HomeMy Public PortalAboutCouncil Minutes 1998 07/20CITY OF MC CALL
MINUTES
Special Meeting
McCall City Council
Monday - July 20, 1998
Table Of Contents
Call To Order And Roll Call 2
Business 2
Land Acquisition — J Ditch Phase II2
Adjournment.......................................................................................... 7
MINUTES
Call To Order And Roll Cali
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kirk Eimers at 2:30 p.m. Ms. Arp, Mr.
Colton, Mr. Eimers, and Mr. Venable answered the roll call. Mr. Muller was absent. A
quorum was present. Members of the staff present were City Manager Brian Olson and
Deputy City Clerk Cherry Woodbury. Interim Legal Counsel, Dave Bieter, was also
present.
Business
Land Acquisition — J Ditch Phase 11
Mr. Olson presented the timeline and stated the necessity to immediately move forward
with this project.
Discussion followed regarding the $2.5 million government funding and the need to be
under contract by September 1998 with completion by September 1999.
Mr. Olson reviewed the issues chart pertaining to the Seubert and alternate site. Mr.
Eimers commented that the wetlands may not be an issue per Mr. Seubert, but noted
that the P & Z Commission and public opinion were not in favor. Mr. Eimers reiterated
that the East slope and wall of the storage cell would be a problem. Mr. Olson
estimated that it would be an additional cost of @$1.6 million to import clay material for
the wall. Reduction of the 2 to 1 slope to 3 to 1 will also reduce the capacity by about
67 million gallons. A geofabric backing will need to be installed between the liner and
earthen wall — estimated at $300,000 to $650,000. Mr. Olson reported that the
additional cost of doing what is classified as a "large high risk dam" would range
around $1.5 - $2.5 million.
Mr. Olson read into the record an E-Mail dated July 20th from Larry Peterson, DEQ,
and a fax from Joe Squire, Kleinfelder, who did a review of Strata's geotech study.
Mr. Arp expressed concern that all the government agency representatives and various
company representatives involved thus far are never present all together in one
meeting.
Mr. Colton commented that based on the latest meeting with the government
representative's approval will not be given until final drawings are available.
George Wagner and Brian Donaldson, JUB, and Bob Howard with Strata were asked
2
by the Sewer District to be present. Mr. Colton felt that the more data presented from
all parties, the better able the Council would be in making the necessary decisions. Mr.
Colton also posed the idea of another alternative site somewhere along the J Ditch
Pipeline that had not yet been explored.
Mr. Olson again reviewed the major factors:
- Public Safety
- Environment
- Cost (Risk)
- Timeline
Mr. Colton felt that the September 1998 could be extended and the City would have a
case to lobby for an extension. Mr. Eimers commented that John Keys, Regional
Director with BOR, had flatly stated the expectation that McCall is to be out of the
Payette River by September 1999. Achieving this goal will also effect the follow-on
funding of $3.6 million. Mr. Olson commented that performing under the agency
timeline is always better.
Ted Whiteman, Sewer District, stated that the slope issue was discussed last summer.
Mr. Whiteman stated that the Sewer District Board, after receiving a report from JUB, at
that time requested JUB resolve the 3 to 1 vs 2 to 1 issue ASAP because it would be a
"deal killer". The Board's verbal request to JUB was to resolve the issue before going
any further. It was his understanding that the issue was discussed with the regulatory
agencies and the response was that it was not within the Ten State Standards.
However, it was doable and achievable. He stated that if the geotech report was done
and the results of the types of materials on site raised a red flag, that this would have
shown that this would not be a site that they could use the on -site materials to provide
embankment. This would have moved it out of the realm of consideration. He stated
that the Geotech feedback received from JUB was that the materials were acceptable
and could be used as native materials for the embankment. Mr. Whiteman
recommended that the City's engineering firm go to the regulatory agencies to enlist
assistance. Mr. Whiteman felt that it was good policy to find a solution on the lagoon
site that was safe, but does not need to be bullet proof.
Mr. Wagner stated that the major factors presented by Mr. Olson are big ones. He
stated that that was why the City hired JUB to consider those factors. Mr. Wagner
stated he firmly believed these were addressed.
Bob Howard, Strata, agreed with Mr. Wagner and commented that firms have the
responsibility for standards of practice. Mr. Howard commented he did agree with
comments from DEQ and IDWR but it was a catch 22. As a consultant they could come
to the City and state that it was a safe project, but he acknowledged that fines are not
infallible. Thus, from a risk standpoint it was in the City's favor to have regulatory
agencies review such a project. Mr. Howard stated he was surprised that Strata's
report had been reviewed by Kleinfelder without prior knowledge.
3
Mr. Howard felt the site had been adequately looked at regarding geotech analysis and
he had met with regulatory agencies to receive any feedback. Mr. Howard disagreed
with the Kleinfelder document indicating that the soils were unsafe. Mr. Howard stated
that he felt the site could be engineered to work.
Mr. Howard explained that the geofabric was not an enhancer but keeps water from
escaping through the wall and is a second level of defense. He did not believe leakage
would be a problem and stated a monitoring system could be installed.
Mr. Eimers asked Mr. Howard if he was surprised about the regulatory agencies'
comments. Mr. Howard was not surprised and felt 90% of the sites considered will
have ground water. He also did not agree that the Seubert site materials were
unusable.
Mr. Howard posed the possibility of using a 2 to 1 slope on all sides but the East and to
got with a 3 to 1 slope on that side. He was not sure how that would affect the volume
of the lagoon. He stated that at earlier meetings, IDWR did express concern with the
slope and ground water.
Mr. Howard felt that it would be unwise for Council to make any decision at this meeting
and there was a "railroad job" being presented.
Brian Donaldson, JUB Project Engineer, stated he knew the wall would have to be a 2
to 1 slope but did not hear prior concerns from the regulatory agencies. He commented
that the ground water had always been a big issue and Steps were being taken by JUB
to resolve that. DEO and IDWR were also kept informed.
George Wagner stated that the geotech field work was done, a lot of the analysis was
done, but the final report hadn't been prepared. He commented that as a design is
developed, issues found, and solutions derived cost estimates are updated. It would
be a disservice to the client to present at the end a large cost difference between the
estimate and bid. He stated JUB tried to be cognizant of the cost of building the project
and updating the cost estimates. He stated that the February project estimate of $6.5
million did include many concerns voices such as the fill material, compaction and liner,
but only included on -site material.
Mr. Eimers moved for a 10 minute recess. Mr. Colton seconded and the motion carried
unanimously. The meeting reconvened at 4:05 PM.
Mr. Olson reviewed the pros of an alternate site, two major ones being less risk and
lower cost. The Seubert site is estimated to result in a cost of @ $16,000 per million
gallons whereas an alternate site at @ $10,000 per million gallons. Mr. Olson
commented that it would cost about $2 million more to make the Seubert site work. He
felt it better to listen to DEQ and IDWR concerns instead of defusing them. The City
has the burden of risk and no one else is accepting liability. He commented that the
Seubert site was not the only site available to get the project done. At an alternate site,
4
a cut and fill approach could be used. Material taken out could be used on the sides.
The depth below ground level would be 17 feet, so ground water would not be as big
an issue. Mr. Olson stated that with 160 acres instead of 40 acres, any spillage /
leakage would be primarily contained on the site.
Mr. Venable pointed out that even after constructing all the safety features on the
Seubert site, it would still be a "large high risk dam" according to IDWR.
Andy Locke joined Mr. Olson in a review of alternate locations. A map exhibited the
location of four alternate sites and the Seubert site. Each site was discussed. The
Manchester site area was already under development, included wetlands, and would
be very expensive. The Cavin site included a stream, wetlands, drainage and culvert
requirements and would involve about 2 miles of pipe at an additional cost of @ $1
million. The Edwards site included a creek, wetlands, and some development had
already started in the area. The Bezates site contained a dry area large enough for the
cells with wetlands behind that portion, Blue Jay homeowners were receptive, and was
in close proximity to the sewer plant. Mr. Colton again mentioned the idea of looking
further down the pipeline to see there were any possible areas.
Dave Bieter explained the steps involved if the existing Seubert agreement under
consideration was dissolved. If an alternate site is chosen and a purchase agreement
can not be reached, there is an abbreviated process of 35 days that can be undertaken
to accomplish acquisition.
Bill Killen felt the problem was that the regulatory agencies keep coming up with
concerns and that for the City to jump to an alternate site there were be a lot of
unknowns. Mr. Killen felt that any site would present problems.
Mr. Bezates inquired how a judge would decide the worth of land and what impact it
would have on surrounding area. Mr. Bezates stated there was a pond on his property
that's approximately 40 acres and water is being pumped out of it and there was no
way of draining it. He also commented that the Whitetail development dug a well and
hit water at about 8 feet. Mr. Bezates suggested looking to the South where there were
gravel pits.
Mr. Bezates flatly stated that the 160 acres was not for sale.
Mr. Wagner pointed out that the FONSI process was complete on the Seubert site and
this would have to be done on an alternate site. It would take time. He also noted that
although the $6.8 million estimate for construction on the Seubert site did not include
importing material, it was gravity flow. Another site would require pumping.
Mr. Olson stated that the Bezates site would be less for land acquisition and
construction. Andy Locke commented that the rezoning issue drew fire not only
because of the wetlands, but also esthetics and the storage of materials. He noted that
5
the Bezates site provides a buffer. A Conditional Use Permit would be needed from the
County. The other option would be to annex the property by way of the Blue Jay
Subdivision
Mr. Bezates stated that in 1987 he had requested starting a gravel pit on the corner of
the land. The Blue Jay Subdivision homeowners were in an uproar, but now the lagoon
ponds were agreeable with them. He noted that with the ponds located there, it would
cut off access to the other portion of his property.
Don Green, Blue Jay homeowner, stated that the desire was to keep the buffer and
wetlands in order to minimize the noise and dust from gravel operations. It was
realized that the lagoon ponds would have to go somewhere. He also was concerned
about what the Seubert property will eventually become.
Mr. Seubert was present and spoke. He commented that in the Fall of 97' when JUB,
the City, and Sewer District came to him, he was assured that the issues had been
resolved by the parties involved. He commented that all the issues in the P & Z
meetings could not be addressed properly because he had not had a meaningful
conversation with the City about the issues — such as where to put the batch plant. He
stated he had also written letters to the City. He said that material will continue to be
piled and stored on the site. He felt he had dealt with everyone in good faith.
Mr. Seubert then spoke on the cost to the City regarding the Dienhard Connector. He
stated he would go to court if the City attempted condemnation. He also stated that
Bezates would go to court if his property was condemned.
Mr. Colton noted that the concerns were known on the Seubert site and this was more
than what was known on the alternate sites. He stated that right now with what is
known, it is uncertain whether materials would have to be imported for the Seubert site.
Ms. Arp felt that she was being stampeded into making a decision.
Mr. Venable did not feel it wise to construct on a site that was going to be a very high
cost to the City. He felt it was an unacceptable site with the risks and costs involved.
He also felt that if a decision on a site was delayed much longer, the City would loose
the funding obtained.
Mr. Colton expressed concern that the whole project will be a problem and that it is an
unknown what it will cost the City in delaying the project. He felt someone did not want
the Seubert site and was working hard to make it unsuitable. He stated his
recommendation would be not to change direction and proceed with the Seubert site.
The only factor would be the issue of cost.
Ms. Arp stated she was not ready to reject the Seubert site and that an effort to get all
parties together and working together had not been accomplished.
6
Mr. Eimers inquired about the process of annexing and rezoning and how long it would
take. Mr. Locke stated the Conditional Use Permit takes about 5 to 6 weeks and a
rezone about 1 month.
In order to get the most information and gain public acceptance, Mr. Colton reiterated
the request to get all parties together — the experts, regulators, engineers, etc.
Mr. Bezates felt that having a court of law decide the cost of acquiring land was
backstabbing. Mr. Bezates commented that he had been told that if his property was
not for sell, the City would go with Seubert. Mr. Seubert stated he felt the dealings had
been fair until the agreement with JUB was cancelled. Mr. Bezates and Mr. Seubert
stated they would go to court if condemnation took place.
Council requested that Mr. Olson set up a meeting for the week of July 27th with all
parties in attendance. Ms. Arp requested that she have the opportunity to review the
list of attendees. She stated that not all parties are privy to all information and
requested an end of the situation.
The cost of having such a meeting was discussed. Mr. Colton felt DEQ would approve
the cost for such a meeting. Those attendees mention were BOR, IDWR, DEQ, County
Commissioners, Geotech Firms, JUB, Jim Fronk, Ted Whiteman, Seubert, and anyone
else who could provide information.
Mr. Eimers expressed the desire to reach the best solution to the problem and that it
was not a matter of who was right or wrong. He stated that the City and Council have a
very hard decision to make.
Adjournment
Without further business, Mr. Colton moved to adjourn. Mr. Arp seconded and the
motion carried unanimously. The Council adjourned at 6:30 P.M.
ATTEST:
r xt- � u
ury Deputy City Cie
7
Kirk Eimers, Mayor