011 01/01/2012 07/01/2012 01/01/2013 07/01/2013 01/01/2014 07/01/2014 01/01/2015 07/01/2015 01/01/2018 07/01/2016 01/01/2017 07/01/2017 01/01/2018 07/01/2018 01/01/2019 07/01/2019 119.909.42 70,669.13 49.240.29 119,909.42 69.561.22 50,348.20 119,909.42 58,428.38 51.481.04 119.909.42 67.270.06• 52.639.35 119.909.42 66,085.58 53,823.74 119,909.42 64,874.64 55.034.76 119.909.42 63,636.36 56.273.06 119,909.42 62,370.21 57,539.21 119,909.42 61.075.58 58,833.84 119,909.42 59.751.82 60,157.60 119,909.42 58,698.28 61,511.14 119.909.42 57,014.27 62,895.15 119,909.42 55,599.13 64,310.29 119.909.42 54,152.15 65,757.27 119,909.42 52,672.81 67.236.81 119,909.42 51,159.79 68,749.63 119,909.42 49.612.92 70.296.50 119,909.42 48.0:31.25 71.878.17 119.909.42 46.413.99 73,495.43 119.909.42 44,760.34 75,149.08 110.909.42 43.06 9.49 76.839.93 119,909.42 41,340.59 78.566.83 119.909.42 39.57 2.79 80.336.63 119,909.42 37.765.22 62,144.20 119,909.42 35.916-97 63.992.45 119,909.42 34,027.14 85.882.25 119,909.42 32,09.4.79 B7.814.63 119,909.42 30.118.96 89,790.46 1.19.909.42 28,098.66 91,810.74 119,909.42 26,032.93 93,875.49 119.909.42 23,920.71 95,958.71 119,909.42 21,760.97 98.145.45 119.909.42 19.55 2.63 100,356.79 119.909.42 17,29 4.60 102,614.82 119,909.42 14,985.77 104,923.65 119,909.42 12.62 4.98 107.264.44 119.909.42 10,21 1.05 109.698.34 119,909.42 7.742.87 112.156,55 119.909.42 5,219-.12 114,690.30 119,909.42 2,636.62 117,270.80 BALANCE 3.091.609.71 3.041.261.51 2,989,780.48 2,937,141.12 2,683,317.38 2.628.262,60 2,772,009.54 2,714,470.34 2,655,638.50 2,595,475.90 2,533,967.76 2,471,072.62 2,406,762.33 2.341.005.06 2,273,768.25 2,205,018.62 2.134.722.13 2,062,643.96 1.969.345.53 1,914,199.45 1.837.359.52 1.758.790.70 1..678.454. 07 1,596,309.87 1,512,317.42 1,426,435.15 1,338,620.52 1,248,830.06 1,157,019.32 1,063,142.53 967,154.13 859,005.68 768.648.89 666.034.07 561.110.42 453.825.99 344,127.65 231,961.10 117.270.60 0.00 deC' 1 I kJ. AMORTIZATION -SCHEDULE.: SD Share of DEQ Revolvin : Loan for Wastewater Project Amount of loan : $ 604,500.00 Lnterest rate 4.25% punt of payments $ 22,585.25 Number of payments 40 Semi-annual payments beginning 01/01/98 Page 1 PYMT PAYMENT PAYMENT INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE NO. DUE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT DUE 1 01/01/1998 22,585.25 12,845.63 9,739.62 594,760.38 2 07/01/1998 22,585.25 12,638.66 9,946.59 584,813.79 1998 Totals 45,170.50 25,484.29 19,686.21 3 01/01/1999 22,585.25 12,427.29 10,157.96 574,655.83 4 07/01/1999 22,585.25 12,211.44 10,373.81 564,282.02 1999 Totals 45,170.50 24,638.73 20,531.77 5 01/01/2000 22,585.25 11,990.99 10,594.26 553,687.76 6 07/01/2000 22,585.25 11,765.87 10,819.38 542,868.38 2000 Totals 45,170.50 23,756.86 21,413.64 7 01/01/2001 22,585.25 11,535.95 11,049.30 531,819.08 8 07/01/2001 22,585.25 11,301.16 11,284.09 520,534.99 2001 Totals 45,170.50 01/01/2002 22,585.25 10 07/01/2002 22,585.25 22,837.11 22,333.39 11,061.37 10,816.49 11,523.88 11,768.76 509,011.11 497,242.35 2002 Totals 45,170.50 21,877.86 23,292.64 11 01/01/2003 22,585.25 10,566.40 12,018.85 485,223.50 12 07/01/2003 22,585.25 10,311.00 12,274.25 472,949.25 2003 Totals 45,170.50 20,877.40 24,293.10 13 01/01/2004 22,585.25 10,050.17 12,535.08 460,414.17 14 07/01/2004 22,585.25 9,783.80 12,801.45 447,612.72 2004 Totals 45,170.50 19,833.97 25,336.53 15 01/01/2005 22,585.25 9,511.77 13,073.48 434,539.24 16 07/01/2005 22,585.25 9,233.96 13,351.29 421,187.95 2005 Totals 45,170.50 18,745.73 26,424.77 17 01/01/2006 22,585.25 8,950.24 13,635.01 407,552.94 18 07/01/2006 22,585.25 8,660.50 13,924.75 393,628.19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2006 Totals 45,170.50 17,610.74 27,559.76 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ L.. IORTIZATION.SCHEDULE Page 2 _______ _________________________ IMT PAYMENT PAYMENT INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE 40. DUE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT DUE ,9 01/01/2007 22,585.25 8,364.60 14,220.65 379,407.54 ?0 07/01/2007 22,585.25 8,062.41 14,522.84 364,884.70 ______________________________ )07 Totals `45,170.50 01/01/2008 ?2 07/01/2008 22,585.25 22,585.25 108 Totals 45,170.50 16,427.01 28,743.49 7,753.80 7,438.63 14,831.45 15,146.62 350,053.25 334,906.63 15,192.43 29,978.07 3 01/01/2009 22,585.25 7,116.77 4 07/01/2009 22,585.25 6,788.06 09 Totals 45,170.50 15,468.48 15,797.19 319,438.15 303,640.96 13,904.83 31,265.67 5 01/01/2010 22,585.25 6,452.37 16,132.88 6 07/01/2010 22,585.25 6,109.55 16,475.70 287,508.08 271,032.38 10 Totals 45,170.50 12,561.92 32,608.58 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 01/01/2011 22,585.25 5,759.44 16,825.81 254,206.57 8 07/01/2011 22,585.25 5,401.89 17,183.36 237,023.21 11 Totals 45,170.50 • 01/01/2012 0 07/01/2012 22,585.25 22,585.25 12 Totals 45,170.50 1 01/01/2013 2 07/01/2013 22,585.25 22,585.25 13 Totals 45,170.50 3 01/01/2014 a 07/01/2014 22,585.25 22,585.25 L4 Totals 45,170.50 11,161.33 34,009.17 5,036.74 4,663.84 17,548.51 17,921.41 219,474.70 201,553.29 9,700.58 35,469.92 4,283.01 3,894.08 18,302.24 18,691.17 183,251.05 164,559.88 8,177.09 36,993.41 3,496.90 3,091.27 19,088.35 19,493.98 145,471.53 125,977.55 6,588.17 38,582.33 i 01/01/2015 22,585.25 2,677.02 19,908.23 07/01/2015 22,585.25 2,253.97 20,331.28 .5 Totals 45,170.50 7 01/01/2016 l 07/01/2016 22,585.25 22,585.25 .6 Totals 45,170.50 106,069.32 85,738.04 4,930.99 40,239.51 1,821.93 20,763.32 64,974.72 1,380.71 21,204.54 43,770.18 ____________________________ 3,202.64 41,967.86 -------------------------- y. F 9OaTIZATION•SCHEDULE Page 3 'MT PAYMENT PAYMENT INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE 10. DUE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT DUE ,9 01/01/2017 22,585.25 930.12 21,655.13 22,115.05 0 07/01/2017 22,584.99 469.94 22,115.05 0.00 17 Totals 45,170.24 1,400.06 43,770.18 NAL PAYMENT TAL OF PAYMENTS 2?.,584.99 903,409.74 Loan from DEQ to City Loan Amount $ 3,140,850 Interest Rate 4.5% Term (years) 20 Payments per year 2 Repayments to begin 1 /1 /00 Semi-annual Payment $119,909 Total Payments per Year $239,819 Loan from City to PLWSD Loan Amount $ 604,500 Interest Rate 4.25% Term (years) 20 Payments per year 2 Repayments to begin 1/1/98 Semi-annual Payment $22,585 Total Payments per Year $45,170 5/7/98, 4:09 PM data4ncc\198-018\Fnancial Dataxls, Loans Operating Fund Expenditure Summary FY 1994-95 FY 1994-95 FY 1993-94 a0i 0) aa) 0) co O 0' sr p N N 0 N sr ET co a N V) V) V) V) FY 1997-98 N ' r M 0 0) (N co CO O 00) N N N ( N 0 N CA - IA to V) V) V) V) to 0 0) • N (0 M N O OD N V) 10 N CO N O N CO (0 co 0) 0 0) 1 0 to 0) csi0 N - N O O NCO Sr 0) 0 0) 0 0) N d r ' r (n v O d1- M � y ' N O O (0 N M U) CO 0 00 (0 N CD‘-0 N d O 00 N 10 co co 00 a0 O N CO '0O O N M 00 N N O O �0) rea` N t N N v '. V) V) 69 V) V) fA fA to to V) V) WA V) V) fA 19 m w r d 0) 0 N CO N M r 0 r N 1O DI' O N sr co O O NCO O) N 0 N 0 N 7 '6 N • 00 1O 00 ' 0) r o r ' r 0') 0 e- ' CS m O ' r 6 6 o co- N (V o (+) o of (0 r 0} p • O 0 N sr() M CO- N CIO) N N 1N 0 (0 p N N N 00 N 0) CO' d N - N i (A (9 V) V) (A 1A (A V) V) V) V) V) - (9 V) ap '.. N 0 N CO r (9 CO 0 CO N le-.i o0 0 N Lc) re-0 ON N 0) 0) -0 0) O 0) dui a) 0 N N r N O ' re-' CO (.1 srO sr O co N. O) 0 0) M O CO- N O 0') O M Co. r u 1 • r N el00 0) N 10 VI00 CI 0) -N CO O N N (V CO N • N N 0) CO O d N m 3 00) N O d 0 € (0 O (0n t N 00 0) N 00 r N M 00) N a‘- V) V) V) N '0 O) 0)') co O00) (d00d7 (() M 00 0 (0') Or 0) N ' O d' A d O N (A (A V) V) V) V) (A V) V) N 00 CO CO CO O O O d0' 0 0 N • 7 O ' d O (O 0) ' O CO Ci , 0),i0 , 0- ( 0i r (VC o E c (O r M ._ N w x CI)O COCO 0 00)) n CO 0 0 0 r y o 03 01 CO (") N 0 r ' 0) 03 V r 0) 0) CO.CV u') CO - CO 1:1? 0)N N srsr(00 co L m V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) FY 1996-97 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O (D N 0) CN0 Nd 0 0 d 0) r M N 0) 0 0) (() O CO. 0 r M co d d M d C) 0+) 7 N m V) V) V) to V) V) V) V) V) 0) N CO CO d CO N (() 0 N 03 CO '- N e- CO 0) 0) 0) j 0) O (0i (0 00 C) 1n (V O) o r N CI sr30 (O d CI LL CO V) V) (A V) V) V) 67 V) CO N 0IO 0 0 O O N N 0) CO CO CO 0 CO CO 0 N • N d sr CO O CO O V 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) M (0 M (0 (0 10 0) 0 CO .- d d CO N .- 7 1- CO t- r LL m d V) V) V) 69 V) V) V) V) V) O CO CO d 0 r N (O (O CO M O CO N N N CO O (0 `Cr d 7 N CO O U CO .- d d Account Group Personnel Services (A (9 O CO- O Nd N V) 69 V) V) V) Repairs -Other Services and Charges Capital Outlay 0 0 0) a) 0 Debt Service a) 0 c m j c o) c m S E c m u- c a E .0 c O c m 0) 0' 'O 0) O N d CO d (ON- o M' 'r tr) CO d r t0 e- d. 'sr co V) to V) V) 0 0 O 0 0 0) 0 0) (n CO O CO N CO 1() 0+i r O N- (O 0)' r N 419 N 00 (0 00 r 0) 00 M 1() (0 O) CO 01 d •- (d'') (I) V) CO V) 0 N O N CO d O d (0 10 0 )0 M N (D 0) CO CO Nsr el- (d') d V) V) V) V) 0 .- r d O r CO CO 4' 0 .- CO O M Nd d N N to V) 40 'V) 1A 0 (0 0) 1'- 0- 0 0 0 N' d N O 0) N '4')' "Cr M 0 0 O N ✓ 1t) O 00 'W'r N V) 'V) V)' '(9 'V) to O 1n , O 10 I CO N ((LO d) Or W N CO' ,O r d 0 M CO 0() (() .- d CO '0 0) d 00 d N r N M CO 0si M M V) V) V) 1 Total Expenses IA VI 0 M (1 0 .(0 C N —'0 m 0) 7 c •- d E 0.3 -00 0) 0) C C t. is al O: c c E 0 0 (0 C CO 0 lii t 'C 'C rn 5/13/98, 11-53 AM $514,050 $538,410 0 0 0 o 0 Ln 0 C) CD E9 0 co o .t! 0 0 O o T O o !j - T W • C coLc) a) = 1.6 co. O 5 O r } • Q ER E9 U. CO O O O O O C ▪ COp_ 00 c(00 0 7 •- O oe o O CO = in '� to)N N i' CD69 r CO an LL 9 O O O 0 9 R � 0 N. N E } < Cr)- o CD ER E LL ER. E9 E9 E9 c m L• L N 0f Lo O r- N CD i Qj 0 CO C- r) N CCto co } CD C ▪ (p �- 64 E9 E9 ER m ,d E O 0 0 0 as a) • Cr) W L O N N Q } m co" co - Nr co a) T 63. U. E9 E9 69 T^ u CO r/ T N CO C) i- C0 N co U C) CO N- N T < co Tr L E9 E9 ER C1 2 0 Charges for Services Intergovernmental Revenues Miscellaneous $17,172 $3,250,000 E9 E9 Other Financing Sources $641,566 $5,272,530 $693,410 5/12/98, 5:25 PM data\mcc\198-018\Budget Data.xls, Revenue 135,020 0340 347.000 347.010 347.020 347.080 0370 371.000 373.040 374.000 380.000 381.000 135.070 0340 347.000 347.020 Fund 441 Sewer Fund Revenues Detail Sewer Collection Charges for Services Sewer Service Revenue Penalties and Interest Sewer Connection Fees WWTP Dumping Fees Total Charges for Services Miscellaneous Revenues Interest Revenue PLWSD Cost Sharing Sale of Surplus Property Cash Over (Short) Prior Period Adjustment Total Miscellaneous Revenues Total Sewer Collection Sewer Collection Capital Improvements Charges for Services Sewer Service Revenue Sewer Connection Fees Total Charges for Services 0370 Miscellaneous Revenues 371.000 Interest Revenue Total Miscellaneous Revenues 135.140 0330 325.000 0340 347.000 0370 371.000 373.040 Total Sewer Collection Capital Improvements WWTP Capital Improvements Intergovernmental Revenues State Grants Total Intergovernmental Revenues Charges for Services Sewer Service Revenue Total Charges for Services Miscellaneous Revenues Interest Revenue PLWSD Cost Sharing Total Miscellaneous Revenues Total WWTP Capital Improvements Total Sewer Fund Revenues Current Year Next Year Prior Year Amended Adopted Actual Budget Budget (1992-1993) (1993-1994) (1994-1995) $ 203,764 $ 214,000 $ 350,000 $ 3,764 $ 2,520 $ 3,500 $ 9,900 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 5,026 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 222,454 $ 233,520 $ 371,500 $ 258 $ $ 24,078 $ $ - $ $ (1,130) $ $ - $ $ 23,206 $ 200 $ 200 36,000 $ 36,000 $ 250 $ - $ 36,450 $ 36,200 $ 245,660 $ 269,970 $ 407,700 $ 66,725 $ 74,100 $ 82,000 $ 38,957 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 105,682 $ 124,100 $ 132,000 $ 2,881 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 2,881 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 108,563 $ 127,600 $ 135,500 $ 65,745 $ 81,000 $ 81,000 $ 65,745 $ 81,000 $ 81,000 $ 5,215 $ 8,900 $ $ 5,215 $ 8,900 $ $ 541 $ $ 52,990 $ $ 53,531 $ 300 $ - $ 300 $ $ 124,491 $ 90,200 $ 81,000 I $ 478,714 I $ 487,770 $ 624,200 I 5/13/98, 8:35 AM data\rncc\198.0181Budget Dataxls, Revenue Detail 1L 0 0 Capital Fund Expenditure Summary N 0 0 0 00 0 N N coa0) a) N t O N N 00 0) .O a 'A 's w 69 N ' t0 M 69 to O V O to N N EA N O O 0 O 00 CO NCO O N 0) 'O O a 'n rA a` 0 0 0 0 0 'D O O (D 0 tO N N CO t O O a 'n & O 'n a rn 00 0 No 0) o0 0 o to 10 tO N N CO t O, O) a) 'O O a ` 9 a 'A 'A ', co co 0) 0 0I CO 0) 0 0 co M � aa) U O Nr 4 -a U N 'O O d 'A 'A 'A 0_ 0 O 0 CO- t0 (0 0O CO - co co n 0) .- On) (O rn E_ 1:3c 0) LL W x w 69 H FY 1997-98 r` o co N' C O O ' O O ") 0 a) co N' NN 69 'A 'A to w N N O co Ni M I- ca M 4 0 0 co co to 0 0 0 0 000, 0 o 0 N to 'A 'A 0 O 0 M 0 0 00) N 00fA $ 2,270,000 290,000 $ (A M 0) M 0 CO 04 CO (O tO ,OI0 M .O, (00. O) co ccoo O N N o N I-- On) f . 0) a) ai 00 0 ai O . O) E 0 N NI—. ,N. 0)'00), >. N CO < LL W 'A V) 'A (9 'A 'A H O 00 0 0 ' 0 0) 0 0 O O O ') r' 0,0) a) 0N) } m 'A Z` LL 'A M M - t0 0 0 o E c v v 0 7 an) CO 0) 10/ (4) M v N 0) a) a) -o 'r) 'n 1- a) 0) a 0 — 7 } m f0 t0 d } m LL > LL '9 69 69 CC co N to 'A 0 (0 N 00 00 cr.)7 a,a) j M V) a ar) 0 Tr TO CD t }a a}a LL N M CO L. FY 1995-96 0 0 0 0 co coO co t0 (0 0 a) 0) M (o(O a) 0) CO 0) In } 69 60 M LL 0 0 r'- 0 0 CO V' 0 0 M IA FY 1994-95 0 0 0 0 0 o ei'9. b) 'A 'A 'A 0 0 y O O 0 0 m M 0 0 ' 0 0 W O 0 7 a ( CO 69 60 0 0 0) 0) rn go�000' 7 Nf)� ( v 0 a) o 00 0 M TO 4 r P (J) a) o.O a) 0. N N i73 a) 0) '.• o) (0 0 Account Group Capital Outlay Total Capital Expenses 0 CO 0 O. a) 0 Account Group H9 0 (0CO . d, d) 'A 0) c to > (1) 0) c co N 2 .c Eo0 E c c a) 7 0 LL U O = y 'a c to o 0 139, ,423,630) $(1,363,815) $ M 59,998 $ (21,750) $ (339,400)1 $ (339,400) Capital Revenue - Capital Expenses $ N (0 " lL c �c E m 0) N 0 O m u) o N N 0) 0) 0 0 0 tco 0_ m o c (1a) CO W 0 Connectionrge Calculation o Total Cost of Improvements (Phases I and II) $ 13,022,030 Less District's Share of Improvements $ 604,500 Less Grant Funds Received (not including loan) $ 8,936,150 Plus Existing System Original Cost ' .$ 8,750,000 Plus Additional CIP $ 1,510,000 Total $ 13,741,380 Number of Customers after 6 years with 2% growth 2,319 Estimated Connection Charge $ 5,927 ' Based on Depreciation for 50-year term ($175,000/year) 5/13/98, 9:23 AM data\mcc\198.018\Revised Budget and Rev Info.xls, Conn Charge 15 Operating Fund Revenue Summary fir;k 11 N N h M O r 0 00 0 0 0 (D M N h CD h. O N CO N M d h N N CO V O N. �00 T..- CD N 7 N D (O (O (' ) . m r r' ' r N O h O ui h M ' 4 0 M N o)- N M (M M O 0 00 N V) 00 (0 M N N ,O 00 st '-"(00 h r CN N7 'NQN CO CO a) N O N O • O O a N r0 N00 O p CZ N o 0 O NO) •O r V) 03 di V) V) V) V/ V) V) V) V) (q u, 0 (9 V) V) V) (9 V) V) V) V) V) V) V) (9 V) 0 N N V) O o 0 o d h d a0 0 h h h 0 N O 0 h M 0 M d M h N a0 O N V.- Cr) Vt.M ', CO_ N V 0 0 a0 O O�, (N�) CO CO M N N V) V) V) V) (9 69 V) V) V) V) (9 V) V) (4 V) V) V) 0 0 M 0 M K) N o 0 o MIM IO 'd (0 CO 0 d O CAh 0 O O) N co 0 O h N `� M r7 O N 7 ' O N 1-7' 0' 4 O N co O 0 V ' r N O h eNe}� N O $) h r 00 00 co M N 00 M N N CD N E9 N N (00 O v d0' .r- V) V) V) V' (0 N N (0 V) (9 V) V) V) (9 N O N (O O(O a) O O O d o co ` 0 . ar FY 1997-98 FY 1997-98 FY 1995-96 EstirgaWd Rig* m Cr Q) Cr m N 0 O)tj a U0 Account Group �030 1010I07 • n4,0 4- 4 O 0 v..I+ N, V) V) to O CO M N V) V) O co 0 w 0 0 00 N V) $503,500 $503,500 V).V) V) V) V)• V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) o 0 0 h 00 0 0 o N co O O h 0 0 0 0 M 0 1`- NN CO,� O ` ` ' O M N co N 0 CO N (n N N, h,N0 00,r 00 CO -4.MQMMM (O co O - M O co o ' O (0 0 (0 0'- ono` o 0 CO h. 00))00 'CO N NO CA/CA M V1 O M N• 00 O • M d CD N (0 O CO d tp O (0 0) N •c0• p. a V) V) V) V) (9 V) V) V) (9 V) V) CO NI COCA (0 O O co• � (0f) N N M N - V)V)EA V)V) Vr V)V)I N co co oi ((7 A 000 d N•M N. ' d-' f)N(D yN 4-0 NF 0 N0 sr to. 0ON 0 to 7, (D • d r V) V) V) O 0 O O O ' 0 N 0 0 (0 V)V)V) V) O CO 7 O CO - VI V) V) $ 3.250.000 �. () N r 00 r V) V) V) V)' 0 0 0 CD' CO 00 O (OO e) N' on V)V)V) V) CO CO M N 4 M 4 CO 4 N V (O M 4 N u)4469 M 0 00 (0 N.N CO 00 h O) O 7 .9 O N N 00 01 r Ni Ni N M N N 00, Ir V;r'E9 - Vi••V;rf9 V) V) V) V) 0 00000. N. 0.0 O N- 03 COM.M-- N 0I N N 7 07 N 0 C•N N CO (Dr .4 N M N' N N N O toV VI• M (flVlV31 V)IVI VI in 0 0•(O')• N 00- N 0'-0 N r M h O (On M 0cu 0) N d N N r M V) MV\V)V\ 6909. CON - N rn Cle d (Op s` rr;v V)�VI IA 'IA 69 O yi N V) V) V) V) IV) ' O Qa, I 0 0 •0 O O 0 0 0 N O ' ' ,( d (') 00; f'h: N 00 d (O (n O 0 O'O O ' h N O O) 7 00 M N 00 (O' V) V) (9 V) Other Financing Sources Loan Payment from PLWSD V) (9 EIYV).V) 0 d w h N d) N N .0 0 .0 a, 0 O M N Vim (O N 0O M 00 CO N N V)V) 0 0 N CO N CO. N N V) V) N co 00 to V) N 0 co - to- 0 0 00)) 0 d 00 m EA V) 0 0 0 N 0 0 CO N r N N, N V) V) CO (O ` CO U 9 C U 0) c ` 01 o O N CC y c a(n)EC2 ha a) O t U a) j- U " d C CA (n = 0) c t0 N w a.o a NICOC o I(CV '12 j -E'I > W. c, m c o, U OD L 3 c m a)am o co a) a)U W Z v ,,a, a, -> izt0 0 0 7 CO U 7 0 Q CC C c « ZEE L+ C co O w C E V ` W 0 0 0 E E OwO<O< am i�U zz 5/13/48. 10:47 AM Section 3 — Project Status and Background by JUB Engineers Inc. (i) ECTION 3 .., sr.gC:l.:�r_ BACKGROUND Note: The information that is provided in this entire section was exerpted from JUB Engineers, Inc. Presentation Notebook for the VE Process. CITY'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT GOAL • Remove discharge from river PROJECT STATUS • Facility Plan approved by DEQ • EID Approved DEQ, BOR, et.al. • FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) Issued • Overview of approved J-Ditch Alternative (see Figures 1 and 2) • J-Ditch Phase I Cost of facilities under contract Valley Soil and Water District $2,858,774.90 City of McCall S2.810.648.68 Recommended Phase I Contingency $ 50,000.00 Total $5,719,423.58 Committed DEQ grant/loan funds Loan $3,140,850.00 Grant $3,635,187.70 Total $6,776,037.70 Available for site purchase and Phase II $1,056,614.20 • Facilities to be designed — Storage reservoir — Cells 1, 2, and maybe 3 o Pump station o Disinfection • Storage site negotiations in progress • Estimated cost to complete project is $6,818,000 5 CITY OF MCCALL j VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS • $3,557,000 available to implement approved facility plan BOR $2,500,000 for construction of Storage Reservoir DEQ grants/loans $1,057,000 • $3,261,000 of additional funding to complete project with 20 year growth o Possibility of additional $2,500,000 from BOR • NPDES permit issued — remove discharge by January 1999 • Consent Order o Set parameters for discharge to J-ditch o Revises time schedule and January 1999 date o Clarified emergency discharge requirements SERVICE AREA AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS • City of McCall (Figure 9) • Payette Water and Sewer District (Figure 1) DESCRIPTION OF WWT FACILITIES PRIOR TO FACILITIES PLANNING • Aerated Lagoons • Slow Sand Filters • Design parameters (See attached Table 1) • Performance (See attached figures) POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS See attached Tables 2 and 3. 6 SECTION 3 PCT STATUS & BACKGROUND FUTURE FLOWS AND WASTELOADS • Projected Average Monthly Effluent Flows Month Flow (MGD) Month Flow (MGD) January 1.0 July 1.6 February 1.0 August 1.5 March 1.3 September 1.4 April 2.2 October 1.0 May 1.9 November 1.0 June 1.8 December 1.0 • Total Volume of Effluent — 508.3 mgal per year • Effluent BOD / SS — 45 mg/1 • Effluent Total P — approximately 7 mg/1 • Effluent TKN — approximately 25 mg/1 INITIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES • Utilization of existing treatment facility o Slow Rate Land Application High Rate Land Application o Combination of Slow Rate and High Rate Load Application o Chemical Precipitation of Phosphorous w/ river discharge Biological Nutrient Removal w/ river discharge • High Rate Land Application selected for further study o Pilot Plant study approved then rejected by DEQ • Eliminate Alternative Summary (see attached Table 4) SLOW RATE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED • Design Parameters o City owned site Farmer owned site • General slow rate alternative City owned site • J-Ditch alternative • Maki alternative • Mud Creek South Alternative A CITY OF MCCALL l� J VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS • Mud Creek South Alternative B • Maki Alternative Selected o Most cost effective alternative o Letter of Intent by Maki eel Az O Q U 6 W cn u 4 PI A v el 0 A .O A v~., d cn 3 E w Ov 0 Oo w O r u u to d C CC o o y T 0 y 1-1 Ln oo Z. G z U ! () ub i 22 — 26 inches per year 200 lbs. per acre 36 — 40 inches per year 200 lbs. per acre 73. 0 00 H et T a.) N t y,.k 4 cat 0 G) CP .r A Lc.hia, D N N U ate) ca -d c�? `� a) V o 0 N 4-1 m o +1 d a.)et w N a to 3 a� ��., R �cd C 0 0 cd o ets W +I CIA es FA 4-1 CS es L T G iCi ) c Q. ' w CA G OtoZ CD co 64 csi el o +i14 r -G v '� u v LS 0 'a G o cn y u, c`l v r o N +� Tli i o . +' tr1 '�+ �, �' 000. a.. = q..o On 5.4 IA le.4 G 0) ua ' . t u O at V� pa hLi w 91. C N w d 3 yL 0P 0 +1 `4 H C) a.)U a) U bp ai 0.N a) i 0 N G 0a c a y wi� N N = o J ca d • es G O G� U N Ocit ' 0 S SECTION 3 PROJEC'ATUS AND BACKGROUND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY ■ February 6, 1995 — Public workshop ■ February 16, 1995 — Public workshop and hearing ■ April 8, 1995 — Started one-on-one meetings with people living near WWTP ■ May 8, 1995 — One-on-one meeting with people living near Maki's farm ■ May 10, 1995 - > 150 letters sent to interested people, giving notice of May 24 meeting ■ May 24, 1995 — Public workshop and hearing ■ July 24, 1996 — Public hearing PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION ■ February 6 and February 16 Public Workshops and Hearing Issues - Storage Reservoir: Aesthetics, Chemical Dangers, Operations access issues & time of response to problems, Odors, Fog, Noise, Child Safety, Lake Fork site why not McCall - Why can't McCall handle their own waste Potato pathogens - Beef measles • Provisions for wet year operations Lack of public notice Actions - Written responses to all issue prepared Investigated plant and animal Screened alternative storage sites adjacent to McCall and existing WWTP One on one meetings w/ residents by the gravel pit site •:• Issues • Appearance of storage lagoon • Odor • Potential for people and animals to drown in storage reservoir ••• Actions • • Agreed to include neighbors in review of design of screening for pond • Agreed to include neighbors in design of fencing • Explained that odors are not a significant issue — One on one meetings with people living near Maki alternative site 11 CITY OF MCCALL VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Issues • • Generally the issues were the same as at the Feb 6 and Feb 16 meetings and hearing • Proposed revisiting with J-Ditch alternative with storage reservoir moved ❖ Actions • Discussed issues from meetings • Reviewed alternate storage site next to existing WWTP © May 1995 — Public notice published and mailed to >150 interested people re: May 24 workshop and hearing • May 24 public hearing for Maki Alternative with alternate storage site Issues — Storage reservoir no longer raised an issue o Why can't McCall handle their own waste — Potato pathogens — Beef measles — Provisions for wet year operations — Water rights — Support for revisiting J-ditch alternative Actions — Cooperated with irrigators, SCS, DEQ, CRCC et al in further development of J-ditch alternative L=1 Potato pathogen study o Literature search on beef measles o Revised facility plan to reflect revised J-ditch alternative — Prepared EID addressing both Maki and J-ditch alternative with primary storage site at gravel pit with specific mitigation measures L=1 Legal opinions on water rights o Emergency discharge provisions in NPDES permit for wet years • July 24, 1996 — Public Hearing — Proposed revised J-ditch alternative with storage site near McCall's existing WWTP (gravel pit) ❖ Attendance at the hearing was very light ❖ No verbal nor written testimony received ❖ Assumed consensus on the project VCSD & SCS & IRRIGATION DISTRICT - PROMOTE J-DITCH ALTERNATIVE • Largest land owner in J-ditch project (Simplot) decides not to participate in irrigation with effluent 12 SECTION 3 PROJE ATUS AND BACKGROUND • Alternatives modified to include dual distribution pipelines • Alternative modified to include more land south of the original J-ditch area • Agreements between City, J-Ditch Pipeline Association, Lakes Irrigation District, and VCSCD made • City provides some funding for on farm BMPs including irrigation systems • Farmers agree to accept irrigation water which is a mixture of 1/3 effluent and 2/3 ditch water • Lakes Irrigation District agrees to allow irrigation with effluent • VCSCD assists with project implementation • J-Ditch Pipeline Association builds transmission and irrigation facilities • Individual farmers provide matching funds for on farm improvement • J-Ditch project approved by DEQ and funded for implementation • Addendum #1 to Facility Plan prepared to describe modified J-Ditch project. REVISED J-DITCH ALTERNATIVE - REFINED SLOW RATE SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS • Ownership Type • Irrigated Area ■ Irrigation Water • Application Period ■ Hydraulic Loading • Annual Nitrogen Loading • Estimated Storage Requirement Farmer Owned 2.350 acres 33.3% Effluent June 16 — September 23 (100 days) ± 24 inches on average ± 10 inches minimum ± 45 lbs. Per acre 360 Mgal* * Storage volume increase due to change in application period from initial design estimates. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS • DEQ staff evaluation for new permit designed to prohibit discharge to Payette River Summary of conditions • TMDL requiring 100% removal • 401 Certification issued to reflect TMDL • NPDES Permit issued to reflect 401 Certification Removal of discharge January 1999 o Emergency discharge for wet years • Consent Order 13 CITY OF MCCALL VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS - 1995 DEQ STAFF EVALUATION • Significance of Document — DEQs latest written evaluation of possible NPDES permit limits for the McCall VWVTP. • Specific Recommendations to EPA 3 Flow Tiers Average Monthly NH3: 0.46 — 6.34 mg/1 Average Monthly CL2 : 31.77 —131.68 µg/l Limits on total recoverable metals, based on dissolved metals criteria, are at or below detection limits for many metals in the firs flow tier. Total P : 20 µg/1 • EPA Response to DEQ Requirements o Citing the proposed TMDL phosphorous limitation and the DEQ evaluation, EPA suggests that the total elimination of McCall's discharge from the North Fork of the Payette would be the "most economically viable option". o Final Limitation (January 1996 Preliminary Draft) "On or before January 1, 1999, the permittee shall cease discharge ...." 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION • No discharge to North Fork of Payette River are January 1, 1999 • Until January 1, 1999 O 20 mg/1 BOD O 20 mg/1 TSS — 50/100 ml Fecal Coliform i=1 6.09.0pH 0 0.5 mg/1 Total Residual Chlorine 0 85% removal BOD & TSS • Emergency discharge allowed if winter storage is too small o At least 60:1 dilution ratio with river flow is required o Same effluent parameters as above • Monitoring requirements set • Compliance Schedule o Begin construction June 1, 1998 o Complete construction January 1, 1999 o Document elimination of discharge by March 1, 1999 • Parameters set for acute and chronic toxicity 14 SECTION 3 PROJECTUS AND BACKGROUND DRAFT OF CONSENT ORDER • City completes conveyance to J-Ditch for 1998 irrigation season • Winter storage — Cell #1 o Design — April 1, 1998 o Call for Bids — April 20,1998 o Begin construction — June 1, 1998 o Complete construction — August 1, 1999 o Begin operation — October, 1999 • Winter storage — Cell #2 o Call for Bids — April 20, 1999 o Award contract — June 1, 1999 © Complete construction — August 1, 2000 © Begin operation — October 1, 2000 • J-Ditch discharge o Total coliform 2.2 per 100 ml — monthly median Chlorine residual 1.0 mg/1 minimum o Review and if necessary set new requirements after December 1, 2001 o Discharge to J-ditch in 1998 irrigation season o Irrigate with no more than 33.3% effluent o Monitoring requirements set • Force Majeure • Pollution trading allowed • Approval of modifications • Violation and enforcement provisions • Dispute resolution by mediation • Amendment to DEQs 401 certification PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION • Facilities Built • Facilities in Design • Budget and Funding • Schedule 15 CITY OF MCCALL VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS REVISED J-DITCH ALTERNATIVE - FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED TO DATE • Refurbish sand filters Nos. 1 — 4 • New sand filter No. 5 • Interim pump station • 18" PVC pipeline to J-Ditch • Mixing station and control building • Discharge structure 16 .13 4.4 v Q N _ .� . o t) o tvia r Q 0 2 In 7-t 0AA`` : 4 ) cull ti tyr bet 0, crw tiveP ccA cn AseP 0 0 0, rel 0, s c rwco se, co c 0 ccrl r-.. N 'Or tser ch oA N W N 2 f N; ''' u cn c4 to <S' CITY OF MCCALL kiwi VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS REVISED J-DITCH ALTERNATIVE -- FACILITIES UNDER DESIGN • Storage reservoir system and plant piping modifications • Pump station • Chlorination system SAVING MONEY • Regulatory Issues Allow the City some phosphorous loading to Cascade Reservoir. This could reduce or eliminate storage requirements. ❖ Idaho code ❖ 25% Rule ❖ TMDL ❖ NPDES permit and toxicity issues need to be revisited Use normally accepted standards for effluent reuse on farms. This will result in cost savings for disinfection. ® Allow spring and fall land application of effluent with out dilution. This could reduce storage requirements. ❖ Land application permit ❖ Treatment requirements c-� Allow high rate land application to be studied. Potential for reducing or eliminating storage requirements and takes care of wet year emergency discharge issue. SAVING MONEY -- HIGH RATE PILOT STUDY • Treatment Objectives Disposal of winter effluent cEE Effective reduction of nutrients (N and P) • Soil conditions necessary for treatment C:D Report from the University of Idaho, 1991 identifies soil types Archabal, Roseberry, Kangas • High Rate Pilot Siting Criteria o Soil Classification cm Location of WWTP or effluent pipeline ro Location of nearby developments • Based on these criterion, two sites have potential • Proposed Schedule © August 8, 1997 — submit proposal to DEQ o October 24, 1997 — complete site analysis and due diligence 18 SECTION 3 PROJECT STATUS AND BACKGROUND o November 18, 1997 — begin construction of pilot plant o December 20, 1997 — begin dosing pilot plant ■ Status of Pilot Study — Failed to receive DEQ approval SAVING MONEY • Flow reduction reduces storage requirements o Reduce I&I ❖ Potential opportunities and projects o Water conservation re cognized from new water rate structure • Storage reservoir siting o Find cheaper land ta, Public acceptance Airport influence area o Conditional use permit o FONSI © Pumping costs and number of pump stations A site which will allow design to be optimized 19 ; 1 1 1 147- 'Miff f.' i,..,..„..1 'A I I 1\ MAIIDe; PLNIT nin101111Aft It Tiumshissod A •7177. 1 1 CURE I -Drrvit ALTERN /ern TRANSMISSION PIPIELINI ALIGN laNT IPALIS DX.101. OM() 1.14eSPS Cowry bor.. Moor, Seim win,. " 7 " , - " i s , " 4 . - - - , _ _ . . . . . . . . 1 ' . . . . / . 1 ( " I 3 C 1 3 4 , ( ( 2 ; . . . N . , " " " - " ' 1 " 4 . , , ' X ' , - : ' - ' ' - - - . N ' N . ' N . . . . : N " 7 : N I , , , , _ . \ , - . . . . , . T . N ' N : - ' - ' N ; ; . " N ` , \ " , . ` N , : ' - z . s - s , ' . , - \ ; - : - . . - < . . N . 1 - ' , . " . " . . . . . , , . 2 . , ' , , , , ` , . . . , , , , , . _ g e 5 ; - ) 8 1 5 1 1 L E G E N � A R M I Z . 4 . 4 0 3 4 K r i z : v i v o t e r n e c o c a r A P " ' " w o r t M k 7 " 0 0 4 1 2 3 3 City of McCall Wastewater Facilities Funding Summary Phase 1 Received to date: Challenge Grant DEQ Loan Pay Request #1 DEQ Loan Pay Request #2 DEQ Loan Pay Request #3 DEQ Loan Pay Request #4 DEQ Loan Pay Request #5 DEQ Loan Pay Request #S DEQ Loan Pay Request #7. DEQ Loan Pay Request #8 J-Ditch Partial #1 J-Ditch Partial #2 J-Ditch Partial #3 . J-Ditch Partial #4 Eamings on Invested Funds Future Receipts: DEQ Loan Supplemental Grant Total Payments to Date: DEQ Retum of Fee for 2d Opinion J-U-B Facility Plan Engineering Basic Fees (J-U-B) Project Inspection Costs (J-U-B) Bezates Const. Sand Filter Rehab Warrington Constr. J-Ditch Valley Soil & Water District PR #1 Valley Soil & Water District PR #2 Valley Soil & Water District PR #3 Valley Soil & Water District PR #4 Valley Soil & Water District PR #5 Valley Soil & Water District PR #6 Valley Soil & Water District PR #7 Valley Soil & Water District PR #8 Future Payments: Warrington Constr. J-Ditch Bezates Retainage J-U-B Valley Soil & Water District Land Acquisition Total Net $ 245,920.00 $ 243,451.00 $ 114,103.93 $ 988,497.50 $ 920,998.62 $ 258,163.13 $ 2,879.50 $ 25,635.00 $ 450,000.00 $ 3.250.648 68 $ (119,798.68) Prerare Oy Jiri ier•terscr 1 ..23/S7 DEQ Loan $ 142,223.00 $ 395,780.00 $ 425,994.00 $ 342,213.00 $ 245,920.00 $ 571,023.00 $ 261,168.00 $ 187,193.00 $ 569,336.00 Receipts Challenge and Supplemental Grants $ 1,020,000.00 Total $ 1,020,000.00 $ 142,223.00 $ 395,780.00 $ 425,994.00 $ 342,213.00 $ 245,920.00 $ 571,023.00 $ 261,168.00 $ 350,000.00 $ $ 600,000.00 $ $ 400,000.00 $ $ 60,000.00 $ $ 115,187.70 $ 350,000.00 600,000.00 400,000.00 60,000.00 115,187.70 $ 569,336.00 $ 1,090,000.00 $ 1,090,000.00 $ 3,140,850.00 $ 3,635,187.70 $ 6,588,844.70 Payments $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 245,920.00 $ 243,451.00 $ 114,103.93 $ 988,497.50 $ 920,998.62 $ 651,304.12 $ 651,304.12 $ 402,575.16 $ 402,575.16 $ 454,532.96 $ 454,532.96 5 441,824.67 $ 441,824.67 $ 239,777.35 $ 239,777.35 $ 52,205.46 $ 52,205.46 $ 182,967.98 $ 182,967.98 $ 94,763.00 5 94,763.00 $ 31.8,824.20 $ .. - $ 2,858,774 90 $ 258,163.13 $ 2,879.50 $ 25,635.00 S . 318,824.20 S '450,000.00 $ 6,119,423.58 5 776,412.80 S 656,614.12 Engineer's Preliminary Estimate of Construction Costs J-Ditch, Phase II : Cell-1, Configuration 4 (Bottom "V' is North South) Item Exploration and Site Purchase Cell 1 Tract Plus Other Expense Total Site Evaluation and Geotec. Subtotal 118.76 Mgal Reservoir Construction Clearing / Grubbing Lagoon Excavation Lagoon Fill Chimney Drain Emergency Overflow Spillway Excavate and Backfill Liner Trench Install 60-mil HOPE Liner Effluent Structure - Structural Effluent Structure - Mechanical Effluent Screen Dike Stairway Fencing and Gates Top of Dike and Access Road Gravel Surfacing Subtotal Underdrain First Cell 4" PVC 6" PVC 8" PVC 10" PVC 12" PVC 18" PVC Subtotal (Related Construction Other TOTAL Quantity Units Unit price Cost 1 LS $625,000 $625,000 1 LS S100,000 S100,000 $725,000 13.5 ACRE $1,500 $20,310 233,400 CY $1.75 S408,450 168,800 CY $2.25 $379,800 1 LS $105,000 $105,000 1 LS $17,500 $17,500 2,925 LF $2.75 58,044 229,000 SF 50.65 $148,850 1 LS $75,000 S75,000 1 LS $225,000 $225,000 1 LS $22,500 $22,500 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 3,500 LF $11.00 S38,500 1 LS S35,000 $35,000• 1,350 1,350 210 420 680 250 LF LF LF LF LF LF $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 S20.00 522.50 525.00 Pump Station Mods. and Misc. Yard Piping 1 LS $50,000 Disinfection Facility 1 LS S100,000 Fill 10 AC Site (Haul Cost Only) 115,564 CY $0.75 Fill 10 AC Site (Additional Excavate and Haul) 50,964 CY S2.25 Subtotal Contingency (10%) 1 LS $192,048 BOR 1 LS S10,000 Bald eagle monitoring 1 LS $15,000 Wetlands 1 LS $100,000 Engineering, Design 1 LS $262,615 Engineenng, Award and Construction 1 LS $172,364 Subtotal $1,498,954 S 16,200 $20, 250 53,780 $8,400 S15,300 $6,250 $70,180 $50,000 $100,000 $86,673 $114,669 $351,342 $192,048 S10,000 S 15,000 S100,000 $262,615 $172,364 $752,027 $3,397,502 3/23/98 f \protects\11368\admin\cstest\rvSTOS-2.xls Engineer's Preliminary Estimate of Construction Costs J-Ditch, Phase II : Cell-2, Configuration 4 (Bottom "V" is North South) Item Site Purchase Cell 2 Tract Plus Other Expense Subtotal 245 Mgal Reservoir Construction Clearing / Grubbing Lagoon Excavation Lagoon FiII Chimney Drain Emergency Overflow Spillway Excavate and Backfill Liner Trench Install 60-mil HDPE Liner Effluent Structure - Structural Effluent Structure - Mechanical Effluent Screen Dike Stairway Transfer Structure Fencing and Gates Top of Dike and Access Road Gravel Surfacing Subtotal "Underdrain Second CeII 4" PVC 6" PVC 8" PVC 10" PVC 12" PVC 18" PVC Subtotal Related Construction Other TOTAL Quantity Units Unit price Cost 1 LS S266,750 19.0 ACRE S1,575 842,672 CY 51.84 20,589 CY 52.36 0 LS $110,250 0 LS S18,375 3,625 LF S2.89 873,520 SF 30.68 0 LS S78,750 0 LS 5236,250 0 LS $23,625 0 LS S15,750 1 LS S42,000 2,760 LF 511.55 1 LS S36,750 1,350 1,350 210 420 680 250 Pump Station Mods. and Misc. Yard Piping 1 Install Fine Screening at Headworks 1 Subtotal Contingency (10%) Engineering, Design of Fine Screens Engineering, Award and Construction Subtotal LF LF LF LF LF LF LS LS $12.60 S 15.75 S18 90 521.00 523.63 526.25 S52,500 S215,000 LS 5268,544 LS S30,000 LS S170,000 3266,750 $266,750 529,925 $1, 548,410 S48,642 S0 50 S10,467 S596,177 S0 S0 SO SO 542, 000 S31,878 S36,750 S2,344,249 517,010 S21,263 53,969 58,820 S 16,065 56,563 $73,689 S52,500 S215,000 $267,500 S268,544 S30.000 S 170,000 $468,544 $3,420,732 3/23/98 f:\projects\11368\admin\cstestWSTOS-2.xls 11 6 U IS to m 21 777 N MILS . tVgf a 'Is I Yr 6 Mvase srf , SWAIM Slag OAS novae nowt now woe* goat allOrlY. SASS ..+re.., •••••0'..4Ss. it PIENNI •RM""' Oyu. SCHEMATIC OF EXISTING McCALL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY Cc J rY w a w r �J la_ uJ — J 2:11\ led 3113,( b d )12d O d HI eI O N '.V - J J w w—rY ZC)w Q Z 2 0 0 C.i EXISTING TREATMENT co TABLE 1 — PLANT DESIGN CRITERIA Design Parameters Max. Design Flow - 1.8 MGD BOD5 at 150 mgfL - 2,250 lbs/day Loading Parameters Pond No. 1 Depth - 9 feet . Volume - 6.25 Million Gallons Detention Time - 3.5 days Pond No. 2 Depth - 5 feet Volume - 9.25 Million Gallons Detention Time - 5.1 days Pond No. 3 Depth - 5 feet Volume - 3.15 Million Gallons Detention Time - 1.75 days Sand Filters - 4 at 1 acre each in surface area Loading - 0.6 MGD/Acre Chlorine Contact Basins - 2 Chambers Volume - 0.1 Million Gallons each Detention Time - 0.5 hr. at maximum flow from the sand filters 1.1 hrs at design flow Blower Capacity - 3 at 1,100 SCFM each Capable of total or split flow between Ponds 1 and 2 INFLUENT FLOW ti O ai 0 a0 v QI a) E 0 0 0 c E a6/Zt/Zt r6/£t/0l b6/bl/9 a6/4t/ 9 v6/9l%t• 6/5t/Z £6/Ll/it £6/9t/Ot a/6t/9 £6/OZ/9 6/tZ/4 • £6/OZ/Z Z6/ZZ/Zt Z6/£Z/Ot Z6/az/9 Z6/SZ/9 Z6/9Z; t Z6/9Z/Z t6/9Z/Zi l6/6Z/Ot l6/0£/9 t6/t/L l6/Z/S t6/£/£ l6/Z/l O6/£/tt 06/a/6 06/9/L 06/L/S 06/9/£ 06/L/ 6s/s/11 0 az 0 o 0 0 W LL LL W FIGURE 2 O i i ■ -a r • O ■ N ca ■ cn v — mor • ■4§• ■ NO11V N-jDNOD CO f O a7 in i o I cn co to 0 0 0, O C)) CO O Q) O O 0, 0 0 0 Q'S z� co N cD .17 C"1 • (1,' aN) 5n0ONdSCNd 0 0 an co cD O O T O C'1 co 0 0 N N N f�1 N A 0 m- 0 0 0 0 0^ A 01 0 0 xx 8 88 N NO MX 0 f07 C07 C0.7 (0%< <}}<} x w w ����� a gme ZZ t. aQozoz22mm 6mm p �LL°v, Soy x �� d LL m Z} y O V7 ' ZZ W W Z0--)--_,—). J v »» ' V1 w0 Z <O �aa 0 00 x U <° w a< U ^ N W 8 3 0. 0< U¢ a J J } O < a' ce W W W W --J ¢w wo. U U G 2 u. < < a O w Z w < < W } J Q oO O �' 0 qD N f A O N pl O( ^ �fp1 Apl fp Q m Y1' .10 : b ^ A m m 0 Ol 0 0, A H' C1 fV ri' f`i: fV ri.IV ri.ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ei ri ri ri ri 0 y• z 0 H)-pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp QQ pp pp pp o pp QQ pp Y1!N N.N N N N N N N N'N N Y1 N N N W W N:N:N:N1 COCK NIN NNN N N N.N N N N N N 0 • z O U J . ,, N. (D'mkti 'Ai.f m O Q^1 O„ 10 N 1p O NTT. fi p...f1.Mp1 rNi 0 07 A:A m:m:m-0 0'O 0 0 v.A N N rfn � w i(f 0 10 - O M M M H N M N M n ri N N r. r. 0 m Z 0 o Z N 'O. 0.0 'O .1 0 N N 0 '0'0'0 0 N N Y1 N '0 N 0 0] z W U 0 U O W O h W.O.N 01 O N Q N A 01 N O 01 O N W e1 r1' r1 r1 M : r1 r1 < v f v f < N 0 '0 0 '0 10 W t0 < Z N N N N N'N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a Oz J w O N '0 A O N O W^ r1 '0 01 N N W. N Y1 0^ W 2 N N N N M M r1 n<.Vf V, O N N 0 0 0 N W N a INFILTRATION 0'0 0 w '0 10 10 10 '0 '0 '0 '0 0 '0 '0 '0 '0 0 0 10 0 W e1 'N �p A A p N r1 W^ Z O'OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.O O O O C`H y >,A 2-4oc000:o0o00o0c0oc00^ 8" 6 N N el f N A 01 0 0 ^ r1 f '0 1p O Ol O N of :ft 'D a g a < a,$ } a a w 'a : o 'o 'o 'o $ $ $ $ $ $ o 0 0 0 0 0 TABLE 2CONT • own- 01.m C ry n „ ml ' : 4 N o ..'„• in.4 n 4:1fl m m .� m m � m o to n ^•O1 O ^ m 10 61 1..., 'Oi'0'O N N 1. CO" N: im :N.^ n 1. P O n o P/' O h• 4^ N P m 4.•O!.10 1` Yl 0.h. • p 'N n'n n . n m 0o 01 m O. r 4 N P'o o. hln n m'O:N N f N 1. n ^ P.0 8 n O n m 4 0 P n O Z N,^ Z.: m m � o n ry en N O ^ 01.°mm�0vl N ' m N 0 ^ n 0 n 0 n 0 0 N ^ 0 N O ^ ^ n N m m o 0 h N 0 N O ^ ^ vl 0.0. Y1 m 1: p q .lh0• 0 • m ^.m N p N N in 0 o 'r: n f_1. 40O 0 h 0 f°,23.O m 0 nt IIDD. 0 O ry n m o m ,am 1. Q, m 0 n 0 N• m n O O ,, n 0 n N 1. 0 P m n m N m ! m n O P m QQ m �S 05 n O n n m U n P N O o N n n N n P N h N O N P n O n n 0 m p g on• m 1. 4 N ^ m Z n^ n N O N g 0 n I. n O N ImIp m fin, 0_ ab P 1. O N N n ry' m N O^^ n b m O m n 0^ 1t 04 m N .0 m n 0 OM A ul n 1. n 0 N IO P N N n P N 0 m^^ ^^ m m 4 O^^ N N m N O^^ Nn p o C m n O^ n 0 m ^ fen ^ ^ ^ N 4 n P'1. O O n N 40 n ▪ N 0 N O C^ 4 m'NO P 4 O'f'nNwo no, m,A ^ �!m O N N m f N 'A m n 0T O 0.0] m 0.0 p en n^ I. 40 ImIpp 0,!, n' m n N .0g0. n N n 1. n O N O P' Ipp MOC4 ^ ▪ m N 0 ^^ V N,q ^ P 1. O A N m f ^ m N 0 ^^ n IPp t0 O P 4 0 4 10„ m 4 ^ u111 N ^ ^ 0 O O P m n 0 omo p en N^• . n N 1. 4 N ry PIO n 1. n n n P n N n 1. n O N N P^ n O N ry ry n O ^ m h O^^ IN h en ^ P 1: O N N mn �D m N O ^^ ^ ^ P 4 O^ n m 4 O 1. O T enp ▪ n o 1. 4 o . m m O n N n m pp Q1 1p Ip'm n 0^ O H p P Yf O n 0^ m N O owner, ^ P n O W 4 m N H n N ^ ^ ^ ^ e o — ' 2 • - _ 8 s _ O<" H O 2-0 H OIp<�2 m • > Zo-U m e m W U w N ¢ .1 m U p W < 2 U W N 00 M m O'- m OwLLO Z V V O Z 2 m ZO w n O LL m 88511 U m 2 W 0 Z W W Q O U m W x 2 pp 5 VD-, mUm W~mOmo22 woo'-mmLL m§w3 00 W 0 2 w w= j W O 0 , w% 7 Z (Z_7 W O§ O m w w= m 6 W~ W= _ 0 3 W__ 0 0 y y W.� LL m (� 0 O J 2 W W W u !. Y W H W LL LL W W W W W Y W LL LL> W �2�Qm c� LLLLXm WmILLLLmm ��ooWm<71 LLW Xm m y. W W O= Q W W$$ . ci < 2 W' O 2 Z � W X ^^^ W 00 J J- N J W W m m ^ p m W ^ ^ W W W W= m W W W X W W Z W W X X = Z W W? W X W W W X 0 2 U 0 Y m 0000 0 0 Y 0 0 0 0 > 5 U U Y LL 0 U U U O 1/4w TABLE 2 CONT 0. M m'�•n�NtA . N � . is n 0 A'.•N t13 1'1`C 1V � m' N m' n' n A A. N N C1 ^. G n m A. N 10, .00 niat0 0 'MN IA 0 �a6tal^•pmf 1 O IaOI N' Ott N. •N'O atm.m m ^ ' � O 10 A 0 p 0 m O OY"^ O mteni r m m 4.'0S .10 0 n N n'^ m^ m m O n. n O N 0 N 0 n � .8 ^ N m N'O ^ A m 0 m .in ^ • N a to O t� CI at A m n m O•N.O tN gj.m n,N n 0 N 0 .co"" $ Yjn. n 00 N ' m N O ^ ^ N Yj n f n O N N ^ m H O ^ ^ pfN A Qt� 10 A'A O 0 .0 w m n O ANON N A A O m ^ N ,w00 N N 0 YI ^ A m O n AN 'O m mn O ry_a N 01 N'O f.4,q 1y m N O O A ' p. N 0 O m A n O a 0 o•n - a o n . n N N 11p• 0O pyT� 'M O . f a ^ O A n A n N N•� m m 0 . 0nO-0iA 0 , 0 ^ O n O ON1 ..001 n N m m e A 0 n O.O0 A.O 0 A n m N a a A N a n 0 0 f 10 0 m N . a p HeYlvtnDH OO� 0A1m0_a 0n C'� 0110D r. . a m ,N Op$ 0nO f p s �$ • nn NmNO^ o:Im'!o maNC,mm� A. n ^ A A Sn n O A. ^ O N N mom, f Np 0 N N n N n O^ N^ N m. 0 ^ cot'p^ m a m 0' n 10 N^ m N 0 n m A Q . O n^ A. 0 8 w^ G . O ^, N ^ N fV N . N n A 0 Cam+ 1D O� m N ^ N ^ n.f+ m.Ot m N ^ a m .onr§� ns40N ^ ammo 0 m Oanut0 0I N 0 0 n N n.m o N 0 0 0•A pi m n n n m A m n 0mO1RNal f N n N n O 0 N ^ m N O ^ ^ f N n N n O N N ^ m N O ^ oea 0 z o CC2La o 0 a w O Z L- U 0 < U, LL Z } o w w Q q o°z Ow_ zo i=v CIz 2 w =LU 0 =m�"n m8' wat+QAu.s+ QQUz� ww U�� H2O ww O Uzi wwg U4-4- m a m Vm Vm W 2 J m O LU LU a 0' _ E Q Q 0 0 w W '77= 77§ O.� W mcc W W Z >> Q? Q Q N N m W 2 W W j j 0 Q D W S• -, w Q Qw wwmm ,200z Q O 1' W CJ LL LL X C QWWwD J W lL7JWL LL 0 0 0 W Z 0 a It t X m d W 4J. t m 1' tamm = 0^ Z U W X W O W J1 ON " N N W W W W^= m W -00 ^^ O W —.L.... O" y J W W m 0 J J J Y J J w J J O O Z Z J J w W> _,_,-0 J- - J J W J J Y Y w W W� O m W W W X W W? W W X X W W W X W W W X W w= W w X X O m " O Y N w " " 0 O " " x " " O O s " " 1L O " " " O " " Y " " O O • 0 Ow p N A N 0 0 n A. -AM f A m O S31. Y A 1D COI 0 .0 'a c 0 c 0 TABLE 3 FLOW AND WASTELOAD PROJECTIONS / PLANT PERFORMANCE SUMMER FLOW - 1.78 MGD SUMMER BOD - 2,602 LBS/DAY SUMMER S.S. - 3,711 LBS/DAY SPRING FLOW - 2.64 MGD SPRING BOD - 2,750 LBS/DAY SPRING S.S. - 3,459 LBS/DAY Year 2015 TABLE 4 ELIMINATED ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE High rate land application Combined high rate and slow rate land application Chemical precipitation of phosphorous at treatment plant REASON FOR ELIMINATION • perceived as discharge • long term phosphorous removal efficiency not well known • perceived as discharge • long term phosphorous removal efficiency not well known • not cost effective FIGURE 5 GENERAL Stow RATE LAND APPLICATION SITE BOUNDARIES wdxL VALLEY COUNTY, IOMHO � ,� Idarop ENGINEERS. Inc. :Jib$ 6"""'S a.. .l,.,.. G 6� RATE LAND GENERAL SLOW OC w J - J J W U 1 60 MONITORING WELLS L_- - 3N11 1N3111333 „Z EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT 1 SLOW RATE LAND APPLICATION SITE • V N�y LV Q �0ca 0 cc 0 e 1 FIGURE 7 l-DITCH IRRIGATION AL1ZRNATIVE MACAU, VALLEY =WY. DAM � J—U—S EEFJ. NONel. in ��J w w.www.n.m MIMEIr".2.1;21 j LEGEND 12' EFFLUENT UNE LAND APPUCAT1ON SITE FIGURE 8 MARI IRRIGATION ALTERNATIVE YoCALL, VALLEY CC M1Y. DM O FIGURE 10 hs:::v—ALLEC76.........lecww".......etn.„....S.c:::ErA"):Rm....r.S, Ina. IRRIGATION ALTERNATIVE 0 PETITION 1I OPPOSITION TO THE CITY OF.McCALL LAND APPLICATION PROJECT The City of McCall proposes to spend $10,000,000.00 to build a five mile pipeline to carry treated sewage effluent from its present sewage treatment facility to a proposed 300 million gallon storage facility adjacent to a new residential subdivision, private residences and other private land near Lake Fork, Idaho. The City then wants to build two sprinkler systems on previously un-irrigated farm land belonging to private citizens to dishurse the effluent (which is suitable to apply on growing crops). While the stated goal of reducing by 6% to 11% the phosphorus which ends up in Cascade Reservoir is laudable (but not required by any law), the undersigned oppose this project because serious questions concerning the project have not been answered. Thee questions include: 1. Is spending ten million tax payer dollars to reduce by only 6c%o to 11% the phosphorus in Cascade Reservoir the most economic alternative? The City of McCall has not disclosed the other alternatives it considered. 2. Why is it necessary to burden residents of Lake Fork with McCall's waste problems? What efforts have been made to locate the proposed facility closer to the City of McCall to, among other matters, reduce the cost of building the five Mile pipeline? 3. Building irrigation systems and providing irrigation water for free to private landowners provides an enormous benefit to these private landowners. What efforts have been made to locate landowners who would be willing to pay a portion of the cost of these valuable irrigation systems and irrigation waters? 4. The proposed 300 million gallon settling pond would he unsightly odezQus and create a h.aven for mosquitos and other pests. Has the City of McCa11 considered how these nuisances would affect the property values and quality of life of adjacent homeowners and other private landowners who are not getting free irrigation systems? 5. Why weren't residents of these lands and other affected citizens given notice of this proposal? Who is the City of McCall trying to protect'? Who is really bene .tting from this proposal? 6. Has the City of McCall accurately represented the cost to the taxpayer? Has the City of McCall considered what costs will be associated with obtaining the water rights necessary to expand its use of its present water right? Has the City of McCall adequately explored the wetlands issues which may arise in building a five mile pipeline through the subject area? Until these and other questions are answered, we urge the City Council to reject the "Land Application Project." bypassed. By labeling this an agricultural project, the effect upon adjacent land owners has not been addressed by Valley County Planning and Zoning. We view this as an ill-conceived and ill-fated plan. We are concerned about the effects it will have on the erironment now and in the future. There are other alternatives which would have less impact on the residents of Valley County. We are strongly against the Maki Alternative and urge you to look at other solutions to this problem. „-/ DST _ : February 16, 1995 TO: McCall City Council FROM: James D. and Mary Lou Rush RE: McCall Land Application Project While we support the elimination of the adverse impact of the McCall wastewater treatment plant effluent on the Payette River and Cascade Reservoir, we DO NOT support the McCall Land Application Project known as the Maki Alternative. We have concerns in several areas. The proposed storage pond will create an aesthetic nuisance. There is a very real possibility that there will be odor associated with this pond and with the sprinkling of the effluent. The addition of water to the pond will create fog, especially during the winter months. There will be increased traffic flow during construction. The quality of life of those living near the pond will be aversely affected by the Maki Plan. We are also concerned about the contamination of domestic wells from the effluent applied to the land. State guidelines ask for buffer zones exceeding those proposed in the Mak` plan. These state guidelines propose a buffer of 1000 feet from a public water source, 500 feet from a private domestic well, 300 feet from a dwelling, and 50 feet from accessible public land. There are a number of homes and domestic wells which will not have the recommended buffer zones. We feel there is a potential health risk. Devaluation of property near the project area is highly likely. The homes and properties within close proximity of the storage pond will surely be devalued. This will adversely effect a large number of home and property owners. We are concerned about the drift of the effluent onto neighboring properties. The wind blows frequently in the project area. As property owners who were originally included in the project, we wonder why we were never notified by J-U-B or the._.City of McCall. Absentee land owners in the impacted area were not notified of the proposed project. Land owners, other than the Makis and Harry Bettis, who will be effected by this plan were not contacted until February 5 or 6; 1995. We question the amount of time allowed us to seek expert advise, legal council, or information. The concerned neighbors of the Maki Plan have limited representation because County Planning and Zoning was K. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We have concluded that the existing treatment facility can best be utilized in conjunction with the Maki alternative for slow rate land application in order to provide effective, long term treatment of the City of McCall's sewage effluent. Following is a summary of the costs associated with each alternative, along with an equivalent annual cost analysis and alternative ranking. ALTERNA1VE FIRST COST OF CONSTRUCTION (15% eng/cont included) Slow Rate (General) Maki Mud Creek South A J-Ditch Mud Creek South B *NOTE : $6,425,000 $9, 993, 000 $10,675,000 $13,902,000 $15,119, 000 FIRST COST OF LAND PURCHASE (15% cont included) $3,220,000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL FIRST COST $9,645,000 $9, 993, 000 $10,675,000 $13,902,000 $15,119,000 Each alternative involves land purchase for storage. However, it is assumed that this land will have no resale value at the end of the project life. Therefore, for the purposes of economic analysis, the first cost of land purchase for the Maki, J-Ditch, and Mud Creek alternatives is listed as $0. Discount Rate : 8.25% Land Inflation Rate : 3.00% Planning Per. (yrs) : 20 ALTERNATIVE Slow Rate (General) Maki Mud Creek South A J-Ditch Mud Creek South B ANNUALIZED COST ANNUAL O&M COST TOTAL ANNUAL COST $790, 240 $1,036,820 $1,107,580 $1,442,400 $1, 568, 670 $168,700 $210, 300 $216, 000 $187,400 $191,200 $958,940 $1,247,120 $1,323,580 $1,629,800 $1,759,870 - 54 - _ • .--- - .-•••• /CM CO' , 4 , t: 1 • — I .........4.....i..... ,,,....... , \ ': i• 1,----, i----- , 3 ' - ll- -1---- 1 Fl G U RE TRAnslassioN pipe:wit ALicshir.trt I -BITCH ALTZRHArFTVE iler-A.i- ',ALLV ,:blOrT, 0..0 ....,... J — 4.I ••• II 4. NOW CIL . '5 1 Zwarani 11•••••••••• • 1.•••••••-• Arlon ••••• ..........)1 , •• •Id 4. r - , : 5 2 r I - - - - " , _ \ - 4 \ " " . J . P F " I I L L / r r t / L O C A R Q N ' 3 F A 4 N O I N G t - U C R I P E C _ 3 3 3 4 < " 4 . . 1 1 . . , ; y i I 1 i , 9 \ I N \ - " \ / : \ ' ' , \ \ \ 1 5 N 2 7 I f l 2 3 r 2 2 I r I ! . t . - I I 1 . " 4 " 1 / 1 . ' r _ 5 5 J t L E 3 E 1 4 0 M P I C U M E 5 P I C K A C I I I G . . - C 1 1 1 1 7 . S N O L C P I P E L I C I t & I . A 0 1 0 0 J - 0 1 1 0 4 I A E A T O O I L 1 P O I N K U E R I M P K I A T E D T N a L l O g a a l M I T I " A R I A T O O E 3 P R I Y K L O 1 I O N 1 4 4 0 . = T N U O I D L O C C D T E N . 0 1 E . 4 1 . P R I M A f o e M o m P R O W = I T M t T . E . 1 . 0 . = M T . l e & s i o n A g e l a s e m a i r c m c - r . 1 , 2 3 F I G U R E 2 - D I T C H A L T E R N A T I V E ? M U M / N A R Y I R R I G A T I O N P U N b l V A L L E , C - 0 1 . 1 4 1 - T , J - U - I I T P O I N E E R S . i n c 4 1 4 1 8 , m e o r s " " " " " " - " " " = p 4 m . m o t Z a n y r t . . " 1 e a . A m . 1 . 3 T M A I i m " . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 0 : 1 1 - a l TABLE 7 Engineer's Estimate of Probable First Costs of Construction PHASE II - CITY COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE J-DITCH ALTERNATIVE (ASSUMING STORAGE SITE AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT) Item Quantity Units Unit price Cost Treatment Plant Improvements : Install fine screens 1 LS $215,000 $215,000 SUBTOTAL : $215,000 Duplex Pump Station : Duplex Pump Station 1 LS 5535,000 $535,000 SUBTOTAL : 5535,000 358 mgal Storage Earthwork / Appurtenances 1 LS $3,820,000 $3.820,000 SUBTOTAL : 53,820,000 Engineering and Contingency Allowances Engineering For City Constructed Project Elements 1 LS 5914,000 $914,000 Contingency For City Constructed Project Elements 1 LS $457,000 $457,000 SUBTOTAL : $1,371.000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST : $5,941,000 y.+ Co?Ow▪ l PIN Oul• t 111.111 owls • Poi J J064 • d � 0. Eo a r 0 3 rJ" r 3-a • 4\\., • 8 • E 4j O • 4 y 1a c W W • Z T .G TABLE 5 Engineer's Estimate of Probable First Costs of Construction PHASE I - COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE J-DITCH OR NATIVE (ASSUMING STORAGE SITE AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT) Item l Quantity_ Treatment Plant Improvements : Units • Unit price Add Effluent Flow Meter 1 LS $20,000 Remove Existing Sand Filter Media 1 LS $83,800 New Sand Filter Earthwork 1 LS $58,500 Sand Filter Media and Liner 1 LS $628,374 Piping and Appurtenances 1 LS $129,225 SUBTOTAL: Interim Pump Station Intenm Pump Station SUBTOTAL: Transmission Pipeline to J-Ditch 1 18" DI CL 50 Pipe 12,500 18" PVC C905 Pipe 9,395 AirNac Relief Valve 7 Blow -off Valves 5 Misc. Fittings 1 GraveVPavement Surface Restoration 100 Natural Surface Restoration 21,795 River Crossing 1 SUBTOTAL: Mixing Station Mixing Station SUBTOTAL: Storage Site Evaluation and Land Acquisition Site Evaluation Land Acquisition SUBTOTAL: City Contribution to J-Ditch Pipeline and On -Farm Irrigation Systems 1 50 LS $90,000 LF LF EA EA LS LF LF LS LS LS ACRES Total Contnbution 1 LS SUBTOTAL: Engineering and Contingency Allowances (not Including City contribution to Association -construction) Engineering For City Constructed Project Components 1 LS Contingency For City Constructed Project Components 1 LS SUBTOTAL: TOTAL ESTIMATED COST : TABLE 6 PHASE I- PROJECT FUNDING State Challenge Grant State Supplemental Grant Revolving Loan Fund Investment Income TOTAL: 549.43 541.19 54,500 52,250 $12,500 $7.00 52,00 $46,530 5210,000 $200,000 $9,000 $1,850,000 5500,000 $320,026 Cost $20,000 $83,800 $58,500 $628,374 $129,225 $919,899 $90,000 $90,000 $617,875 3386,980 $31,500 $11,250 $12, 500 $700 $43,590 $46,530 S1,150,925 $210,000 $210,000 $200,000 $450,000 S650.000 S1,850.000 $1,850,000 $500,000 $320,026 5820,028 $5,690,850 Committed ' To complete the funding package for the Association - constructed components of the project, DEQ has S1.000.00o proposed to increase the State Supplemental Grant to 51.500.000 the City by S1,160,000. The final amount of this Increase $3,140.850 will be added to $1,850,000 to set the fixed amount of S50,000 of the City's contribution to the Association -constructed components of the project 5,690,850 TABLE 4 ALTERNATIVE Slow Rate (General) Maki Mud Creek South A Revised J-Ditch Original J-Ditch Mud Creek South B * NOTE : FIRST COST OF CONSTRUCTION (15% eng/cont included) $6,425,000 $9,993,000 $10,675,000 $13,455,549 $13,902,000 $15,119,000 FIRST COST TOTAL FIRST COST OF LAND PURCHASE (15% cont included) $3,220, 000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,645,000 $9,993,000 $10,675,000 $13,455,549 $13,902,000 $15,119,000 Each alternative involves land purchase for storage. However, it is assumed that this land will have no resale value at the end of the project life. Therefore, for the purposes of economic analysis, the first cost of land purchase for the Maki, ]-Ditch, and Mud Creek alternatives is listed as$0. Discount Rate : 8.25% Land Inflation Rate : 3.00% Planning Per. (yrs) : 20 ALTERNATIVE Slow Rate (General) Maki Mud Creek South A Revised J-Ditch Original J-Ditch Mud Creek South B ANNUAUZED COST ANNUAL O&M COST TOTAL ANNUAL COS $790,240 $1,036,820 $1,107,580 $1,396,080 $1,442,400 $1,568,670 $168,700 $210,300 $216,000 $187,400 $187,400 $191,200 $958,940 $1,247,120 $1,323,580 $1,583,480 $1,629,800 $1,759,870 The revised J-Ditch Alternative is not the least capital cost or annual cost alternative considered in the facilities planning. The revised J-Ditch Alternative does have the following advantages when compared to the other alternatives. -19- TABLE 1 Engineer's Estimate of Probable First Costs of Construction CITY- TRUCTED COMPONENTS OF THE J-DITiLTERNATIVE (ASSUMING STORAGE SITE AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT) Item Quantity Treatment Plant Improvements : Add Effluent Flow Meter Remove Existing Sand Filter Media New Sand Filter Earthwork Sand Filter Media and Liner Piping and Appurtenances Install fine screens SUBTOTAL: Duplex Pump Station : Units Unit price I Cost 1 LS 320,000 1 LS 383,800 1 LS 358.500 1 LS 3628,374 1 LS 3129,225 1 LS 3215,000 Interim Pump Station (Phase I) 1 LS Final Pump Station (Phase 11) 1 LS SUBTOTAL: Transmission Pipeline to J-Ditch : 18" DI CL 50 Pipe 12.500 18" PVC C905 Pipe 9.395 AirNac Relief Valve 7 Blow -off Valves 5 Misc. Fittings 1 GraveVPavement Surface Restoration 100 Natural Surface Restoration 21,795 River Crossing 1 SUBTOTAL: Mixing Station Mixing Station SUBTOTAL: 358 mgal Storage LF LF EA EA LS LF LF LS LS Site Evaluation 1 LS Land Acquisition 50 ACRES Earthwork / Appurtenances 1 LS SUBTOTAL: Engineering and Contingency Allowances Engineenng For City Constructed Project Elements 1 LS Contingency For City Constructed Project Elements 1 LS SUBTOTAL: TOTAL ESTIMATED COST : 390.000 3535,000 549.43 541.19 54,500 S2.250 512,500 57.00 52.00 546,530 3210.000 3200,000 59,000 53.820.000 51,200.000 31,200,000 520.000 383,800 358,500 5628.374 5129,225 $215.000 31,134,899 390.000 3535.000 3625,000 3617,875 3386,980 331,500 511.250 312,500 5700 343,590 546,530 31.150,925 5210,000 5210,000 5200,000 5450,000 53.820,000 $4,470,000 51,200.000 31.200,000 32.400.000 $9,990,824 TABLE 2 Engineers Estimate of Probable First Costs construction ASSOCIATION -CONSTRUCTED COMPONENTS OF THE J-DITCH ALTERNATIVE (ALL DESIGN AND COST INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CASCADE EARTH SCIENCES, 2/7/96) Item Inlet Structure and Appurtenances Inlet Structure and Appurtenances SUBTOTAL: J-Ditch Pipeline and Laterals (Blended Water) : 27" PVC Pipe 10.812 24" PVC Pipe 4,158 21" PVC Pipe 2,614 18" PVC Pipe 10,827 15" PVC Pipe 9,155 12" PVC Pipe 10,436 10" PVC Pipe 1,346 8" PVC Pipe 2,258 6" PVC Pipe 798 4" PVC Pipe 3,440 Trench Excavation, Backfill, and Waste Disposal 1 SUBTOTAL: J-Oitch Pipeline and Laterals (Unblended Water) : 24" PVC Pipe 21" PVC Pipe 18" PVC Pipe 15" PVC Pipe 12" PVC Pipe 10" PVC Pipe 6" PVC Pipe 4" PVC Pipe Trench Excavation, Backfill, and Waste Disposal SUBTOTAL: Total J-Ditch System Piping Appurtenances Outlets to On -Farm Spnnkler Systems Isolation Vaiving Drain Assemblies Air! Vac Valving Pressure Relief Valving Misc Fittings SUBTOTAL: Road Crossings Road Crossings SUBTOTAL: Professional Services (approximately 15Y. of estimated cost of construction, not Including on -farm Irrigation systems) For Association -Constructed Project Elements SUBTOTAL: On -Farm Irrigation Systems On -Farm Imganon Systems SUBTOTAL. 4,405 4,389 4.828 1,474 372 5,083 2.636 700 1 1 1 1 Quantity Units Unit price 1 LS LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LS LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS 532,680 539.96 529.14 S24.86 519.75 S 15.40 51307 57 87 56.53 54.65 S3.95 5283,898 524.86 519.75 515.40 511 15 57.87 36.35 53.95 53.50 $93,672 548,740 511,600 57,500 S31,100 511.600 550,000 5114,000 Cost 7 532,680 532,680 5432,048 5121,164 564,984 5213,833 S 140,987 5136.399 510,593 514,745 S3,711 S 13.588 S283.898 31,435, 949 3109,508 586,683 574,351 516,435 52.928 532,292 310,412 52,450 393,672 3428,731 548,740 511,600 S7,500 531,100 511,600 $50,000 5160,540 $114,000 5114,000 LS 5325,785 5325.785 3325,785 LS 5967.040 5967,040 5967,040 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST : 53,464,725 TOTAL COST OF EARTHWORK AND LINER VS. DEPTH O O co O O O O, O O O O O O `O O O O O O O O co_ cc_ N. O Co coD (V r r T T r 69 ($)1SOo O N O STORAGE LAGOON DEPTH (FEET) FIGURE 2-SQUARE CONFIGURATION 1 $1,000,000.00 co, O O O co co O O O O O O co O O co co co co O O o_ co) O co; O co" co; co; O Lii co L() O in co 1SOO • M O N O N M O LC) O WATER DEPTH (FEET) Section 4 — VE Team Review of Proposed Project and Related Issues SECTION 4 - :VE TEAM REVIEW OF. PROJECT AND RELATED ISSUES INITIAL GROUP STATEMENTS, ISSUES AND CONCERNS After six hours of presentation, questions and clarification by JUB engineers, each member of the VE team was asked to provide a statement regarding their understanding of the project and express any concerns or additional issues that should be considered. The statements from each represented group were as follows: • General Concerns • Legal issues o Water quality (future) Financial exposure(future) ■ CRA o Cost effectiveness of project with respect to lake improvements vs. project costs • County •o McCall has been improving • Regulations difficult to implement • DEQ interpretations improving o County commissioners encouraging coordinated o City/County consistency of standards • District o Others voluntary complying (i.e. farming, forestry, septic owners) © Supports effluent out of river ■ DEQ o Best possible use of grant/loan. © Groundwater quality is protected o Surface water quality is protected Protection of public health • Concerned citizens © Costs keep going up © Invite other expert (Note: Dr. Nokes recommended Barry Albert (NRCS) Barry attended the next two days.) • Invite Farmer (Barry Albert represented farming interests) o Irrigation system management o Will take a long time to clean up Cascade Lake 20 %se SECTION 4 VE TEAM REVIEW Cascade Reservoir is too shallow 1 cow = 16 People worth of loading • pavement runoff is also a problem ❖ consider draining and making reservoir deeper • City Staff o Control Cost • Maximize use of grants • Coordinate projects/synchronize (legal, admin, engineering, Etc.) • Better intergovernmental coordination o Technical & aesthetics consideration must be sound • Other City Goals Considered (i.e. parks and recreation, transportation, etc.) • Council members 0 4 1/2 year process: cost effective o Must meet obligations o Must consider long term (20 years & longer) J Ditch must work; water rights; quality of groundwater table o Financial reality • Summary of Technical Issues expressed by Technical Group and other participants ® Clear understanding of water rights o Distinction of clear water vs. mixed water (problem for seed potatoes) o Unused water rights: Risk of loss; farmer doesn't have risk o Levels of phosphate removal in field is questionable; 100% from the North Payette river, but not the Cascade. 100% removal from Cascade Basin is not being achievable. o Couple effluent use with fertilizer reductions o Crop/use dependent for effect of removal © Design life of project should be evaluated o Effluent management plan necessary o Groundwater monitoring (non). Is this project working: need baseline o Get all costs on table (collection & treatment) Q Monitoring in sprayfield areas before and after effluent application (before & after) o How perfect is irrigation? BMP's in transition o Reduction in river flow during low flows -- summer/fall o Estimate accuracy/inaccuracy of predictions o Cattle kill/fish kill stigma Realistic expectation for reservoir: enormous nutrient burden o Many years required for change/recovery o Liability for irrigated lands: stop at release point o Type of crop is important to level of. -nutrient removal and water usage 37% reduction shows in 5 years Legal challenge to TMDL need to check (8/97) 21 CITY OF McCALL 4;;;;6 VE & FINANCIAL I ANALYSIS © Is this the most cost-effective approach? Non point sources may be better candidates for nutrient reduction. © Consider effluent trading need to develop concept further; need to clarify consent order changes. 401 certification included CASCADE RESERVOIR ISSUES • Phosphate Sources and Percentage of Contribution (see figures) o Cascade Reservoir was once the state's most popular fishery but has developed a stigma as being unsafe and polluted which has caused a decline in development interest and recreational use. o The reservoir has experienced several major fish kills in recent years due to oxygen depletion and temperature stress. o Twenty-three cattle died in 1993 after ingesting toxin producing blue-green algae. The reservoir is man-made, shallow and was designed for irrigation supply. © A large volume of water quality monitoring and modeling data has been compiled by DEQ. DEQ published the Cascade Reservoir Phase 1 Watershed Management Plan in January 1996. The reservoir violates state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, water temperature and pH. The City of McCall, a point source of pollution, is estimated to contribute between 4% to 11% of the annual total phosphorus load to Cascade Reservoir. o The majority of the total phosphorus load comes from other sources, referred to as nonpoint sources, including agricultural land use, forestry, septic systems, precipitation, and urban stormwater runoff. These nonpoint sources of pollution are spread out over several subwatersheds, which together comprise the 357,000 acre reservoir watershed. The City is required by DEQ to remove its phosphorus loading from the river and reservoir. The City has a timeline to adhere to for clean-up. The nonpoint sources are not required to remove their phosphorus loading from the river or reservoir. Clean-up activities are voluntary for the non -point sources with no timetable. No Cost to Benefit analysis was conducted by DEQ regarding phosphorus control alternatives. o The reservoir itself contributes about 23% of the annual total phosphorus loading due to internal recycling, or internal re -mixing, of phosphorus from the lake bottom sediments. Internal recycling occurs during spring and fall, drawdowns, and windy days. o The form of phosphorus, which is discharged by the City of McCall, called dissolved phosphorus, is readily available for algae and aquatic plant uptake. o Annual loading from each source can vary widely from year to year depending on weather, runoff conditions and activities on farms and forested lands _® Cascade Reservoir was formed by constructing a dam and flooding approximately 28,000 acres of vegetation and soil containing phosphorus. As a result, the reservoir has contained a substantial amount of phosphorus from its beginning. 22 SECTION 4 VE TEAM REVIEW Reports from 1975 indicated the reservoir was nutrient rich and susceptible to algae blooms. • Removing only the City of McCall phosphorus load from the river and reservoir may have no noticeable improvement in the reservoir water quality. As monitoring and modeling continues, the percentages of contribution from various sources will also continue to change. DEQ plans to continue water quality monitoring in the reservoir in future years. If the reservoir is not improving, DEQ may modify the watershed clean-up requirements. • Other Nutrient Sources and Associated Problems Phosphate is considered to be the limiting factor to algae blooms in the reservoir. However, nitrate also contributes to algae blooms It is not currently known if spray irrigation, with diluted McCall effluent on agricultural and pasture lands in the Mud Creek subwatershed, will cause groundwater or stream nutrient pollution. Dissolved nutrients may move to groundwater, springs and streams and eventually end up in the reservoir. Studies are planned by the Soil Conservation Service and University of Idaho to monitor the water quality impacts of irrigation with diluted effluent. At this time, only one year of the four year study is funded. Most of the fields to be used for J-Ditch irrigation are seasonal wetlands formed by flood irrigation. Under the current J-Ditch project design, McCall will still discharge a portion of their effluent to the North Fork Payette River an estimated 20% of the time (two years out of ten) during "emergency" events. This discharge will continue phosphorus loading from McCall into the reservoir. • Potential Projects for Achieving a Reduction in Nutrient Loading Levels © Fencing to keep livestock out of streams and their buffers (filter strips). Restore native vegetation buffers along streams for nutrient trapping and habitat restoration. o Best management practices on farms and ranches to control runoff, reduce fertilizer applications, and prevent livestock from entering streams Remove phosphorus from point sources such as McCall's effluent through treatment or application to agricultural land Replacement of open ditches and flood irrigation systems with managed irrigation systems such as spray and drip systems Best management practices on forested land to control runoff, reduce erosion, reduce road failures, and prevent livestock from entering stream corridors Reduce or eliminate septic system contributions within the reservoir basin o Reduce I&I inputs to the City wastewater treatment system Control urban runoff through construction of wet ponds and improved storm drainage facilities • Creation of constructed wetlands to trap phosphorus from the tributary streams Manage the Cascade Reservoir levels to reduce internal recycling within the reservoir Consider in -lake phosphorus removal treatments again including 1) extended dry season reservoir drawdown to dry lake bottom sediments and chemically bind phosphorus and 2) selective or pocket sediment dredging 23 CITY OF MCCALL VE & FINANCIAL I CT ANALYSIS © Reconsider application of 100% effluent on a large parcel of City land and pursue land application permitting • Continue monitoring of soils, groundwater, and surface water for use in modeling as required to verify where improvements are being made and to establish nutrient sources • Potential for Improvement in Water Quality From Reduction of Various Nutrient Loads ER) DEQ goals are to reduce total phosphorus loading to the reservoir by 37% from all sources and maintain that reduction for at least 5 years in order to see some improvement. Significant improvement may not be evident for 15 years or more. DEQ estimates the reservoir blue-green algae blooms could be eliminated within 15 years after 37% reduction is achieved. • Forestry experts have indicated that a 42% reduction can be achieved on their land without drastic measures o DEQ suggests that 44% reduction goal rather than 37% may be needed to account for inaccuracies in the modeling • Limiting Conditions and Focus of Future Improvement Projects (to CRA understands that McCall is one of many phosphorus contributors to the reservoir o `Attainment of water quality standards for Cascade Reservoir will require a significant long term coordinated effort from all sources throughout the watershed." (DEQ, Phase 1 Watershed Management Plan). Existing phosphorus within the reservoir may be difficult and costly to remove, thus it may be unrealistic to expect that the reservoir quality will improve significantly • Continue monitoring and modeling efforts to determine if improvements are being made and to revise focus of improvement efforts • Continue efforts to achieve reduction goals 24 Cascade Watershed Land Uses I ,cgciid EMI City N E ILII CI ukI Whuu• Wiiluxl / Kiluruun I Ikon, !bind %Ixlivusmn E. WIC 111 M ® I bi.w NI; • Iiycltc NI: sk%n11 In ilydal Ag iud Pldirc I1ty6uxl Ag ww,t Slum Fin...4 !tu!'. Cknxil and Slurkm" 1 0 1 2 3 Miles Figure 4.4. Subwatershed Phosphorus Loading Allocation kilometers _0 5 10 20 Projection: UTM Zone 11 122195 J Cascade Reservoir Watershed Figure 2.1. *Boise kilometers 0 5 10 20 Projection: UTM Zone 11 013096 3.4 Pollutant Loading J;ilysis Combined point and nonpoint source contributions of phosphorus are summarized in Figure 3.4. The Ioads in Figure 3.4 were determined by averaging 1) the yearly loads for septic, internal recycling, precipitation and fish hatchery, and 2) the years 1981, 1989, 1993 and 1994 for the McCalI wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The loads for forestry, agriculture and urban were proportioned by relative area and applied to the remainder of the total load after subtracting the sources mentioned above. Figure 3.4. Cascade Reservoir phosphorus loading Precipitation 8.0% Agriculture 25.0% Fish Hatchery 1.0% Urban Septic 6.0% 50./o Internal Recycling 23.0% Forest 22.0% McCall WWTP 10.0% Average Measured Load 37,135 kg/yr Phosphorus Agriculture Internal Recycling Forest McCall WWTP 9358 kg/yr P 8719 kg/yr P 7877 kg/yr P 3675 kg/yr P Septic Precipitation Urban Fish Hatchery 1917 kg/yr P 2853 kg/yr P 2349 kg/yr P 387 kg/yr P Forest and agricultural activities contribute similar proportions of the total phosphorus load under the range of conditions monitored. Urban and recreational nonpoint sources comprised a relatively small percentage of the total phosphorus load (6% and 8%). Monitoring data indicates that the City of McCall wastewater treatment plant accounts for 10% of the total phosphorus load to the reservoir during drought conditions due to a corresponding reduction in nonpoint source loading. Under average conditions, with a corresponding increase in nonpoint source loading, this source accounts for only 9% of the total load. 30 f N SECTION 4 VE TEAM REVIEW REVIEW PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Project goals and objectives were reviewed by the VE team members and were listed as follows: • Improve Cascade Reservoir Water Quality • Improve Ground and Surface Water Quality ■ Remove McCall Effluent from North Fork of Payette River ■ Reduce Phosphate Loading in the Cascade Basin ■ Minimize Costs EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED FUTURE SITUATION AND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CONFORMANCE TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT • Projections — Population, Flowrate And Loading ▪ Population flowrate and loading projections are based on the latest revisions by JUB which project these figures to 2015. Representatives from the district and the City indicated that the growth rate has been somewhat less than initially projected and it is likely that the 2015 projection will be adequate to 2018 or beyond o A review of these projections may be warranted at a future date if the City is aware of any significant changes in the growth rates • Discharge Standards — Irrigation vs. River o Consent order outlining discharge standard for irrigation is still in draft form. o Appears plant will meet requirements for irrigation discharge standards with the addition of chlorination system. • River discharge standards have not been fully developed. However, it is anticipated that river discharge standards will include heavy metals restrictions which would be extremely difficult to control and monitor. Some municipalities are in the process of challenging the proposed river discharge standards. ▪ Emergency discharges to river proposed in current plan. Volume and frequency of these discharges should be considered. Discharges to river are allowed between November and April. It may be difficult to predict the need for discharge, since the critical months will generally be May and June. Actual discharges are likely to be necessary in May and June. • "Collection System Infiltration and Inflow Analysis and Design Criteria JUB made a brief evaluation of the I&I situation. Costs and flow estimates have since changed. 25 .0) In contrast, concentrations of chlorophyll a are typically lower and DO is higher in vicinity of the Sugar Loaf Island site (Figure B.5). Water column concentrations of total phosphorus are similar to the Dam site and ;how a dramatic increase beginning in 1991. Other factors such as prevailing winds, hydraulic influence of the tributary inflows to the north and shorter hydraulic residence time may influence biological production at this site. Annual variations in total reservoir nutrients and chlorophyll a concentrations are summarized in Appendix B Table B.1. Figure B.S. Average summer total phosphorus and chlorophyll a at the Cascade Reservoir Sugar Loaf Island site. (Variations may be due to number of samples collected in a given year) 35 30 25 20 to = 15 TQ + CHLa TP + LAKE CHL CRITERIA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I J) 1a At' AI' °° 41► °Q 0 0 °° YEARS 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 rn E 0.06 o. N 0.04 0.02 1 1 1 0 A sanitary survey of bacteria within the reservoir was conducted in 1974 (Clark and Wroten, 1975) found concentrations were below state standards for most sites within 30 feet of the shoreline. Similar results were reported in the BOR reservoir survey in 1974 (BOR, 1975). One violation was reported exceeding the 500 counts/100 ml standard in the Lake Fork arm of the reservoir during more extensive reservoir surveys between 1978 and 1982 (Zimmer, 1983). Mean counts of all sites combined exceeded the geometric mean standard (50 counts/100 ml in September, 1981. High average coliform counts were reported in August 1979 and September 1981. Recent surveys indicate bacteria counts are below state standards, based on data obtained from monitoring stations in 1993 and 1994. However, these stations are located in the pelagic zones of the reservoir and may not reflect conditions along the shoreline where bacterial contamination from tributaries, seeps and drains are more likely to impact water quality. Table 3.1 Total annual NONPOINT SOURCES Tributary Inflows N.F.Payette River 3,150 12,713 18,699 4,464 Gold Fork River 1,990 6,827 12,208 5,518 Boulder Creek 2,990 5,578 I 5,554 1,195 Lake Fork Creek 1,110 1,057 6,759 1,919 Misc. Tributaries 12,500 Mud Creek 466 I 1,104 637 Willow Creek 969 1,257 962 West Mountain 2,440 1,056 3,023 1,149 ISeptic Tanks no data 133 1,917 1,917 Total 24,180 28,799 I 50,523 17,672 POINT SOURCES McCall Wastewater Treatment Plant 1,780d 5,160 3,815 3,947 Fish Hatchery 726 218 218 phorus loading in kilograms (kg) tOiscade Reservoir. Years 1 1981' I 1989b I 1993` I 1994` Total 1,780 PRECIPITATION 1,875d Total Inflows 27,835 Outflows N.F. Payette River 27,450 Retention INet Retention 385 1 Percent Inflows 1.4 5,886 4,033 I 4,165 3,158 3,530 2,849 37,843 58,086 I 24,776 '=Source data Zimmer (1983); b=Source data Entranco (1991); `=Source data Worth (1993, 1994); d=Source estimates EPA (1977) 22 J Annual loading rates were computed for the WWTP during surveys conducted by EPA (EPA, 1977) and the BOR (Zimmer, 1983) prior to routine monitoring of effluent quality. These studies reported 1,520 kg phosphorus and 1,780 kg phosphorus were contributed by the WWTP in 1974 and 1981, respectively. Annual loading contributions have increased concurrent with an increase in population and recreational use but have remained stable since 1988 (Figure B.15). Figure B.15. Annual Total Phosphorus loading City of McCall Waste Water Treatment Plant (Water Years 1989-1994). CITY OF McCALL WWTP PHOSPHORUS LOADING 5,000 4,000 Y 3,000 -J F- 2,000 0 F- 1,000 0 4,751 14,499 4,585 3,985 ' 3,815 3,947 I ANNUAL TP LOADING A comparison of total phosphorus concentrations from the fish hatchery influent and effluent monitoring suggest there are no differences in concentrations after passing through the hatchery prior to 1994 (Table B.6). This may be the result of poor analytical sensitivity due to high detection limits used during this reporting period (>_ 0.05 mg/1). Differences in concentrations were reported following changes in analytical sensitivity (TP detection limits <0.05 mg/1) in November 1994. These differences, however, have been mitigated by substitution of lower phosphorus fish feed and modifications in feeding practices (personnel communication Don Anderson, MFG). E rc E k"v CITY OF MCCALL W VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The VE team should revisit this issue. © Cost of collection system repair or replacement should be included in the project. • Wastewater Treatment Plant Analysis and Design Criteria • Plant appears to handle projected flow and loading • Influent screening proposed. It may not be necessary and could be much less expensive. This is a design consideration. • Upgraded or additional chlorination systems are proposed for storage lagoon and irrigation systems. • Alternative chlorination systems should be considered such as W. • Algae growth may be a problem in last 5 to 8 feet of storage lagoon volume. This can cause increased TSS and pH. ml Sludge removal is not anticipated in the next twenty years based on statements from JUB. Based on past experience with the system, significant sludge accumulation is not expected. • Leakage of 1/8" per day is allowed. Actual rate of leakage has not be evaluated. • Effluent Disposal Treatment System Analysis and Design Criteria o The project, as proposed, does not appear to meet the goal of removing all effluent from the River. Some discharge is still allowed. • It is not known if the irrigation process will remove nutrients as proposed. • Analysis of potential phosphate removal/reduction on irrigated fields is proposed over the next two years. • Potential liability to the City for future improvements to include a nutrient removal process. o Existing fields should be evaluated before and after effluent application to determine pre-existing conditions and verify the nutrients are being removed. • Irrigation design is based on an average year. A higher percentage of effluent will be required in wet years in order to drain storage by September 30. ml When storage is full, irrigation pump will need to run 24 hours per day for 77 of the average 100 day irrigation season or discharge to the river will be necessary. • Reliability of phosphate removal through soils has not been well established on the proposed sites. • At the proposed dilution rate of no more than 33% effluent, the system may not provide 90% or better reliability for removal of effluent discharge to the river. 26 Section 5 — Summary of Agreements and Unresolved Issues ECTION SUMMARY OF PROJECT AGREEMENTS AND UNRESOLVED REGULATORY, LEGAL AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES • Effluent Disposal Q Agreement Respecting Provision of Treated Effluent and Canal Water to Mixing Station, Mixing, and Distribution of Enriched Irrigation Water for Irrigation Purposes — Also referred to as the Three -party agreement between the City of McCall, J-Ditch Pipeline Association GDPA) and Lake Irrigation District (VSWCD) This agreement describes the City's obligation to construct and operate the effluent delivery systems up to the mixing station and to provide $1.8 million in funds to improve irrigation systems downstream of the mixing station. The agreement also includes a number of indemnities in which the City has agreed to indemnify the other parties and the water users against any damage or harm from using the effluent. This agreement includes language regarding the 33% maximum dilution rate of effluent to canal water. The agreement is valid for a 20-year period from the time the effluent pipeline is first activated. Cooperative Agreement for McCall Area Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Idaho Project between the City of McCall, Idaho and the Bureau of Reclamation — Also referred to as the Cooperative Agreement The City entered into to this agreement in order to receive a grant for $2.5 million to fund the J-Ditch project. These funds were allocated for the Phase I portion of the project. The City is currently obligated to construct a storage lagoon as part of this agreement. q Water User and Supply Agreement — There are a number of these agreements which are between the City and each farmer in the J—Ditch area that will use blended effluent for irrigation These are 20-year agreements with the individual farmer receiving effluent. These agreements include a number of indemnities by the City for any harm to the effluent users or their property. The agreements outline the farmer's and the City's responsibilities and also include language regarding the 33% maximum dilution rate of effluent to canal water. a Water Rights Issues and Legal Opinions Concerning the J-Ditch Area This is an issue, which has been raised because the City is intending to remove effluent from the North Fork of the Payette River and deliver it to water users in another area of the Cascade Reservoir Basin. The concern is that this may effect water users downstream of the City's existing discharge point. 27 CITY OF MCCALLr VE & FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS o Memorandum of Agreement Between the J-Lateral Users Association and the Lake Irrigation District —Irrigation Water Users The agreement describes each of the party's responsibilities for construction and operation of the lateral pipeline for 20 years. Memorandum of Agreement Between the J-Lateral Users Association and the Lake Irrigation District — Effluent Water Users The agreement describes each of the party's responsibilities for construction and operation of the lateral pipeline for 20 years. This agreement also includes the 33% maximum dilution rate for effluent. Memorandum of Agreement Between the J-Lateral Users Association and the City of McCall The agreement describes each of the party's responsibilities for construction and operation of the lateral pipeline for 20 years. This agreement also includes the 33% maximum dilution rate for effluent and allows some adjustment in acreage receiving effluent. o Purchase Agreement — This agreement has not been executed. It would be an agreement with the Seubert's, Clearwater Concrete and Valley Asphalt Paving This agreement is for the purchase of the Seubert property for the purpose of constructing the storage lagoons. 0 21-Year Mixing Station and Pipeline Easement Agreement — This agreement is between the City and J.R. Simplot Company This is an easement for the J-Ditch pipeline and the mixing station. The easement is specifically for construction, maintenance and operation of the effluent transmission pipeline and the mixing station. The agreement commenced on April 1, 1997 and will terminate on March 31, 2018. Draft Consent Order Agreement — Between the City, the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality and the Cascade Reservoir Association This agreement regulates and provides compliance schedules for the J- Ditch project through design, construction and operation. The agreement outlines specific water quality criteria including the maximum dilution rate of 33% effluent to 67% canal water for the J- Ditch pipeline project. The agreement also includes monitoring and reporting requirements for effluent discharges National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit — Permit issued to the City by the State of Idaho Division of Environmental Quality The State uses this permit to regulate the City's wastewater treatment facility and control the level of treatment, water quality and monitoring. The permit expires on August 13, 2001. 28 (6) cu m cn Ts N N r N N '=p m a) m / C \\ :p (La cu ea ea o E C LL LL 11. LL )_ r N C/ CD ea 10 m / N . ea c .0 m V E• � L v > C c•o wr m c Lci al CD .N NCO 00 V�V- 0< O ER vOE • O re U C • e .173 m L7) y .m L • ea 0) L O a) cc 4 0 ca N • a JL- CD 4 Ara ca) E O > L at c W / \ • N m CD Q N I4) 0) y N UC CD d tA te 1400 0 4m c i z \ ... rii ip = 0 to ....., ... . ...._ to = 47 N 0 0 -a SECTION 5 SUMMARY OF AGREEMENTS AND ISSUES • Sewer System and Effluent Disposal Operations Seventh Amendment to Inter -Agency Agreement, Cooperative Agreement Between City of McCall & Payette Lakes Water & Sewer District - O&M agreement between the City and Payette Lake Water and Sewer District (PLWSD) This agreement describes the Districts responsibilities and compensation for operating and maintaining the City's sewer collection and treatment systems for a period of 5 years. The agreement includes compensation for administration of accounts as well. cm Operations and Testing Agreement for the J-Ditch Pump Station, Pipeline, and Mixing Station From the City's Treatment Plant to the Mixing Station This agreement will be necessary when the effluent irrigation systems go online in 1998. It could be an amendment to the current agreement with Payette Lakes District 29 Section 6 — VE Team Development & Evaluation of Project Improvements & Alternatives CITY OF MC CALL MINUTES Regular Meeting McCall City Council Thursday — Jan 14, 19* 5hi - 6 Table Of Contents Call To Order And Roll Call 2 Public Comments . 2 Consent Agenda 2 Business 3 AB 98-179 SUB 98-3 3 AB 98-180 King's Pine 3 AB 98-181 M Resorts 3 AB 98-167 Ordinance No. 728 4 AB 98-155 Sewer And Water Operations 4 Reports 5 Executive Session . 6 Adjournment 7 Council Minutes - Jan 14, 1999.doc Page 1 of 9 Exhibit 3 6 MINUTES 'Call To Order And Roll Call M The meeting was called to order by Mayor Eimers at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Arp, Mr. Colton, Mr. Eimers, Mr. Muller and Mr. Venable answered the roll call. A quorum was present. Members of the staff present were Acting City Manager Carla Donica, City Attorneys Dave Bieter and Susan Buxton, and City Clerk Cherry Woodbury. Public Comment Curt Spalding gave a report on the success of the ice skating rink. The Zamboni has been operating and lays down hot water. As a result, the ice is smoother and lasts longer. Thirty five boys and girls have enrolled in hockey. Mr. Spalding commended Bob Peckham for his efforts. It is a non-profit operation relying on purchase of passes and donations. The rink is loosing some money, but everyone felt it was a very worthwhile community project. There was discussion on the cost of water. Consent Agenda AB 99-01 Minutes Of Jan 4, 1999 — Special Meeting Minutes Of Dec 15, 1998 — Regular Meeting Minutes Of Dec 10,1998 — Special Meeting Minutes Of Dec 9, 1998 — Special Meeting Invoice Approval List (To Be Distributed Next Week) Payroll Reports For December Liquor License Renewal — Rite Aid Liquor License Renewal — McCall Brewing Co Liquor License Renewal — Aspen Market Liquor License Renewal — Paul's Liquor License Renewal — Toll Station Liquor License Renewal — Hotel McCall Nonprofit Hawkers' License — Lions Club Resolution No. 1-99 — Budget Line Item Transfer Additional items added to the agenda Liquor License Renewal — Shavers Liquor License Renewal — Harry's Dry Dock Invoice Warrant Register Ashley Royal commented on the additional warrant register. Council Minutes - Jan 14, 1999.doc Page 2of9 p Mr. Colton moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the additional liquor license renewals and warrant register. Ms. Arp seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Business AB 98-146 J Ditch Phase II Rick Harbert stated RH2 had two facets to reported on - The progress of the preliminary engineering design build procedure - The progress with the District on the agreement Mr. Harbert presented the preliminary build plans. Mr. Ballard reported the process was nearly complete. Some items were being fine tuned. Plans are nearly ready to put out for bid. Ms. Arp inquired about the stipulations set forth in the letter from DEQ. Mr. Harbert commented the public review would be part of the permitting process. He stated the need to meet regulatory and funding restrictions and avoid litigation. FONSI also has to be advertised and go through public comment process as well. Mr. Ballard noted the landscaping was preliminary and will become more detailed as the process goes forth. Mr. Harbert stated that work was being done with the District agreements and amendments to identify elements in terms of capital cost responsibilities that could be consolidated into one agreement that would be current and realistic with the relationship between the City and District. This will provide clear policy direction on capital costs, capacity and other issues. He commented on the results and progress thus far with the District on five points of agreement. 1) Need to simplify agreements and amendments and consolidate into one document 2) The District does not want 1/3 the treatment plant capacity but a flow rate of 600,000 gallons per day, reflecting the number of existing customers and District projections 3) The local share of $3.14 Million on the J Ditch loan from DEQ needs to be repaid. The District will pay its share based on flow rate. 4) The City has 45% of the capacity in the Deinhard inceptor sewer line. It was determined that the District's original intent was to give ownership to the City for lease payments. In summary, the City owns the sewer plant and the District has a capacity share. The District owns the Deinhard inceptor line and the City has a capacity share. 5) Treat depreciation as a non -cash expenditure. If funded each year there will be enough funds to replace the needed expenditure. Rick Harbert commented that from the policies set in the new agreement, dollar amounts needed to be determined, compiled and brought back to Council. Council Minutes - Jan 14, 1999.doc Page 3of9 Dave Bieter felt it would be beneficial to start fresh on a new agreement and will work with Rich Harbert to fashion the document. The City is to draft the new agreement to be reviewed by District's attorney, Bill Killen. AB 99-08 Airport Manager Bill Keating presented the agenda bill. He reported the job description had been reviewed by the Airport advisory Committee and approved. Mr. Keating felt the responsibilities snowplowing and maintenance of Airport would tie into the manager's duties. Ms. Arp inquired about funding for the position and if benefits were figured into the amount. Mr. Keating commented that during the budget process may want to decide if the Airport Manager should be funded entirely form the Airport Fund instead of 1/2 Airport Fund and 1/2 Public Works. Merrill Saleen from the Airport Advisory Committee concurred that a part time manager was not sufficient. Dave Bieter requested an opportunity to review the job description for compliance. Mr. Colton moved to approve establishment of the position and authorize the Acting City Manager to advertise the vacancy. Ms. Arp seconded and the motion carried unanimously. AB 98-155 Sewer and Water Operations Bill Keating reviewed the material compiled by staff on the expected costs for sewer operations. Mr. Keating read some of the major points of the strategy for operating the systems. He reviewed the qualifications of personnel. Ted Whiteman presented Council with handouts at the meeting. He stated issues and reasons to retain the services of the District. He noted that the collection system was the neglected part of the system because it was not visible. He emphasized that the District has a proactive maintenance program. Some of the points Mr. Whiteman noted were The importance of a lead operator and stated the City will not have one Lift station repair / maintenance requires technical personnel to trouble shoot problem and stated City will not have expertise I & I investigation process already in place with District and stated with cross training of City personnel will result in loss season of I & I identification District already has in -door equipment storage Mr. Whiteman also commented that the management costs are not included in the City estimate. He felt some cost element should be shown. Mr. Whiteman stated there was a perception that the District was coming out ahead financially at the expense of the City. Council Minutes - Jan 14, 1999.doc Page 4 of 9 Ms. Arp inquired about telemetry and personnel training costs. Mr. Keating reported that the telemetry transfer to the City could be done by the end of the month. Tom Haynes spoke in support of the District. He stated the public wanted to know why the City wanted to change from the District operating the system. Mr. Eimers responded that the Council had been gathering information and found that there would be a cost savings. Jim Staup spoke in support of the District. He felt if the City took on the sewer operation, it would be an experiment. He commented on the presentation by rH2 at the December meeting and that the information was incorrect. Rand Walker felt there would be a gross duplication of services if the City operated the system. He commented that there have been no public hearings. He commented the District numbers were a proposal and the City cost figures an estimate. Mr. Colton wanted to clarify some issues. He commented that everyone was under the false assumption that the sewer fees would remain the same. With the new sewer projects at some point in time the fees will go up. His concern was what was the best price obtainable for the services required. Paul Bianchetti with the District Board stated a 50 year plan was in the making and the District had no intentions of raising the sewer rates. Ms. Arp noted that within the City fees would have to be raised. Mr. Eimers commented there was significant savings by having the City operate the system compared to the 1998 cost figures paid to the District and the 1999 figures presented. This savings will help reduce the needed increase in sewer fees due to the J Ditch project. He supported giving the City an opportunity to work towards realizing those savings. He stated it was an economic choice and desire of the City staff. Ms. Arp felt the District cost figures were firmer numbers. She also felt the City did not need additional responsibilities at this time. Mr. Colton liked the City cost figures and felt the City could do the job but with training and cross training, felt more time was needed. He felt more secure with the District figures. Mr. Colton also felt having the District do both the sewer and water was never really explored. Mr. Eimers moved that the sewer operations be returned to the City, continue negotiations with the District and develop a mutual aid agreement, open the City sewer positions to District employees, and transfer operations as soon as safe. Mr. Muller seconded. At a roll call vote Mr. Eimers, Mr. Muller and Mr. Venable voted "aye". Ms. Arp and Mr. Colton voted "nay". The motion carried. AB 99-9 Parks And Recreation Committee Motions Bob Peckham presented the motions the Committee requested be brought before the Council. One was on a resolution pertaining to minimum stream flow and the other Council Minutes - Jan 14, 1999.doc Page 5 of 9 issue was pertaining to the boat docks at Davis Beach. City Attorney Ms. Buxton gave input on the motions. Mr. Colton moved to have Bob Peckham draft a letter and work with the City Attorney to get proper documentation in support of the resolution as presented by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. The resolution would support the Payette River Basin minimum stream flow proposal. There was concern that in dry years the minimum flow would not be there when senior water rights were taken by users. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Buxton suggested that Mr. Peckham obtain proof of insurance from the Davis Beach dock owners but also offer a cost effective solution by providing information on available new docks from Lucky Peak. Ms. Arp moved to direct staff to obtain proof of insurance from the Davis Beach homeowners in compliance with Resolution 6-85 and assist as soon as possible in getting the docks up to safety standards. Mr. Colton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. AB 99-02 Selection Of Consultant On Comp Plan Andy Locke reported the RFP were sent out and 12 firms responded. The selection committee interviewed the top 4 firms and selected 2 finals. The references on these 2 firms were checked. The final decision was to recommend SAIC. All personnel of SAIC had experience in planning. SAIC bid was a firm $57,000 for the whole project. Mr. Locke felt SAIC had everything needed. There was $40,000 budgeted for this year and $17,000 would be budgeted next year. Mr. Locke stated that Futures Corp only had 1 person with actual planning experience. Futures bid was an estimate of $44,000. Mr. Locke briefly commented on the other top firms among the 4. Bids ranged from $42,000 to $98,800. Ms. Arp commented SAIC knew exactly what the various steps in the process would cost and the bid was a firm amount. Mr. Bieter mentioned he had worked with SAIC personnel and vouched for the company. Mr. Muller moved to select as consultant SAIC and to negotiate a contract. Ms. Arp seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Buxton noted the contract should be in phases to stay within the $40,000 budget figure for this year. AB 99-03 PUD 98-1 Savannah Ridge Andy Locke reported on the vacation of 6'h Street and the application to alter the PUD to include 2 additional units. Mr. Colton moved to adopt the Findings and Conclusion of the P & Z Commission amending PUD 98-1 but include the condition that use of the street will be monitored by the City and Mr. McNair. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - Jan 14, 1999.doc Page 6 of 9 AB 99-04 Appointment To P & Z Commission Andy Locke reported on the recommendation to appoint Connie Ruyle to the City P & Z Commission. Mr. Muller moved to have the Mayor appoint Connie Ruyle to the P & Z Commission. Ms. Arp seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Eimers appointed Connie Ruyle to the P & Z Comrrlission. AB 99-05 Council Computer Equipment And Supplies Mr. Muller reviewed his costs that have accumulated from doing City business on his home personal computer. He estimated it to be about $57 per month. Mr. Muller reported the cost of a scanner would be about $99 — a one time cost. Mr. Colton commented on his additional costs. He felt if this is the way the City is going to conduct business, there potentially could be value in obtaining a lap top for Council use. He felt if it is the expectation to communicate via e mail and using the computer, the City should pay a share of the cost. Ms. Arp and Mr. Eimers felt it's a convenience to have a lap top Lap top computer would cost around $800 to $1,300. Council requested that Ashley Royal investigate the cost of lap top computer and serviceability. AB 99-06 Request For Hardship Adjustment AB 99-07 Request For Hardship Adjustment Cherry Woodbury presented information on the requests for adjustment. Research had been done to formulate a process to handle hardship requests. Federal poverty guidelines in conjunction with the income tax return received from the requestor will be the basis for consideration. Other elements will also be considered such as age, disability, etc. Ms. Buxton noted that the City can not give away free water because of bonding regulations. Ms. Arp suggested a tickler file be instituted to review each case yearly. Mr. Colton moved to approve the 2 hardship cases as presented and use $22.50 as the base rate with water usage limits. Mr. Eimers seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Ashley Royal to make transfer of funds to cover adjustments. Reports Council Minutes - Jan 14, 1999.doc Page 7 of 9 (;) Staff City Manager - Nothing further to report City Attorney - Noted an audit letter discussing financial and litigation situations the City is involved in is to be provided Mr. Eimers reported that Urban Renewal documents are to be reviewed by the attorneys on the John Carey situation. All documents are to be finalized by the end of the week of January 18'". City Treasurer - Reported that the auditors were at the City Presented information on utility billing and collections. A draft has been compiled to revise the City Code pertaining to delinquent payments and will be on the next agenda. Ms. Buxton suggested investigating collections being done by an agency. She also commented on the importance of having cut off procedures and agreement binding the owners City Clerk - Nothing further to report Council Ms. Arp - Reported on her finding about the bill for Spanish class for Police personnel - Inquired about the cost RH2 is charging to attend meetings and what the most efficient way would be to handle information to them Mr. Colton - Reported on proposed strategy for hiring a new City Manager, a proposal on how to select an interim manager for 3 — 6 months, and advertising for the position (s). It was decided to advertise in the AIC publication, Statesman, Spokesman Review, and such for both an interim and permanent City Manager. Mr. Muller - Nothing further Mr. Eimers Nothing further Mr. Venable - Nothing further Council Minutes - Jan 14, 1999.doc Page 8 of 9 x Executive Session J Mr. Eimers moved to go to Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(b) and (f) to consider the evaluation of a staff member and pending litigation. Mr. Muller seconded. At a roll call vote Mr. Eimers, Mr. Muller, Ms. Arp, Mr. Colton and Mr. Venable voted "aye". The motion carried. Adjoumed to Executive Session at 10:50 PM. Mr. Colton moved to come out of Executive Session. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Colton moved to direct Mr. McCurdy to continue settlement attempts, go forward with the quick -take proceedings and notice the quick -take hearing for the condemnation case. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Adjournment Without further business, Mr. Eimers moved to adjourn. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The Council adjourned at 11:48 PM. ATTEST: Cherry W6 dbury, City Clerk Kirk Eimers, Mayor Council Minutes - Jan 14, 1999.doc Page 9 of 9 (;) CITY OF MC CALL MINUTES Regular Meeting McCaII City Council Thursday — Feb 25, 1999 Table Of Contents Executive Session 2 Call To Order And Roll Call 2 Public Comment .. . 2 Consent Agenda 3 Business 3 AB 99-21 Status Report J Ditch 3 AB 99-11 Ordinance No. 729 3 AB 98-5 Computer Equipment 4 AB 99-15 City Manager Position 5 AB 99-17 Idaho Power Underground 5 AB 99-18 BOR Cooperative Agreement 5 AB 99-19 Airport Lease Resolution 6 AB 99-20 Appointment Airport Advisory Committee 6 Reports 6 Adjournment 7 Council Minutes - Feb 25, 1999.doc Page 1 of 7 Exhibit 3 7 G MINUTES Executive Session — 6:OOPM The Executive Session was called to order by Mayor Eimers at 6:00 p.m. Roll call was taken. Mr. Colton, Mr. Eimers, Mr. Muller and Mr. Venable answered. A quorum was present. Members of the staff present were Acting City Manager Carla Donica, City Attorney Susan Buxton, City P & Z Administrator Andy Locke and City Clerk Cherry Woodbury. Mr. Eimers moved to go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(f) to consider pending and threatened litigation. Mr. Colton seconded. At a roll call vote Mr. Eimers, Mr. Colton, Mr. Venable, Mr. Muller voted "aye". The motion carried. At 6:40 p.m. Council came out of Executive Session. Mr. Venable moved for a 10 minute recess. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting reconvened at 6:50 p.m. Call To Order The regular meeting of the McCall City Council was called to order by Mayor Eimers at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Colton moved to direct the City Engineer on February 26th to present mitigation plans 1, 2, 3, and 4 from M Resorts.to DEQ and BOR , to acquire cost projection of the proposals, and request direction and input from agencies. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Public Comment Patrick Phillips and Andre Fernand commented on their concerns regarding portions of Camy Drive that is not being plowed by the City. They inquired if there was a regular snow plow route. Mr. Eimers stated the matter would be taken up with Public Works. In addition, Public Works is to investigate putting more gravel on the road if necessary. Acting City Manager would respond to Mr. Phillips and Mr. Fernand. Council Minutes - Feb 25, 1999.doc Page 2 of 7 Consent Agenda Minutes Of Feb 11, 1999 - Regular Meeting Invoice Approval List Dated Feb, 1999 Hand Check For March Utility Billing Payroll Report Dated Feb 12, 1999 Ashley Royal presented an additional warrant register. Mr. Colton moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the additional warrant register. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Business 1 AB 99-21 Status Report On J Ditch Susan Buxton reported the public meeting scheduled for March 1, 1999, with focus on the DEQ and BOR environmental documents. She reviewed the process for the meeting. She stated that the City would merely be acting as a body that will record public comments. The governmental agencies will respond to all public comments. Ms. Buxton stated that a court reporter will be available to transcribe verbatim what is said at the meeting. Dean Martens inquired if the DEQ and BOR would be making presentations. The meeting will be to receive public comments and not make presentations. AB 99-11 Ordinance No. 729 Ashley Royal commented on the changes recommended by legal counsel to this ordinance. He felt this revision of the ordinance fulfilled the intent to provide a means for collection of delinquent utility bills. Ms. Buxton commented on the changes and noted the similarity to the prior version. She recommended this be the 1st and 2nd reading of the ordinance and a public hearing be scheduled. The cost to the customer of implementing a lien for nonpayment was discussed and Ms. Buxton felt $100 unreasonable. Mr. Royal reviewed the costs to the customer for deposits, delinquent accounts, and shut off. Mr. Muller reiterated the request for some documentation showing examples of the costs to landlords should the account become delinquent. He inquired as to where the billing would be sent — to the landlord or tenant. He felt best practice would be for the landlords to be informed that the bills would go to them and the City transfer all contracts to the landlord's name. Mr. Muller also felt the new contract should be implemented when the account becomes delinquent or there is a change in the tenants. Council Minutes - Feb 25, 1999.doc Page 3 of 7 He suggested a letter be sent to the property owners that the contract must be signed by them. Mr. Venable commented that the purpose of the ordinance was to eliminate delinquent payments. Currently bills are sent and payments received from landlords, tenants, and property managers. He had no concern with the ordinance and felt it would be easier for the City to manager if all contracts were in the landlord's name. Discussion followed on how to let the public know. Mr. Colton felt the public hearing process would provide the means for public input and as a result changes incorporated into the ordinance. Ms. Buxton briefed the Council on situations that may require the City to have the property owner sign a contract (ie the file showed the owner never did return the contract to the City) Mr. Royal suggested that every customer file be reviewed and if incomplete a letter and contract be sent to the property owner to be signed and returned. He also suggested that if the file was in order, but the tenant was paying the bill and there were no problems, the bill should continue to be sent to the tenant. Ms. Buxton explained the City could obtain updated contracts during roll over or delinquency of the accounts. Mr. Colton suggested a 1st reading of the revised ordinance be done and set a public hearing date. Ms. Buxton supported the 1 s' reading because material changes had been made. Mr. Colton moved to suspend the rules and read by title only for the 1st reading revised Ordinance No. 729 with the addition of the $100 fee under Section 270. Mr. Muller seconded. At a roll call vote Mr. Colton, Mr. Muller, Mr. Eimers and Mr. Venable voted "aye". The motion carried. The 2' reading of Ordinance No. 729 was sent for the March 11 th agenda. The public hearing for Ordinance No. 729 was sent for the March 25th agenda with notice to be published in the Star News 15 days in advance. AB 98-5 Computer Equipment For council Members Mr. Colton commented on the compatibility issue with his current personal computer. He stated that the way the City does business puts requirements on Council members to do business currently on personal computers (ie e mail, communication to the public, meeting agendas, etc). He felt a computer was a necessary tool to do the job. Mr. Colton advocated getting a lap top computer that could be passed on to the next Council member. Council Minutes - Feb 25, 1999.doc Page 4 of 7 Mr. Muller commented on the ease it would provide for the next member to review information pertaining to particular topics that would be stored on the computer. Mr. Colton moved to approve the purchase of computers out of the Contingency Fund for those Council members requiring such and the computers to be transferable. Mr. Muller seconded. At a roll call vote Mr. Colton, Mr. Muller, Mr. Eimers and Mr. Venable voted "aye". The motion carried. AB 99-15 City Manager Mr. Colton reported on the selection process and stated that Mr. Bill Robertson was the candidate of choice. He commented that a background check had been completed. Mr. Colton moved to contact Mr. Robertson and negotiate a contract consistent with the position. Mr. Eimers seconded. At a roll call vote Mr. Colton, Mr. Eimers, Mr. Muller, and Mr. Venable voted "aye". The motion carried. AB 99-17 Idaho Power Underground Utilities Mr. Eimers gave a summary of the issues with undergrounding of utility lines and noted the most difficult location was the alley South of Lake Street between 1' and 3'. He reported that the engineering fee for that portion would be $2,880.00 and requested Council consider approving this expense from the Contingency Fund. Three lines are involved — Falcon Cable, Idaho Power, and the telephone. Mr. Muller commented that property owners in the area have been contacted concerning the utility boxes for the lines 'that would be placed on the property. Mr. Muller wondered if RH2 had to approve (an extra expense) the design that Idaho Power would do. Ms. Buxton stated it was up to Council and that it was an Idaho Power engineering estimate to do Idaho Power work. Mr. Eimers reported on Idaho Power's plans to upgrade lines Park Street to Stibnite. To put them underground would be an additional cost estimate of $100,000. Mr. Muller moved to approve Contingency funds of $2,880.00 to pay for the engineering costs. Mr. Eimers seconded. At a roll call vote Mr. Muller, Mr. Eimers, Mr. Colton and Mr. Venable voted "aye". AB 99-18 BOR Cooperative Agreement Susan Buxton reported on the revised Cooperative Agreement. The main revision dealt with the extension of time in the Consent Order from September 30, 1999 to the year 2000. Mr. Colton moved to approve the proposed Cooperative Agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign. Mr. Eimers seconded. At a roll call vote Mr. Colton, Mr. Eimers, Mr. Muller and Mr. Venable voted "aye". The motion carried. Council Minutes - Feb 25, 1999.doc Page 5 of 7 1 • AB 99-19 Airport Lease Resolution Mr. Colton noted that this resolution was approved but the intent was to change the fees when a contract rolled over rather than change all contracts to the new rate. There is a specific date when a contract terminates. Mr. Eimers commented that only brand new leases or change in ownership would be effected by the fee. Carla Donica reported a call had been received from the Airport Advisory Committee and it was requested that this item be tabled. The Committee wanted to review the fee and bring a recommendation back to Council. At that time the resolution could be revised to also reflect the intent when the fee would take effect. Mr. Royal inquired as to which department would handle the billing — Airport or Finance. This item was tabled and sent back to the Airport Advisory Committee. AB 99-20 Appointment To Airport Advisory Committee Carla Donica reported on the recommended appointment of Ray Franz to the Committee. Mr. Colton moved to have the Mayor appoint Ray Franz to the Airport Advisory Committee. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Eimers approved the appointment of Ray Franz to the Committee. Mr. Eimers moved to recess for 5 minutes. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. Reports Staff Acting City Manager - Reported that Ida Ore will be presenting three grant application at the March 11 to meeting in order to meet the submittal deadline Treasurer - Handed out report on budget/actual comparison - Report on conversion to Caselle for utility billing / estimated that the May billing will be via the new software - Commented on the conversion of all the LID data to Caselle Mr. Eimers wanted to take a look at the Water Fund and potential relief for rate payers City Attorney - Reviewed items on attorney action update list - Stated that all written input at the March 1 st meeting should be date stamped City Clerk - Nothing further to report Council Minutes - Feb 25, 1999.doc Page 6 of 7 Council • Mr. Colton Submitted the water bill for the ice skating rink in the amount of $148.80. Mr. Colton moved to pay the $148.80 bill for the ice skating rink from the Contingency Fund. Mr. Eimers seconded. At a roll call vote Mr. Colton, Mr. Eimers, Mr. Muller and Mr. Venable voted "aye". The motion carried. Reported on the annual conference attended by Dan Pillard and Randy McJunkin who won a $6,800 golf cart which will be donated to the City of McCaII Members of the Council complemented Mr. Colton on the City Manager selection process he coordinated Mr. Muller - Nothing further Mr. Eimers - Thanked legal counsel for the work done on the BOR Agreement Mr. Venable - Nothing further Adjournment Without further business, Mr. Muller moved to adjourn. Mr. Colton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The Council adjourned at 9:30 P.M. ATTEST: ury, City Clerk Kirk Eimers, Mayor Council Minutes - Feb 25, 1999.doc Page 7 of 7 City of McCaII Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes April 6, 1999 Attending: Pat Allen Mike Pryor Connie Ruyle Staff: Andy Locke, P & z Admin Cherry Woodbury, City Clerk CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and declared a quorum present. PUBLIC HEARING > Zoning Designation Pat Allen reported that the meeting had been properly noticed by Code. He stated that the meeting would deal with two issues, zoning classification and the CUP. These were to be discussed and considered separately. He opened the public hearing and requested a staff report by Andy Locke. Andy Locke presented the first issue, stating per City and Idaho Code the City Council was considering annexation of the parcel of land. Mr. Locke noted the location of the parcel on a map. He stated that the Commission focus was to recommend the appropriate zoning designation and not whether the City should or should not annex the property. It was asked why the City P & Z was looking at this issue instead of the Impact P & Z. Mr. Locke replied it was appropriate since the parcel would become part of the City limits if annexed and noted the City had jurisdiction for the parcel. Rand Walker stated he was representing himself, wife, mother, father, and sister and husband. He inquired about the fiscal impacts of the project and had the City done any fiscal study. Mr. Walker asked if the cost of providing City services had been documented. Mr. Locke reiterated that the Commission was only charged with zoning designation of the parcel, not annexation. Mr. Walker further spoke on the effects of earthquakes to his property. Mr. Walker stated opposition to any change in zoning, the CUP and annexation in any form. Julie Eddins read an April 6th letter written to the Commission. It noted the financial and emotional burden the project would place on the citizens of McCall. Cost over runs CPZ Minutes — April 6, 1999 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit 38 would be a burden on the homeowners in the area. It stated that property values in the area would go down. She read that the total cost of condemnation was yet to be determined. She commented that all reason and warning had gone unheard by the City Council. Ms. Eddins opposed the CUP and project. Dean Martens stressed that the Commission divorce this issue from all steps already taken on the project ( such as cost incurred, condemnation, etc. ) and focus on what is best for the City in the long run. Mr. Martens commented on his experience with the annexation of the Rio Vista subdivision. He reported that it took 9 years for the subdivision to received the proposed amenities. Mr. martens supported residential zoning for the parcel under consideration. Vern Kime spoke in opposition to any action towards the project on this site. Steve Millemann represented M Resorts. He felt if annexed the R5 zoning for the parcel was correct. Chris Seubert stated he represented himself, wife, mother and father. He opposed annexation of the parcel. He stated it was clearly a residential area and the lagoons would in not way be compatible with the area. He felt it posed health risk with stagnate water in an residential area with wells. He stated the project would eliminate the view for homeowners, that the taxpayers could not afford the project, questioned whether the City could provide services to the area, etc. He felt the project was industrial and not compatible with the area. He felt the project would have substantial over runs. Mr. Seubert stated his opposition to annexation, the CUP and the project. Kolleen Bean lives across from the proposed lagoons. She felt the area would become a preferred residential area with the proposed Whitetail golf course. She opposed any zoning change. Don Green questioned whether the City needed to annex the property. He felt the City could run a sewer facility outside the City limits. Mr. Green felt the annexation of the parcel would cause a tax burden on residents in the Blue Jay subdivision. He noted various residential developments in the area and commented that this project was not good planning. Mr. Green opposed the project. Steve Bixby lives across from the project. He was in favor of the zone remaining R5. Mr. Bixby opposed the annexation and CUP. Jim Staup felt the meeting was only to allow the City to go forward with the condemnation proceedings. He stated that the citizens who live in the area were not represented by the City as it was not within the City limits and the citizens could not vote in City elections. Mr. Staup felt the City Council had not made a strong case for the lagoons. He felt legally the Commission should not make a decision and the Impact P & Z should be handling the issue. Mr. Staup stated that this meeting should not be taking place. He opposed the annexation and the CUP. CPZ Minutes — April 6, 1999 Page 2 of 7 Ray Alford reported he owned %4 mile frontage on the lagoon project. He felt the project was a "political 2 step". He stated that very little discussion had taken place on potential earthquake effects to the project. Mr. Alford presented maps of fault lines In the State and information on previous earthquakes in Idaho. He read a letter into the record. He spoke on Idaho Code sections he felt applied and requested the Commission set the public hearing aside based on incorrect process being followed. He requested the proceedings be stopped and no action taken for 60 days or until the process meets Code. Andy Locke again clarified that the zoning classification / designation was the issue before the Commission. Dave Bieter stated he was the City's attorney and could not provide legal counsel to the Commission. He did address the legal issue of Idaho Code and noted that the City Council was to deal with annexation. He commented that the focus of the Commission and hearing was to determine what the parcel was to be zoned. Ray Alford inquired if the Commission had jurisdiction and felt under 67-6511 the Commission was not allowed to make a zoning decision. He inquired as to who was notified of the meeting. Mr. Locke stated the list could be provided. Discussion followed on notification to the parties involved. It was commented by one of the residents (Ms. Walker) that a relative (Debra English) who would be effected by the issue of the meeting was not notified by the City, only by Ms. Walker. Dean Martens urged that a zoning decision be made before dealing with the CUP. Steve Bixby inquired as to the legality of the Commission making a decision as the parcel was in the County and under Impact P & Z. Dave Bieter clarified per Idaho Supreme Court all recommendations can be made with contingency that the City will annex the parcel. Rory Bean lives across from the project. He inquired about the zoning issue. Mr. Locke clarified what the issue was. Ray Alford asked where the City had a R10 within the City limits. Mr. Locke noted parcels. Pat Allen closed the Public Hearing on the zoning classification / designation. Jim Staup told the Commission it should have legal representation. Covey Ruyle stressed the importance for the Commission to focus on the task rather than debate. CPZ Minutes — April 6, 1999 Page 3 of 7 Connie Ruyle suggested the Commission address the zoning issue. Mike Pryor moved to leave the zoning classification / designation as is — R5. Pat Allen moved to have legal representation and keep the public comment open because 2 Commission members were absent. This motion died for lack of a second. Connie Ruyle seconded Mr. Prior's motion. Mr. Prior and Ms. Ruyle voted "aye". Mr. Allen voted "nay". > Conditional Use Permit Andy Locke presented the application. He spoke on what the application entails. He commented it calls for placing effluent lagoons on the Bezates parcel purchased through condemnation. He stated the City has title to the property, but the final price it to be determined. Mr. Locke noted various ownership of surrounding parcels. He presented a description of the lagoons and reviewed drawing concepts on display. A summary of the reasoning for undertaking the project was presented. Mr. Locke reviewed the history of the TMDL requirements. He spoke on the J Ditch pipeline project, disbursement of effluent on the property along the pipeline during the summer, and the proposed lagoons to hold the effluent during the winter when disbursement would not be possible. Mr. Locke reviewed the efforts to mitigate with surrounding property owners. He noted that project was driven by the need to remove the effluent from the Payette River but constrained by funding / budget. Mr. Locke spoke on the proposed landscaping for the project and reviewed the height of the berms at various points. He noted that there would be a view impact. Mr. Locke commented on the relationship of the proposed CUP to the 1974 Comp Plan and read sections from the plan. He stated the proposal was simple. It did have an impact on the residents in the area, but due to financial constraints, the City was unable to mitigate the appearance of the facility to the satisfaction of the neighbors. Mr. Locke noted landscaping to screen the lagoons from the road and area neighbors. He reminded the Commission that the question was whether the facility was designed to be compatible with the neighborhood and not if the site was the appropriate location for the facility. He instructed the Commission to review the 11 criteria for a CUP and if the answer was not "yes" to all 11, then the CUP could not be approved or conditions would have to be made so that the applicant could meet the criteria. Pat Allen moved for a 10 minute recess. Connie Ruyle seconded and the motion carried. The meeting reconvened at 9:02 p.m. Andy Locke read the 11 CUP criteria. Ray Alford felt the 11 criteria would not be met and opposed placement of the facility or even consideration of it in a residential zone. He recommended denial of the CUP. CPZ Minutes — April 6, 1999 Page 4 of 7 Ted Whiteman spoke as a resident of McCall. He felt the criteria could not be met and that the facility was not compatible for the area. He felt the project was a "financial boondoggle" — not on time and not for the estimated cost. He stated the financial shortage would fall on the citizens to pay. He opposed the CUP. Jim Staup felt the project failed on almost every criteria. He inquired about the extraction of dirt from the site to be used on the berms and if a CUP was needed for a gravel pit. Mr. Locke explained that the dirt extraction was considered burrow. Mr. Staup opposed the CUP. Steve Bixby felt the City made no real effort to mitigate and that the citizens had no say in how it would be built or look. He felt mitigation only started when M Resorts stepped in. He noted no trees could be planted on the slopes per DEQ. He voiced concern about the elimination of scenic view, decrease in property value, lagoon service trucks creating noise and dust, operation pumps causing noise, high winds causing over spray, summer algae, and smell. He felt the residential area would not fit with a facility of this type and that the area might change (become more industrial) to go along with the lagoon site. Mr. Bixby felt the decision on the CUP should come later after legal decisions were made. Don Green presented documents that included a petition, public hearing transcript, and Westside Collation opposition. He spoke on the ground water table which might cause the height of the berms to change. He commented on the Environmental Assessment and felt no action should be taken on the CUP until DEQ, BOR, and IDWR had signed off on the document. He commented that $180,000 was estimated for the maintenance cost on the site and felt the sewer rates would go up to cover that increased expense. He expressed concern regarding noise from the pumps and suggested they be put in buildings. Service personnel driving by on the high berms looking down into the houses was also a concern. He felt the 2 cells could be spread out and the placement of the lagoons needed to be reviewed. He opposed the CUP. Rory Bean presented letters from concerned citizens. He commented that the construction of homes on the site would not be an issue and certainly would not obstruct the view as much as the berms. He opposed the CUP. Chris Seubert again represented his family members. He felt the permitting process was not complete and that this meeting was premature. He stated opposition to the CUP. Steve Millemann representing M Resorts requested the Commission hold the City to the same standards as any other applicant seeking a CUP. Mr. Millemann spoke on the Whitetail PUD which was approved in 1998, the millions of dollars invested by M Resorts, improvements already made by M Resorts, and the impact the project would have on the Whitetail development. He commented that the project landscaping was inadequate. He stated M Resorts had submitted 4 mitigation plans to the City, but not one element of the plans was incorporated in the CUP application, the draft facility plan, CPZ Minutes — April 6, 1999 Page 5 of 7 or documents sent to the bidders. He commented the cost to locate the lagoons deeper into the ground was seen as too expensive. Mr. Millemann pointed out that the Commission should follow the ordinance which requires applicants to comply to certain standards. He spoke on the proposed dirt extraction to build the berms and felt mass excavation was not allowed in the designated zone. He spoke on the Klienfelder report and noted the ground water level reported was during the driest part of the year. He commented on the setbacks, berm height, and City's opposition to mechanical dewatering. He pointed out that the elements of the criteria would not be met with the CUP and recommended the Commission deny the CUP. Mr. Millemann submitted written commits on the NEPA process. Vernon Kime gave a brief history of the zoning changes to the area and reasoning behind the changes. In 1987 the area was zoned industrial. In 1994 a zone change was made to pasture and agricultural uses. It was again changed to R5. He felt the project was being "railroaded" onto the citizens in the area. Mr. Kime presented photographs of the view from various properties. Dean Martens felt the mitigation plan was incomplete. He felt there was not sufficient information that the Seubert site was still not suitable. He felt other sites should be investigated. He commented that mitigation had to be undertaken and to the extent to make the project compatible with the surrounding areas. He suggested that the Commission not be afraid to take a stand and deny the CUP. Julie Eddins gave a history of the zone changes to the area. She requested the Commission look at the ordinance and make the decision based on it. Rand Walker represented members of his family. He stated that the application was coming from an entity but should be considered the same as any other application. Mr. Walker stated that all members of his family opposed the CUP. Mike Barton represented Valley View Sub 1. He presented a history of prior concerns about projects for that area. He commented this project has large opposition from the residents in Valley View Sub 1. He noted that a prior CUP by Bezates for a gravel pit on this site was denied. He read from a news article the reasons the Bezates CUP was denied and noted the similarity to this project. He read comments of negative impacts and concerns such as the effect on ground well water, orders, insects, public safety, noise, equipment noise, etc. He felt the project should be placed in an agricultural area because the use (effluent distribution) was far agricultural use. He commented that the project did not meet 5 of the 11 criteria. He recommended denial for a project of this type that was in close proximity to an established neighborhood. Glenn Gemmelli from Valley View Sub felt the City was going in the wrong direction, with the wrong design, and on the wrong location. He commented the CUP does not meet the criteria and felt the project would not work in the long run. CPZ Minutes — April 6, 1999 Page 6 of 7 Lauren Paripovich spoke on the liners of the ponds and potential leaks. He stated there was no evidence if an effluent water leak occurred it would not effect well water in the area. And, he wondered how long it would take before a health problem developed. He felt without a full environment impact study and complete analysis the effects could not be determined. He felt the EPA would never permit the lagoons next to well water area. Pat Allen closed the public hearing at 11:00 p.m. Pat Allen asked Mr. Millemann what conversation took place when consideration was given to the project. Mr. Millemann stated the shift from the Seubert site to the Bezates site was caused by the rezone necessary for the batch plant location. He stated Mr. Seubert had offered altematives and no engineering analysis had been received for the move from the Seubert. He felt the assumptions for the move have never been revisited. Andy Locke reiterated the focus of the Commission was to see if the application complies with the criteria. Pat Allen again noted that 2 of the Commission members were absent. Connie Ruyle moved to deny the CUP application as it did not meet standards # 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 of the 11 criteria. Mike Pryor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Pat Allen, Chairman ATTEST Cherry Woodbury, City Clerk CPZ Minutes — April. 6, 1999 Page 7 of 7 CITY OF MCCALL PLANNING Et ZONING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-99-2 - CITY OF MCCALL - PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITY - 291 WISDOM ROAD. The Commission finds that: 1. An application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was submitted by the City of McCall. The application was to construct and operate a treated wastewater effluent storage lagoon in Zone R-5, pursuant to MCC 3-6-030 (F) - Public Service Facilities 2. The Planning Et Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 6, 1999. 3. The property for which the application was made is described as follows: A parcel of land located in Section 18, Township 18 North, Range 3 East, Boise Meridian, Valley County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NY4 Corner of said Section 18, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N 89°45'08" W 1328.26 feet to the Northwest Corner of the East one- half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 18; thence S 00°18'21" W 2593.25 feet along the Westerly Boundary of said East on -half to the Northerly Right of Way of West Mountain Road as deeded to Valley County by Warranty Deed Instrument #233886; thence along said Northerly Right of Way the following three courses: S 89°49'12" E 2554.03 feet; thence N 45°14'04" E 91.28 feet; thence N 89°33'00" E 34.97 feet to the Easterly Boundary of the West one-half of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18; thence N 00°15'45" E 1200.29 feet to a found Brass Cap which marks the NE 1/16 Corner of said Section 18. thence N 00°18'29" E 1324.72 feet to a found 5/8" Rebar which marks the Northeast Corner of the West one-half of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 18; thence N 89°44'32" W 1324.34 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING, said parcel contains 157.72 acres more or less and is subject to a 35 foot wide Ingress/Egress Easement along its Easterly Boundary and a 70 foot wide Ingress/Egress Easement along its Northerly Boundary. The property is more commonly known as 291 Wisdom Rd. Exhibit 39 J-Ditch II - CUP-99-2 - 291 Wisdom Rd - FNC.doc Page 1 of 4 4. The commission reviewed the following materials regarding the application: a. CUP Application form b. Exhibit "J" - Supplemental information required by item #s 4 Et 5 of CUP application form c. Exhibit "B" - Legal description of subject property d. Exhibit "C" - Map of proposed amendment to General Plan for McCall e. Exhibit "D" - Proposed Zoning Designation upon Annexation to City of McCall f. Exhibit "E" - Update to Facility Plan for Implementation of Proposed J- Ditch Phase 11 Improvements, DEQ Grant 1894-04, February, 1999 g. Exhibit "F" - Figure 4 - Impoundment Site Plan h. Exhibit "G" - Application ROS-99-1, application by City of McCall to divide a 720+/- acre parcel into a 157.72 acre parcel and a 560+/- acre parcel i. Exhibit "H" - Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Environmental Information Document - City of McCall, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Facility, February, 1999 j. Exhibit "K" - Map of adjacent properties and their owners. k. Staff Report (Exhibit "L") L. Written Testimony from the following: • Leslie Ankenman, Valley County Engineer • Rory Et Kolleen Bean • Mike Et Tina Apostolou • Richard Et Laura Frederickson • Bob Et Sharon DeGarimore • Susan Fenrich • Petition RE: Condemnation of 160 acres of Bezates private property for 360,000,000 gallon sewer storage facility - marked as Exhibit "PH040699.11 " • Transcript of March 1, 1999 public hearing regarding Environmental Documents prepared under NEPA and IDAPA - marked as Exhibit "PH040699.10" • Mike Barton - marked as Exhibit "PH040699.9" and "PH040699.6" • Photographs, submitted by Vernon Kime - marked as Exhibit "PH040699.7" • Ray Alford - marked as Exhibit "PH040699.5" • Steven Millemann - marked as Exhibit "PH040699.4" • Rory Et Kolleen Bean - marked as Exhibit "PH040699.3" • Julie Eddins - marked as Exhibit "PH040699.2" • Dwayne Nelson (submitted by Don Green) - marked as Exhibit "PH040699.8" J-Ditch II - CUP-99-2 - 291 Wisdom Rd - FNC.doc Page 2 of 4 5. The matter was properly noticed and posted, in accordance with MCC 3-32-020 and IC 67-6509. 6. The land in question lies in Zone R-5 (Rural Residential). The west'/z of the property lies in Zone R-10 (Rural Residential), as do properties to the north, west, and south. To the east is Zone B (Medium Density Residential), and to the northeast is Zone A (Low Density Residential), and to the southeast Zone R-1 (Rural Residential). 7. 16 persons spoke at the public hearing, 14 of which were opposed, 2 were neither opposed nor in support. 6 letters were submitted prior to the public hearing, all opposed. 11 written documents were submitted at the public hearing. 8. The proposed facility will be a treated wastewater effluent storage pond, consisting of two cells. The total capacity will be approximately 360,000,000 gallons. The facility will occupy approximately 65 acres of the 157 acre parcel, and berm heights will vary between 14 and 36 feet. 9. The surrounding properties include pastureland to the NW, W and SW. To the N is the Whitetail PUD golf course, which is currently under construction. A preliminary development plan for Whitetail, Phases II a III, which includes a Hotel and associated uses has been approved by the City of McCall. Further approvals are required for the project to move forward. To the NE is a scattering of residences at a very low density (approximately 3 homes on 40 acres). To the E are a variety of uses, including a home with a port -a -potty maintenance business on 40 acres (Alford - Bison Company, Inc.); and Blue Jay Subdivision, which contains 10 residences, and 5 undeveloped lots. To the SE is Pine Terrace Subdivision #1, with 1 developed residence. To the S is a vacant 160 acre parcel of land. Additionally, '/4 mile to the E is the McCall Industrial Park and the Seubert Excavators, Inc. Gravel Pit. 10. The McCall Comprehensive Plan designates this area as "0" - Open Space." P. 42 of the Plan describes this area, Area II D., as `This site is the most remote of all Area 2. The flat open grassland offers few amenities to residential development. No utilities have been planned for the area and even though the county road bisects the site, the road would need to be greatly improved before development could occur. The best use of this site would be to remain as pasture land." The proposed use is neither consistent with, nor inconsistent with, the comprehensive plan. 11.The Dominant existing uses in the area are predominantly residential (Blue Jay Subdivision) or recreational (Whitetail Golf Course). Due to its size, the height of the berms, and the lack of adequate landscaping, the proposed use will not be consistent with the existing or likely character of the neighborhood. Under this finding, approval would be contrary to MCC 3-31-030 (A) 3. J-Ditch II - CUP-99-2 - 291 Wisdom Rd - FNC.doc Page 3 of 4 12. Should the berms of the facility fail on the east side, water may flood the Blue Jay Subdivision area. In such an instance, the facility will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Therefore, the use would be contrary to MCC 3-31-030 (A) 4. 13. By converting the property from pastureland to a storage reservoir, and excavating adjacent property, the proposed use may be harmful to lands in the planning jurisdiction. As noted in finding 12. above, if the berms fail on any side, the flood released would be harmful to both the Lands and waters of the planning jurisdiction. Approval of the use would be contrary to MCC 3-31-030 (A) 5. 14.The proposed use may occassionally generate odors. The use may also generate dust when maintenance vehicles operate along the top of the berms. The proposed use will employ pumps which may generate excessive noise. Approval of the use would be contrary to MCC 3-31-030 (A) 8. 15.The proposed use will block the views of Brundage Mountain, Red Ridge, and West Mountain, for some of the neighboring homes. Approval would be contrary to MCC 3-31-030 (A) 10. 16. Although the use will require only about 65 acres of the 157 acres, the size of the facility is too large. Setbacks on the East, North, and South boundaries of the property are in places less than 100 feet from the toe of the berm. Such setbacks are not adequate. Approval would be contrary to MCC 3-31-030 (A) 11. The Commission concludes that: 1. Based on the findings listed above, the proposed CUP fails to satisfy the criteria of MCC 3-31-030 (A) 3., MCC 3-31-030 (A) 4., MCC 3-31-030 (A) 5., MCC 3-31-030 (A) 8., MCC 3-31-030 (A) 10., and MCC 3-31-030 (A) 11. 2. As the proposed CUP fails to satisfy the requirements of McCall City Code, the Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny application CUP-99-2. Dated: April 20, 1999 Respectfully submitted: Pat Allen, Chairman Attest: Andrew Locke, City Planner J-Ditch 11 - CUP-99-2 - 291 Wisdom Rd - FNC.doc Page 4 of 4 CITY OF MCCALL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROPRIATE ZONING DESIGNATION UPON ANNEXATION ZON-99-1 - City of McCall - West of Boydstun Street - Zoning Upon Annexation The Commission finds that: 1. The City of McCall is considerin3 annexing the following property: EXHIBIT "A" The lands which may require reclassification on the City of McCall Zoning Map, adopted by Ordinance #615, March 24, 1994, and as amended, consist of the following described area, or any combination of parts thereof: ANNEXATION PARCEL A parcel of land situate in the SW% of the NW' of Section 17, and the N1 of Section 18, T. 18 N., R. 3 E., B.M., Valley County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 3 1/4" brass cap marking the section corner common to Sections 7,8,17, and 18, T. 18 N., R. 3 E., B.M., Valley County, Idaho, the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence, S. 00° 10' 56" W., 1,324.03 feet to the corner common to said Sections 17 and 18, thence, N. 89° 48' 12" W., 50.00 feet to the northwest corner of the McCall Industrial Park, as shown on the official plat thereof on file in the Office of the Recorder of Valley County, Idaho, in Book 8, Page 11 of Plats, thence, S. 00° 10' 56" W., 662.01 feet to the southwest corner of said McCall Industrial Park, thence, S. 89° 50' 08" E., 718.11 feet to the southeast corner of said McCall Industrial Park, thence, S. 00° 10' 00" W., 363.61 feet to the northerly boundary of the Seubert Pit Parcel as shown on that particular Record of Exhibit 40 ZON-99-1 - City of McCaII - J-Ditch Annex - FNC.doc Page 1 of 3 Survey, on file in the Office of the Recorder of Valley County, Idaho, in Book 4, Page 17 of Records of Survey, thence, N. 89° 52' 18" W., 668.21 feet to a 1/2" rebar on the line common to said Sections 17 and 18, thence, West, 658.65 feet to a 1 /2" rebar on the south boundary of Lot 6, Blue Jay Subdivision, as shown on the official plat thereof on file in the Office of the Recorder of Valley County, Idaho in Book 7, Page 78 of Plats, and also marking the northeast corner of the 1.62 acre split parcel, as shown on that particular Record of Survey on file in the Office of the Recorder of Valley County, Idaho, in Book 5, Page 519 of Records of Survey, thence, S. 00° 12' 15" W., 261.59 feet to a 1 /2" rebar marking the southeast corner of said sprit parcel, on the northerly boundary of a 70 foot road and utility easement, thence, N. 89° 52' 33" W., 217.80 feet along said northerly easement line to a 5/8" rebar on the northerly right-of-way of Chad Drive, thence, S. 00° 07' 27" W., 70.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way of Chad Drive, thence, N. 89° 52' 33" W., 449.90 feet along said southerly right-of- way to the westerly boundary of the NE' of the SEIA of said Section 18, thence, N. 00° 14' 54" E., 35.70 feet to a brass cap marking the CE 1/16 corner of said Section 18, thence, N. 89° 50' 22" W., 99.39 feet along the east -west, center section line of said Section 18, thence, N. 00° 09' 38" E., 59.90 feet to a 5/8" rebar on the northerly right-of-way of West Mountain Road, thence, N. 89° 50' 03" W., 2,554.04 feet along said northerly right- of-way to the westerly boundary of the E'/z of the NW'/ of said Section 18, thence, N. 00° 17 30" E., 2,593.25 feet to the W 1/16 corner common to said Sections 7 and 18, thence, S. 89° 45' 59" E., 1,328.26 feet to a brass cap the quarter corner common to said Sections 7 and 18, thence, S. 89° 45' 23" E., 1,324.34 feet to a 5/8" rebar marking the E 1/16 corner common to said Sections 7 and 18, thence, S. 89° 46' 18" E., 1,322.23 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 239.04 acres, more or less. Bearings based on State Plane Grid Azimuth. ZON-99-1 - City of McCall - J-Ditch Annex - FNC.doc Page 2of3 0 2. Pursuant to MCC 3-34-050 and IC 67-6525, the City Council must request and receive a recommendation from the Planning Et Zoning Commission regarding the appropriate zoning designation for the properties, should the City annex the subject area, or portions thereof. 3. The McCall Comprehensive Plan designates this area as "0" - Open Space." P. 42 of the Plan describes this area, Area II D., as "This site is the most remote of all Area 2. The flat open grassland offers few amenities to residential development. No utilities have been planned for the area and even though the county road bisects the site, the road would need to be greatly improved before development could occur. The best use of this site would be to remain as pasture land." 4. The hearing was properly posted and noticed, in accordance with MCC 3-32-02 and IC 67-6509. 5. The Commission reviewed the following application materials: a. Map of Proposed Zoning Designation upon Annexation b. Narrative statement 6. The City of McCall and Valley County have adopted a unified code pertaining to lands located both within the City Limits and the Area of City Impact. Both areas have an identical zoning code, and map designations carry the same meaning. 7. The applicant has not requested a change in the zoning map designations, only a change in the boundary of the City Limits. 8. At the public hearing, speakers supported not changing the zoning designations, should the property be annexed. 9. The current zoning for the subject properties is consistent with the City of McCall Comprehensive Plan. The Commission concludes that: 1. Should the City Council elect to annex the subject properties, or portions thereof, the Commission recommends that the current zoning designations be maintained, as per Exhibit "B". Dated: April 16, 1999 Attest: Pat Allen, Vice Chairman Andrew Locke, City Planner ZON-99-1 - City of McCall - J-Ditch Annex - FNC.doc Page 3 of 3 CI; Exhibit "B" 1 0 rD E4 BID RESULTS is del z O }- 0 N z 0 0 z O N W z HDR ENGINEERING A a+ Ate TURN KEY, INC. WILLIAMS BROTHERS TREASURE VALLEY ENG. z CA 0 W 2 0 - NZ ZW cc cc W W so CELL ONE ONLY CELL ONE ONLY CELL ONE AND TWO $3,171,041.00 $3,086,919.00 $3,625,000.00 NO BID PROVIDED N 00 N M Cr) (7 CO -r- - to LO N C7 N O) - 00 0 N. CO N CO= EA Eft 6, a $942,792.00 $500,000.00 NO BID PROVIDED o o o 0 O 0= o o N - O ■ EA CA NO BID PROVIDED W cc cc a 0 z CELL ONE ONLY CELL ONE ONLY o R ', 0 O - co M - t] r o M = w CO Eo' cr3 T % = 0) ccO • a ato ER 0 O $4,883,551.00 $5k_100j000.00 0 W 0 0 cc a W cn CO 7-0 NO BID PROVIDED 0 0 CO Cfl 0 O 0 " 0 O O N N EH NO BID PROVIDED w 4 t- 206,000,000 206,000,000 206,000,000 206,000,000 O 0 • a - J au us 0 0 W W z i 0,.., W 0 W O." 3 a = = J 3 J • 0• > IV > 1 1 3 NO BID PROVIDED .3 O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O N Price Bid for Total , $4,883,551.00 $4,100,000.00 $4,100,000.00 E • •�N Exhibit 41 co William A. McCurdy BRASSEY, WETHERELL, CRAWFORD & McCURDY Washington Federal Plaza 1001 West Idaht , Third Floor P.O. Box 1009 , Boise, Idaho 83701-1009 Telephone: (208) 344-7300 Facsimile: (208) 344-7077 Susan E. Buxton MOORE & McFADDEN, CHARTERED One Capital Center, Suite 910 999 Main Street Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 331-1800 Facsimile: (208) 331-1202 Attorneys for Plaintiff rik DAVISON & COPPLE JAN 1 51999 LEi-AND G. HEINRICH, CLERK Ely Deputy JAN 15 1999 C se Ne. Inst. No. A.M. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTII JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF VALLEY CITY OF IvIcCALL, IDAI-IO, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CV-98-332 C MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF BEZATES LAND & CATTLE CO., an Idaho MOTION FOR POSSESSION corporation, Defendant. INTRODUCTION This case involves a condemnation action brought by Plaintiff City of Iv1cCa1l against Defendant Bezates Land & Cattle Company. The City of McCall seeks to condemn 157.72 acres P.M Exhibit 42 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - P. I of land upon which it shall construct two effluent storage lagoons. The water to be stored in the lagoons is processed effluent which is currently discharged into the North Fork of the Payette River -- a process which in 1995 was ordered abandoned because it was delivering undesirable nutrients to Cascade Reservoir and its tributaries. The City of McCall's condemnation of the 157.72 acres of property owned by Bezates Land & Cattle Company is necessary for the construction of these storage lagoons which are required by the most recent NPDES permit issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality's ("DEQ") Cascade Reservoir 1'hase 1 Watershed Management Plan. Before the Court is the City of McCall's Motion for Possession pursuant to Idaho Code § 7- 721. At issue is whether the City of McCall has complied with the conditions of Idaho Code § 7-721 and whether the City should be granted possession of the property sought to be condemned by it. Idaho Code § 7-721 allows for a condemnor to take possession of property pending trial, after a determination of just compensation is made and deposited with the court. Idaho Code § 7-721. At the hearing, the court will determine (a) whether the condemnor has the right of eminent domain; (b) whether the use to which the property is to be applied is authorized by law; (c) whether the taking of the property is necessary to such use authorized; and (d) whether the condemnor has sought in good faith to purchase time property sought to be condemned. Id. The City of McCall has complied with the statutory requirements of Idaho Code § 7-72I and, therefore, respectfully requests that it be placed in possession of and have the use of the property described as set forth in time City's Complaint on file with the Court in this action. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - P. 2 II. BACKGROUND AND FACTS The necessity of the City of McCall's condemnation of 157.72 acres of property owned by Bezates Land & Cattle Company is the result of a long and complicated series of events which stem back to 1972. Since 1972, the City of McCall has discharged treated effluent from its wastewater treatment facility into the North Fork of the Payette River. In 1988, the EPA issued NPDES permit number ID-002023-1 to the City of McCall, permitting the City to continue its practice of discharging the effluent into the river. By its terms, however, the permit expired on August 2,1993. In January of 1993, the City of McCall filed for a renewal of the NPDES permit. The EPA did not issue a new permit, but administratively extended the existing permit. Also in the early months of 1993, the City of McCall, in conjunction with its engineers, submitted to DEQ a Wastewater Facility Plan Report which proposed that the treated effluent be disposed of via high rate land application rather than in the river. DEQ, in response, ordered the City of McCall to study a variety of alternatives to high rate land application. In the meantime, the City continued to discharge its treated effluent into the Payette. Subsequently, in July of 1995, the Cascade Reservoir Association ("CRA") filed a lawsuit against the City of McCall and the EPA under the Clean Water Act. The CRA alleged that the City's discharge of effluent into the river violated the Clean Water Act. Accordingly, the CRA sought penalties of $25,000 per day against the City and sought to compel the EPA to issue a new NPDES permit prohibiting the discharge of effluent into the Payette River. The EPA agreed to issue a new permit and the lawsuit was stayed in the fall of 1995. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MIOTION FOR POSSESSION - P. 3 Concurrently, DEQ issued a draft Cascade Reservoir Phase 11faterslzed Management Plan ("Plan") which was the functional equivalent of a Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL") required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. On February I, 1996, DEQ submitted its final Plan to the EPA for approval. The final Plan required the City of McCall to eliminate 100% of the phosphorus loading from its wastewater treatment plant, thus prohibiting any discharge from the treatment plant into the Payette River. In April 1996, the DEQ Regional Administrator issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification which required 100 % elimination of all discharges from the City of McCal1's wastewater treatment plant and required the City to construct winter effluent storage lagoons. This §401 Certification was approved by the EPA in May of 1996. In July of 1996, the EPA issued a new NPDES permit to the City requiring elimination of all discharges from the wastewater treatment plant by January 1, 1999. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit could expose the City to civil penalties of $25,000.00 per day, criminal penalties of $50,000.00 per day, and administrative penalties up to $125,000.00. A series of appeals by the City of McCall and involving the EPA, the CRA and DEQ ensued. The appeals were denied. Nonetheless, the City and its engineers continued to negotiate with the EPA and DEQ. Specifically, the City attempted to convince DEQ to revise Phase I of its Plan which required the City to construct effluent storage lagoons to allow the City to dispose of the treated effluent through a high rate land application system. The City was unsuccessful in obtaining this revision. However, the City did enter into a Consent Order which, to a limited extent, modified DEQ's § 401 Certification which provided that the winter effluent storage lagoons could be constructed in phases — cell one is to be operational by October I , 1999 (rather that January 1, 1999) and cell two is to be operational by October 1, 2000. MEMORANUUMI IN SUPPORT OF NIOTION FOR POSSESSION - I'. 4 Concomitantly, the City of McCall began its investigation regarding the construction of and a possible location for the effluent storage lagoons. As early as July, 1995, the City began looking at gravel pits located on the southwest edge of McCall as a potential site for the effluent storage lagoons. These gravel pits ("Seubert site") were initially approved by the City as a possible location for the effluent storage ponds. The owner of the property agreed that he would sell the property to the City and the City began engineering studies of the proposed site. Engineers were hired and value engineering studies and a financial impact analysis were performed. In the last months of 1997, however, it became increasingly apparent to officials at the City of McCall that there were serious problems with the Seubert site for purposes of constructing effluent storage ponds. Because of the size of the site, it would require a 57-foot-high earthen dam which would have a 2:1 slope and thereby be classified by the Idaho Department of Water Resources as "high risk." It was estimated that construction of a "high risk" dam could increase the cost of construction by approximately $2 million. The City, in addition, would have to move an existing asphalt plant and remove large amounts of gravel from the site, incurring additional costs. Potential cost overruns were also predicted due to the drainage problems the site presented. Moreover, there were more than three acres of high -quality wetlands on the site which would require additional permitting through the EPA, potentially setting the project off schedule for the October 1, 1999, deadline. The site also presented construction problems because of its limited size — the lagoons would require embankments of 57 feet and would be irregularly shaped, giving rise to safety concerns for adjacent properties in the event of a dam failure, and for people and animals accidently entering the lagoon site. ANN MEMORANUUN.I IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - f . 5 Furthermore, because of the site's close proximity to the McCall airport, the FAA expressed concerns regarding the lagoons' potential attraction to birds which would cause increased danger to planes arriving to and departing from McCall. In the beginning months of 1998, it was becoming apparent to the City that the Seubert site was unsuitable. Consequently, the City began to investigate alternative sites. The City located 11 potential alternatives to the Seubert site and, after much review, determined that the 157.72 acres owned by Bezates Land & Cattle Company was the best property. Not only would the land provide adequate space to build safe lagoons that would not be considered high risk, but also its close proximity to the wastewater treatment facility and the limited acreage of wetlands would allow the City to construct the lagoons in time to comply with the NPDES permit and within budget. As early as February 24, 1998, the City officials, Brian Olson and Allan Muller, met with George Bezates of Bezates Land & Cattle Company and inquired about the property and the price. At that time, Mr. Bezates expressed his desire to sell the entire 735-acre parcel rather than allow the City to purchase the 157-acre piece. Mr. Bezates in the late winter months of 1998 offered to sell the entire 735 acres at $8,000.00 per acre. This offer could not be accepted by the City. The City simply did not have the funding or the need for the entire 735-acre parcel. Negotiations to purchase the subject property continued with Mr. Bezates throughout the spring and summer months of 1998. At a July 20, 1998, Special City Council meeting, however, Mr. Bezates informed City officials that his land was simply not for sale at any price. Even so, the City continued its good -faith efforts to negotiate a fair market price with Mr. Bezates in order to acquire the property. The City had an appraisal done and on August 21, 1998 made Mr. Bezates a formal offer of $4,500.00 per acre. The City's offer was summarily rejected. On September 10, 1998, the City of McCall filed its Complaint for condemnation of the 157.72 acres owned by Bezates Land & MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - P. 6 Cattle Company. Throughout the fall, the City has continued to attempt negotiations with Mr. Bezates in order to purchase the property. Negotiations have been unsuccessful. Because the City's attempts to purchase the property have been unsuccessful and due to the extremely tight time frame dictated by the NPDES permit, the City now moves for possession of the subject property. Pursuant to Idaho law, the City has the right to exercise the power of eminent domain. In addition, the purpose for which the subject property is being condemned is specifically authorized in the Idaho Code — "the right of eminent domain may be exercised in behalf of the following public uses: (7) Sewerage of any incorporated city." See Idaho Code § 7-701(7). The 157.72 acres sought to be acquired are necessary to such use. The City of McCall has investigated all reasonable alternatives and can find no other place which is suitable in geographic makeup, size and location. In addition the City has made numerous good faith efforts to purchase the land they now seek to take. For these reasons, City of McCalI's motion for possession should be granted. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS The City of McCall has complied with all the provisions of Idaho Code § 7-721 and should be placed in possession of the property at issue. Idaho Code § 7-721 allows the city in a condemnation action to take possession and use the property sought to be condemned for a public purpose pending trial. Idaho Code § 7-721; Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District v. Hays, 103 Idaho, 717, 718, 653 P.2d 438,439 (1982). The statute provides that the City may take possession of the property "at any time alter just compensation has been judicially determined and payment thereof made into court." Id. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - P. 7 At the possession hearing, the court is to determine (a) whether the City has the right of eminent domain; (b) whether the uses to which the City seeks to apply the property is authorized by law; (c) whether the taking is necessary to such use; and (d) whether the City has sought in good faith to purchase the property sought to be taken. Idaho Code § 7-721(2); Payette Water and Sewer District, 103 Idaho at 718, 653 P.2d at 439. Upon a finding of the above elements in favor of the City, this Court is to then hear the issues raised by the City's motion and receive such evidence that is necessary and proper for a finding of just compensation. Idaho Code § 7-721(3). A. The City Possesses The Right of Eminent Domain. The first element required to be satisfied by the City under Idaho Code § 7-721(2) is that the City has the right of eminent domain. The right of eminent domain is a sovereign right which may be used for the purposes authorized by the Idaho Constitution or by the Idaho Legislature, if not restricted by the constitution. Payette Water and Serer District, 103 Idaho at 718, 653 P.2d at 439. As a municipality, the City of McCall has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain pursuant to Idaho Code § § 7-701, and 7-721. 13. The Use To Which The Property Sought To Be Condemned Is Authorized by Law. To satisfy the second element of § 7-721(2), the City of McCall must demonstrate that the use to which Defendant's property is to be applied is authorized by law. Idaho Code § 7-721(2)(b). This question is a matter of law to be decided by the court. See Washington Water Power Company v. Waters, 19 Idaho 596, 610, 115 P. 682, 687 (1911). The Idaho Constitution expressly authorizes the exercise of the right of eminent domain for public uses. Idaho Constitution. Article 1, § 14; Article XI, § 8. The Idaho legislature enumerated public uses for which the right of eminent domain may be exercised by cities for sewerage. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - P. 8 Specifically, § 7-701(7) provides that the right of eminent domain may be exercised by municipali- ties on behalf of the following public uses: "sewerage of any incorporated city." Under Idaho law the City of McCall possesses the right of eminent domain for the purposes of constructing the effluent storage lagoons. C. The Pronerty Sought To Be Condemned Is Necessary To The Construction Of Effluent Storage Lagoons -- Construction Of 'Which Is Required Pursuant To The July 22, 1998. Consent Order In The Matter Of: City Of McCa1I Wastewater Treatment Facility. Once it is determined by the Court that the use to which the property sought is a public use authorized by law, the third element of Idaho Code § 7-721(2) is whether the acquisition of Defendant's property is necessary to the authorized use. Idaho Code § 7-721(2)(c). The question of the extent of the use and the necessity for the taking is left primarily to the judgment and discretion of the public agency seeking to condemn the property. Independent Sclwol District of Boise City v. C.B. Launch Construction Co., 74 Idaho 502, 505, 264 P.2d 687, 689 (1953); Washington Water Power Company, 19 Idaho at 610, 115 P. at 687. Idaho case law and the Idaho Constitution clearly indicate that sewage systems fall within the prescribed public use for which a governmental entity may exercise its powers of eminent domain. See Payette Lakes Water and . Sewer District v. Hays, 103 Idaho 717, 653 P.2d 438 (1982). It is well recognized Idaho law that if it is determined that the use for which the condemna- tion is sought is a public use, the question of the extent and the necessity for the taking should be largely left to the judgment and discretion of the public agency seeking to make the condemnation. C.B. Launch Construction Co., 74 Idaho at 505. City of McCall Resolution No. 11-98 reflects that good faith efforts were made by the City of McCall to locate suitable property for the sewage effluent lagoons which, by law, they are required to build. Pursuant to Title 7 Chapter 7 of the Idaho Code, which authorizes cities to condemn property for public purposes such as the effluent storage lagoons MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MO fION FOR POSSESSION - P. 9 necessary for the city of McCall's sewer system, the McCall City Council and the Mayor, Kirk Eimers, ordered the condemnation of properly located in Valley County, Idaho, constituting 157.72 acres owned by Bezates Land & Cattle Co., Inc. The land in question was determined to be the best site due to its size, its location and distance to the city limits, and the distance of the pipeline needed to carry the treated effluent from the existing treatment facility to the proposed storage lagoons. The City Council Resolution and Condemnation Order and a plethora of engineering studies delineating the superior suitability of the Defendant's parcel for the effluent storage lagoon project is entitled to deference by the Court and constitutes prime facie evidence of the necessity of the Defendant's land for the project. See Independent School District v. C.B. Launch Construction Co., 74 Idaho at 505. D. The City Of McCall Ilas Sought In Good Faith To Purchase The Land Owned By Bezates Land Comnanv. Inc.. To Be Taken For The Construction Of The Storage Lagoons. The fourth element to be established by the City before a determination of just compensation can be made under Idaho Code § 7-721(3) is that the City has attempted in good faith to purchase the land sought to be condemned. The issue of whether the City engaged in good -faith negotiations is a question of fact. State v. Blair, 83 Idaho 475, 480, 365 P.2d 216, 219 (1961). Tlie Idaho Supreme Court in Blair held that to establish a good -faith attempt to purchase the land sought to be condemned, "there must be a bona fide attempt to agree, with a bona fide offer made and a reasonable effort to induce the owner to accept it." Id; Idaho Power Company v. Lettunich, 100 Idaho 582, 583, 602 P.2d 540, 541 (1979). In Southside Water and Seiner District v. Murphy, the Idaho Supreme Court approved the District Court's consideration of the good faith element. Thus, based upon the decision in Southside, the good faith element is satisfied where there is "some reasonable relation between the price and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - P. 10 the offer made." Id. at 97 Idaho 881, 883, 555 P.2d 1148, 1151 (1976). A reasonable effort must, therefore, be made by the condemnor to reach a compromise and effect some type of settlement, i.e. more then a "profunctory effort." Nonetheless, where the landowners express no interest in continuing negotiations or reaching a settlement, the condemnor is not required to pursue futile settlement offers or unrealistic attempts to purchase the required property. Id.; Blair 83 Idaho at 480, 365 P.2d at 219. The City of McCall has made a good faith, bona fide attempt to negotiate a purchase price of the 157.72 acres. Prior to the filing of this condemnation action, the City of McCall, through its City Manager, engaged in extensive negotiations in an attempt to acquire the 157.72 acres of land for the storage lagoons. On July 20, 1998, Defendant's agent, George Bezates, informed the City the property was not for sale at any price. Nonetheless, in the last six-month period, the City has made numerous contacts with the Defendant and its attorney in attempt to reach an agreement regarding a purchase price for the required parcel and to have Defendant accept it. During this time, an appraisal was done and a written offer was made to Mr. Bezates on August 21, 1998. The City of McCall offered Bezates Land and Cattle Company $4,500 per acre, for a total purchase price of $720,000. This offer was summarily rejected by Bezates Land & Cattle Company. In accordance with Blair, therefore, the City has no duty to pursue futile settlement offers or make unrealistic attempts to purchase. Blair, 83 Idaho at 480, 365 1'.2d at 219. In July, the City was informed the land was not for sale and any price and in August, the City's good -faith offer was rejected. Nonetheless, the City has attempted, and continue to try, to negotiate a mutually acceptable price for the land in question. The City of McCall has attempted in good faith to address and resolve the concerns Defendant may have regarding the project and to come to an agreement with the Defendant regarding MENIORANUUM IN SUI'POR r OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - P. I I a mutually acceptable purch rice for the land in question. These ati ts have proven futile and, . for this reason, the City of McCall moves for possession of the subject property. IV.. CONCLUSION The City respectfully requests this Court to enter an order of possession for the parcel of land described in the Complaint in this matter, pursuant to Idaho Code § 7-721. The City has the right to exercise the power of eminent domain. In addition, the purpose for which the subject property is being condemned is specifically authorized in Idaho Code § 7-707(7). As required, the 157.72 acres sought to be acquired are necessary to such use. The City of McCall has investigated all reasonable alternatives and can find no other place which is suitable in geographic makeup, size and location. Finally, the City has made numerous good faith efforts to purchase the land they now seek to take and, to date, these efforts have proven futile. The City has complied with all statutory requirements set forth in § 7-721(2) and, therefore, its Motion for Possession should be granted. • Respectfully submitted this 1 5 day of January, 1999. BRASSEY, WETIIERELL, CRAWFORD & McCURDY By William A. McCurdy,f the Firm Attorneys for Plaintiff MEMORANUIJMI IN SUPPORT OF tIOTLON FOR POSSESSION - P. 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I IIEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1 S day of January, 1999, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon each of the following individuals by causing the same to be delivered by the method and to the addresses indicated below: E. Don Copple Heather A. Cunningham DAVIDSON, COPPLE, COPPLE & COPPLE Washington Mutual Capitol Plaza Suite 600 P.O. Box 1583 Boise, Idaho 83701 Telephone: (208) 342-3658 Facsimile: (208) 386-9428 Attorneys for Defendant [ ]U.S. Mail, postage prepaid [AHand-Delivered [ ]Overnight Mail [ ]Facsimile William . McCurdy MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - P. 13 William A. McCurdy BRASSEY, WETHERELL, CRAWFORD & McCURDY Washington Federal Plaza 1001 West Idaho, Third Floor P.O. Box 1009 Boise, Idaho 83701-1009 Telephone: (208) 344-7300 Facsimile: (208) 344-7077 Susan E. Buxton MOORE & McFADDEN, CHARTERED One Capital Center, Suite 910 999 Main Street Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 331-1800 Facsimile: (208) 331-1202 Attorneys for Plaintiff JUDGE'S CHAMBER LELAND G. HEINRICH, CLERK By Deputy Case No. Fled JAN251999 inst. No. A.M. - _._.. P.M. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF VALLEY CITY OF McCALL, IDAHO, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, vs. BEZATES LAND & CATTLE CO., an Idaho corporation, Defendant. Case No. CV-98-332 C AFFIDAVIT OF ANDREW K. LOCKE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION ANDREW K. LOCKE, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That I am the current Zoning Administrator for the City of McCall. I have been employed by the City of McCall since June of 1996. Since April of 1998, in my capacity as City Planner, I AFFIDA 17T OF ANDREW K. LOCKE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - 1 Exhibit 43 f (;) have been working to locate an appropriate site for the construction of effluent storage lagoons for Phase II of the J-Ditch sewer project. Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is a Site Appraisal Matrix Summary Report ("Site Appraisal Matrix") which reflects the criteria used by the City in selecting a location for the effluent storage lagoons. The Site Appraisal Matrix also lists and describes the twelve potential sites analyzed by the City and provides a summary analysis of the factors considered in determining why the property owned by Bezates Land & Cattle Company is the only site available to the City which will enable the City to complete the project in time to comply with Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") mandates and within budget. 3. Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is a summary report prepared with the assistance of City Engineers. Exhibit B is a comparative analysis which summarizes the problems with the initial site, referred to as the" Seubert site," as compared to the advantages of the property owned by Bezates, referred to on Exhibit B as the "Alternative Site on Flat or Gentle Slope." 4. The City of McCall has concluded that the property owned by Bezates Land & Cattle Company, more particularly described in the Complaint on file in this action, is necessary to completion of Phase II of the J-Ditch sewer project. As demonstrated by engineering studies conducted by the City, the Bezates site is the only site available which will enable the City to Comply with the NPDES permit issued by the EPA requiring that cell one of the effluent storage lagoons be operational by October 1, 1999. In addition, it is the only site available to the City upon which the City could construct the storage lagoons within budget. AFFIDAVIT OF ANDREW K. LOCKE LV SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - 2 FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAU 5+' SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this f day of January, 1999. Notary Publi or Idab Residing at: T e . My Commission expires: AFFIDAVIT OF A NDREW K LOCKE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - 3 ' f i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this p t9 day of January, 1999, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon each of the following individuals by causing the same to be delivered by the method and to the addresses indicated below: E. Don Copple Heather A. Cunningham DAVIDSON, COPPLE, COPPLE & COPPLE Washington Mutual Capitol Plaza Suite 600 P.O. Box 1583 Boise, Idaho 83701 Telephone: (208) 342-3658 Facsimile: (208) 386-9428 Attorneys for Defendant [ ]U.S. Mail, postage prepaid [fand-Delivered [ ]Overnight Mail [ ]Facsimile William A. NCurdy AFFIDAVIT OF A.VDREW K. LOCKE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - 4 EXHIBIT "A" J-Ditch Phase II - Site Appraisal Matrix Summary Report November 9, 1998 EXPLANATION OF CRITERIA Feasible Size To allow for appropriate buffering, drainage, wetland mitigation, and equipment storage, the optimal site should be 150 acres or greater. The actual storage pond itself should be 60 acres in size. Neighbors This refers to the number of households within 1000 feet of the storage pond, and is approximate. This number does not differentiate between resident and non-resident dwellings. The more neighbors, the more neighborhood concern to be expected. Generally, a site with fewer neighbors is better. Wetlands For all but the Bezates sites, this figure is taken from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps produced by the US Fish Et Wildlife Agency and is approximate. Based on experience with other sites in the area - Whitetail PUD Et now Bezates, the wetland maps do not identify many "wet meadows." Wet meadows are classified as jurisdictional wetlands by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and all impacts must be avoided, minimized and mitigated (in that order). If it is possible to avoid impacts, either by choosing a different site or by adjusting the design of a project, the applicant must do so. In this region, $20,000/acre is a commonly used estimate for wetland mitigation. Distance to Pipeline This figure represents the distance of pipeline needed to carry treated effluent from the existing J-Ditch Pipeline to the storage facility. The cost of installing pipeline is approximately $100 per lineal foot. Distance to City Limits This is a lower level criteria related to the local planning process. Sites within the City follow a dearly defined conditional use permit (CUP) process in which the City Planning Et Zoning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. In the Area of City Impact, the Impact Area Planning Et Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. In the County, outside the Area of City Impact, the County PEtZ makes a recommendation to the County Commissioners. Sites located within the City limits, or capable of being annexed, allow for a shorter and clearer approval process. In the Impact Area, there is some confusion as to whether the City could approve its own application for a CUP, with an obvious conflict of interest in lands under the quasi -legislative authority of the County. In the County, Page 1 of 6 Summary Report - See Facility Plan Report for detailed analysis the potential for a longer approval process exists, given the inclusion of an additional Agency (County Commissioners), and concerns related to the County Land Development Ordinance. Distance to Airport The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that airports be located at least 10,000 feet from open bodies of water. The treated effluent pond will attract waterfowl. Waterfowl are hazards to aviation. The City worked with the FAA to allow the Seubert site (4,000 feet), given the existence of the sewer treatment plant and Payette Lake. Sites to the south of the airport, and those closer than 4,000 feet, will be increasingly difficult to gain approval for. Acquisition & Cost Many of these are estimates, based on recent appraisals and general ballpark figures. Generally, as you move closer to McCall, the value of a parcel rises. Additionally, as the size of the parcel decreases, its value increases. For example, sixteen 10 acre parcels will cost considerably more than one 160 acre parcel. Developed land, that is land with structures, roads, or businesses, is more valuable than undeveloped land. Also, land with existing approvals, such as a subdivision, CUP, or PUD carries greater value because the allowable intensity of use is greater. Other/Ma for Concerns This section summarizes the major concerns in evaluating the suitability of a site. Included are limitations considered to make the site infeasible, and items not included in the other criteria. Page 2 of 6 Summary Report - See Facility Plan Report for detailed analysis Dist. to City Limits Dist. to Pipeline 13 n a nen MI Q, Q, a a X Q, a 3 c NNImx N a N a N a N a a N a s V a c a C a C a C - a >` C tn O •� O U O r 0 (NIC in p N p wiz .-z.=z oz 3 oQ oa .-z cti 0 to 2000 feet X T. toLi a o a '0 E i 0 CC' I ~ C. O CNIZI ' C.. aasI`I IA Q a 1 QJ I v a cc cal,l Q � 7 fQ2i12L E Elal a., RNzl1 v, t a u o °• Q �, O J Z Q - ,i V ,co, a o�E ... O C •E•i IS cu 1a N_ G I O QJ�2 I> ;a N i0 i a I N Q,,oa ,14..Izi} v, C O 0 A a a .1 A L N N ad w ad cid v..ad t O O O U C�7 u-, 8 .G N O N 0,Q '0 00 Z' aA-, OEa (0 ..: c)0a o ` AL L N E in 0 LC O C •vi a9 •-O p N a caO Naw,X X ` �V"E' �Cw. U r2 O 7 a,a7. EQ�L va �a��L .A > va + a ' ' on av O 7 X �-c MI_ a, �r"6 E E b o° c a L 0 E On o� � , XL .-' CD a ' Gam.- N aco X _ N h-. 3 C a QJ C '" O N N a O C N Q a o y 'a ., C. ., 1 o c ._ on , '^ = E a v c 4 2 L p b= u 'a c7c EO" X L �,a'v.nawv 8 ,22 :: aa.,, , .,aaava3oa�o O auco LE as E E •' a " 0EL (aVI01.1 :I w.La�'E-C^C -ate � a'� aG Ga 3 �'a 0 ad Fna:+-' a" a-0'v"• C E-0 G.: I-, co �'� a c a c a a Q Li=VI N C vvf�1 304.-0.a... c 33Q cI=a E A O N X X 0 0 c a < < N u, X X X X O O O O C. a a a Q 0. C. Q m > o L L a aV �,, > G C o C !a L a L �, 0. 0 7 c vi V Acu ::V mow_ Si O CZ 'u O� C tv on a O"aa Oaa a r z. u» z"0>- >- Moonridge (Sec. 29) S. of Airport (Sec. 28) O V a Lri 0 m 0 Bezates (East 160 ac.) No - Only 80 acres N. of Falcon Ridge " ) I 1 1 p 1 ? M a n c h e s t e r ) . 1 1 1 \ i B e z a t e s 1 - 6 . ) ? f B e z a t e s S e i b 1 / I d , i , E d w a r \ \ / - - N 1 o f i c o r i R k g C a v i r ( S o u l e r = a l c o n R i d g q i 7 D e b o e r 3 6 1 3 1 M i x i n g S t a t i o n - / 2 9 S o f M o o n r i d d e " 2 0 2 1 ) / o f A i r n t " S E 3 3 1 ' 1 0 I D " 2 2 - 7 3 4 7 - / i J - D i t c h P h a s e I I - S i t e E v a l u a t i o n 0 0 . 3 0 . 6 0 . 9 1 . 2 1 . 5 1 . 8 2 . 1 A l e .I, PCAK�� ..i'' �•PSSC>. 1' c•n..ti i---PEMA \1 • 1*SieMis ' .114 1 • 1 PEVC PE Fla tSPEA{: V �P[ 'M l O A -7 r 'y`r TS ��• IzZre.,� i b t.% U' rt4 i1 �- c rr-r tZNttr ?AAA- 4sv ^SI t•AA• rl3SC. P • k1SDC. rt Mc• -- L Pf-'4C / q:V6L2 C)Ut,. `•� ?VAS Inv "S1 d•. t,: F flu; s cc do PA r • RwV v., •Pii:^• '2.• l `' Alc Call I 1 o•. wr. a. .r.. -` t -- .• - • `- P:eH. \' lc as,, S.v.n_ P. CA. L i 11 ♦ own c ) 1 fl1!aA U T'bN SI i Tr - Is ?tMc • i .. lVSck - ! PCM-4 r-C , tt :itt d PISC ▪ z.g( tJ e%• -. __:c - >UeHth 1� MAIL 9 rUC I , - IFA.AA .00tPU5C. y ' L I r; F A1'.x : "Nen,M '1 its.:. , k1( a Ar!MI .!1J r`.5N r5. "-. 75A. X -r. • Pe A • • !• IPEA. AA MSAA. ; . rt:AC t SA i r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ w Y111 i i r A. SITING OF STORAGE AND QUA.ITY OF LIFE 1. Summary of Citizen Comments PEPTO �RoM Ac 2 r( i'1- J 1zE?cr2 TzccIC.- 1116 "T ' C- MMarAS S During the Public Hearing conducted on February 16, 1995, eight (8) citizens posed questions, comments and concerns regarding the siting of the proposed storage reservoir and how this project could affect their quality of life. In addition to the eight verbal comments, the City of McCaII received fourteen (14) written comments pertaining to quality of life and siting of the proposed reservoir. Citizens' verbal and written comments are summarized as follows: a) Concern about losing rural lifestyle as a result of proposed project. b) Concern about musty smell associated with proposed storage reservoir. c) Concern about electrical motor noise at night during irrigation season. d) Concern about unsightliness and visual impact of proposed storage reservoir. e) Concern about water leaking out of the proposed storage reservoir. f) Concern about child safety at proposed storage reservoir. g) Concern about siting the proposed storage reservoir in Lake Fork rather than McCall area. h) Concern about the storage reservoir creating fog in the area. i) Concern that the storage reservoir will be converted to a lagoon treatment facility for the untreated effluent. 2. Response to Citizen Comments a) Concern about losing rural lifestyle as a result of procosed oroiect, The Maki Alternative involves land application technology that is classified by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality as an agriculturally compatible activity. The criteria often used by citizens to judge rural character is the presence of and use of structure and buildings. Page 3 Another indicato rural character is roadways andTacal traffic volumes. The Maki Alternative will not require any new roadway construction, however, there will be a very minor increase in local traffic as a result of this project (two or three trips "per day). The City of McCall maintenance crews and vehicles will periodically use local roads to access the Maki site. • The Maki Alternative has been designed to complement on -going agricultural operations and not significantly impact the quality rural lifestyle in the Lake Fork area. Please see the Mitigation Section for specific mitigation measures. b) Concern about musty smell associated with proposed storage reservoir. All water bodies, including creeks, reservoirs, lakes, and ponds, have a characteristic odor, and some have what may be called a musty smell. The water being stored is highly treated effluent. However, it will contain nitrogen and phosphorus, which are the primary nutrients needed to grow algae. The lagoon will mostly be filled during the winter and will be covered with ice part of the winter and early spring. In the spring, when the ice melts and the water temperatures mix, there will be a week or two when musty odors are noticeable. During the summer, there will be algae growth in the lagoon. However, the warmer water on the top will be applied to the farmland first. Consequently, the algae should not reach concentrations which will create odor problems. Please see the Mitigation Section for specific mitigation measures. c) Concern about electrical motor noise at night during irrigation season. The Maki Alternative involves pumps which are necessary and appropriate for this type of agricultural operation. The operation of electrical motors and pumps are required in the Maki Alternative. There are no reliable alternatives. Well designed and maintained pumps and motors should not make excessive noise. The pumps can be housed in an insulated building to decrease noise even further. Some noise may be generated by fans to ventilate the enclosed pumphouse. Please see the Mitigation Section for specific mitigation measures. Page 4 d) Concern abort Qahtliness and visual impact ofpr osed storage reservoir. The Maki Alternative is an agricultural based waste treatment technology which requires water storage during the non -growing season. Citizen comments at several public meetings and hearings indicate that the way the storage reservoir looks (up close and at a distance) is very important in whether or not citizens can accept the storage reservoir. First and foremost, the storage reservoir must be designed as an integral part of the total waste treatment system. It will be designed to minimize odor and store water without leaking, but, it certainly does not have to look objectionable. Based on research and design experience, the Maki Alternative storage reservoir can be constructed in such a way as to blend in with the area. Based on citizen comments, the reservoir should be designed with consideration of aesthetics for nearby homes and include a landscape buffer. Please see the Mitigation Section for specific mitigation measures. e) Concern about water leaking out of the proposed storage reservoir. Citizens expressed concern that any water which leaked out of the storage reservoir would saturate the soils adjacent to the reservoir and this could cause groundwater problems or flooding to nearby homes. The storage reservoir will be designed with a 60 mil. high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner. This state-of-the-art liner will ensure that the storage reservoir can be built to prevent leakage. Design of the liner is certainly an important component of leak prevention, but construction and maintenance are also important in eliminating leaks. The specifications and contract documents will require a specialized contractor to install the liner with a rigorous quality control program including a groundwater underdrain system, if needed, to prevent the liner from floating. The City of McCall will routinely inspect the sides and bottom of the reservoir to verify integrity of the liner. All of these actions will minimize the potential for leakage at the Maki Alternative storage reservoir. To help address citizen concerns pertaining to possible leakage in the storage reservoir, several mitigation measures have been identified. Please see the Mitigation Section for specific mitigation measures. Page 5 f) Concern about child safes atProposed storage reservoir The design of the water storage reservoir involves steep side slopes. This design configuration is needed to minimize surface area. It is necessary and appropriate that the reservoir's interior side slopes be steep to meet these design criteria. Because of these necessary, steep, interior slopes, citizens are concerned that children would not be able to crawl out of the water if they were to accidentally fall into the reservoir. The City of McCall will take actions to secure the reservoir site and prevent unauthorized entry. It is not necessary to alter the side slope design of the proposed water storage reservoir to address this concern. The best way to ensure child safety at the reservoir is to keep children out of the reservoir area. The design will include interior side slope ladders to help anyone that accidentally falls into the reservoir. Please see the Mitigation Section for specific mitigation measures. g) Concern abut siting the proposed storage reservoir in Lake Fork lather than McCall area. The Maki Alternative is an agricultural based waste treatment technology. The central component of this proven land application system is adequate farmground for irrigation. The soils in the Lake Fork area are well suited for land application technology and farmers in the Lake Fork area have agreed to irrigate farmground with the effluent. The first objective in siting this type of treatment system is finding adequate farmground. The second siting objective is location of the winter storage reservoir. After the Maki farm was identified, a possible water storage reservoir was identified near the Maki farm for operation and economic reasons. Having the two system components (storage and irrigation) near each other is cost effective and efficient, but not absolutely necessary. It is possible to operate the proposed Slow Rate Land Application System using the Maki farm for spray irrigation and the water storage reservoir away from the Maki farm. Page 6 1 1 t During the month of April 1995, the City of McCall has been investigating the possibility of acquiring a portion of the Clearwater Concrete and Gravel, Inc., gravel pit land for the water storage reservoir. This gravel pit lies immediately south of the existing McCall Waste Treatment Plant and the owner and the City are actively negotiating this possible use and acquisition. It may be possible to use this site for water storage and pump treated effluent to the Maki farm for spray irrigation. This alternative is still being evaluated as of April 26, 1995. The Maki Alternative, as proposed, is a workable solution to help achieve the Valley's stated goal of cleaning up Cascade Reservoir. Because of citizen concerns about the same possible sites for the water storage reservoir, particularly the one at Wilde Road near the old railroad right-of-way, the City of McCall will help address citizen concerns by the following actions: • Select a final site which minimizes the impact to neighboring properties. • Continue to negotiate with the owner of the gravel pit land immediately south of the McCaII Waste Treatment Plant for possible acquisition and siting of the proposed water storage reservoir if this site is economically and environmentally viable. h) Concern about the generation of foa from the storage lagoon. The primary reason that fog would be generated by the storage lagoon is that warm water from the treatment facility would be pumped into the storage lagoons under weather conditions that were dry and cold. The warm water evaporating over the lagoons would come in contact with the cold air and condense, creating fog. During the majority of the period of time when these conditions could occur, the lagoon will be frozen over and there would not be the opportunity for evaporation of the lagoon contents to take place. In early winter, prior to the lagoon freezing completely over, the potential impacts can be mitigated by introducing the flow from the treatment facility into the bottom of the lagoon such that the warmer water stratifies on the bottom of the lagoon. i) Concern that the storage reservoir will be converted to a laaoon treatment facility for the untreated influent. There is no plan to utilize the storage reservoir for treatment of raw sewage. Page 7 i ci) 3. Mitigation Measures a) Concern about losing rural lifestyle as a result of or posed oro•ct• 1. All buildings and structures used in the Maki Alternative will be constructed in a manner to blend with the type of buildings currently in the Lake Fork area. Building materials, design and appearance will be compatible with existing buildings in the area. 2. Minimize the use of signs or signals where practical to de-emphasize the presence of structures and buildings to preserve the rural character of the Maki Alternative. b) Concern about musty smell associated with proposed storage reservoir. 1. To help reinforce the locally desirable odors emitted by native vegetation, create and maintain a native vegetation zone around the storage reservoir to enhance the production of desirable outdoor odors. 2. Minimize the potential for odor at the storage reservoir by maintaining highly treated, organically stable effluent with a low odor creation potential.. c) Concern about electrical motor noise at night during irrigation season. 1. Pump stations will be designed and housed in buildings to minimize noise impacts on the neighborhood. d) Concern about unsightliness and visual impact of proposed storage reservoir. 1. Establish and maintain a vegetation zone about the storage reservoir to serve as a visual enhancement to the area and screen the reservoir from direct view. 2. Design the perimeter chain Zink fence to be constructed inside the landscape vegetation zone so the fence is there for security but hidden from direct view. 3. Locate the storage reservoir at a site where there is sufficient room for site development and screening. e) 'cern about water leakina out of the propose^_' storage res.- voir, very rugged and proven liner will be installed to rigorous construction star ds in the reservoir. 2. Minimize the potential for puncture of the storage reservoir liner by maintaining a perimeter security fence around the entire reservoir. Page 8 3. The City will conduct annual inspections to verify the integrity of the liner. f) cpncern about child fety at proo_osod storage reservoir. 1. Minimize child safety conflicts at the reservoir by maintaining a high chain fink security fence to restrict entry into the reservoir area. 2. Install evenly spaced down slope ladders on the interior sides of the reservoir to help people catch hold and crawl out of the water, if necessary. g) Concern about siting the proposed storage reservoir in Lake Fork rather than McCall area. 1. The City of McCall will locate the reservoir to an acceptable site incorporating the mitigation criteria in the Environmental information Document and the Citizen Response Document. In addition, the City of McCaII is currently negotiating with the owner of a site near the existing McCall Wastewater Treatment Plant that could possibly be used for the proposed storage reservoir. h) Concern about the generation of foa from the storage lagoon, 1. The lagoons will be operated to introduce the warmer water into the bottom of the lagoon to mitigate the potential for the warm water to evaporate at the surface of the lagoon and then to cool and condense in cold air. i) Concern that the storage reservoir wilLbe converted to a lagoon_ treatment facility for the Untreated influent. 1. There is no plan to utilize the storage reservoir for treatment of raw sewage. Page 9 D. HEALTH ISSUE 1. Summary of Citizen Comments. During the Public Hearing conducted on February 16, 1995, twelve (12) citizens posed questions and comments regarding various public health issues related to the proposed Slow Rate Land Application System. In addition to the 12 verbal comments, the City of McCall received fifteen (15) written comments pertaining to public health issues. Citizens' verbal and written comments are summarized as follows: a) Concern abut concentrations of nitrate/nitrogen. heavy metals. microorganisms. pathways for trans2ort of contaminants, and mosquitoes. 2. Response to Citizen Comments a) Concern about concentrations of nitrate/nitrogen. heavy metals, microorganisms, pathways for transport of contaminants. and mosquitoes. Public health relative to this project is a broad and complex issue. The response is organized by first discussing the contaminants that maybe found in effluent and their potential for adverse effects on public health. Possible transport routes for the contaminants will also be discussed. McCall's treated effluent could potentially contain the following contaminants that are of public health concern: Nitrate, Heavy metals, Microorganisms, and Trace organics. USEPA studies have found that slow rate land application, such as this proposal, is Generally very effective in removing these contaminants if they are present in the treated effluent. Nitrate: Nitrate is potentially harmful to human health. The safe drinking water standards limit for nitrate measured as nitrogen is 10 mg/L. High concentrations of nitrate/nitrogen affect the red blood cells ability to pick up oxygen which can cause methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome) in infants. i avv met js: Heavy metals can be discharged to sewer systems by homes and industry and/or dissolved from water piping materials. 0f primary concern from a public health perspective is accumulation of heavy metals, particularly cadmium, in the food chain and the movement of metals through the soils and into the groundwater and domestic wells. Page 16 McCall's drinking water is considered highly aggressive, which has caused elevated levels of copper and lead in some homes. The new drinking water treatment plant should correct this situation. Elevated levels of lead and copper have not been found at the wastewater treatment plant. • McCall's treated effluent has been analyzed by a certified laboratory for all the metals listed in the drinking water regulations. A copy of the that analytical report is made a part of this document. Most of the metals tested for, including cadmium, were not detected. The USEPA has studied several land application sites and found the concentrations of the metals have not approached toxic levels after up to 50 years of operation. Microoraanisms: Three classes of microorganisms can be pathogenic to humans and animals: bacteria, viruses and parasitic protozoa. McCall's present waste water treatment is very effective at reducing the concentrations of microorganisms. The treatment plant combines several processes that are effective at deactivating or killing pathogens. First the raw wastewater fiows through two large aerated lagoons. The air in the lagoons enhances and speeds up the natural decomposition of the raw waste and reduction of harmful microorganisms. The wastewater then moves into a third lagoon which allows suspended solids, including protozoa, to settle out. Sunlight penetrating the water in the lagoons also reduces microorganisms. Then, depending on quality, the wastewater is either filtered through sand filters and disinfected with chlorine or simply disinfected prior to being discharged to the Payette River. The sand filters and chlorine disinfection are very effective in reducing pathogens. Trace Oraanics: Trace organics mostly refer to chlorinated hydrocarbons which are a group of chemicals used in many industrial applications, found in fuels such as gasoline and diesel and in some household chemicals. Trace organics are a public health concern and have been found in several drinking water systems in Idaho. McCall has not found significant trace organics in its water. At land application sites, the concern is that trace organics may travel through the soil profile and enter drinking water aquifers or accumulate in the soil profile and be taken up by plants. Potential Pathways for Transport of Contaminants of Public Health Concern: The five potential pathways for transport of contaminants from land application systems are: Soils, Crops, Ground water, Surface water, and Aerosols. Page 17 Soils: While soil is a possible rout for transporting contaminants, it is generally recognized as one of the most important parts of the increased treatment experienced from land application of effluent. Only nitrates, of the contaminants of concern, escapes significant treatment by soil. However, because soil is so effective at accumulating contaminants, it is important to continually monitor it to assure unsafe levels of contaminants do not occur. Crops: Crops can accumulate and concentrate heavy metals. Of greatest concern because of their possible effects on animals and humans are cadmium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc. The concentration of heavy metals in McCall's effluent is very low, but crops should be monitored routinely during the life of the project. There is a slight possibility microorganisms may be transported by ingestion of crops. Many land application projects in the United States apply treated effluent to crops for human consumption. Typically, effluent is not applied to crops that are to be eaten raw. This project will only apply effluent to crops for animal consumption. No incidents of infection resulting from crops receiving wastewater have been identified in the United States. Ground Water: Protection of groundwater is critical. Domestic wells near this land application site must be protected. It is possible for nitrates to move through soils and into the ground water. Nitrates are removed primarily by crop uptake, nitrification-denitrification, ammonia volatilization, and some storage in the soil. While it is possible for the other contaminants of public health concern to move through the ground water, cases are rare. Surface Water: Again, the intent of this project is to avoid discharge of the treated effluent to surface water. Currently, McCall's treated effluent is discharged directly to the Payette River with no reports of health problems. Surface water transport of contaminants from this project will be avoided Aerosols: Aerosols are very small airborne droplets, that may be carried beyond the range of discernible droplets from sprinklers. Aerosols may carry bacteria and viruses, but do not normally contain pathogenic protozoa. However, studies have shown that as aerosols are formed, approximately 90% of bacteria and 70 % of viruses are killed within seconds by what is known as the "impact factor". Further reduction may be caused by desiccation, temperature, deposition, and solar radiation. The concentration of bacteria and viruses in aerosols is a function of their concentration in the applied wastewater and the aerosolization efficiency of the spray process. Bacteria cannot be detected in aerosols at distances of even 33 feet from sprinklers unless the bacteria concentrations in the applied wastewater are at least 1,000 to 10,000 colonies per milliliter. McCall's current discharge permit limits the fecal coliform density to a monthly average of no more than 50 colonies per 100 milliliters. Based on several studies, land treatment system employees or people living near Page 18 t r ■ ■ • Q ei ei ■ sprinkler irrigation sites are not at risk of disease due to aerosols. Even with this evidence, every effort will be made to reduce aerosols. Mosquitoea: Where there are large quantities of warm, shallow stagnant water for extended periods of time, mosquitoes will breed. The storage lagoon does not provide a good breeding ground for mosquitoes because most of the time the water will be deep and will not stagnate since the surface area is large enough to have wind induced surface mixing. When the lagoon is pulled down late in the season in October and November overnight temperatures are generally low enough the mosquitoes are killed. There is some concern that water might be caught in folds of the liner in shallow layers that would have good conditions for mosquito breeding. However, since the HDPE liner is very dark and absorbs heat, the water will usually heat and evaporate. 3. Mitigation Measures a) Concern about cnnr,entrations of nitrate nitrogen. heavy metals, microorganisms, pathways for transport of pathogens, and mosquitoes. The public health issue is relatively minor when we consider the high quality of the treated effluent and the excellent qualities of the land to which the effluent is being applied. However, the public health is not being taken for granted. McCaII intends to take every precaution to assure no adverse health effects occur. More specifically, public health will be protected by additional treatment of the effluent at the existing treatment plant. The existing sand filters will be refurbished and one more added to allow for increased filtering capacity. Presently, the effluent is disinfected with chlorine once prior to being discharged to the river. When the lined storage pond is added, the capability of disinfecting the effluent twice will exist, once as is done now and again as the effluent is pumped to the land application site. Nitrogen levels which are currently relatively low will be further reduced while in the storage pond. Experience at other storage sites indicate that the nitrogen concentrations could be reduced by as much as 50%. No harmful heavy metals or trace organics have been found in high enough concentrations to be of concern in the treated effluent. Calcium and manganese are at significant concentrations, but they have the effect of enhancing the land application site by increasing the soils buffering capacity. Page 19 4. Other precautions that will be taken include; extensive soils and plant testing vill be done before and during sprinkling of the effluent to identify potential problems ground water monitoring wells will be established and monitored before and durirci sprinkling, again to identify any problems with the system prior to adversely effecting neighboring properties, berms will be constructed along streams which gill allow any over land flow of effluent to be pumped back to the sprinkler system arc a low pressure, down cast sprinkler system to reduce aerosols will be used. One of the main reasons for the Division of Environmental Quality reviewing re project and issuing a land application permit, is for the protection of the public health. All permit requirements will be carefully complied with including buffer zones from dwellings and domestic wells. The lagoon contents will be inspected for mosquito larvae and when it appears that it will contribute to a mosquito problem, mosquito abatement programs will to instituted. Page 20 o EXHIBIT "B" Issues ROrding Various Effluent Storaagoon Sites Description Purchase .Agent (oadlbots► lltuardous Materials Conditions Area of Proposed Site DrainageThroughor Across Site tiled Hazards fur Airport Traits( Seub.rt Silt • Removal end stockpiled 77U,WU cubic yard' err material - Proposed stockpile alto roquires rcwhin; and perrnittieg for onstage of tau MCI loss of wetlands, Public oFpoake ltto beau eapro►sed and afprovsls may be dtfrcuh if twt Iary 4 JLls to vUtolu. Cosa could be sl�rtifivat. • RdocWhim ui'Walt Pistol - Propomed trite regalia meowing and pennieting for change of us and Soo of wetlands. Public opposition hu been ezprwaed and epprovalr may be dlfAoutt If not Irnposdblo to obtain, costa could be rienlfcaet. Sets contain an unknown quantity elf petersham etentad:sedan - Huardons materials will owl to he retnnv.41 price to oonetr action. iris may increase orokct oasis. Limited to approdtwast14 » aerie - Require larnnne to I deep with little or no buffer arcs tad steep elopes. Excess excrvatioo and an increased level of sdfoct to daeism and construct iron-typicrtl lasourts Increases projsot eau. More gradual slopes would A artiness mittsmtu be ►squired to coevtty drainage tram the property to the west, through tie Ia$4o pare. - This system will be costly to build and maintain, since it la like;y to run under the lagoons. Any failure of this system Gould d►maje the lagoon liner and/or » teeth etc, Storage is within a utile n of tiro ruway • FAA his expressed causer. over increasing attraction to bIrW at thls location. — Alternative Site on Fist or Gentle Siope • Similar conditions ere not artldpated for the elts:node, alto- The alternative site is large enough to use a cut and fdl balance apptonth, which will minimize sanhv~ork end eltminare trackpttes. Welland issues appear urtnirual un this site. Theta are no emitting tW ilitles to move. dray tie necessary for ihls sits its wt;tt. Hizardnus materials are sot aatiaipatad *lathe alternedv• slu -'t" It site is MA known to hwv. kind . bialnry of . Onuntr•t0J or industrial uwge. Proposed arcs is spproxirtsatrtly nowt 1611 - Aw lina fur hnffnr arcs and slopes at or neat typic,�l or regulatory standeAls. Also pond depot is much lass, thus reduclog risk of catastrophic failure. Eliminating excess exotv►don and decrcaliris pond educe ael?ePlty. dept reduces coats. Drains's wll be routed around the lagoons on the alternate sits — I1tls dratincgtr system will not require the City to coorainate with adjacent tandowners for the operation and meintonance of the damp system. Tba atlernate sits Is 13 mike from the ruavay - Altlitiuyh further sway, some rn,tlption may sdil be required Issues Regarding Various Effluent Storage Lagoon Sites Description Slaty of Dune Issues Drainage Across Property Scubert Sits • Proposed elope. are 3:1 - Tins whop, is Y.u.sttlly ooneldersd to steep for thin sypllcatIv t sad die type of materiels proposed for conatsuedoe. Stoop elopes are also a atfoty corleam for People and animate acoodentaliy entering this )ogres. • Lagoon embankment depth le appeeelmal.lr 11! feet as tvrretatly proposed - This depth In s+ombinwjon with the location adjacent to the River ntakei this a ImIIa hlab thk dim, which wlli snaky thn prnjnrt vary onatly to design, permit and ootutruct. • Omits materials may nos ba suitable for •oastrucdon al the ant ankmenta as propoe.d - MOM ttohauive tutorials such u clay or silt may be necaaeuy to reduce erosion damage trots', ground mlpsdoa under the lino tend Iitttit the potemial for liquifaction or ssulement daring an urgtqultks. Imponing materials would significantly increase project c0$11. Drainage of adjacent property to tha west, through the lagoon vita essay to n.co..ary - Drainage system will be costly to construct and maintain since It will likely run under the lagoons. There le pot. ntial for damage to lagoon Iinsr and/or embankments If as properly opets.a and rnuntunad. Drainage system may nod to be modlfled as a1jaoaat pit is excavaud. Meta -ye Site on Flat or^ Condo 6lopo • Prepesed etopee are likely to be 3:1- c]cnu ally considered maximum slope for this application. Mecca current DEO guidelines for mucimers elope on loao,n banks. Embankments ws may gradually eloped, which reduces but dots not eliminate sifaty �.utx:•ms. • Lagoon embankment depth to unrelated at i..e Ui.n 20 Not -Main combination with the location be:ne much further hom the River makes , this •n :ntrinoci4igrinw dam, which will be much eerier to d.Rign and obtain necessary permits. • finite mat/trials are mere suitable for coostractlon on tee alternative site- The reasons for this include the fact tt,ar 3:3 slopes axe proposed, ert►bankmonte ern lt,s that 20 feet high, cutuff walls or drains can tie constructed to intercept ground water tnuvlug onto site and the potential for severe des ntge tiom contractile failus. is Hutch lowest. Drainage will be diverted around propoa.d lagoon site - This system will not 'squire the City to coordinate with adjacent landowners regarding runoff rutto or under the lagoons In addrttun no other parties will have access to the site or vie snowed to grade adjacent to the embankrnente. JUDGE'S CHAMBERS William A. McCurdy BRASSEY, WETHERELL, CRAWFORD & McCURDY Washington Federal Plaza 1001 West Idaho, Third Floor P.O. Box 1009 , Boise, Idaho 83701-1009 Telephone: (208) 344-7300 Facsimile: (208) 344-7077 Susan E. Buxton MOORE & McFADDEN, CHARTERED One Capital Center, Suite 910 999 Main Street Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 331-1800 Facsimile: (208) 331-1202 Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF VALLEY CITY OF McCALL, IDAHO, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, vs. BEZATES LAND & CATTLE CO., an Idaho corporation, Defendant. Case No. CV-98-332 C AFFIDAVIT OF KIRK EIMERS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION KIRK EIMERS, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That I am Mayor for the City of IM1cCall. As Mayor, I have been engaged in all aspects AFFIDAVIT OF KIRK ELVERS !.V SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - 1 FPW. Exhibit 44 of Phase II of the J-Ditch Sewer Project -- a project which is necessitated by the most recent NPDES permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in July of 1996. In accordance with the EPA's NPDES permit and with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality's (" DEQ") Section 401 Water Quality Certification, there is to be a 100 % elimination of all discharges from the City of McCaIl's wastewater treatment facility into the North Fork of the Payette River. In order to comply with these EPA and DEQ mandates, the City is required (by DEQ) to construct storage lagoons for the discharge which is currently disposed of in the Payette River. 3. After extensive engineering and environmental analysis, the City has concluded that the only site available to the City is land, more particularly described in the Complaint filed in this action, owned by Bezates Land & Cattle Company. 4. The City of McCall has concluded that the property owned by Bezates Land & Cattle Company is necessary to completion of Phase II of the J-Ditch Sewer Project. As demonstrated by engineering studies conducted by the City, the Bezates site is the only site available which will enable the City to Comply with the NPDES permit issued by the EPA requiring that cell one of the effluent storage lagoons be operational by October 1, 1999. In addition, it is the only site available to the City upon which the City could construct the storage lagoons within budget. 5. Beginning in February of 1998, when the City became aware of significant problems with a site previously analyzed as a possible location for the effluent storage lagoons, the City approached George Bezates, agent for Bezates Land & Cattle Company, to inquire about possibly purchasing the land needed for completion of the J-Ditch . Specifically, on February 24, 1998, City AFFIDAVIT OF KIRK ELVERS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - O officials, Brian Olson and Allan Muller, met with Ken Tyre and George Bezates in good faith to begin negotiations to purchase the land from Mr. Bezates. 6. In April of 1998, Mr. Bezates was again approached by the City. City Manager, Brian Olson, met with Mr. Bezates to inquire about a purchase price. After that meeting, Mr. Bezates communicated to the City that he would accept nothing less than $12,500.00 per acre for the entire 735-acre parcel owned by Mr. Bezates — an amount believed by City officials to be too high. Moreover, the City had neither the need for, nor the funds available, to purchase the entire 735-acre parcel. 7. In mid to late April of 1998, your affiant spoke personally with Mr. Bezates in a good - faith attempt to negotiate the purchase of the needed property. Mr. Bezates again stated that the property was for sale only in its entirety for $12,500.00 per acre. 8. In a City Council meeting on July 20, 1998, Mr. Bezates informed City officials that his property was not for sale at any price. 9. On August 21, 1998, City Manager Brian Olson made a written offer to Mr. Bezates in a good -faith attempt to purchase land owned by Bezates Land & Cattle Company. Attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference, is the written offer made by Brian Olson on behalf of the City. The City's offer of $4,500.00 per acre was based upon an appraisal done for the City by Judy Leister. This offer was summarily rejected by Mr. Bezates. 10. Because of EPA and DEQ mandates, there are serious time constraints on the City. The City must have cell one of the effluent storage lagoons operational by October 1, 1999. Mr. Bezates rejected all good- faith attempts by the City to purchase the land and, consequently, the City was left AFFIDAVIT OF KIRK ELVIERS LV SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - 3 0 0 with no alternative but to exercise its power of eminent domain and condemn the property, which it did, on September 10, 1998. FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. KIRK EIMERS SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ?`I day of January, 1999. cicr Notary Pu Residing at: My Commission expires: AFFIDAVIT OF KIRK ELVERS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - -� CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on thisaji. day of January, 1999, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon each of the following individuals by causing the same to be delivered by the method and to the addresses indicated below: E. Don Copple Heather A. Cunningham DAVIDSON, COPPLE, COPPLE & COPPLE Washington Mutual Capitol Plaza Suite 600 P.O. Box 1583 Boise, Idaho 83701 Telephone: (208) 342-3658 Facsimile: (208) 386-9428 Attorneys for Defendant [ ]U.S. Mail, postage prepaid [o/f{and-Delivered [ ]Overnight Mail [ ]Facsimile Williaml. McCurdy AFFIDAVIT OF KIRK EIMERS LV SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR POSSESSION - 5 o EXHIBIT „A„ o "MCCALL G Cij MANAGER August 21, 1998 VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY George Bezates 4620 Plum Lane Ontario, Oregon 97914 Subject: Purchase Offer for 160 Acre Parcel near McCall, Idaho Dear Mr. Bezates: You are aware of the City's interest in purchasing the eastern -most 160 acre parcel of your 700 plus acre property just west of McCall. The property is outlined on the attached map and may be described as located at 291 Wisdom Road McCall, Idaho 83638. We have met several times to discuss this matter without our being able to agree on a purchase price and terms. Please be informed the City has solicited appraisals on the property in order to arrive at a fair and equitable market price. We have also discussed at length the specific reasons for the City's need for this property as a location for effluent storage cells. You, in fact, first approached the City years ago with this proposal, and also approached me with the same proposal early this year. We were not able to conclude a purchase for the property and you recently stated publicly at a McCall City Council Meeting that the property was not for sale at any price. We hope you will reconsider your position with the following good - faith offer: The City of McCall will offer $4,500 (four thousand five hundred dollars) per acre with cash at closing. The total purchase price is $720,000 (seven hundred twenty thousand dollars). We have, as you are well aware, serious time constraints imposed on the City by state and federal regulatory agencies. Therefore, I must have your acceptance, refusal, or acceptable counter-offer by noon Tuesday, September 1, 1998 at McCall City Hall. Should we be unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable purchase and sale agreement by that date and time, the City of McCall will proceed with condemnation action. We regret the necessity for expediting this matter, but the health and safety of our community requires we move forward with this project immediately. I encourage you to contact me at 208.634.7142 to facilitate negotiations or with any questions. Thank 216 Gaut Park Street • P.O. Box 986 • McCall, Idaho 83618 • 1208) 634-7142 • George Bezates August 21, 1998 Page 2 you for your time and consideration. We look forward to completing this critical public project in the best interests of the McCall community. Sincerely, Brian D. Olson City Manager (6...i.ilfr\.--- Enclosure: Map cc: Dave Bieter, City Attorney t,.. APPRAISAL OF LOCATED AT: 291 WISDOM ROAD McCALL, IDAHO 83638 FOR CITY OP McCALL AS OF: AUGUST 19, 1998 BY: IUDY LEISTBR 26 Exhibit 45 N/A Pilo da HC30e21J FXHIBIT A A tiONDL It 1 00 tti MCCALL exam YALLET L lQ,sntofoe SEE ATTAQIED 2easiatmuLIFIATE$ )alaPrlool N/A tlytotSU.N/A 1.414 eh.tltlissta tttlont to I flu sr wow s N/A >lE• Tf ref i SEE COMMENTS Tar Y.ir N/A LIAM/411et CITYOF MCCALI_ LDCADON MALT UP 411CWM RATE ' Pc0PERIT VALUES 0E11A/0/6UPPLY UAPMING 11MF PRESENT LAND USE X hags Fealty 2-4lamity Naatl-lamly Caanrrd.a IadustAal Yearn Urban Oar //I Aatld Incn.04 Shortl91 Ilnd_r 1 flea J 3 Uot LAND USE CNAM3E PACCAIINANT No Ukely OOG1JPAtICY LallyO*Mlr la ilium. Tenets T.: FROM BARE , Vaunt OHM) A • 4, Vacua (ovrr E0 64TIAL OR OTHER LAND APPRAISAL REP Nee lute IDAHOrnco.81618 Ito,II.Nnnte NONE I moat/RIAU Appraised Fa• Simple 40A tiu . NONE I Lcauho 4 Caotawniun ptuvVA) IPu0 Aura Vow LS% Slow adwet Oett SwNy Sub.mtan 2/-(5% ilea. Bleak le Salami MOLE FAMILY Ia0U3{Na PfiCt AO* !(083) (yh) Low 0 2S0 ►Ig _____ PredomNant 1 - 7 rn+m. MC80821J LENDER DCCn'ETIONARY USE Sao tees 1 D.le 4ont.f+AmaW $ uant•t• Type Alawunl NAM, ant OU4t Calm .Iaa Pad by 1,14r smatter -mow ANALT313 Emplarttaal 3leUlly Caneelina la [meleymad CeMMUKs d Itu►►In! CaanManea le 1laoota Adaavac1 el ►ut14 Tnnspenaloe A.cnallea FaetRas Adequacy et Ut11W e ?moony Camaadallty Fto4ee.a lean D.tn,.nlal Coed. Puaoa a nee P•muldhut 0.n.ralAp►ss anci. Pnaal•a Antal 1a uartN Nela Mao at Ma nda eonlpo4tl•a a the ealgAhrheed an nal maiden(MIW sordid laden. COWERS: Ill AREA, CQHSI TS OF CATTEAEP RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS SOME INDUSTRIAL USES TO THE I10¢DIAT INDUSTRIAL LOOP, THE BALANCE OF THE LAND IS VACANT At THIS TINE. H011SVER,J GOLF COUR$ ?CANNED I1•P(EDIATE11L Q THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT. WHILE THERE IS NO CUARRENTEE 7U9I_1iiL 01.E COURSE KILL BE DEVELOPED THE ANTICIPAII4t1 HAS CAUSED PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA TQ�ISE. aaruto elf. AIIQjED To,ugriptn t�STLT LEVEL u1a Ant 160 ACRE Omer WI 2/0 13za TYPICAL FQL 2o1rpCLt.mealaa RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-51 Tardllitbratorlcr U.S $b10a SQU9RI NtONE!T4JE3Tu3E►nunlu•/_BURAL R. Olj)tylsN/A Dewy. �FARSj1AEQUATE UTlIJ1 E$ MAC omar f 3RE 31PROYEtlditl Type Vine TTPIC,*L 0P AREA r Mob Oat Waver !Wiry Sewer 31orm tower llnel CRAYEi. CurA/0ut4r Hor 31dew.h UQI1 Mel LOW BON: Mint NONE h9Ac a maxi P [vale EMI L4Macaping [(ATURAL VEC OAvre y GRAVEL Appersoi Esounaeft IIfl fe UTILITTI i FE11A float Word Us' NO X FTMA••dre//one 160220 0125 A 9/1990 COIAuVITS (AppatsM tdvsna s•..menle. enereadunanIL 'Wig aemIsmeMa. aide met. ate.k THE SUBJECT PROtILRTT IS A RELATIVELY FLAT 1,1130 0? LAND CURRENTL7 IN NATURAL. DR7 VEGETATION THAT IS AwggEr TO PUoLIC 714ADS kf(D BESIDENTTAL HOUSING TRACTS. son TIMBERED LAND AND :SPIRAL PARCELS PROPOSED FOR_ A GOLF COJRSE. IN e.dm•I,.a. ►a. e..e.4 1\ee. ,44e41 ..W .1 r•4.r14. mot Moak/ a•d p..1$.1. la .,S e.a 114 *.1 .41a4...4 6641 1. 1M ...1.1 •..I,.el. T\a N..6411.. 1..1N... /.MI MMIlaa..1, M11..11N 04/14.11 ,..•1146 4 .►... 14.. al .ltaIn4.1 me044 'Maw. Its m 4041 ..d 4.qe.►1. N.Mrn.a. a 1 II,aln•W M.. Y 1\1 u...,..4 WNdt 4 •.•.Am 1.. N lama Iamm14 146. lS• a.bI•41 er.,mly. 4 .1..4 (41 441.446,le I. sa1.. lam 61446114e U. 4dMaa.4 !W. A ..1M.k M a 44 .lIU.d lam la libe...,..ale. la 4i..14. l,. Nei 4.1•414 Owl. IN 4.1041 te.Ndt, a OM (.l sallml.a.1 4 .N1.1\.. 4.1M•4t W 11e11111/ •.dew N Ia. .eel..( fits( • traxlm+tr to 3u011f1 mete f4ea/ OVERALL to t•1lft, yALLE OA JUltuEHT3 Sane er FYladnt ;rlspalenf jeteelSalt/That _ 14/1990 . jtujj a .4_sto VC riders 160 tt1DJECY txur:ja 1 Ci UPAAA81,F N0. 2 ACe , �.: r JN1C 0WN R TRACT IN SEC 7, T. A TRACT IN 3EC.24, T B N.. R 1,E. BALL L4 IL. R1 I,. _McCALL MIN 1/11J1ILE W 1NV: s �2 s 175.04901j 1F5.Siga,r"=I^c ? 0E1CRIPTltkf k4-11,14tdlraw 03C11PT10N (4-kt*441t-..1 3BK own, BAL ; 9% 1/1996 MQCALL/AYC 160 AC/TTP 0 AC/TTP a •: HEW CLF CRS /ES 0 .1.500 H0 •1.500 HQ HftA Ialell = =�- � I �- 2.000 4s • f 1 z.0QQ moolava I Valve^� ,rrTl,:�.t Y --n (f� •= =r ='r. i•s/i lc:Frsrr^!rtt 1.500 ,.r F' �s 2.972 - --.-- li A.2O caaanentaNw.eCampsneaK I1i�T. 4F A_ }10POSED GOI.PSOUIL9E THAT WOULD H4ROE3 SHIS PROPERTY AM IlWLU_N_'H THE PROPFRTT VALUES THE YALUF.LS/F THIS _IN[I,UENCK IS P3TI.1ATED ONLY AHD T3 A CTIVE_ » UER a_THE_ TIME •Ap uizENT I9 JASE2 ON 03$ERVAT19H3 OF THE LOCAL MAp(E; . commit* tx.oemllen.MA►►nlsst SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT OF PROPER LEGAL DESCRTPTIOJ(. N0 INSP$QiION Of THE_ PRQPERT7 OR IMPROVER T$ HA3 BEES+ DONE. HO VALUE HAS BEEN CIYEN TO It21141n9 r Ar A Mal Recondfalan THE MARKET DATA APPROACH TO VALUE PROVIDES THE BEST INDICATION OF VALUE OAF fl SUBJECT, _THE_S7D AND ,INCOMR' APpRQ 11ED WER(_NOT USED__&.S THET_ARE IRRELEYAHT To THE CLIENT, / [T X 1,16(111 s /. , C� M I (1Pf1 ECTLATE THE WARKET YALIX A8 DEFIED, IRE TIE RU EL7 PACCPPEaTY AS CC AUGUST 19 to 94 _ 1. b. 1_ 40. Q Q0 i (We) matt: Mlle lea Mel al my (out) knowtedys ma Weal IAt lads and daft Wad hen la an We •na.ornet du(I (w+l ►ece•na11y 1nas.c4d she valid moody aM Mepeoud IA cmeo.nble 'ilea dad In oils apart ant out 4 tor') kayo ti.anata...a (*.anal ►nw.N or ► ream ctIvs Martin. AJ►nlMt{t) IlQ}IATUPf Parley. Alantt.tJjt14ATLTE RAC JUDY LEiSTER (N I/WsIloI HALE COu►A; t• 3 E. ROSEBERRT ROAD TO @ji ADDED 1. 100.000p FILES IJCAtrT1ON I /.I I A.y11.mt 1/2 DOWN, SAL: E i TR WlijtJ..I •F00 4500 5/1448 P4 LLILAYG L •1.1 40 ACJTTP -1 0 Q CU ❑ ad Nei IntNci Property ropmlary UM lame O4/84 .►..- as .r.r . r w• arm .-.-w - 4 .a....• Northwest Appralaal ' I/ 4 ui —1,•• 1 o • 1.4 r \• •.' • ... 1. * ". .•,- ...--...1 C ...1... I: .... n r ope and. t., t ..4::'• - . .. , Berate' Kar.chee ter Calf Cara •• ..• ........ 01 Fliis I • I " " M l / _ . r . l h a m o n s . " h r . r l ���� r . I O N . . I A T & 1 , t o u C a m p . 3 q - t t l . " P a m . J T Y i " . 7 " 4 . l 4 1 . 1 1 1 . 0 . 3 2 1 1 . ` ` ` �� l l y ~ c W , ����i ' . . . ���� 1 �����%d . + � . 1 , ' DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The meat probable mice Mich a prope �q Ina competitive and open market under all cartdllt ,teat' to & fair Igo. Iha buyer and seder, each acting prud ably end awning the once Is not &fleeted by r ad ha Ns definition h the eontrrw tton of I isle 1 tra ed date and the passing of tine m seller to buyer ns whereby: (1) Wy.t and altar are typically nonrated: (2) both parttae are well (mooned or well advised. and each acting in what he consldsn hie own best Intend: (3) a reeeruble time Is siiawed for exposure In the open market; (4) payment is made In terns of cash In U.S. dollars or In leis of fktanctil arrangement. oompuabte thereto; Ind (5) thavice represenia the norms contlderstlon for the property sold uriatteeted by epeeist or creative Marwing or Wes concessions' granted by anyone assoeiilsd with the Ws. 'Adjustments to the comparables meat be mode tot epeeist or oreattve financing or eel.. conemlons. No ad(wtmenls in neesaary for those costs which are nonnaly pad by setters a s result of tradition or Inv In a market mu; theca costa us ru6ly Identiflible since the sailer pays these costs th virtually ati saes transaction apecid or creative ftmnotng adjuttrmenb con be made to the comparable property by camp.rtsorlt to financing terms offered by a Cdrd party Institutional lender thit to not greedy Involved In the property or Us:naction. My adltatreent dtofdd not be calculated one micMnlcai dollar far dollar post of Cie flnancinq or coneeulon but the dollar mount of arty edjustmenl should approximate the meters tanners lo the llntnolnq or concessions hued on The ippaiser's judgment. STATEMENT OP LIM1T1NO CONDMON9 AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTiNGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS; The ippnhel's oertifcaticn that appeen H the apprise report Is subject lo the fawning conditions; 1. The appraiser win not be responsible for matters o1 a legit Moue that effect either the property being metalled or the fats to IL The nattiest assumes that the title Is good and ntukstebte and, therefore, will not render arty opinions about the title. The property 1s pprehed on the bask of It being under respoasble ownership. 2. The appraiser Au provided stretch In the appraisal report to show spproxlmete dmensioni of Cis improvements and the sketch is irtctuded only to tides the reader of the report In ylaallzlnq the property and utdeatamdi rig its apprdtars determination of ib size. 3. The appraiser hn examined the available Good maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and hes noted in the apprdaal report whether the subject site la boated in an Identified Special Flood Hazard Area. Because the sppralser Is not a tamayor, he or she makes no quuentees, sprees or Implied, reputing this d.tennhution. 4. The appraiser win not give testimony of appear In court because ha or she made an z proita a( the property in quetlion, unless specific arrngements to do so have been made beforehand 5. The apprdsar her estimated tha value of the lard In the cost approach at lb highest rid bat us. end the improvements el their contributory value. The apatite venation: of the Ind end improvements musI not be wad In conjunction with any ether 'potshot and us invand If they all so used. b. The sppriber ha noted In the appraisal report my 1Crme ccrtr9ton. (arch all. needed repairs. depreciation, the presence of hezrdoua 'testes, toxic stdrstances, etc.) observed during the Inspection of the subject property or that he or oho became ewers of during the ncmril research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise staled in the sportiest report the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or inapparent conditions of the property or adverse envirct.nantil condltone (including the presence of hawdous wales, foxfc substances, etc.) that would make ths property more or lea vaNtbl s, end hie sesrrrted taut tars Ee no such conditions and makes no guuantsee or wuranlles, express or Impaled, regarding ite condition of the property. Th. appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions Chet do exist or for any engineering or tseling that might be regidrad to discover whether stet% conditions exist. Because the epprdisr Is not at expert In the field of enviroratenW husrds, the appraisal report mat not be considered a an environmental asseam.nt of the property. 7. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions that were expensed in the teetotal report from sources that he or she considan to be retisb1 end believes them to be true and cartect The appraiser does not assume responstbifty for the ec:.nacy of ouch Items that wets fumished by other parties. 8. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the apprdssi report except as prondad for'n 1M Uniform Stnduds of Profeadona Appreisil Practice. 9. The appraiser has bated hie or her appalls( raporf and yaluaUcn concttdcn far an contest gut Is subject to aiistaclory completion. repairs, or Alterations on the ssm:notion that completion of the improve:nenb win be perterm.d in 1 workmanitke manse. 10. The menhir rural provide his or Mr prior written consent before the lender/Giant roecitled tri the soprani report eat distribute the appraisal report (including conclusions about rife property yWe, sire appratur's Identify red pratesetond designation. and reftrrutces to ny professional appraisal argerizetlaru or the rum with which Z. tpprdt er 1s mocigild ) to anyone other than Cie borrower•, the mortgagee or its succasson and assigns; tine mortgage laaurer, comtlints; profeaatonU appraisal orgenizttione; arty stets or federaily spprmed finnold Institution: or any depertmenL Igsncy, or instrumentality of the United Stites or any date or the Dlslnet of Cohanble: except that the lender/.dent may dlsttthuts the property description section of the report only to dais cotlectlon or mooning service(.) without having to cbtoln the sppnksers prior written consent. The apprUsers written content red aporavat must also be obtained before the appraisal can bo conveyed by 'mime to the prtilo through tdvert:sing, ptxilc relailcns, newt, alai. or other mole. Freddie Mac Form 439 8-93 Paga 1 of 2 Fannie Mae Farm 100413 8-93 APPRAISERS CERTIFICATION: The Atcrslser osrtines and egreea stet 1. I Moe resaartlt 1111111111111) market area aM have *IOWa mfnlnxrn of three teen silts of properties mast er ttu trod proximate to the subject props for oon tderaUon In the elte comparison naysls and here made a dotar adjhniment when appropriate la reflect the manual ruction to those item of slgn(ncanl vuletter. It a significant Item in a cofpuable property it suporlorto , or more tavorable tun, the ubJect property, I live made a regathn adjustment to reduce the adjusted ides pdcs of the comparable and. It a significant Rem In a comparable property It inferior to, or less favorable than the shied property, 1 have made a positive adjustment to Inagua eta edjustad sates price of the comparable. 2. 1 hive Taken Into constdorstion the factor that has n lamest on vette to my development of the estimate of mince value In the epprekal report I have not knowingly withheld any Ngnifloent intonation from the appraisal report and I believe. to the best of my knowledge, that an datsmeats and information In the appraisal report ue true and comet 3. 'Acted In me eppnleal report only my own personal, imbinst end profesetonal anlysia, opinions, and conclusions, which are Mild only to the contingent and faniing condltloru rpscllled In this farm, 4. I have lha present or prospective Interest h the property tut Is the eub(sot to ads report, and i heve no presort or prospective personal Merest or bias rush respect to the particfpente In the tnnuotton. I did not base, slitter parliseh or completely, my,netyda and/or the esthete of market value to the appnisai noon on the tics. color. reUglon, 04 hendlcsp, funUlsl delve, or tutlond origin of ether the prospect/re mere or occupnts of the subject property of of the present afters of 000uQuhts of Ow properties In the vlck dy of ohs subject property. 6. I have no present or conten Istod future bluest h Sts subject property. and neither my current or future employment nor compensation for performing this appraisal le ooniingent oA the 'maraud value at the property. 8. I was not required to report a predelsmOned verve of direction N value tut friars the erase of the dent or any related pry. the amount of the venue estimate, the sriafrmant of s pecHic result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event In order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the 1pprriest 1 did not base the appraisal report on a requested millmum valuation. s specific uiuotlon, or the need 10 approves specific mortgsgs but. T. I perfomhed this appraisal in contonnity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Out were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Bard of The Apprslul Foundation and Out were In p(ece as of the oilcloths date of this repulse!. with Ole *rosetton of the departure provision of those Standards. which does not apply. l acknowledge (hat in ertfmare of a reasonable lime for exposure 4l the open market is a condition tit the defintllon of market Vitus and the estimate 1 developed is consistent with the marketing time noted In rho neighborhood section of this report Weer 1 have otherwise stated in the reconc!U*Uon section. 8. 1 hive porromily inspected the Interior rid exterior visa of the subject property and the exterior of all properties Wed ae ccmparabtaa 0 the spprdeal report i further carat/ that 1 have noted try eppuent or Mown adverse conditions 0 the subject Irnpravemen(s, on the subject ate, or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which I ens mare and have midi edjusiments tor these adverse candltona In my nstysie of the property vstue to to extent that I had market evidence to support them. I have also confronted about the effect of the adverse conditions on the mu tstab(Uty of the subject property. 9. I personety prepared en cancluslom and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the ropralsel report. If 1 toted an significant profession! assistance from any individual of YtSrvidt sls In the performance of the appraisal or the preparation at the apprelsd report, I have named such IndIvldual(e) and dlactosed the specific tasks performed by Stem in the reconctlatlon section of Oda mated report I certify Out sny Indivlduel CO named b qusitfled to pedoms the tests. that not authorized urrcne to make a chngo to try rem h4 the report therefore, If in unauthortzzed change is made to the agpraisel report I ryas take no responsibiliy for H. SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERI1FICA71Ott If a avervBary coulee( signed the oppraisat report he or she coronas and nisei that I directly cupola the appraiser veto prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed tM appr6.41 report stool with the statements end conciustom of the apprslser, wee to be bound by the rppraleer's oerllfrc*Uons mtrtired 4 through 7 abovs, and am taking full ruponsrbiny for the muerte/ and the apprsb! report ADDRESS OP PROPERTY APPRAISED: 2R1 $1I5D114 ROAD. 14cCALL. IDAHO 81636 APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only If required) 8(gnaturs: Signature: Nurse: Nuns: Date Signet AUOU 1 19. 199A pate Signed: State Certifation /:_2c State Certification /: or Stele license I: or Slate License l: Seale: _ IDAHA State: Ex (rattan Date of CartlBeation or License: 6/09 Em(ration Oats of Co liflatlen or Llarue: 0 014 [] 1:14 Hat lnsosct Props y Freddie WC Fan 439 8-93 Page 2 of Fannie are Fonn 10048 6-93 /r l IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE In the matter Of: City of McCall VWasteNater Treatment Facility ) ) CONSENT ORDER ) 1. Authority and parties to the Consent Order. Pursuant to the Idaho Environmental Protection and Health Act, Idaho Code §0 39-101 to 39-130, end § 401 of the Chan \Net_r Act, the Idaho Department cr Health and \iVeifare, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) enters into this Consent Order with the City of McCall (City). DEQ and the City shall be referred to coli:.tive!y in this Consent Order as "the parties.' Sackorourd. The d c,,":are cf nutrients t ; utr; �ents to ef�:;.de Reservoir and its tributGr[es, including the Norm I-crk of the Payette River (NFPR), has resulted in excess algae and ECuatic plant Srcn,Y.h in violations of the Idaho Water Quality Standard's i, ll C s.:de Ra_:; vc r. The particular nurient cr c ncerrl has begin identified pinlosphcrus. b. As a result cf the impairment of water cjua!(ty in Cascade Reservoir, the Reservoir has been idenifed by DE_-Q as a high priority \Nati:r dusay limited segment to § 303(d) cf the Cleon Wcte. Act. In October 10:i5, DEQ prepared the Cascade Reservoir Watershed M_nadement Plan, which c:;ri titutes the funcition i equivalent cf a total maximum daily load (T MOL ) �r�u` C 3103(J) of the Cleat Water Act for all water quality limited f.,.� re�CVy�v.; secrile Its. ; hi_ TMDL Was approved by the federal Environmental A;crcy (EPA) In May 1. The 1 NIDL prcjc^.t3 that e thirty-s.ev= der a ht (37?1) ov rail reduction in pros: =: us !cad to Cascade ceF:_ _-JCir I'.5 �lr{uitr?:er to cGhlea sta:.tiNcier Standards. In cr�:r tc flee, ails g02! the I MDL. provides fora 7,.erc ;C') C.Sch arge of pho:.chcrus, cr a complete removal l of the effluent; from the r�icCcil `':•;-j,��.�' ii :if.;=n; iicility to the NFPR. CONSENT ORDER - 1 Exhibit 46 c. Or. cr about February 1. , i��c Eh'A Issued a draft NPDES permit to the City of McCall regardinc the discharge from the City's westewat,er treatment facility to the NFPR. d. On or about April 12, 19G6, DEO issued its water quality ce.-iticaticn pursuant to § 401 or the C!ean Vtater Act relating to the City's NPDES permit. Consistent with the Cascade 1 M1DL, DEQ's § 401 certificcticn contains. among other things, S, a compliance schedule that requires the elimination cr" the disc.narGe frcm the McCall wastewater treat.;,_nt facility to the NFPR by January 1, except for certain eimercericy discharges. e. On July 1%, 199e, EPA issued the NPDES permit. Eased Loon the state's § 401 certification, the Nt7-DES permit requires the elimination f the the � � .�.,�c..Cri C. the disc.^,2rce frcm the wart=avatar tr;atr;,or't facility by January 1, 1 GAG, O_XCG.r`it for certain emergency discharges. The City cf McCall appealed certain previsions or the NPDES permit to the EPA Envircnmentta! Review Ecard. f. Or, cr about May 17, i ���, the of McCall filcu 2rappeal, c peti tion for declaratory ruling, request for a s.cy and request fcr a hearing pursuant to the Environmental Prct c icn and H=2ith Act and the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act regarding DEC's § 401 water quality certification. The appeal Is hereinafter referred to as "the administr2..•. c appeal., 1 : ie petition initiating the appeal is at:ace;ed here;_ as Exhibit A End in:crpera.9a herein by reference. V. NctwithcitzndinG t c ad i ini.str'cctivc ccpcal, the City of McCall has made efforts towards rernovinc t„e effluent from the NFPR, including the construction of the "J-Ditch ." T ne J-Ditch consists of a pipeline from the City's wastewater treatment plant to a mixing station, operated by the City, and a pipeline carrying w�.1er from tree mixing station to c`ncuiturai land, cpercIt .d by the Lcke District cr Valley County. The City's intent is tc eliminate the disch9.."C.e t tt e NF?F by delivering treater:: _rfi'u:nt to the mi::Tng station dun ngg the ir7igat;cn and by storing the treated ernu2nt in a',Slnter storage facility during the wi itar months. It is the City's position it cannon complete the construction cf a `i it iter storage facility by the c.=adlino for 'eliminating tie CIsoharge tc tie N=?R require.c in the DEQ certification and the NPDES permit. h. Elimination cf the distterce to the �,=1=r: except as allowed under the state's § 401 certification and the N IDES pe.rTnit, enc..' delivery of treated _Fuen't to the J-Ditch for dis`„_ut cr `to cr'cu!tural lands complies with the Zero. cischarce requirement cf the T MiOL, and no further re-qu'rerneni5 tt. f; c in the •:/ast `, ate. treatment ent facility shall be - I the upon the City of ��,C`vci, t�r,ce, .i,C I I,1.-!L. approved by � EPA In Itlic y 1SS6 J. CONSENT ORDER - 2 On cr about Aucu5t 26, 1 E9e, the hearing cn'Icer appointed to re_r Mr - administrative. appeal entered an order allowing the Cascade Reservoir Association (CRA) to inter,rene in this appeal. In order to resolve the issues raised by the adm:r .s.'az:'/a appeal, the City cf McCall and DEQ have entered into this Ccnzer t &din and agree to its terms acid conditions. k. The parties are not entering into this Consent Order hecnuse cf any violation cf the NFDES permit, the Idaho Water Quality Standards, Idaho Coce §§ 3g-101 et seq., the § 431 certifiezetiun and the T ICL. with to the City's discharge from its wastewater treatment facility. This Consent Order is entered into at this time to clarify the mariner in which the City of McCall will meat thG requirements or the § 401, certification and the TMD! in the future and to amend certain provisions of the § 401 cert:ricaticn. Completion of J-Ditch. The City's portion of the J-Ditc; I conveyance shall be. completed and in operation by the date that the irrica.ticn districts begin using irrigation water irrigation season. A. Construction or the winter storage facility. The facility :, ;.:i c:.1si_:i s. of ' -e c. wince reservoir with multiple cells. The City cf McCall has cotained funding from the Eure..au of Reclamation for the first cell of the winter stereos facility and expects to enter into are agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation fc.,r the conditions of that funding in January of 19Se. The cells sha!I be designed ar.d constructed by the City cf McCa1I in phases es sat forth below. a. Dlesignation of contact person. V' itihin five (5) days of the effective. dote of this Consent Order. DEQ and the City of McCall shall provide written designation of their contact person with respect tc the. design of the winter storage facili:y. b. Design cf the Facility. DEQ .and the City shall meet periodically a: mutually acreGd upon time, duri-;5 t;-,adEciitgr. cf the facility to re':,_ . prc_ress and design At a minimum, such m,.es ir.gs sha i cc".r u on co rnpieticn cf ten percent (1'r i-), s.xtypercent (Cl%) c:.._ 'r::J rerrer,t Uf lt:ci!Ity c�si%n. ii. E.3y Scct:mber the City cf McO _ .a'; submit to DEQ a Frcle: Fa`_•crinfor the d si'cn construction of the ti. il~i:G.ztcl Glee fe(.airy The ' ... `r'li _`. 1:� C �I I'��: ".Jl ll-Shari, at a minimum, provide 2 sor'ier..'uly ofwork:it olu-.. _ w.:.gout limi:at on the ', r•A• date by '. h ch eng:nser in_ Firms anc: _ : _,'!C: ;li.r s shalj compl meted,end a description cf C 1 sn,f`L' r ( l J rJ y `•`!f9 : CONSENT ORDER - .. provide comments reg,arding the report. Ey the date set forth in that report, the City shali submit to DEQ for approval engineering pans and specifications for thie design of the winter storage facility. Within thirty (20) dey.3 cf receipt, DEQ ahall notify the City whether the plane and specifications are approved cr Whether thee are deficiencies in the plans and speciticaiicns. It DEQ toes not notify the City within the thirty (30) day cericd. the plans and specifications shall be deemed approved. If deficiencies are noted by DEQ, Within ten (10) days of the receipt cf D'EQ's notice, the City snail submit plans and specifications to correct the deficiencies. iii. As provided in Idaho Code § 3.C-118, the cons.truction of the facility shall be in compliance With the approved plans and spec,'ficaticn.s. No substantial deviations snail be made from t..3 approved plans and specifications Without the prier written approval cf DEQ. iv. Within thirty (30) days cf completion of each cell of the facility, ccmpiete and accurate plans and specirications d pIctino the actual r'.^,nstruction must be submitte to DEQ. "Completion of the facility' shall mesn the date the City releases the retainage under the ccn_tr ction c,:ntr s for each cell cf the facility. Construction of the first cell. The City of 1.1cCall s na l cons.truot the cell of the `:'inter storags facility according to file fallowing, term s s a� �(i schedule. Ey August 1, 122,g, the City cf McCall shall complete const; Jcticri of the first cell cf the wastewater treatment facility. II. By October 1, 19G , the City cf shall t:ecin cperaticr' cf the T:r3t cell. If ready, the cell ri'ay be Us •d et an earlier Cate. Orze the first cell is operational, the City shall use the first cell for the storage of treated eiiluent, and may only discharge ei.usnt to the NFPR as allowed underr the sta,e'$ § 401 cri-,w} ion 2ro he hrDc\ Permit . d. Const.-uctiori of tho second ccll. Ind City of 3r1 `It co is tathe.ct t C.�c:.. second. cell of the winter storace facility ar.,C.i'..rding to the following terms end schedule: By Aucusi f, 2000, the CiV of McCeilSri=ll ccmpiste ccnstruation of the a'eccnd c; li cf the. w tom. =t�, trecit7lent ii. 6y October 1, 000snail, the City of t`;icC ill snail tecin operator, of the i second cell. t r eaa�y, the cell nay be useda: an e rl:er da . Cnce The se:,cnd ceii is ccer ationai, the City shall use the second cell for the stQrace of trested eFk ent, ar G may only di50h2r_ - e'-fit _nt tc the CONSENT ORDER - 4 C. NFPR as allowed under the- states 5 -401 certification End the NPDES pA-rrn i t. Elimination of discharge to the NFPR. The Ci:y cf McCall small pro'lde documentation to DEQ by JUr:e 1. 2000 certifying That the discharge from the Ci y's wastewater rh = Dt �` t'-.:�� ,e;:t facility to ill2 �;, ��. has begin eliminated, except as allowed und_r.the st;,tR's § 401 csrtificaticr, and the NPDES psrrnit. Operation of the J-Ditch. The. City of McCall atia;i cc:nply with the following limitations and conditions regarding the operation of the J-Ditch: a. Effluent quality. Be<iinning from the date_ cf the firs! operation of the J-Ditch, the effluent dische bed to the J-Ditch mixing stc.:cn shali not exceed the following limitations measured below the chlorine contact basin: (1) rviedian number of total col form cf 2.2 per 100 ml, cn a bGsla monthly �.;`ity . (2) Chlorine residual cf 1 moll minimum, 1, measured daily. Il. The effluent quality limitations set forth in Gar e;i ap.n 5.a.i aboveshell , i be G;C.iV9 From the date of thefir zt cpera.ti,:i i of the J-Ditch untilt Dec_rrio 1, 2001. DEQ and tihe City cr McCall shall review mcnitcrlr.g data renarding the operator' of the- J-Ditch and any otter relevant information and shall set effluent limitations applicsable eiter December 1, 2001. Such effluent limitations shall be set forth in a modification to this Consent Order, as allcw:d under paro.'cr aph 6. The City of dls 'targe to the J-Ditch after ❑ecembei 1, 2001 shail b- in accordance with i sucn Gii!uent lim t-a:ion is to be estet.iolished. In addition,failure, to establish new eFic n' sh tl not the basis fc,r ar gEr;Gy discharge to the NFf i . under E G ^Ar•el certification. b. Operational requirements. The J-Ditch shall be operational by the Cat. the iri .gaticn district b.?gir, using :�.'atc~ intthe 1 �'r�E it+-i ;aticr, ssssc; i. The J-Di:c^ shcli be used to convey ci: wastewater effluent frcr i City's wastewaier treatment plant to the I iCXirinUm extern: Fr sc:lcabie dt.:rinC tre 19 irrigation season-, and earn irrigation season ttleree i ter for the purpose ci 2r surir.c the. City is ;n v: i h the z.r c discharge requiremYni of `tl e TMDL se ascn. CONSEN ►TORDER - 5 C.) ii. The percentage cf effluent mixed with irrigation water delivered tc the agric.ilturAl rlelds s'ricll nct exceed 33.3%: Monitoring. The total flaw of treated effluent discharced to the —Dit„i, shall to continuously monitored in N1GD: ii. In order to determine compliance with percgroph 5.o.i, total conform measured weekly, and chlorine residual measured daily belctiv the chlorine contact basin; iii. Total coliforn measured at least on 2 weekly basis at the mixing stoticn; iv. Total phosphorus, arthopncsphorus, total nitrogen, EOD and TS5 shall be monitored monthly at the mixing station; and v. ins City shall provide DEQ the required mc.,ft irg c_,�, on a monthly basis. 6. Force majeure. The City of McCall she!! not be deemed in violation cf this Consent Order during any period in which its performance is prevented cr deia re:d by any cause cr event re. sorebiy beyond the City's control (''fora rnaj99ure event?). ExarlpieS of force. rn ajeure events include unanticipated, inclement weather; the City's failure to acquire the properly necessarf for the ccnstr.:cticn cf the winter. storage facility despite all timely and reasonable efforts to do so; the City's failure to Obtain adequate funding for construction of required facilities other than the first cell despite all timely and re c.raa.5le efforts to do so; the City's failure to obtain third party r^gliIc,0iy and/cr Cr fiOVaTnent approval Gee jtC ail tmci J and reasonable oforts to do so third party lawsuits; unenticipet9d delays in the public bicding process. For purposes of the Force Majeure) clause of this A :,:reeme.nt, tine determination of whether the Cry has failed to obtain adequate funding fcr construction of required ` O facilities other then the. first c-eH shall take into conaidera:icr thcCity's financial V condition and debt load. T'ne. parties recognize that if the City cannot obtain 1 a gift of grant to fund the second cell in 19S or 19`✓G, then an extension of time under the Force Majeure clause shall be granted. Thereafter. if the Ciz; cannot obtain uriCii 5 G the sect. all tb h ft< the determination o v et. f for the. .,�.�'1C' call tr rcl.C, t Ol,t or Crnr lt, d�tei iTal ��:I�i,, ,�;1 _;na' the City is enticed to extension of time under t, .e Fcrc s Nlcc_jcurc clause sh 11 be determined by evaluating the City's deb load and financial condition. If, given the Ci Ys debt load and financial condition, and despite ail timely and re. sonabl e efforts, the City is unable to obtan funding other than thrcuoh a Gilt or crant, an extension of time under the Farce 4a;eura clause shall be oranted. d. CONSENT ORDER - E The City shall notify DEQ and CRh within ten (10) days of the date the City knew cr reasonably shcufd have kr cwri cf a force ma;eure event. The notice required by this paracrapn shall desc ibe the reason for the delay and propose a new schedule to complete the activity. If the delay, or anticipated delay, arises from a force rilejeure event, the time for performance of the requirement affected shall be extended by DEQ for such time as is necessary to c:1mplet= the r=r'uirement. Any such nay deadline shall be in writing and shall be enrcrceable as a psrt of this Consent Order. Tne burden of proving that any delay is caused by a force majeure. event shall rest wholly with the City of McCall. If the City cf McCall objects to DEQ's decision rewarding a fore mejeure event, the maser shall be subject to dispute resolution as set forth in paragraph 10. INctnirc in this paragraph shall ared DEO's authoriiv to collect penalties or pursue appropriate enforcement with respect to any delay that does not arse from a force ra;e'ure event. 7. Modification due to effluent trading. The requirements set forth in this Consent Order may be mcdif e.0 if effluent trading that accomplishes the goals cf the. I h'1Dl_ is established. An.y su ;h modification must be in writing. if the City objects to DEQ's decision regarding effluent trading, the matter snail be subject to dispute resolution es set forth in paragraph 10. E. Other rrcd7tcaticns. In addition to modifications due to farce maieure events end pollution tradinc controlled by the provisions In paragraphs 6 and 7, above, the terrns of bythis Consent Order and the approved plans and specifications may be Cdificd mutual it r o nt bctwccn the cf McColl d n c c..r:-c � City Mc i7 irn.. DEQ; Frcvidcd that CRA will be naffed racer d ing any mcerli aticn of the sG`ledules, including final and interim deadlines, fcr ccnstructicn of the winter storage facility, elimination of discharges to the NFFR and the operation of the J-Ditch. Agreed modifications must be in writing, signed by the authorized representatives, but may be made withcut an amendment of this Consent Order. Such e rncdi faction made in writing shell be enforc,e_bi_ a_ a cart cf this Consent Order. 9. Violation; enforcement. The parties recocni=_ that, subj.ct to dispute resolution under parac ach 10, failure to comply with the terms of this Consent Order may c t administrative cr civil action fcr specific pet. fcmlance, penalties and r ul in 4crni, _,, �.. such other retie" as a:,coved under the EPHr'. inciudirg Idaho Code s 39-1Q3, cr other a:cliczb!e 10. Dispute resolution. The parties sih2 attempt to resolve expeditiously and in ormaily Ciscutes betweesn the:n that arise under this Consent 0ider. Unless cthsr,vise acreec by t ^ - Dante,, for purposes of this paragraph, thirty (.:0) days is deemed sLf cient time to expeditiously and informally disputes. Deadlines • ur,,de" this Consent Order may be stayed during the pericds cf disput? resolution. 1; this consultation ace_ rct resolve the dispute, the. ra.-ties may s;.�bbrnit, if they b rna..=r to meg auThe Is parties may` also pursue c°lit- available legal cr acministre.;ve ,': .eGiej. City cf McCall and DEQ shall evenly share the costs any mo iat:on, ern.'. @c.al 1 cr`.y sil'.!i t::a` it UYir1 iv to IIIb'CIICitiUil., � Ct '•'' �F-- CONj=_IU I ORDER - 7 . If, curina the dispute re-sciuticn process, the City cf McCall fails to consent or agree to any decision rendered by DEO, such failure shall not ba controlling and the decision s'nall be `final' sublet to the right OT the City to pursue other available legal or administrative remedies. 11. Amendrrient cf DEQ's § 401 certification. Within ten (10) days of the effective dotes of this Consent Order, DEQ shall consult with the City of McCall and issue 2 § 401 certification amended to reflect the terms and conditions of this Consent Order, including the schedule set fcrtn in paragraph 4. DEQ shall a!so amend the § 401 certification regarding emergency discharge limitations so that any emergency discharge may be from the plant or the winter storage facility and may occur during the time period of De ;ember 1 through June 1. In addition, DEQ shall amend .the § 401 certification so that it is clear the' eighty-five percent (85%a) removal requirement for BOD and TSS is measured by concentration. 12. Final settlement of claims and withdrawal of the administrative appeal. The parties agree that, sub;ect to compliance with its terms, this Consent Order is 2 complete end final resolution of ail claims alleged by the City of McCall in the cdministra ive e Gees City r- ea3es DEQ withrespect to any such f p, 1, d the �i�y hereby r_1_ p� y claims. 13. Notice. All communications including changes in the parties' representatives or attorneys required by this Consent Order shall be addressed to: a DEQ. Steve West, Regional Administrator Boise Regional Office Division cf Environmental Quality 1445 N. Orchard Boise, ID 837 Ce-2 39 With' a copy Cc.. Douglas hi. Cc; �ce Deputy Attorney Genersi Division of Environmental Quality 1410 N. Hilton Boise, ID E373 -125. b. City of McCa!1. City I`01.1 City r:i 11'41_C=+ F.O. 60x 1065 McCJ!!, Ic_-c EEGE^ CONSENT ORDEF. - E With a copy to: Albert P. Barker Hawley Troxell Ennis 8 Hawley LLP P.O. Box 1617 Boise, Idaho 63701 Edward G. Burton City Attorney City of McCall P.O. Box 9 6 McCall, Idaho 83683-0986 c. CRA Randall Fredericks P.O. Box 2835 _ Boise, Idaho 83701 With a copy to: Jonathan P. Carter 877 W. Main St., Ste. 610 Boise, ID 83702 14. Effective date, The effective date of this Consent Order shall be the date of signature by the Administrator of DELL 15. Waiver of procedures. The parties acre_ to the_ terms and conditions of this Consent Order without the issuance cf a Notice of Violation or the holding of a compliance conference uncle! lthe Environmental Protection and Health Act. 16. Compliance with other law. This Consent Order shall not relieve the City of McCaII from its obligations to comply with any of the app!icabls provisions of the Environmental Protection and Health Act, the Hazardous Waste Management Act, the Clean \Nate! Act, the Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements, or any other applicable local, state or federal law,v. 17. Permits and approvals. The City cf McCall shall obtain all required permits, - licenses and approvals necessary to implement this Consent Order. As long as the City cf McCall complies with the Leintelms ur this Consent Order, DEQ agrees that no - CONSENT ORDER = 4.4 " . . - p e r m i t s h a l l b e r e q u i r e d p u r s u a n t t o I D A P A 1 6 ' , T i t l e 0 1 , C h a p t e r 1 7 o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e s o f D E Q r e l a t i n g t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e J - D i t c h . D A T E D t h i s 2 - 1 d a y o f . . 1 9 9 8 . B y : I l e c e N . C o r y , A d m i n i s t r a t o r I d a h o D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h a q 6 W f a r e D i v i s i o n o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a . : " D A T E D t h i s e ; < . , . d a y o f B y : K A - C i t y o f M c C a l l ' 7 - , 1 9 9 8 . : - C O N S E N T O R D E R - 1 0 : ' , 3 , : . , - f . . . " . . . : . " . . . - - " . . : . , " - . " - - - - - , . - " " " , . . 7 , . . 1 . - . = . . . 4 . - " . . . " - : - " - " ; - - , . _ . , . - " . . " 8 . . - - - , - " . f . ? . . . . , - , " - , . . , : . - 7 , . . 1 - . 4 . - 4 " " . " - : : : . - : , - - - , s , . . " ! " . 9 . . . A . - . . . 4 1 - z - : " - i . - y o . o . - t . . . , . - " - - " " - " " - , " = - . 7 e , . " - " . 4 ' 1 7 . " . . : , C 4 , - 4 , 4 4 * . ; , . 1 . . . . 1 - . . . , : , V . . : . . . " - . ; . . . r , : . , ' . r . , ; - " " . , , i i s " i . 4 4 ' , - , i i " ; * 7 C I : - 7 t r * . l . . - , : - . 4 ; . : . - . . - ' . ; " - . . . . " ' , ' - - - - i ' : " . " - " t . S . . - 1 . . 4 1 , 1 4 L h i . . . . . i ; - - . - - ! ' s e ' " ' ' ' : - 1 - r r " , " 1 . . 7-2277 SMAII (3/94) • Page 1 0112 r. • • 1..* GRANT NO. . • •••••: • : • . . •• .. • .• 1425-8-FC-10-03720 LED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE IdOIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION • ' • : ••••• • 2. REQUISITION NUMBER Cooperative Agreement CODE §12 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Snake River Area Office 214 Broadway Avenue Boise, ID 83702-7298 6. NAME. ADDRESS, AND PHONE NO. OF ASSISTANCE REPRESENTAT:VE Ronald J. Golus Snake River Area Office Bureau of Reclamation 214 Broadway Avenue Boise ID 83702-7298 Phone: (208) 334-1751 e• 'PROGRAM STATUTORYAUTHORITY., 3. • CLASS- OF REGIPIENT • .'• • . • City of McCall 216 East Park Street PO Box 986 McCall, Idaho 83638 7. NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NO. OF RECIPIENT'S PROJECT MANAGER Brian D. Olson McCall City Manager 216 East Park Street PO Box 986 McCall Idaho 83638 (208 634-7142) Phone: (541) 963-7122 P.L. 105-62, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1998 for carrying out the functions of the Bureau of Reclamation as provided in the Federal Recalmation Laws Act of June 17, 1902, 32 stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto 9..EFFECTIVE DATE.' ' * Date signed • 11. TOTAL AMOUNT • . AMOUNT OF• FUNDS: • . • $2,500,000 $2,500,000 10•.• COMPLETION DATE' ' September 30, 1999 12. ;ACCOUNTING .AND- APPRDPRiATION -DATA ••••:-:f% .. ............. cost authority A10 1790 1100 100 00 0 0 (1) 1S10000-255F TIN or Social Security No. 82-600952-OP 131 PROJECT. DESCRIPTIN6,i...;ntiCiP.sted that funds ill be trans fe Sred in adv enc. . -, • ........ - . • - . • , - • - . •-.- • • - (See attached write-up) . . • •14 •• Acceptance of: this.,Assietance. Agreement -inclIcates-:e:-wiI lingnes s to -15'. Acceptance of this 'Assistance •Agreemenil:n.:acC,Siclance.wiih all . • comply wits elt applicable Federal laws, execUtive orders, ... . applicable Federal taws Executive,: orders ; t ions:. and s-- Is• hereby •••• • . • .• regulatirins:end.policieS by .. • • • :••• ' Made .On behalf a the U,uted States,of-Asserica;.•i*.BUreeu•Of Reclamation... NPOIC OF RECIPIENT • ' • BY CITY OF MCCALL SIONATUR , P TYPED NAME Mayor - City of McCall TITLE 208-634-7142 TELEPHONE No. Attach additional signatures DATE • BY BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SiGNATORE TYPED NAME •• TITLE • ' ' TELEPHONE NO. ;m7 A4y//,./9949 John W. Keys, III PN-Regional Director (208) 378-5012 DATE Exhibit 47 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 2 of 12 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT for McCall Area Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Idaho Project between the City of McCall, Idaho and Bureau of Reclamation I. Schedule A. Background Cascade Reservoir is designated as water quality limited under provisions of Section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act, and a recent Federal court decision requires the State of Idaho to establish and enforce maximum daily pollutant load allocations necessary to bring the reservoir into compliance with State water quality standards. Cascade Reservoir is a feature of the Federal Reclamation Boise Project in Idaho. Located on the North Fork of the Payette River, Cascade Reservoir is authorized for irrigation; Idaho Power Company has a small powerplant below the dam. The large, shallow reservoir has become the second most used recreation destination in the State of Idaho. Fishing and boating are major attractions. In addition, water stored in Cascade Reservoir noncontracted space is used to supplement flows in the Snake River system for migrating endangered salmon as required by the Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Other federally listed or sensitive species that use the reservoir environs for nesting and rearing habitat include the American bald eagle and the osprey. The City of McCall, Idaho, wastewater treatment plant discharges treated effluent into the North Fork of the Payette River upstream of Cascade Reservoir. Increased algae growth in Cascade Reservoir is an aesthetic nuisance, contributes to fish kills, and is occasionally toxic. Phosphorous is considered to be the main cause of algae growth. Studies indicate that treated wastewater from McCall contributes some level of the phosphorous loading to Cascade Reservoir. B. Purpose To totally eliminate the adverse effects of McCall's wastewater treatment plant effluent on (1) a stretch of the North Fork of the Payette River from where the sewage effluent is discharged into the river to Cascade Reservoir and (2) Cascade Reservoir and (3) to preserve the benefits to the Nation from recreation and fish and wildlife opportunities at Cascade Reservoir, a means to reduce phosphorous loading is needed. Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 3 of 12 . C. Objective The J-Ditch Alternative (Project) was selected as the preferred alternative to address the purpose and meet the need of reducing phosphorus loading of Cascade Reservoir. It involves a cooperative effort among the City of McCall, the Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District, the Valley Soil and Water Conservation District, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Lake Irrigation District, and several individual property owners. The Project includes improvements to the existing McCall wastewater treatment plant and construction of conveyance facilities. Improvements to the existing treatment plant would yield treated effluent which would be mixed with the current J-Ditch irrigation water and supplied to area farmers for sprinkler irrigation application. The blended water would be delivered by gravity to approximately 2,300 acres in Valley County during the irrigation season. During the nonirrigation season, the treated effluent would be stored for use during the next irrigation season. D. Benefits Protect and enhance the water quality at Cascade Reservoir, Idaho, a federally owned and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) administered facility, through construction by the City of McCall of water quality improvement facilities. E. Reclamation responsibilities (1) Reclamation will fund a portion of the Project for construction of one -cell (110-125 Mgal) of a two -cell (358 Mgal) non -irrigation season storage facility and wildlife mitigation up to $2,500,000. Reclamation authority to enter into this financial assistance agreement comes from Sections 1602 and 1605 of Public Law 102-575, as amended. Funding authority comes from P.L. 105-62, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1998 for carrying out the functions of the Bureau of Reclamation as provided in the Federal Reclamation Laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto). The Act language states, "That' the Secretary of the Interior may use $2,500,000 of funds appropriated herein to initiate construction of the McCall Area Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Idaho, project." (2) Reclamation shall work with the City as necessary to ensure that the City fulfills its responsibilities as set forth in this agreement. Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 4 of 12 (3) Reclamation shall provide scientific or administrative advice, upon request, on the construction of storage facility. F. Resnonsibilities of the City of McCall The City of McCall is responsible for the design, construction and operation of the Project which is estimated to cost about $13,700,000. The Federal funds that will be transmitted through this agreement are to be used by the City of McCall to conduct site acquisition, wildlife mitigation (wetlands and bald eagle), design and construction of one -cell of a two -cell non -irrigation season effluent storage facility in accordance with the FACILITY PLAN REPORT AND ADDENDED REPORTS, prepared for the City of McCall by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Boise, Idaho, and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT document. The Project is briefly described and estimated costs are shown in Attachment A. The City of McCall will: (1) Accomplish site acquisition and design and construct the one -cell non - irrigation season effluent storage facility. All construction shall conform to the construction safety requirements of Federal OSHA. (2) Perform wildlife mitigation. (3) Each submittal of Standard Form (SF) 270 for a "Request for Advance or Reimbursement" funds should be accompanied by an itemized statement of Federal expenditures and other expenditures related to the preceding (1) and (2). (3) Provide quarterly construction and work activity reports to Reclamation. (4) Secure and comply with all State, Federal, and local permits. The City of McCall will report at time of Cooperative Agreement execution and thereafter in quarterly reports: the status of all permits, contingencies, provisions, or conditions specified in the permits received, and summaries of activities conducted in accordance with permit requirement (5) Comply with all provisions as listed in this agreement. (6) Consult with and seek input from Reclamation on fulfilling its responsibilities and maintaining the project within the goals as set forth in this agreement. Q 0 ss Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 G. Budget The budget for this agreement is $2,500,000. II. Special Provisions A. Performance schedule Page S of 12 Completion of non -irrigation season storage facility plans and specifications is scheduled for July 24, 1998. Award of construction contract is scheduled for September 30, 1998. Construction is scheduled to be completed by September 30, 1999. The above schedule has been developed based upon (1) weather conditions allowing field work to progress, (2) land purchases proceed on schedule, (3) and design reviews proceed without delay. B. Term of agreement This agreement shall become effective on the date of the last signature hereto and extend through September 30, 1999. Any party to this agreement may terminate the agreement as it applies to the party upon notice in writing to the other parties at least 60 days in advance of the effective date of the termination. Any party may formally request modification of the agreement. C. Property and equipment furnished by the Government None D. Reporting requirements One copy of quarterly letter -type progress report shall be submitted to the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Officer Representative by the loth day of the month following the quarterly reporting period ( June 30, September 30, and December 31, 1998; March 31, June 30, and September 30, 1999) and end of the portion of the Project construction relating to this agreement for the non -irrigation season effluent storage facility. E. Reimbursable costs and limitations (1) The City of McCall will provide all the personnel services, plant facilities, equipment, materials and supplies, and perform all travel which may be necessary and appropriate for its proper performance under this agreement for implementation of the final design and construction of the non -irrigation season effluent storage facility and carry out wildlife mitigation . Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 6 of 12 The Project development plan has been prepared by the City of McCall and approved by Reclamation. The City of McCall and other Cooperators obligation to assume their share of the costs are detailed in Attachment A. Reclamation's obligation, under this agreement, to reimburse the City of McCall for its costs incurred in these connections shall be limited to the City of McCall's (a) direct costs in providing said service, plant facilities, equipment, materials, and supplies actually consumed in such performance and in performing said travel and (b) indirect costs. All such direct or indirect costs must be determined to be allowable under the principles contained in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87. Reclamation's indebtedness under this agreement may never exceed $2,500,000. (2) Reclamation shall not reimburse the City Of McCall in excess of the reimbursable limitation set forth under Special Provisions, Article E. Reimbursable costs and limitations, Section (4), Federal funding. (3) Overhead Rates (a) The allowable indirect costs will be determined in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-87. (b) The City of McCall shall use the predetermined rate for indirect cost established by the cognizant audit activity. (c) Allowability of costs and acceptability of cost allocation methods shall be determined in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-87. (d) Should the Cooperative Agreement be completed and final rate reveal overpayments to the City of McCall, a billing will be prepared by the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Officer for the appropriate amount. Such billing shall be paid within 45 days. (4) Federal funding The total estimated cost for this Project is $13,700,000 as estimated and shown in Attachment A. The Federal contribution, administered by Reclamation, shall be $2,500,000. Availability of Federal funding. Funds in the amount of $2,500,000 are currently available. Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 7 of 12 The Grants and Cooperative Agreements Officer shall provide notice to the City of McCall of any changes in funds available. (5) Reclamation as part of its administration of this cooperative agreement will have costs, which the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Officer must determine to be proper, that will be deducted from the $2,500,000. An explanation of any such cost deductions shall be furnished to the City of McCall. (6) Subject to the limitations concerning allowable costs contained in Special Provisions, Article F, Reimbursable costs and limitations, Sections (1) through (5), the City of McCall shall be entitled to costs, other than construction, incurred for (a) development of the final plans and specifications, (b) acquisition of land and rights -of -way, (d) wildlife mitigation and (c) any other costs which would have been permitted as part of the final approved plan. (7) The City of McCall assumes all risk in proceeding prior to Reclamation signing of the agreement. F. Work Performance Since the City of McCall may be performing a portion of the work on this Project directly with its own resources, it will be necessary for the City of McCall to keep proper account of those costs. If construction work is accomplished by contract, the requirements within OMB Circular A-102 apply. Contact the Grants and Cooperative Agreement Officer Representative for required wage determination to include in any such contract. G. Payment City of McCall will use Standard Form (SF) 270, "Request for Advance or Reimbursement," for billing. H. Grants and Cooperative Agreements Officer's Representative Ronald J. Golus, Reclamation Snake River Area Office Planning and Special Studies Officer, is designated as the Cooperative Agreement Officer's Representative (Representative). Brian D. Olson, McCall City Manager, shall coordinate with Ronald J. Golus to ensure that all cooperative agreement requirements are being met. Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 8 of 12 The Representative's duties include, but are not limited to, the following: (I) Assist the City of McCall concerning the accomplishment of the statement of work. (2) Interpret City of McCall obligations under this agreement. If it is necessary to make changes to non -irrigation season effluent storage facility plan of development a determination will have to be made on whether it will be necessary to accomplish National Environmental Policy Act Compliance activities for changes. (3) Cooperate with Idaho Division of Environmental Quality and other cooperators in project. The McCall City Manager's duties include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) During plan development for the non -irrigation season storage facility and wildlife mitigation make the Representative aware of meetings, which Reclamation personnel would have the option to attend. (2) make plans available for review purposes prior to initiation of construction. (3) participate with Reclamation personnel in (occasional) inspections of construction activities. I. Indemnification The City of McCall shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Federal Government harmless from any and all losses, damages, or liability on account of personal injury, death, or property damage or claim for personal injury, death, or property damage of any nature whatsoever and by whomsoever made arising out of any act or failure to act by the City of McCall, it employees, contractors, or agents under this agreement to the extent allowed by Idaho law. Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 9 of 12 J. Procurement Standards Procurement standards for the City of McCall shall be governed by OMB Circular No. A- 102, paragraph 36, Procurement. Subcontracting with small and minority firms, women's business enterprise, and labor surplus area firms is encouraged. III. General Provisions 1. Reg_ulations and Guidance The regulations at 43 CFR, Part 12, Subparts A - F are also incorporated by reference as though set forth in full text. The following Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars, as applicable, and as implemented by 43 CFR Part 12, are also incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement. Failure of a recipient to comply with any provision may be the basis for withholding payments for proper charges made by the recipient and for termination of support. a. Agreements with colleges and universities shall be in accordance with the following circulars: Circular A-21, Revised August 29, 1997, "Cost Principles For Educational Institutions" Circular A-110, Revised August 29, 1997, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations" Circular A-133, Revised June 24, 1997, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations" b. Agreements with State and local governments shall be in accordance with the provisions of the following circulars: Circular A-87, Revised August 29, 1997, "Cost Principles for State and Local Governments" Circular A-102, Revised August 29, 1997, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments" Circular A-128, Revised June 24, 1997, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations" Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 10 of 12 c. Agreements made with nonprofit organizations shall be in accordance with the following circulars and provisions: Circular A-110, Revised August 29, 1997, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations" Circular A-122, Revised August 29, 1997, "Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations" Circular A-133, Revised June 24, 1997, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations" d. All agreements with organizations other than those indicated above shall be in accordance with the basic principles of OMB Circular A-110, and cost principles shall be in accordance with Part 31 of the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Subpart 31.2 entitled, "Contracts with Commercial Organizations." 2. Assurances Incorporated by Reference The provisions of the Assurances executed by the Recipient in connection with this agreement shall apply with full force and effect to this agreement as if fully set forth in these General Provisions. Such Assurances include, but are not limited to, the promise to comply with all applicable Federal statutes and orders relating to nondiscrimination in employment, assistance, and housing; the Hatch Act; Federal wage and hour laws and regulations and work place safety standards; Federal environmental laws and regulations and the Endangered Species Act; and Federal protection of rivers and waterways and historic and archeological preservation. 3. Covenant Against Contingent Fees The recipient warrants that no person or agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this agreement upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide offices established and maintained by the recipient for the purpose of securing agreements or business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Government shall have the right to annul this agreement without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from the agreement amount, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-3-FC-10-03720 Page 11 of 12 4. Contractine with Small and Minority Firms. and Women's Business Enterprises It is the national policy to award a fair share of contracts to small and minority business firms. The Department of the Interior is strongly committed to the objectives of this policy and encourages all recipients of its grants and cooperative agreements to take affirmative steps to ensure such fairness. a. The grantee and subgrantee shall take all necessary affirmative steps to assure that minority firms, and women's business enterprises are used when possible. b. Affirmative steps shall include: (1) Placing qualified small and minority businesses and women's business enterprises on solicitation lists; (2) Assuring that small and minority businesses, and women's business enterprises are solicited whenever they are potential sources; (3) Dividing total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by small and minority business, and women's business enterprises; (4) Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage participation by small and minority business, and women's business enterprises; (5) Using the services and assistance of the Small Business Administration, and the Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce as appropriate, and (6) Requiring the prime contractor, if subcontracts are to be let, to take the affirmative steps listed in b. (1) through (5) above. 5. Notice Re2ardine Buy American Act In accordance with Section 505 of Pub. L. 104-46 (109 Stat. 419), as implemented by 43 CFR 12.710, please be advised of the following: It is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds made available in the Act should be American - made. ti) 0 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 12 of 12 6. Resolvincz Disazreements When entering into a cooperative agreement with a recipient, Reclamation commits itself to working with the recipient in a harmonious manner to achieve the objectives of the project successfully, When disagreements arise between the parties, they must be resolved according to the procedures discussed below: a. Reclamation shall attempt first to resolve disagreements with the recipient through informal discussion among the Grants or Contract Specialist, the Program Officer, and the recipient's Project Director. b. If the disagreement cannot be resolved through informal discussion between these parties, the Grants Specialist and the Program Officer shall document the nature of the disagreement and bring it to the attention of the Grants Officer. c. After reviewing the facts of the disagreement, as presented by the Grants and Program Officers, the Grants Officer will arrange a formal meeting. If agreement still cannot be reached, the parties will collectively decide on any varied approaches which might be used to resolve the disagreement. The parties shall be responsible for their individual expenses related to any approach utilized to resolve the disagreement. If attempts at resolving the disagreement fail, the (Chief, Acquisition and Assistance Management Services, or the Regional Director, whichever is appropriate) shall make a decision which shall be final and conclusive. d. Nothing herein shall be construed to delay or limit Reclamation's right to take immediate and appropriate action, as set forth at 43 CFR, Subpart 12.83, in the event of material noncompliance by the recipient, and no attempts at informal resolution shall be necessary. Any post award issue will be open for resolution in accordance with the above procedures, with the exception of disagreements regarding continuation of the agreement (since either party may terminate the agreement with the specified notice), or other matters specifically addressed by the agreement itself. 7. Certifications The following certifications are incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement: Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters, Drug -free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying (DI-2010) Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT A The J-Ditch Alternative (Project) would consist of improvement to the existing McCall wastewater treatment plant which would involve rehabilitation of the existing four sand filter basins and the construction of a new sand filter with liner; installation of a pump station and an 18-inch treated effluent transmission line; construction of a treated effluent/irrigation water mixing facility and a 358 million gallon non -irrigation season effluent storage facility. The treated effluent will be mixed with the J-Ditch irrigation water at a 2:1 ratio and supplied to the area farmers for sprinkler application. The blended irrigation water would be delivered by gravity to approximately 2,300 acres in Valley County, in a pipeline that would replace the existing J-Ditch. A second pipeline installed in parallel would deliver unblended water to the property owners currently served by the J-Ditch that do not wish to irrigate with the blended water. During the irrigation season, existing irrigation water supplies and the plant effluent will be used to irrigate the agricultural land. During the non -irrigation season, the effluent would be stored in the 358 Mgal storage facility for use during the next irrigation season. Implementing the Project plan requires a cooperative planning, design, construction, and operational effort between the City of McCall, the Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District, the Valley Soil and Water Conservation District, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Lake Irrigation District (LID), and the property owners impacted. A newly formed J-Ditch Water Users Association will operate in the interest of the property owners, and coordinate with the City of McCall and the LID in implementing the Project. The Project is to be implemented in two phases. Phase I began in 1996 and is nearing completion with the irrigation of agricultural crops with the effluent/irrigation water mix planned to occur during the 1998 growing season. It consisted of a City of McCall sewage treatment plant upgrade, the installation of an 18-inch transmission line, construction of a water/effluent blending station and installation of on -farm sprinkler systems. Phase II will involve the addition of fine screens to the wastewater treatment plant, and the construction of a 358 Mgal storage facility to hold effluent generated during the non -irrigation season. Also, a duplex pump station will be constructed to provide redundant pumping capacity. Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Proiect Construction Cost Estimate City of McCall Responsibility Item Cost Page 2 of 4 Treatment plant upgrade $ 1,134,899 Pump station 625,000 Pipeline (Plant to J-Ditch) 1,150,925 Blending facility 210,000 358 Mgal storage facility 4,470,000 Engineering and contingencies 2,400,000 Other 238.652 Cost estimate $ 10,229,476 Irrigation Interests Responsibility Inlet structure and appurtenances $ 32,680 J-Ditch pipeline and laterals (blended) 1,435,949 J-Ditch pipeline and laterals (not blended) 428,731 J-Ditch system piping appurtenances 160,540 Road crossings 114,000 Professional services 325,785 On -farm irrigation systems 967.040 Cost estimate Total Project cost estimate $ 3,464,725 $13,694,201 The estimated Project annual operation, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs would be $187,000 for year one with the extended OM&R cost in year 20 being $360,000. Citv of McCall Cost for Proiect Implementation Cost Item Phase I Phase II Treatment plant upgrade $ 919,899 $ 215,000 Interim pump station 90,000 Pump station 535,000 Pipeline to J-Ditch 1,150,925 (p) Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 3 of 4 Blending facility 210,000 Storage site evaluation and land acquisition 650,000 355Mga1 storage facility City contribution to Irrigators for J-Ditch pipeline and on -farm irrigation systems 1,850,000 Engineering and contingencies 819,000 Other 238.652 Cost estimate 3,820,000 1,581,000 $5,928,476 $6,151,000 Irrigation Interests Costs for Proiect Implementation Irrigation interests responsibility City contribution $ 3,464,725 -1,850.000 Irrigation interests cost contribution $ 1,614,725 Total Project estimated cost $ 7,543,201 $6,151,000 COST SHARING Phase I Phase II City of McCall State challenge grant $ 1,000,000 State supplemental grant 1,500,000 Revolving fund 3,140,850 Investment income 50,000 Other sources 145,651 $ 951,000 Fiscal year 1997 appropriation 350,000 WPCA 170,000 Idaho Department of Water Resources 100,000 BC SAWQA (Pipeline) 290,000 MC SAWQA (On -farm) 340,000 MC SAWQA (Pipeline) 360,000 Property Owners 96,700 Federal (through the Bureau of Reclamation) 2,500,000 Other 2.700.000 Total estimated cost share $ 7,543,201 $ 6,151,000 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Page 4 of 4 CONSTRUCTION OF 1-CELL OF 2-CELL EFFLUENT STORAGE FACILITY THAT RELATES TO THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Purchase of land for effluent storage site, design and construction of 1-cell (110-125 Mgal) of the 2-cell (358 Mgal) storage facility, wildlife mitigation, engineering, contingencies, and other activities that relate to construction of 1-cell storage facility. The construction of 1-cell of the non -irrigation season effluent storage facility will result in City of McCall having to discharge sewage effluent into the North Fork of the Payette River from their treatment plant about 4 months of the year. Ce11 2 would have to be constructed to completely eliminate sewage effluent discharge into the North Fork of the Payette River. City of McCall Federal, through the Bureau of Reclamation Total estimated expenditures $ 800,000 2.500.000 $3,300,000 Acquisition Policies Act o 0 (P.L. 91 -646) which provides for fair an• itable treatment of parsons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of Federal and federally assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of Federal participation in purchases. 12. Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. § § 1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. 13. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. § § 276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. § 276c and 18 U.S.C. § 874), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S. 55 327-333) regarding labor standards for federally assisted construction subagreements. 14. Will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $ 10,000 or more. 15. Will comply with environmental standards which may be prescribed pursuant to the following: (a) institution of environmental quality control measures under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive Order 11514; (b) Environmental Policy Act of SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL APPLICANT ORGANIZATION ct L� 1969 (P. 1-190) and Executive Order 11514'; (c) notification of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (d) protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990: (e) evaluation of flood hazards in floodpfains in accordance with EO 11988; (f) assurance of project consistency with the approved State management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.); (g) conformity of Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.); (h) protection of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, (P.L. 93-523); and (i) protection of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L. 93-205). 16. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. § § 1271 et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. 17. W UI assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), EO 11593 (identification and preservation of historic properties), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1 et seq.). 18. Will cause to be performed the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984. 19. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, Executive Orders. regulations and policies governing this program. TITLE DATE SUBMITTED 579 SF-4240 (4.921 Back Prescribed by 0M8 Circular A-102 OMB Approval No. O348.0042 U.S. Department of the Interior (11;) Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters, Drug -Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying Persons signing this form should refer to the regulations referenced below fot complete instructions: Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions - The prospective primary participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled, "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transaction," provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. See below for language to be used or use this form for certification and sign. (See Appendix A of Subpart D of 43 CFR Part 12.) Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions - (See Appendix B of Subpart D of 43 CFR Part 12.) Certification Regarding Drug -Free Workplace Requirements - Alternate I. (Grantees Other Than Individuals) and Alternate II. (Grantees Who are Individuals) - (See Appendix C of Subpart D of 43 CFR Part 12) Signature on this form provides for compliance with certification requirements under 43 CFR Parts 12 and 18. The certifications shall be treated as a material representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed when the Department of the Interior determines to award the covered transaction, grant, cooperative agreement or loan. PORT 0• CArtifiratinn Ragarriing rlPharmpnt, RltcpPnninn, and (Ungar Rpcpnncihility M?t+orc Primary Covered Transactions CHECK' IF THIS CERTIFICATION IS FOR A PRIMARY COVERED TRANSACTION AND IS APPLICABLE. (1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals: (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded by any Federal department or agency; (b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a govemmental entity (Federal, State or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default. (2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. PART B: Certification Reaardina Debarment. Suspension. Ineliaibilitvand Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions (1) CHECK IF THIS CERTIFICATION IS FOR A LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTION AND IS APPLICABLE. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. (2) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal. 01.2010 Lu I11S alibi fv. maws 01.1153. 041154, 01-115S. 01-115/ 01-11631 .1 PART C: Certification Regarding Drug -Free Workplace Requirements r . CHECK /F QERTIFICATION IS FOR AN APPLICANT WHO Or AN INDIVIDUAL Alternate I. (Grantees Other Than Individuals) A. The grantee certifies that it will or continue to provide a drug -free workplace by: (a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; (b) Establishing an ongoing drug -free awareness program to inform employees about— (1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; (3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; (c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a); (d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will — (1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (2) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; (e) Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification numbers(s) of each affected grant; (f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted -- (1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; (g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a) (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). B. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant: Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code) Check if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here. PART D: Certification Regarding Drug -Free Workplace Requirements CHECK IF THIS CERTIFICATION IS FOR AN APPLICANT WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL Alternate 1I. (Grantees Who Are Individuals) (a) The grantee certifies that, as a condition of the grant, he or she will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity with the grant; (b) If convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any grant activity, he or she will report the conviction, in writing, within 10 calendar days of the conviction, to the grant officer or other designee, unless the Federal agency designates a central point for the receipt of such notices. When notice is made to such a central point, it shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant. 01•2110 Jan IIIS 1n. tore magmas 01.1153. 0L 1154. 041155. 041956 and 01.1963) .PART E: Certification Regarding Lobbying Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreem CHECK .4 / T!FICATION IS FOR THE AWARD OF ANY OF FOLLOWING AND THE AMOUNT EXCEEDS $100,000: A FEDERAL GRANT OR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, SUBCONTRACT, OR SUBGRANT UNDER THE GRANT OR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. CHECK IF CERTIFICATION IS FOR THE AWARD OF A FEDERAL LOAN VC'EED/NG THE AMOUNT OF $150,000, OR A SUBGRANT OR SUBCONTRACT EXCEEDING $100,000, UNDER THE LOAN. The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. As the authorized certifying official, I hereby certify that the above specified certifications are true. SICiNAl UKt t* AU I HUKILtU Cott I IhYINU OHhIC:IAL AYr.i0 TYPED NAME AND TITLE cc/a DATE 042019 J... 1995 (Ilia Isom n'l.a. 010953. 04I961. 01-1155. 01.1959 ..d 0411631 MAR. -0.3' 99 (WED) 12:08 MOORE & MCFADDEN CTO TEL:208 331 1202 P. 002 o 0 MOORE St. McF.ADDEN, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE CAPtTALCENIER, SVttL 910 999 MAIN Sttr'k.-r. BotSE. ID 83702 TELSPuONE: (208) 331.1800 Ewe (208) 331.1202 DAvto H. Birrn SUSAN E. IUXWN' lora+ I. MCPAaouN -t Mlce..�e C. Moonk t 8&Vai M. Sham PAUL A TURC,E •Abo Admitted is Oaesoa ALee Adeedttied in Wsehiegenw March 3, 1999 Via Facsimile (208) 634-4516 Mr, Steve Millemann Millemann Pittenger & McMahan P. O. Box 1066 McCall, ID 83638-1066 Mow DORM MAc OfComae' Re: McCa11/J-Ditch Project Dear Mr. Millemann: Transmitted herewith, please find a copy of the revised cooperative agreement in the above referenced matter, sent to you pursuant to your telephonic request of March 1, 1999. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, MOORE & McFADDEN, CHARTERED *VAAAAvio btA400A) Dena M. Robinson Assistant to Susan E. Buxton DMR Enclosure cc: Bill Robertson, McCall City Manager Exhibit 48 MAR.-03'99(WED) 12:09 MOORE & MCFADDEN CID TEL:208 331 1202 P. 003 T•2,21T (4-90) G Ryreeu of Reclamation 1. AGREEMENT R0. 1425-9-iC-10-03020 4. MUD BY O.S. Department of the interior Bureau of Reclamation Snake River Area Office 214 Broadway Avenue Boise. ID $3702-7296 6. NAME, ADORERS, AND PROBE MO. ASSISTANCE REPRESfJiTATIVt Aomald J. Go1us Snake River Area Office Mluresu of Reclanation 214 Broadway Avenue Boise, Lasko 63702-T296 Phone: (2061 334-1751 OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ASSISTANCE A(RMENF1LT Z. TYPE OF AGREEMENT 3. Requisition No. Grant Not Applicable g_ Cooperative Agreement CODE: SRA•1200 d. PROGRAM STAIUTORT AUTNORITY • D.L. 101-245. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1999 Eft' carrying out the f,mct1one of the Bureau of ReelaMattoa as provided in the Yederal Reclamation Law Act of i June 17, 1903. 32 'tat. 361. and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto ) . 10. EFFECTIVE DATE Date of last signature below. 12. TOTAL AMOUNT OF AGREENENr S3,600,000 /MOT of FUNDS 53,600,000 • OBLIGATED 14. PRJDJECT TITLE See atteched writeap 15. A..... . of tuts Assistance Agreement in with the terns and conditions contained • herein is hereby mode on behalf of City of Moat, RECIPIENT I AT DATE Kirk rimers TYPED N UE TITLE Mayor - City of Mr ('si11 Telephone No.12061 634-7142 NAME OF SIGNATURE 5. RECIPIENT City of McCall 216 Bast Park Street PO lox 966 McCall. Idaho s3636 7. NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NO. of RECIPIEIIT's PROJECT MANAGER Kirk Rimers Mayer. City of McCall 216 East Park Street PO Box 94i MCCal1, Idaho 1363s Phone: (206) 634.7142 9. CLASS OF RECIPIENT Local government 1 of 9 11. COMPLETION DATE; September 30, O ff 13. ACC%MTTIIG AIM APPROPRIATION DATA Cost authority A10 1790 1100 100 CO 0 0 (1) 1s10000 265E TIN OR SOCIAL SECURITY 110. 12.400952-0D 16. A..... . of this Assistance Agreement in A., . with the terra and condition contained herein is hereby mode on behatf of the United States of America, •urieu of Reclamation ST SIGNATURE Steven R. Clark TTPI'D NAME DATE TITLE IPN-3ictin3 I+ =i .T?ire to ' Telephone No.C20B3 376-5012 MAR. -03'99(WED) 12:09 M0ORE & MCFADDEN CD TEL:208 331 1202 P.004 o G 0 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-9-FC-10-05020 Page 2 of 9 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT for McCall Area Wastewater Rfcl*matlon and Reuse, Idaho Project between the City of McCall, Idaho and Bureau of Reclamation L Schedule A. Back round Cascade Reservoir is designated as water quality limited under provisions of Section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act, and a recent Federal court decision requires the State of Idaho to establish and enforce maximum daily pollutant load allocations necessary to bring the reservoir into compliance with State water quality standards. Cascade Reservoir is a feature of the; Federal Reclamation Boise Project in Idaho. Located on the North Fork of the Payette River, Cascade Reservoir is authorized for irrigation; Idaho Power Company has a small powerplant below the dam. The large, shallow reservoir has become the second most used recreation destination in the State of Idaho. Fishing and boating are major attractions. In addition, water stoned in Cascade Reservoir noncontruted space is used to supplement flows in the Snake River system for migrating endangered salmon as required by the Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Other federally listed or sensitive species that use the reservoir environs for nesting and rearing habitat include the American bald eagle and the osprey. The City of McCall, Idaho, wastewater treatment plant discharges treated effluent into the North Fork of the Payette River Upstream of Cascade Reservoir. Increased algae growth in Cascade Reservoir is an aesthetic nuisance, contributes to fish kills, and is occasionally toxic. Phosphorous is considered to be the main cause of algae growth. Studies indicate that treated wastewater from McCall contributes some level of the phosphorous loading to Cascade Reservoir. B. Purim To totally eliminate the adverse effects of McCall's wastewater treatment plant effluent on (1) a stretch of the North Fork of the Payette River from where the sewage effluent is discharged into the river to Cascade Reservoir, (2) Cascade Reservoir and (3) to preserve the benefits to the Nation than recreation and fish and wildlife opportunities at Cascade Reservoir, a means to reduce phosphorous loading is needed. MAR. -03' 99 (WED) 12:09 MOORE & MCFADDEN CTD O TEL:208 331 1202 P. 005 O 0 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-9-FCG 10-O5020 Page 3 of 9 C. Ohjzeth e The J-Ditch Alternative (Project) was 'leered as the preferred alternative to address the purpose and meet the need of reducing phosphorus loading of Cascade Reservoir. It involves a cooperative effort among tie City of McCall, the Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District the Valley Soil and W4 Conservation District, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Lake IrrigOn District, and several individual property owners. The Project includes improvements tb t iie existing McCall wastewater treatment plant and construction of conveyance faciliti; Improvements to the existing treatment plant would yield treated effluent whi -• would be mixed with the current 1-Ditch irrigation water and supplied to area f ers for sprinkles irrigation application. The • blended water would be delivered by to approximately 2,300 acres in Valley County during the irrigation season_ the natirrigation season, the treated effluent would be stored for use during the next irrigation season. D. Ilments Protein and enhance the water quality at Cascade Reservoir, Idaho, a federally owned and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamattsn) administered facility, through construction by the City of McCall of water quality in,&soveme nt facilities. ;1 (1) Reclamation funded $2,500,000 of f -he Phase II project cost for construction of a portion of a two -cell (180-363 Mgal) non -irrigation season storage facility of went capacity for the current and up to the plOjected usage as revised in the updated facility plan, and more, if possble, and wildlife; mitigation (Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC•10-03720 for McCall Areal'Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Idaho Project between the City of McCall, Idaho and Bureau of Reclamation). (2) Reclamation will fund the remain;'Iportion of the Project for construction of the two cell (180-363 Mgal) non-irrigatio storage facility of sufficient capacity for the current and up to the projected usage as revised in the updated facility plan, and more, if possible, and wildlife mitigat4 up to S3,600,000 under this C., ,rre Agreement.. Reclamation authority to enter into thialIfinancial assistance agreement comes from Sections 1602 and 1605 of Public 14wi102-575, as amended.. Funding authority comes from P.L. 105-245, Energy and Water , Development Appropriations Act of 1999 for carrying out the functions of the Burea a of Reclamation as provided in the Federal Reclamation Laws (Act of June 17, 1962, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or MAR. -0.3' 99 (WED) 12:10 MOORE & MCFADDEN CTD TEL:208 331 1202 P.006 0 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-9-FC-10-05020 Page 4 of 9 supplementary thereto). The Act language states, "That the Secretary of the Interior is directed to use $3,600,000 of funds appropriated herein as the Bureau of Reclamation share for completion of the McCall Area Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Idaho, project authorized in Public Law 105-62 and described in PN-FONSI-96-05." (3) Reclamation shall work with the City as necessary to ensure that the City firlfills its responsibilities as set forth in this agreement. (4) Reclamation shall provide scientific or administrative advice, upon request, on the construction of storage facility. F. Responsibilities of the Zty 9f McCall The City of McCall is responsible for the design, construction and operation of the Project which is estimated to cost about $13,700,000. The Federal funds that will be transmitted through this agreement are to be used by the City of McCall to conduct site acquisition, wildlife mitigation (wetlands), design and construction of a two -cell not. -irrigation season effluent storage facility in accordance with the FACILITY PLAN REPORT AND ADDENDED REPORTS, prepared for the City of McCall by RH2 Engineering, Inc. McCall, Idaho and Redmond, Washington and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT document. The Project is briefly described and estimated costs are shown in Attachment k The City of McCall will: (1) Accomplish site acquisition and design and construct the two -cell non - irrigation season effluent storage facility. All construction shall conform to the construction safety requirements of Federal OSHA. (2) Perform wildlife mitigation. (3) Each submittal of Standard Form (SF) 270 for a "Request for Advance or Reimbursement" funds should be accotnpanied by an itemized statement of Federal expenditures and other expenditures related to the preceding (1) and (2). (3) Provide quarterly construction and work activity reports to Reclamation. (4) Secure and comply with all State, Federal, and local permits. The City of McCall will report at time of Cooperative Agreement execution and thereafter in MAR. -.03' 99 (WED) 12:10 MOORE & MCFADDEN CTD (;) (;) TEL:208 331 1202 P. 007 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-9-FC-10-05020 Page 5 of 9 quarterly reports: the status of all permits, contingencies, provisions, or conditions specified in the permits received, and summaries of activities conducted in accordance with permit requirement (5) Comply with all provisions as listed in this agreement. (6) Consult with and seek input from Reclamation on fulfilling its responsibilities and maintaining the project within the goals as set forth in this agreement. G. Budget The budget for this agreement is $3,600,000. IL Special Provisions p, Perfgrinnnmsehrstott Completion of non -irrigation season storage facility plans and specifications and award of design -construct contract is scheduled for April 1, 1999. Construction is scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2000. The above schedule has been developed based upon (1) weather conditions allowing field work to progress, (2) land purchases proceed on schedule, (3) design reviews proceed without delay and (4) receipt of adequate bids for construction. B. Term of ureement This agreement shall become effective on the date of the last signature hereto and extend through September 30, 2000. Any party to this agreement may terminate the agreement as it applies to the party upon notice in writing to the other parties at least 60 days in advance of the effective date of the termination. Any party may formally request modification of the agreement. C. Property Ind equipment furnished by the G wernment None D. Reporting re quimments One copy of quarterly letter -type progress report shall be submitted to the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Officer Representative by the 10th day of the month following the quarterly reporting period (December 31, March 31, June 30, and September 30) and MAR.-0399(WED) 12:11 M00RE & MCFADDEN CTD TEL:208 331 1202 P.008 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-9-FC-10-05020 Page 6 of 9 end of the portion of the Project construction relating to this agreement for the non - irrigation season effluent storage facility. E. R mbbursable costs and 11m • n s (1) The City of McCall will provide all the personnel services, plant facilities, equipment, materials and supplies, and perform all travel which may be necessary and appropriate for its proper performance under this agreement for implementation of the final design and construction of the non -irrigation season effluent storage facility and carry out wildlife mitigation . The Project development plan has been prepared by the City of McCa11 and approved by Reclamation. The City of McCall and other Cooperators obligation to assume their share of the costs are deed in Attachment A. Reclamation's obligation, under this' agreement, to reimburse the City of McCall for its costs incurred in these connections shall be limited to the City of McCa11's (a) direct costs in providing said service, plant facilities, equipment, materials, and supplies actually consumed in such performance and in performing said travel and (b) indirect costs. All such direct or indirect costs must be determined to be allowable under the principles contained in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87. Reclamation's indebtedness under this agreement tnay never exceed $3,600,000. (2) Reclamation shall not reimburse the City Of McCall in excess of the reimbursable limitation set forth under Special Provisions, Article E. Rrimbunaable costs and limitations, Section (4), Federal funding. (3) Overhead Rates (a) The allowable indirect costs will be determined in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-87. (b) bypredetermined rate for indirect cost The C of McCall shall use the established by the cognizant audit activity. (c) Allowablcness of costs land acceptability of cost allocation methods shall be determined in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-87. (d) Should the Cooperativef Agreement be completed and final rate reveal overpayments to the City of McCall, a billing will be prepared by the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Officer for the appropriate amount. Such billing shall be paid within 45 days. MAR. -03'.99(WED) 12:12 MOORE & MCFADDEN CTD TEL:208 331 1202 P.010 G 0 ' O Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-9-F-1p-05020 Page 8 of 9 G. Inament City of McCall will use Standard Forth (SF) 270, "Request for Advance or Reimbursement," for billing. H. Ronald J. Golus, Reclamation Snalc River Area Office Planning and Special Studies Officer, is designated as the Cooperriire Agreement Officer's Representative (Representative). Kirk Eimers, Mareof the City ofMcCall,, or his designated shall coordinate withd J. Golus to ensure that all ve agreement requirements are being s The Representative's duties include, bit are not limited to, the following: (1) Assist the City of McCall Ftoncerning the accomplisluncnt of the statement of work. (2) Interpret City of McCa1 l ligation under this agreement If it is necessary to crake changes to non -irrigation season effluent storage facility plan of development a deterta'iaation will have to be made on whether it will be necessary to accomplish National Environmental Policy Act Compliance activities for changes. (3) Cooperate with Idaho Di ion of Environmental Quality and other .r .ors in project. t The Mayor of the City of McCall or his designated representative duties include, but are not limited to, the following (1) During plan development for the non -irrigation season storage facility and wildlife mitigation make the R.mresetttative aware of meetings, which Reclamation personnel would 1ave the option to attend. (2) make plans available f construction_ (3) participate with Rec construction activities. purposes prior to initiation of ersonnel in (occasional) inspections of MAR.-03'•99(WED) 12:12 MOORE & MCFADDEN CTD TEL:208 331 1202 P.011 G O 0 V Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-9-jFC-10-05020 Page 9 of 9 L Indemnification The City of McCall shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Federal Govenunent harmless from any and all losses, damages, or! liability on account of personal injury, death, or property damage or claim for personNal injury, death, or properly damage of any nature whatsoever and by whomsoever made arising out of any act or failure to act by the City of McCall, it employees, ,,..�.i.�., ,r.� ; or agents under this agreement to the extent allowed by Idaho law. J. pt.Siipdi[A6 Procurement standards for the City cif McCall shall be governed by OMB Circular No. A-102, paragraph 36, Procurement Subcontracting with small and minority fins, women's business enterprise, and labor surplus area firms is encouraged. III. General Provisions The General Provisions, items listed below, have been agreed to by the City of McCall for the McCall Area Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Idaho Project under Cooperative Agreement Number 1 425-8-FC-1 0-03720 and said provisions apply for this Cooperative Agreement. 1. R gnations and ,ui n e 2. Assurances In......u,—..ed by Reference 3. Cay an Against f'nntingr t Feina 4. 1.* lt. *It 1 'JI . , U I ;,i 1 UI . , 4 i ..I{ 444 5_ Notice Regarding Buy America4 Act 6. Kesrdsdngnisagrotmcata 7. certifications MAR. -03' 99 (WED) 12:12 MOORE & MCFADDEN CID TEL:208 331 1202 P.012 Cooperative Agreement Number I425-9-FC-10-05020 Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT A The J-Ditch Alternative (Project) would consist of improvement to the existing McCall wastewater treatment plant which would involve rehabilitation of the existing four sand filter basins and the construction of a new sand filter with liner, installation of* pump station and an 18-inch treated effluent transmission line; construction of a treated effluent/irrigation water mixing facility and a two cell 180-363 million gallon non -irrigation season effluent storage facility. The treated effluent will be mixed with the l-Ditch irrigation water at a 2:1 ratio and supplied to the area farmers for sprinkler application. The blended irrigation water would be delivered by gravity to approximately 2,300 awes in Valley County, in a pipeline that would replace the existing J-Ditch. A second pipeline installed in parallel would deliver unblended water to the property owners currently served by the 1-Ditch that do not wish to irrigate with the blended water. During the irrigation season, existing irrigation water supplies and the plant effluent will be used to irrigate the agricultural land. During the non -irrigation season, the effluent would be stored in the 180-363 Mgal two -cell storage facility for use during the next irrigation season. Implementing the Project plan requires a cooperative planning, design, construction, and operational effort between the City of McCall, the Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District, the Valley Soil and Water Conservation District, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Lake Irrigation District (LID), and the property owners impacted. A newly formed J-Ditch Water Users Association will operate in the interest of the property owners, and coordinate with the City of McCall and the LID in implementing the Project. The Project is to be implemented in two phases. Phase I began in 1996 and has been completed with the irrigation of agricultural crops with the effluent/irrigation water mix occurring during the 199$ growing season. It consisted of a City of McCall sewage treatment plant upgrade, the installation of an 18-inch transmission line, construction of a water/effluent blending station and installation of on -farm sprinkler systems. Phase 11 will involve the construction of a 180-363 Mgal storage facility to hold effluent generated during the non -irrigation season and appurtenant facilities . MAR. -03' 99 (WED) 12:13 MOORE & MCFADDEN CTD c (;) TEL:208 331 1202 P.013 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-9-FC-10-05020 Project Cnnstnietinn Cost Estimate City of McCall Responsibility Page 2 of 4 Item Cam Treatment plant upgrade $1,134, 899 Pump station 625,000 Pipeline (Plant to J-Ditch) 1,150,925 Blending facility 210,000 180-363 Mgal two -cell storage facility 4,470,000 Engineering and contingencies 2,400,000 Other 238,652 Cost estimate $ 10,229,476 Irrigation Interests Responsibility Inlet structure and appurtenances S 32,680 J•Ditch pipeline and laterals (blended) 1,435,949 J-Ditch pipeline and laterals (not blended) 428,731 J-Ditch system piping appurtenances 160,540 Road crossings 114,000 Professional services 325,785 On -farm irrigation systems 967 040 Cost estimate $ 3,464,725 Total Project cost estimate $13,694,201 The estimated Project uuwal operation, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs would be $187,000 for year one with the extended OM&R cost in year 20 being $360,000. Cyr of McCall Cn t forprojec tJmpiementitim COSt Item. Phase I PhaseB Treatment plant upgrade $ 919,899 S 215,000 Lnterim pump station 90,000 Pump station 535,000 Pipeline to J Ditch 1,150,925 MAR. -03'99(WED) 12:13 MOORE & MCFADDEN CTD c c TEL:208 331 1202 acl) P. 014 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-94C-10-05020 Blending facility Storage site evaluation and land acquisition 180-363 Mgal two -cell storage facility 210,000 650,000 City contribution to Irrigators for J-Ditch pipeline and on -farm irrigation systems 1,850,000 Engineering and contingencies 819,000 Other 238.652 Cost estimate S5,928,476 Page 3 of 4 Irrigation Tntere Quo fqr Perj ;L jmpjjcuntatinn Irrigation interests responsibility City contribution Irrigation interests cost contribution Total Project estimated cost S 3,464,725 .1,850,000 S 1,614,725 S 7,543,201 COST SHARING City of McCall State challenge grant State supplemental grant Revolving fund Investment income Other sources Fiscal year 1997 appropriation VVPCA Idaho Department of Water Resources BC SAWQA (Pipeline) MC SAWQA (On -farm) MC SAWQA (Pipeline) Property Owners Federal (through the Bureau of Reclamation, Fiscal Year 1998, Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-8-FC-10-03720) Federal (through the Bureau of Reclamation Fiscal Year 1999, Cooperative Agreement Number 1425.9-FC-10-05020) Total estimated cost share Phase S 1,000,000 1,500,000 3,140,850 50,000 145,651 350,000 170,000 100,000 290,000 340,000 360,000 96,700 S 7,543,201 3,820,000 1,581,000 56,151,000 56,151,000 Phase U 51,000 2,5001000 ArtatUSIL S 6,151,000 MAR. -03' 99 (4YED► 12:13 MOORE & MCFADDEN CTD Cf Q TEL:208 331 1202 P. 015 Cooperative Agreement Number 1425-9-FC-10-05020 Page 4 of 4 CONSTRUCTION OF TWO -CELL EFFLUENT STORAGE FACILITY THAT RELATES TO THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Purchase of land for effluent storage site, design and construction of the remaining portion of the two -cell (180-363 Mgal) storage facility, wildlife mitigation, eesiggineering, contingencies, and other activities that relate to construction of the storage facility are covered by this Cooperative Agreement. The construction of the non -irrigation season effluent storage facility will result in City of McCall being able to completely eliminate their sewage effluent discharge into the North Fork of the Payette River under regular operations. City of McCall Federal, through the Bureau of Reclamation FY 1998, Cooperative Agreement 1425-8-FC-10-03720 Federal, through the Bureau of Reclamation FY 1999, Cooperative Agreement 1425-9-FC-IO-05020 (this agreement) Total estimated expenditures for Phase 11 $ 51,000 2,500,000 3,600,004. S6,151,000