Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1998.11.02 Council J Ditch Phase IIPUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF MC CALL 7:00 PM — MONDAY — NOVEMBER 2' 1998 MC CALL GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE J Ditch Phase II Winter Storage Lagoons American with Disabilities Act Notice: McCall City Hall is accessible to persons with disabilities If you need assistance, contact the City Clerk at (208) 634-7142 This meeting is to discuss the project and receive public comments. As three or more Council members may be present, notice is givdito comply with Idaho Code. This notice is given in compliance with Section 67-2343(2) Idaho Code and is the meeting notice required by that section. Except in emergency situations as defined in section 67-2343(2) only the agenda items listed above may be taken up at the meeting. This and all City Council Meetings are open to the public. All interested persons are invited to attend and observe the meeting. 0,svvv—a--- c5- CHERRY WOODBURY, Deputy City Clerk, Notice given this 30th Day of October, 1998 CITY OF MC CALL SUMMARY Special Public Meeting City Of McCall Monday — November 2, 1998 Table Of Contents Discussion 2 J Ditch Phase II Winter Storage lagoons 2 SUMMARY Council Minutes - Nov2, 1998.doc Page 1 of 4 1J Ditch Phase II — Winter Storage Lagoons I Andy Locke introduced the various speakers that would be making brief presentations. Mr. Locke noted that this was not a City Council meeting. Kirk Eimers stated that this was an important project for the City of McCall. He stressed the importance of the process and asked that everyone focus on the facts and input for solutions. Mr. Eimers reviewed the history of what had transpired on the project. He stated the estimated cost difference between locating the lagoons on a tough site such as the Seubert and an easy site to be about $6,000 per million gallons of water. He stated that based on the storage capacity needed the cost difference equated to around $2 million. Mr. Eimers stated there were three primary risks 1) Technical Risk 2) Engineering Risk and 3) Economic Risk. Based on those, it was decided that alternatives needed to be looked at. Mr. Eimers pointed out that Mr. Muller wanted to explore all possible alternatives. Mr. Eimers reported that the City had received a total of $6.1 million in grant funds which provided the opportunity to get the effluent out of the Payette river without a burden being placed on the taxpayers. He reported that an invitation had been extended to negotiate with Mr. Bezates on his property. He stated that an appraisal was underway to determine a fair market price to be offered to Mr. Bezates. Mr. Locke reviewed the site selection process. He noted the various sites and related issues with each site. Bill McCurdy, attorney, reported that the condemnation process has started and that in many cases there had been resolution outside the courts between the parties involved. Mr. McCurdy noted that there were two formal proceeding to go through in the condemnation process. He stated that his fee would be $50,000 to $100,000. He stated that the process is geared towards being fair with the landowner and fair to the citizens. Rick Ballard, RH2, spoke on the facility plan by JUB and the 6 volumes involved. He stated that the JUB had been in the preliminary design stage on the Seubert site. Mr. Ballard stated that during preliminary stage not all issues are uncovered. He pointed out on a layout the flow of the system. A question was raised as to any other options besides the lagoons. Mr. Ballard stated the stringent requirements by the regulatory agencies for removing phosphorus. Discussion followed on the alternatives, locations, and the prohibitive costs involved such as the high cost of pipeline. Gene Peterson spoke on the public process which this meeting was part of in the decision making process. He pointed out that the Conditional Use Permit process would also be open to the public. He stated that there were numerous documents available to the public such as the Value Engineering Report and Facility Plan. Mr. Peterson spoke on the wetlands report and permitting process because it was a Council Minutes - Nov2, 1998.doc Page 2 of 4 Federally funded project. Members of the audience were concerned about the runoff from the berm slopes, the impact on wells in the area, the geotech report, safety issues of open water, and who was to make the final decision. A report is being compiled by the DEQ and Department of Water Resources addressing the impact on well water. Discussion followed on the stringent TMDL requirements set by the DEQ and options available to comply. Members of the audience inquired if there were any alternatives researched for the removal of the phosphate. The University of North Carolina had apparently been contacted and would be sending material on a study undertaken by them. The question was raised about what would happen if the project was stalled for 11 months. This would result in the loss of funding and would mean starting over. Operation and maintenance costs were brought up. The grand funds do not cover this. The costs of operating the facility will fall on the City. It would be the responsibility of the City to maintain the landscaping as well. A potential rate increase of $4 - $10 was mentioned by Mr. Eimers. Andy Locke was asked to compile a spreadsheet showing the various alternative, the pros and cons of each, and associated prohibitive costs. Mr. Locke was asked if other areas where there was not so much subdivision development had been considered. Smell and odors from the lagoons was discussed. Also questions were asked about the water table and how the ground water would be separated from the storage effluent. Mr. Ballard explained the drainage system necessary to handle the ground water flow. Dean Martens expressed the desire for more public meetings and felt the public had not been asked for other alternatives. He mentioned the Seubert property and how the Deinhard — Boydstun connector right of way tied into that property. Mr. Locke noted the future residential property at risk below where the "high risk dam" wall would be if the lagoon was located on the Seubert property. William McCurdy reported that a detailed appraisal will show the Bezates parcel, surrounding parcels and area, conditions, etc. This will be presented to the judge. He stated that condemnation process may extend past the 11 months. Determination of condemnation should be made before the 11 months and should preserve the grant funding. Members of the audience requested that regulatory agency representatives be present at the next meeting to answer questions. Some felt it was already a done deal and were getting run over. Some felt that if this was the only alternative, then OK but they didn't feel all alternatives had been explored yet. Don Green introduced Dwayne Nelson who would be representing the Blue Jay owners. Mr. Nelson stated that he would be reviewing the documents at City Hall to try and gain an understanding of the situation. He did not intend it to be confrontational. Council Minutes - Nov2, 1998.doc Page 3 of 4 Mr. McCurdy stated that the hearing date for condemnation could potentially be the end of the month. Mr. Peterson summarized the next steps in the process to be: - The site selection and alternatives are to be compiled - Agency representatives are to be contacted re attending the next meeting - Another meeting is to be set the first or second week of December and Blue Jay will present their analysis of the project Council Minutes - Nov2, 1998.doc Page 4 of 4