Loading...
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