HomeMy Public PortalAboutCouncil Minutes 1998 07/17CITY OF MC CALL
MINUTES
Special Meeting
McCall City Council
Friday July 17, 1998
Table Of Contents
Call To Order And Roll Call 2
Business 2
Value Engineering — J Ditch 2
Adjournment 5
MINUTES
'Call To Order And Roll Call
I
The meeting was called to order by Council President Allan Muller at 3:10 p.m. Ms.
Arp, Mr. Muller, and Mr. Venable answered the roll call. Mr. Colton and Mr. Eimers
were absent. A quorum was present. Members of the staff present were City Manager
Brian Olson and Deputy City Clerk Cherry Woodbury.
Business
Value Engineering — J Ditch Phase II
Mr. Olson reported that Rick Harbert, RH2 Engineering, was present to answer any
question regarding the J Ditch VE.
Ms. Arp expressed concern that the VE booklet on the project was received at the
Council meeting and Council Members were not afforded the opportunity to review the
extensive data ahead of time. She also requested that information discussed at the
small group meetings be reviewed.
Mr. Arp had questions on several portions of the VE study regarding how the rates
were calculated, what various dollar figures represented, what was included in certain
dollar amounts, how the $50,000 amount for I & I analysis was derived, etc.
Mr. Harbert responded that some of the data was the result of the VE project meeting,
previous City staff input, and calculations done by RH2 Engineering.
Ms. Arp inquired about the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and commented that it was
already being done by the Sewer District. She felt the cost included in the VE study
would be redundant. Mr. Ted Whiteman, Sewer District, was asked to respond. Mr.
Whiteman stated that it was a matter of definition of what a Comp Plan was. He stated
the District was compiling data on the manholes and sewer lines but was uncertain
what a Comp Plan would entail. Mr. Harbert responded that a Comp Plan would be
extensive. It would identify, verify, and investigate such elements as the lift stations,
condition of the lines, manholes, and system leakage. It would identify capital
improvement projects and a replacement program. An inventory of the system would
be done. An investigation of the lift stations would be undertaken. The capacity of the
system would be calculated so that the ability to serve current and new customers
would be determined. And, the Comp Plan would help in minimizing cost J rate impact
to customers.
Mr. Olson commented he felt the data was being compiled without the TV video work
being done on the lines. Mr. Whiteman stated that video of the system had not been
2
done since 1988.
Ms. Arp inquired how the available data could be used and leveraged from in order to
control costs.
Ms. Arp questioned the difference between what was shown as bond service vs. debt
and the calculations involved. Mr. Harbert explained the difference and that the bond
service amount was to finance capital improvements.
Mr. Harbert explained that the connection charge calculations were derived from the
City's net cost of developing the system plus capital improvements and dividing that
figure by the number of estimated customers over the next 6 years.
Mr. Harbert presented a timeline schedule for the project. He stated the schedule had
changed and due to time constraints the project had moved to the design build process.
The award date for the project has been set for September 30, 1998. He explained that
many of the elements shown on the schedule would be occurring simultaneously. Mr.
Harbert stated that one things could be done to compress the schedule would be to
provide less accurate topographic data to the bidders so they could start their
computations and then provide more accurate data to finalize the bid.
Mr. Harbert stated that RH2 would be formulating design specification documents,
focusing on developing qualification criteria, and doing pre design documents (about
30% complete) to advertise for bid.
Bill Killen inquired about the schedule and did it include design review by DEQ and the
time necessary to review alternate sites through the public processes (P & Z and public
hearing, etc).
Council agreed that more time was needed to address the issues on the project. A
special Council meeting was scheduled for 2:00 PM Monday, July 20tn
Ms. Arp then stated concerns that JUB's response was not being given merit. Mr.
Harbert commented that the response had been reviewed and incorporated in the VE
report. Ms. Arp felt some of JUB's comments were being discounted and did have
merit. Mr. Harbert felt the consensus of the VE attendees was that I & I was an area
that could save money. He commented past experience in other city systems had
shown that to be true. He presented figures showing the large amount of I & I in the
system.
Ms. Arp wanted to hear from the Sewer District representative. Ted Whiteman stated
he would maintain the same position as before — that it was not prudent to figure any I
& I reduction in determining the size of the lagoon. Mr. Whiteman concurred with a
30% reduction from identified sources. However, he felt that if I & I was not figured in,
it would allow for extra capacity when / if I & I was eventually reduced.
3
Mr. Olson pointed out that a major element of the Comp Plan was to reduce the cost to
customers. He stated that the system was old and had problems. If the City was to
spend the full amount on a larger lagoon, it would still need to replace / repair lines and
incur those additional costs.
Mr. Harbert noted the calculated cost of the Seubert site is around $16,000 per million
gallons. The site is so tight / restricted that there are extremes in construction that
must be undertaken even to build on it. Mr. Olson commented that based on the
geotech information, Idaho Department Of Water Resources (IDWR) stated that
materials would have to be imported to reach the 57 foot wall height on the East side.
The on -site materials were unsuitable. Importing materials would make the cost of the
project go through the ceiling. This site was classified by IDWR as a "Large High Risk"
whereas other sites under consideration would be classified as "Intermediate Low
Risk". The liability would be less on the low risk because any leakage flow would be
away from the river.
Mr. Olson noted four major elements that came out during the meeting with the
regulatory agency representatives.
- Public safety
- Environment
- Cost Factor (Risk)
- Timeline
Mr. Venable felt there was just not enough available land on the Seubert site to do this
project properly.
Mr. Muller commented that in conversation with Mr. Seubert, he did address some of
the issues like that of the wetlands, but did not address the issue of material that would
have to be used.
Mr. Olson pointed out that Mr. Walker who owns the land between the Seubert site and
the river proposes to build home in that area. Mr. Olson and Mr. Muller spoke on the
liability issues. Mr. Muller felt that with the critical issues of the Seubert site and the
potential of a better way to get the project done, the Seubert site should be put to rest.
Mr. Olson stated that the 2 to1 slope and plans were doable but the City could not
afford it.
Mr. Harbert commented that the criteria from the governmental agencies was not A
Typical. Mr. Muller felt that it was not impossible to surmount the issues, not jeopardize
BOR fund and be successful.
Mr. Olson had met with the Sewer District. He showed a map with the TV video area
done in 1988 and another map denoting the sewer lines. Mr. Olson reported he was
obtaining more information on the contract with the Sewer District and will have a
proposal in a couple of weeks.
4
The subject of ground water entering the system was raised. This is prevalent in the
Timberlost and SMR area.
Ms. Arp felt there was no point in reviewing the proposed increase in rates until further
information is obtained.
A special meeting was scheduled for Monday, July 20th at 2:00 PM and proper public
notification to be given.
'Adjournment
I
Without further business, Mr. Venable moved to adjourn. Ms. Arp seconded and the
motion carried unanimously. The Council adjourned at 6:10 P.M.
ATTEST:
Kirk Eimers, Mayor
Cherry W6.,dbury Deputy City Cle
5