HomeMy Public PortalAboutCouncil Minutes 1998 07/29CITY OF MC CALL
MINUTES
Special Meeting
McCall City Council
Wednesday- July 29, 199$ tijj
Table Of Contents
Calf To Order And Roll Call 2
Business 2
Land Acquisition — J Ditch Phase II 2
Adjournment 7
MINUTES
ICall To Order And Roll Call
I
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Eimers at 10:05 A.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 City Manager Brian Olson, Deputy City Clerk Cherry
Woodbury and Legal Counsel Dave Bieter.
IBusiness
i
Land Acquisition — J Ditch Phase 11
Brian Olson summarized concerns with the primary site, Seubert property, and the cost
involved. He reiterated the classification of the Seubert site as a "large high risk dam"
by Idaho Department Of Water Resources. In addition, Mr. Olson reviewed the
components of the estimated additional $3.74 million to develop the Seubert site. The
alternate Cavin site was discussed and Mr. Olson noted some of the costs on
developing that site such as earth work and pipeline to the area. He stated that cost
alone should eliminate both the Seubert and Cavin sites.
Mr. Muller inquired about the Soulen property. Mr. Colton posed looking various
property with the idea of developing one cell at a time. Ms. Arp inquired as to what
alternatives JUB had already investigated.
George Wagner stated that property in the vicinity of the J Ditch pipeline was
investigated and that there were advantages such as undeveloped property, lower land
and pumping costs, etc. He stated that a variety of sites south of town were looked at
and discussed in length. At Council meetings that followed, many people in those
areas voice strong opposition. Mr. Wagner also commented that it would be hard to
obtain a Condition Use Permit from the County for a site remote from the McCall City
limits. Mr. Wagner was of the opinion that the City could find good sites South of town
but he was not sure how successful the City would be institutional problem wise to get
acceptance. He commented that perhaps the fear by the residents along the J Ditch
pipeline of such a project was gone and that there may be more acceptance. Mr.
Wagner stated that the Seubert site was not an irrational decision.
Mr. Olson stated that the Conditional Use Permit required would cause delay and per
Andy Locke would be hard to obtain. Mr. Eimers reiterated that the Seubert plant and
storage pile move to the wetlands area has already been denied by the County
Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Olson introduced Joe Squire and Paul Bastian with Kleinfelder, subcontracted with
2
RH2 to review the geotech work done on the Seubert property. Mr. Squire and Mr.
Bastian reviewed the information on the Seubert site and raised several areas of
concern that they felt were not adequately addressed such as seismic activity, soil
permutation, liquefaction, ground water, etc. It was felt that more time was needed to
fully evaluate these concerns and the issue of the 2 to1 slope.
Ms. Arp inquired about the possibility of constructing on the Seubert site if just one side
was at the 3 to 1 slope. Mr. Bastian responded that this was an unknown due to soil
conditions and the leak potential even through the liner. Mr. Muller inquired about what
soils were tested to build the dam side. Mr. Bastian stated that the one site materials
were evaluated. It was felt that the current information and report was preliminary and
not sufficient to carry the project to completion. The Kleinfelder representatives felt that
if the areas of concern were not addressed there was the potential for long term
problems.
Mr. Olson introduced Bob Bruce, HDR Engineering, and Jim Nelson, Nelson
Construction. Mr. Bruce stated that HDR Engineering was familiar with the area and
the ground water concerns. Mr. Nelson commented on previous experience with land
fill projects and other similar projects. He felt there would be liability associated with
the lagoon project as currently laid out. Discussion followed regarding alternatives
such as use of concrete for the dam side, leakage sensors, second liner system,
associated costs, etc.
Bob Howard and Terry Howard with Strata were present to comment. Terry Howard
stated that the current geotech report was preliminary and that a review of the report
without notice by Kleinfelder was unprofessional. He commented that there was
information that Kleinfelder would not have and would lead to misinterpretations of the
report. Mr. Terry Howard stated he felt the embankments as proposed with the 2 to 1
slope and the 57 feet height side could be built safely. Based on his experience, he
stated that a 2 to 1 slope utilizing the materials from the site would be safe. And, the
fully lined pond would not permit the water to leak into the embankment. Mr. Terry
Howard stated that the sand and gravel at the site is strong material and the
compaction of that material will determine the density of the dam wall. He stated that
there was no reason to bring clay onto the site and that it would make the wall weaker.
Mr. Bezates spoke on the ground water in the area and on his property. He stated that
the geological material on his property would be the same as the Seubert site. He felt
that there was no difference in the safety factor between a 17 foot and 57 foot high wall
of the same material.
Bob Fleader with IDWR commented on the current geotech report and Kleinfelder
review. He felt that the seismic risk was less in the McCall area and that there may be
other means to deal with the leakage issue. Mr. Terry Howard stated there were a
multitude of safety feature alternatives that could be incorporated into the design.
Mr. Fleader commented that size, height and risk are considered and that anything less
3
than 20 feet does not have to be designed by an engineer. The Seubert proposal is a
unique design. It could be built but some extra precautions would have to be
incorporated. Discussion followed regarding the lack of final design plans, the
monitoring of any leakage, concern for the safety of residents downstream, required
inspections, etc. Mr. Fleader stated that there have been past occurrences of leakage
on similar project where liners were used along with an earthen dam wall.
Larry Peterson with DEQ noted that such a structure would have to be tested annually
for leakage. Mr. Eimers expressed concern about the difference of opinion between
Strata and the government agencies in the use and performance of clay. Mr. Peterson
stated his role was duel, that of reviewing the design of the structure and of funding.
He stated he relied on IDWR for dam safety for a structure of this size. He stated it
would take a lot more money to get the current proposal built. Mr. Olson questioned
why the City would want to build this proposal that costs more when it could be done
more economically.
Mr. Olson posed to Council that it could go to bid with what information and plans
currently available while looking at other options. Mr. Olson felt this would give some
financial nin�sigpht asytof what the bids would come in at. �IMr.�Muller
� inquired about putting
nave nbt D-een investit ated I sucheas- he soulenerproperty.th Helfeit there was notnenough
investigated, 9
information to make a good decision but wanted to know what is at risk regarding
funding.
Ms. Arp stated she felt not all the options for the Seubert site had been explored. Mr.
Olson was confident that developing the Seubert site would cause cost overruns. Mr.
Eimers expressed concern with what had transpired thus far — that Seubert felt the
project would have public acceptance, that it would be doable but not the best solution,
then the government agencies noted problems with the project, that the Impact P & Z
has denied the Conditional Use Permit, and now alternates were being looked at.
Mr. Olson and Andy Locke commented on the P & Z decision on the asphalt plant
relocation. The new proposal moved the stock pile area outside the wetlands and
would eliminate that issue. Mr. Locke commented that rezone on the wetlands fringe
area for stock piles would still need to be undertaken. Mr. Locke stated that the batch
plant would be moved to a location of permitted use.
Mr. Muller inquired if there would be any concerns by the Blue Jay subdivision
residents on the Bezates property. Mr. Locke stated that in initial discussion with the
residents, the biggest concern was for the preservation of the wetlands and that sewer
lagoon ponds were not a negative issue.
Mr. Eimers moved for a 5 minute recess. Mr. Colton seconded and the motion carried
unanimously. The meeting reconvened at 11: 50 P.M.
4
Mr. Seubert spoke on the options available for moving the batch plant. He stated due
to the need for a change in the agreement was not able to explore alternatives for that
and the wetlands issue. Mr. Seubert felt that his engineer could solve the issues if
given that directive. Mr. Seubert noted on the area map the various areas where the
material could be stock piled and commented that the material on the Rio Vista site
would be used first. He stated that during the agreement negotiations, a calculation
was made of the material that would not be removed from the Seubert site. He
estimated the value to be around $1 million and that the $820,000 cost to the City for
the site was a bargain. Mr. Seubert also stated that if clay was needed and to be
imported to the site, he could furnish that from the Little Ski Hill area and would be
willing to discussion that matter.
Ms. Arp inquired as to the possibility of more land in the area for a second cell, if the
slope was reduced and the Seubert site used for the first cell. Discussion followed on
the effect of building one cell at a time as opposed to designing for both.
Brian Donaldson, JUB, presented plans and discussed the 57 foot height. It was only
for one center area of the dam wall. A cost estimate of $105,000 was to cover that
section for drainage and leakage issues. It was stated that there would be a spillway in
the final design. Also discussed was the option of not putting water into the lagoon if
there was repair work to be done.
Mr. Seubert noted that he had more land available to the West and Mr. Walker's
property to the East that would suffice for a second lagoon.
Mr. Wagner commented that he felt the risk issues had been addressed. He also felt
that someone bidding now with the current information would not have all the factors
involved and would bid high. In his opinion the Seubert site from a cost point of view
was pretty efficient and the statement that an alternate site would cost less was not
correct. Mr. Olson commented that the risk was in the knowns of the Seubert site. Mr.
Colton felt that a lot of the cost figures presented were somebody's estimates and not
real numbers.
Mr. Locke commented that from a community perspective the Seubert site costs would
be too high. He reported that there was public attendance at all the meetings dealing
with the move of the gravel operations and citizens felt it would be disruptive to the
area. He stated that based on public input the Seubert site was not a good choice and
there were better potential sites such as the Bezates.
Bill Killen felt that regardless of the site there would be issues and if at all possible, the
City should talk to the govemment agencies to see if there is any way to extend the
time deadlines. This would allow time to gather more information to make the best
decision. Mr. Olson is to contact the agencies and see if a time extension for the
September 1998 (first deadline) is possible.
5
Mr. Eimers stated the following options 1) Continue with the Seubert site and design
work for a project with identified issues and risk, 2) Go with the Seubert site and go to
bid, 3) Seek alternatives such as to Bezates and Soulen property, and 4) Investigate
alternatives South along the pipeline.
There was discussion about the geotech work needed and the associated cost. Mr.
Ted Whiteman, Sewer District, was not prepared to commit to authorizing this expense
and stated he would have to present it to the Board. Mr. Colton stated that he was not
prepared to approve having Kleinfelder do the work.
Mr. Eimers move to proceed with investigating the 3 options and request that the Sewer
District, in good faith, pay half the additional geotech work. Mr. Muller seconded. The
motion carried four to one.
Mr. Venable asked Mr. Terry Howard, Strata, if they would indemnify the project based
on safety of the 2 to 1 slope with just compaction of the gravel material. Mr. Terry
Howard replied he had never been asked to indemnify work.
Mr. Olson and Mr. Locke showed Council on the area map where the Deinhard
connector would be located in relation to and including a portion of the Seubert
property.
Mr. Seubert commented that if anyone thought about condemning his property,
segmenting it, and moving his operations there would be a court case.
Mr. Bruce stated that there is a fair amount of work associated with putting a bid
together. Going out to bid with only a portion of the information and documents
available, the City should not be surprised if no bids are received. He commented that
HDR would probably not respond at this time. He also stated that HDR did perform
analysis work on the water system and found the City / Council atmosphere toward the
company hostile and uncooperative. He stated that suggested alternatives such as
wells were ignored.
Mr. Venable felt that if any bids were received, it would give some idea of what it would
cost to do the project and as an example, this would have been helpful information to
have had on the water treatment plant.
Mr. Whiteman commented that through conversations he had with BOR, they were
willing to let the September 1998 deadline slide but that the completion date of
September 30, 1999 was firm. This would allow the City time to explore other options.
6
Adjoumment
Without further business, Mr. Muller moved to adjourn. Mr. Eimers seconded and the
motion carried unanimously. The council adjourned at 1:10 P.M.
ATTEST:
Cherry W• • •ury, Deputy City CI k
7
Kirk Eimers, Mayor
A'
4
(UP
McCall' CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DULY 29, 1998
TRANSCRIPTION BY:
NORTHWEST TRANSCRIPTS, INC.
P.O. Box 890
Nampa, Idaho 83653-0890
(208) 466-2743
Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript
produced by transcription service.
0560
r
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
OTHER APPEARANCES:
MAYOR KIRK EIMERS
RALPH COLTON
MARILYN ARP
ALLAN MULLER
RAY VENABLE
BRIAN OLSON - City of McCall
TED WHITEMAN - Payette Lakes
Water and Sewer District
PAUL BASTAIN, Kleinfelder
JOE SQUIRE, Kleinfelder
GEORGE WAGNER, J.U.B.
BRYAN DONALDSON - J.U.B.
BOB BRUCE - HDR Engineering
TERRY HOWARD - Strata
BOB HOWARD - Strata
LARRY PETERSON - DEQ
BOB FLEENER - IDWR
BILL KILLEN -
BILL SOULEN - Landowner
ANDY LOCKE - PZA
J.P. SEUBERT - Landowner
2
C'? 0 0 3- 5
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROcHFDINGS IN PROGRESS
(Council Called to Order)
(Roll Call Taken)
MAYOR RIMERS: We're here on a special city council
meeting. Aside from the storage cells, I want to thank
everybody for being here.
We have a decision before us and I want to thank
everyone that's here for coming and for bringing your
knowledge and experience and expertise with you.
I think I've talked with three of the other four
council members about how to approach this and I think we're
in kind of an agreement.
What I think we'd like to do is have a workshop,
let's just call it a workshop. And what we're going to do is
we're going to have a staff report first, let Brian update us
on any additional information that may have arisen.
I'd like to ask Brian to introduce the resources
that are in the room and available to us for questions. And
then the council has todevelop some knowledge and information
to facilitate this decision. And so I think at that point
we'll open it up to council to ask specific questions of the
different resources that are available to us in the room to
get some -- get some information. -
And if somebody feels a compelling need to speak and
it's an aside from a direct question from a council member,
000582
5
that -- I think they --
MR. OLSON: The map?
MAYOR RIMERS: Yeah.
MR. OLSON: The map. Yes, we do.
MAYOR RIMERS: Do you got that with you?
MR. OLSON: Yes.
MAYOR RIMERS: Okay. Cause Allan wasn't here and I
think it might be useful, if council would allow, for you to
update them.
MR. OLSON: Yes. We do have that, Your Honor.
MAYOR RIMERS: Oh, and here's the overhead?
MR. OLSON: Yes, sir.
(Pause in the proceedings)
MALE SPEARER: Sorry, we don't have a room big
enough.
MR. OLSON: Okay. What I'd like to do is just go
through -- we've received the preliminary engineering and
geotech.of the Seubert site. Again, the primary site which is
located right here directly south of the cells that we have
right now.
Some of the concerns that we have is that this
structure would be classified as a large high risk dam by
IDWR, and I'll let them talk a little bit more about that. I
did receive a letter from IDWR and have circulated that to the
council. If you don't have that, you need to let me know and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Could you identify yourself and make sure a council .member is
in agreement, we might be here, and then if so we'd like to
ask you to please come forward and identify yourself at the
podium and make your presentation to council, so, that's
generally how we'd like to approach it.
Having said that, we'll turn it over. Brian, can
you -- for the staff section and we'll go forward.
MR. OLSON: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm simply going
to summarize, I know that Council Member Muller was not here
the last time we went through this, but I'm .going to go
through real briefly some of the concerns with what has been
called the primary site, the Seubert site we recently
identified. I'm going to concentrate initially on costs
because I feel that that's very much a determining factor.
And with that, we'll also take a look at a -- what's
been now called the -- I guess, it's the third site, the
Cavenaugh [phonetic) site, we've identified some cost issues
with that. Then what I'd like to do is to go ahead and
introduce some of the people here today who have come up to
talk with you and answer the councils' question that you've
asked to be here.
So with that, I'll just go through this real
briefly.
MAYOR RIMERS: Brian, do you have with you that
presentation on sites that you looked at last time? You know
n00553
I'll get you another copy.
But again, the issue is that it's a large 57 foot
high risk dam with 2 to 1 slopes which creates safety issues
and other items.
The main reason that we have a problem with this is
the size of the site, 40 acres is too small to make a wide,
large shallow cell. It has to be a very small, very deep
structure. So, it's the geography of the site, the size of.
the site that dictates the problems.
Some of the potential cost overruns that we've been
informed of at .this time is that if we do go to a 3 to 1 slope
67
instead of 2 to 1 slope on the dams, we'll lose 630' millions
gallons of capacity. We'll
MAYOR RIMERS: Is
MR. OLSON: 670.
MAYOR RIMERS: It
need another 334,000 ya-aLQA:...
that 67 million gallons? U
Oh.
must be 67 gallons.
MR. OLSON: 67, I'm sorry. 67.
MAYOR RIMERS: Okay.
MR. OLSON: Good catch, Your Honor.
(Council members all speaking at once)
MALE SPEAKER: What is the number?
MS. OLSON: It's the cost of this dirt, the
additional dirt that's needed is estimated at six hundred and
seventy thousand dollars ($670,000), that's if we can use
materials on site.
000584
000535
MR. 0LSON: Yes, sir. An~ tkis is the figure I gave
I you before. And one item that I did not note before is that
/ 4~ if we lose capacity we'r.e going to have tO replace it .... day.
[ ~ so, ~'. add c~
6~ in order to build additional capacity. And at ten thousand
10 ~ That's if we ca~ use the dirt that's on t_he site.
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
If we cannot use the dirt that's on the site and need to
import clays, that's estimated~l.6'~llion dollars for
a
total of 3.74 million. Okay?~--~
And these are very real, very potential cost
overruns. And I think there's a lot of a~alogy to what we've
experienced in the last few years in the w~ter project where
costs came in substantially over 'the original estimates.
Okay?
So, we lose 67 million dollars in -- million gallons
in capacity, we need 334,000 yards of dirt costing six hundred
and seventy thousand ($670,000). Another eight hun=Lred
thousand (800,000) for a new site to replace that capacity we
lost. Another six hundred and seventy thousand (670,000) in
construction. A total of over 2 million. Then if you have to
import clay materials another 1.6 million. Again, we're --
000586
i million dollars. So, t~'re -- you know, again, you're
2 at 3.9 million.
3 These costs are absent the initial estimates that
4 are on top of those, they're not including purchase price for
$ property. It's just the costs alone, pored, rial costs
6 eliminate these sites. If we're going to reach our goal of
7 removing effluent ~rom the Payotte River i~ a safe, cost
6 effective ma/~ler, these two sites do not lend themselves to
9 that goal.
10 MAYOR EIMERS: Could you -- and this is probably a
11 good point --
12 MR. OLSON: Sure.
13 MAYOR EIMERS: -- if you remember, could you
14 identify; just to refresh our memory and also to give ~llan an
lS idea', which sites ~you've looked at, you a~d Andy a~d whoever
16 else have looked that?
17 MA. OLSON: We've looked at -- we've looked up here
!6 at Manchester. We've really looked at the whole area, we also
19 re-examined the issue that came up when this was done before
20 when they looked south on the J-Ditch line and all of the
21 public opposition to that. We have looksd globally at this.
23 here and then .add Manchester. Manchester was eliminated early
24 on because they have a PUD, they have some higher zoning and
the cost for the property would be horrendous before you even
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~you're nearly doubling the cost of the project. And again,
these are very real costs.
Let's take a look at Cavenaugh, a site that's been
identified as another potential. I received a --
MR. COLTON: Can you locate the ~avenaugh thing on
that?
MR. OLSON: Yes, sir, right down here. Okay? It is
believed at this point, and I received the estimates this
morning, that the additional earth work needed on this site is
1.9 million dollars.
MAYOR EIMERS: Where did that come from, Brian?
MR. OLSON: It comes from P~H2 Engineering.
MAYOR EIMEI~S: I know, but what is it for?
MR. OLSON: Importation of materials, the materials
the~e are not going to be satisfactory for construction. As
you ca~ see, it's very wet. We believe that this has a very
high water ~able. If you take a look up here on this site you
ca~ see it's very brow~, indication of a lower water table.
This is a shallow water table. Another shallow water table.
In addition, you're looking at 2 million dollars for
pipe.
MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, because it's further out?
MR. 0LSON: Yeah, and yom'ye got to -- you've gotta
r~nyour pipe, or it's recommended that you lay the pipe in
the street right of way to get to it. So, you're looking at 2
000587
10
get stated. So, that really eliminated that from our
considerations e~ly.
~ograp~ has a lot to do with this. It really is
essential that we're ~le to ann~ the property ~ickly, so
that we can ~t short the review process. ~e o~y site that
lends itself to that is this one. Became we -- MAYOR E!MERs: ~d that is?
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
21
MAYOR EIMERS: And that one is circled this
M~. OLSON: Bazatus.
MAYOR EIMERS: Mr. Bazatus.
~. MULLER: And what about the Ann Edwards land?
What did you find out about it?
MR. OLSON: Can you point? Which one is it?
MALE SPEAKER: I guess it's --
MR. MULLER: Right across -- below Bazatus' there.
MS. A~P: Yeah, Edwards.
MR. 0LSON: Right hers?
MR. MULLER: I think that's it.
MR. 0LSON: Well, as you can see here, you've got a
lot of wetland issues at this time and the distance is
little bit more, it's very hard -- you know, wh~ you look a
this I mean, it's just very plain, you've got~a big, dry area
to put cells. You don't have that here. The site is all
split up. If you look down here to a lesser extem~, this one
O~O~ * -~
1
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
11
!is too and you've got the high water table.
MR. MULLER: How about Soulen~s.
MR. OLSON: I'm sorry?
MR. MULLER: How about Phil Soulen's.
MR. OLSON: Is that south here
MR. MULLER: East.
MR. OLSON: East?
MR. MULLER: I believe it's southeast, it would be
east of Ann Edwards.
MR. OLSON: Over here?
MR. MULLE~: I tb-~ Meckel has a -- he has a~
exca~tion business do~ in there. Right in that area down in
there where your finger is.
MR. OLSON: Well, you know, again--
MR. MULLER: Which is dry land.
MR. OLSON: I guess you'd have to point to it here,
but in this area, you know, you've got lost of residential,
you've ~t streets broken up.
MR. MUIJ~ER: No, no, no, there's no residential. I
went out there yesterday.
MS. AP.F: It,s not -- that's not showing.
MR. MULLER: It's probably just off the southeast of
Ann Edwards.
MR. OLSON: Hain, what I've got to do is take this
size of a piece of a proper~y that looks like this.
O0O590
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10!
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MAYOR tIMERS: Hey, could we please stop the
discussion in the audience eo we can hear up here, please.
Thank you.
.MR] OLSON: I mean, it's really that simple
Counselor Muller, take my hand end where do you see a spot
like this on the map? I'm just not seeing it.
Right
there.
MR. MULLER: It'd be southeast of Edwards, I guess.
M~. OLSON: Southeast here?
MR. MULLER: Right -- right up -- just up from
MR. O~SON: Here?
MR. MULLER: Right in there.
MS. ~tP: Yes.
MR. OLSON: Ail right. I'm finding trouble --
MR. MULLER: Well, you just had your hand on it?
MR. OLSON: Right here?
MR. MULLER: Just a little bit up, right there.
Right in th~se areas in there. And I'm assuming that's where
it is, but it's excavated out.
MR. OLSON: Yeah, it --
MR. MULLER: There's no growth aro%u~d it as far as
people.
MR. OLSON: Yeah, I don't see anything that's --
MR. MULLER: It's got natural hillsides on it.
00059]
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~0
13
MR. OLSON: I --
MR. MULLER: I just don't know if anybody has called
him. I guess what I'm looking at is has anybody talked to him
in terms of what it would cost, if he says no then obviously
it isn't' for sale.
MS. ARP: Well --
MR. OLSON: Well, again --
MR. MULLER: And that creates a problem.
MR. OLSON: But again, I don't see an 80 acre piece,
let alone a 160 acre piece in this area that's clear and davy
and not broken up by roads or wetlands.
MAYOR EIM~/~S: But in tr~th, that's one that we have
not looked at, correct? Brian, I mean, you know, we have
MR. OLSON:
dow~ here and haven't
~. COLTON:
appearsto me too, is
piece of property for
that's the only thing
'MR. OLSON:
MR. COLTON:
Specifically, no, but we have looked
seen a viable piece.
Well, you knOW, the other thing that
that the only thing we look at is 'a
two cells, yon kn~w, and I'm not sure
we should be looking at.
You said that you went south, but when
we went south when we first talked about the Maki we talked
about one giant pond --
MR. OLSON: Mm-hmm.
4
7
[0
11
12
17
:1.8
14
MR. COLTON: -- you know, rather than some other
different configuration, so. Well, I'm not sure the story
would be the same.
MS. ARP: At some point I would like to ask J.U.B.
what else they looked at, because they wen~ through this after
the Maki and looked at it, is that ~- can that add to the
discussion here for the council member's benefit?
MAYOR tIMERS: Sure, if you wish to ask it.
MS. ARp: I would like to ask it. Is there anything
that could be added as to sites that had been discussed?
MR. WA~NE~: Just a little bit of history. Our
first reaction to the project and our first -- in fact, our
first recommendation was that the storage cell be located
south of tOW~ near ~he area that was going to be irrigated.
An~' that recommendation was ~de for a number of reasons.
Reason 1, was tb~at it's a relatively anpopulated
a~ea there, it's not densely developed, so we thought impacts
on adj~tn/ng properties would be less.
We were -- would have been able to build a s~ller
pipeline to the storage reservoir.tb~n the 18 inch line that
was built because you would sent it ou~ there all the time
instead of just need to send all the flow in a three month
period. So there were project cost savings there.
Our perception was that the land costs would be less
~cause it was out in an agricultural area a~ not nestled in
000592 000~,93
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
15
close to the City of McCall.
There were -- there was some -- if it was properly
sited, relative to the irrigatio~ areas, we though there would
be som~ savings in pumping costs too. And that's what was
logical tO us and we looked at a variety o~ sites south of --
south of town and those were discussed at length in the
bearings with -- that on -- as we were doing the environmental
information document facility plmxu:ing and the Council will
remember the room was full of people. That -- and I didn't
know that that many people lived in that country or where they
came from, but they objected very strongly and there was
petitions sig~ed that objected very strongly to both sides.
Now, the other problem that existed and became very
obvious'would exist was the ability to geta conditional use
permit from the county for a site that was remote from the
city. That seemed like it would be a very difficult task. So
those sites and as I -- instead of fighting through that, at
the tiTM the city said, okay, we want to -- and one of the big
come, ts a~d it was coming ~ack again and agat~ ~_nd agai~ for
the folks that lived in the county was, gee, you rich people
in McCall are sanding your sewage out to us poor guys in the
county and you should keep it home, you know, we don't, you
know, that was -- just forget that it was very highly treated
effluent, forget there were any odor issues and forget all of
that kind stuff, that was -- it was the perception that was
000594
1
2
3
4
5
7
10
2O
21.
16
felt by a group that didn't want to see something go forward.
So the compromise in that process that was made was that the
city would seek a site that was in close to tow~ a~d close to
the facility, the existing plant to put the storage on.
In my opinion, south of tow~ yo~will find sites
that make perfect sense to put this thing on, from a
standpoint of economics, from the standpoint of be able to
build it there, I think that can happen. But I don't know if
you can be successful with the institutional problems that are
there. And I'm not even sure how significant those problems
are today.
With the implementation of the J-Ditch project
there's a lot more acceptance out there of the concept of
waste water being used to irrigate with a~d a lot of the
landowners are actually involved in the J-Ditch project, some
very large la~u~owners. ~ it might -- may be that one of
those property owners would bo willing to work with you on
selling -- amount to a very small portion of their holdings
for this kind of a thing.
And perhaps, you know, you've been irrigating out
there this summer with effluent from the pla~t an~, you know,
it's ruing out to be very much as represented. It's not --
it's not a big deal, it's not a big issue there's, you know,
this -- a lot of the fear maybe is gone. Maybe you would get
a different reaction if you go back now and talk to that
000595
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
17
Community about this again. Maybe you guys -- I don't know -~
I can't judge that, but I think, to me, that probably is the
big thing with moving south of
The Seubert site was not an irrational selection.
A~ owner that wanted to sell it a~d was wi%ling to negotiate
and be consistent with that. Its proximity to the plant was
attractive because effluent can flow from the plantinto
storage without being pu~ed and piped somewhere else and
there is savi~gs in that, that it can just leave the plant
flow by gravity --
MAYOR BIMERS: But in answer to Marilyn's question
your response is that f~her south would be your ihitial
reaction? Do~a~ in the il-rigation area?
MR. W]%G~R: That was our initial reaction
yea~s ago, You= Honor.
MAYOR EIb~S: Yeah, got you.
MR. ~%GNER: I haven't --
MAYOR EIMEP~: I know.
MS. A~: And the sites are potential #- there are
potential sites it just maybe the politics of it is the
problem.
MR. W~NER: Right, the institutional problems that
go with -- that go with --
MS. AP.P: R/ght.
MR. WAC~NE~R: -- that go with doing that.
!
2
3
6
?
8
10
!1
12
l$
'14
'18
18
MAYOR EIMERS: okay.
MR. OLSON: Your Honor, we --
MAYOR BIMERS: Brian.
MR. Oi~ON: -- we identified that issue as being
major. Andy Locke took a look at that and t~.e conditional use
per,Lit is a critical path that we simply can't make if we go
outside an area that we can annex. So, for the same
geographic reasons that the Setuber~ site was centered on, we
centered on a site that we c~ul annex and avoid those problems.
MR. ~AGNER: Your Honor, I don't want to belabor
this, but I have one question to just kind of throw out here.
Was the area, Bria~ --
MR. OLSON: Mm-hmm.
MR. WAGNER: -- next, how much -- there's a hunk of
area that's zoned tc~ay as ~gh density residential, isn't
there?
MR. OLSON: Right here.
MR. W~: And where is that, where is that --
MR. OLSON: Right here. Bluebird.
MR. W~5~R: Is it Bluejay?
MR. OLS~: Bluejay.
MS. ARP: It's Bluejay. Okay.
MR. WAGNER: It's adjacent to --
MR. 0LSON: It's between the city limits and the
Bazatus' property which is why we ~uld be able to a/~_x.
000597
14
15
~3
MR. ~: ~d how ~ch -- how n~.ch
~R ~r on the w~ll nex~ to ~y ~ich ~ll sh~ ou~ zoning.
~. ~: Y~ah. ~S area righ~ h~re i~ w~C we
call medium ~si=y bu~ it's our higher= ~ity resi~Kial.
minim~ lot size of t~ =~us~d s~e ~ee~.
l~d ~e~
~. ~: I~ w~ld de~ ~ w~ ki~ of o~rs
~u ~uld e~c= co~ng out of a ~reated e~flu~= ~nd. In
pro~, ~he Baza~us p~y, i= -- =h~re's a fairly
i~ac~ ~ =~ of usage i~ ~ul~ be ~y --
2O
I ~n'u know what is all involve~ in this.
from a cost st~w/%dpoint and a safety s~a~point0 public
an~ it's really uha=
SQUIRE:
OLSON:
SQUIRE:
OLSON:
Would y~u come forward, please
Hi, w~ haven't met. I'm Joe Squire.
Joe squire.
MR. BASTIAN: Paul Bastian.
FA~. OL~ON: Paul Basciazx.
MR. BASTIAN: My name is Paul Bastian, I'm from the
geotechnical aspects of this project to go forwar~ with the
regax~g this site an~ what I'd like to do ia to -- if y~u'll
briefly summarime what y~ur opinio~ are of what we' re looking
sur~ a~pra¢iate it.
MR. S~UIRE: Sure. Well, Paul's ~he ~eote~ical --
the issues and we just briefly visited the site so we could
visually see it.
7
9
I1
and liquefaction which can cause slope instability of that
ll
20
to 1 here, would it be as big a concern?
stability.
MS. AP~: Which has apparently been the concern that
we ~e~p hearing 57 feet.
~amic load v~rsus a pseudo-stauic, I thin~ is their
t exlninol~gy ana/ysis.
dynamic load and the pour [sic] pressure and a 3 to 1 slupe,
25
I~OR EVIl: W~t did yOu -- I'm sorry, I missed
MK. SQUIRE: We did not pr~s~ ~ecifically for
~. S~: -- on the se~e~ site whi~,
tmst for ~l~g that dam? Is it ~he soils t~= are
~m=ial ~t's there ~d avail~le in ~fi=i~t ~tiuy.
evaluation we'd lay ~t if it ~s ~en i~o~e~ or if
left o~ or if it's in-si=-u [p~netic] -- or -- so =o
6
7
15
23
25
:ould be steele, iu may no~ be stabl~.
M~. ARP: I just have another question. So now,
you're subcontracte~ with HR2 [sic]? Because I thought we had
if we -- if w~ go that way we' re going to do some morn work on
there anYWay?
26
1 determine what the suitable use for the material that is there
2 i would be.
3 MR. MULLER: If the -- I guess what the terminology
4 they use on 3 to 1 sloping? Ten state standard, does that
5 sound right? That came from some place I .read, I can't
6 remember where.
7 MR. BA~TZAN: Yeah.
8 MK. MULLER: If that's a ten state standard, do they
9 compute that ten state standard not only frsm a 3 to 1 slope,
t0 but from the height as well? So what's the allowance on
11 height?
12 MR. BASTIAN: Well --
13 MK. SQUIRE: I don't know if we can answer that.
14 MR. BASTIAN: RAther ~- yeah, rather than stick with
15 a ten state standard because quite frankly I'm not familiar
16 with all the ends and outs of that. That -- I would rather
17 approach this on a site specific basis, evaluate what is there
!8 and then make recommendations based on specific conditions and
19 not on arbitrary standards which may or may not apply.
20 MA~E SPEAKER: Good point.
21 MR. MULI~ZR: Is there a difference between a dam
22 that's made, as far as inte~ity is concer~ed, from soils that
23 don't have a lining to soils that do have a lining?
24 MK. BASTLAN: Yeah,' an unlined s0il in, specifically
25 on the site we're looking at a cohesionless fairly permeable
1
3
4
5
7
9
11
12
19
2O
24
25
9
11
14
15
17
lS
21
23
27
soil. Unlined you'd get a freatic surface in the embankment
which would -- well, I don't know how else to say this.
MR. SQUIRE: You'd get a ground water surface.
MR. BASTIAN: yeah, it's going to reduce effective
stress and eventually or consequently reduce the sheer
strength of the material that the embankment is built of.
It's going to make it --
MR. SQUIRE: It would fail.
MR. BASTIAN: -- less strong. Let's say it that
way.
MR. SQUIRE
MR. BASTIAN:
here a little bitl
MR. MULLE~:
MR. BASTIAN:
MR. MULLER: The lining would make it less strong?
MR. BASTIAN: No'.
No, the liner --
-- a lined condition, let me back up
The lining is going to make it strong.
Yeah, let me back up here a little
hit. The p%trpose of lining is to keep that freatic mzld water
surface out of the emba~tkraent.
MR. MULLER: P, tght.
MR. BASTIAN: That's its purpose. Now, the truth is
is that liners leak and so as you design a system like this
you've got to.account for the fact that that liner may leak.
And being that this is a high risk structure you're crazy if
you don't.
000599
~{te awh/le ~nd hasn't l==kc~ yet. I'm assumll~ in's bull=
OUt of geo~ materials, it may he different mate-rials than
w~t's a~ar~t on ~e s~ace. I don'~
t~t ~y be a ~d ~alysia because the soil ~y be ~etter, it
I ~ at the ~cttom of the outside of the dam --
~. ~T~: Ye~, ~11, t~t's what we' re ~iving
at ie -- an~ ~ rec~n~tio~ here need to ~ site
~ere~ the~ ~ s~ issues that the ~partm~t of Water
'~. ~: ~d a~ently t~se issues a~'t
~. ~: Yeah, ~d i thi~ t~t if th~
glossed ~r or i~or~ I t~ t~t ~e~'s long
~. ~LE: In u~er wor~, the ~terial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
1~_
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lB
17
18
19
2O
21
22
24
25
28
MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, I understand.
MR. SQUIRES: Besides the liner potentially leaking,
there's some shallow ~Cround water and s~rface flow c%~rrently
out there right now, probably around anywhere from 10 to 30
gpm and that would have to be addressed wi~h some type of
underdrain system and I'm sure it probably has been at some
level, so.
MAYOR EIME~S: Okay.
MR. COLTON: And the information about the soils and
the earthquake tki~g was not addressed in the report that you
reviewed?
MR. BA~TLAN: Well, that was a preliminary report,
think the report that we have, and I don't know that I'd get a
lot of argument is probably not sufficient to carry this thing
to completion. W~at was done was a preliminary report and in
order to take this thing to a final successful completion I
~hink there's some additional infoz~nation that needs to be
gathered and addressed.
MAYOR EIMERS: Mm-hmm. Ail right. So you just --
when you -- I'm looking at this thing in terms of what I've
seen in other areas and I don't know if the soils -- cause I'm
not a soil -- whatever you call those people that look at
soils and say they're good or bad, what you people do. I look
at ~lackhawk Lake which is probably 70 acres or better, it's
estimated at 60 feet high, a 2 to 1 slope, it's been t_here for
000~00
MR. BASTIAN:
way.
MR. VEN~BLE:
MR. BASTIAN:
MR. VENABLE:
permeable.
MR. ~ASTIAN:
my stamp on it. Okay?
30
Well, I think it -- let me put it this
You said it's permeable.
Yeah.
It's sand a~d 9Tav~l and it's
At 2 to I slope, I'm not going to put
Without doing some evaluation to make
sure that that is in fact correct and that includes a seismic
evaluation which I don't think has been completely addressed.
MR. VENABLE: Right. Yeah, exactly what you said
before.
MR. BASTIAN: Mm~hmm.
MR. VEI~ABLE: But the soil is there now and it's not
acceptable to the'dam by itself without doing something with
it?
MR. TERRY HOWA/~D: Okay. I'm Tez~-yHoward from the
Strata and I can answer some of these questions.
MS. AP~P: Yeah, yes.
MAYOR ELMERS: Yes. Are we through?
MR. OLSON: Well, you guys don't have anything else?
I have -- is there anyone here from HDREngineering?
MR. BRUCE: Yeah.
MR. OLSON: Oh, I'm sorry, Bob. Would you -- can I
ask you one question to put you on the spot a little bit.
5
6
?
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
2O
21:
2'>
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
31
MR. BRUCE: Yes.
MR. OLSON: Okay. Bob, you've looked at the various
sites out there and HDR is interested in bidding this project.
What would be younr concerns if you bid on the Seubert site and
what would the cost be a_nd would you bid it?
MR. BRUCE: I should introduce myself, Brian, I
guess, if I'm ~oing to be put on the spot. My name is Bob
Bruce, I'm with HDR Engineering in Boise. We've had some
preliminary discussions with Nelson Construction Company of
Boise looking at the possibility of forming a team to bid on
the project. /%nd Nelson Construction has a great deal of
familiarity with both this area and with this type of project.
They're currently constructing a similar pond facility for the
Idaho Private Prison project south of Boise. ~_nd so they are
fan'liar with lihed ponds, lined waste water ponds and are
building one right now. They've also worked on the airport
~xtension and are quite familiar with some of the ground water
concerns that they feel they' 11 have to address or we will
have to address on the Seubert site.
And getting directly to Brian's question regarding
the slope, the dam that would be required. Frankly, I don't
think that Nelson Construction nor ~DR would take the risk of
bidding the project if we were to be required to stay with the
cu-~rent concept. In other words, we'd probably have to bid an
alternative that would be closer to what Brian had discussed.
O00G02
33
~o do, I'm just saying that from our liability point of view
and our insurer's point of view we wouldn't bid the project as
it's currently laid out.
MAYOR EIMERS: One question I'd like to ask. If we
were to go out for a bid, would you come bgck with an
alternative desig~ and associated costs, or would you just --
MR. BRUCE: Well, hopefully we'd have the option of
doing that, we'd have to. In other words --
MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah.
MR. BRUCE: -- we wouldn't he ahle to -- we couldn't
go with what's laid out now.
MAYOR EIMERS: I understand.
MR. BRUCe: And. yes, we'd have to come back with an
alternative.
MAYOR EiME~S: I understand what you're saying.
MR. OLSON: And the costs would be?
MR. BRUCE: We don't know, Bria~, hut we think they
would he higher, we looked -- we discussed the possibility of
an impervious core of some sort, clay material. We also
discussed the possibility of an RCC dam on the east end, a
roller compacted concrete dam, and that's something that I
d0n't k~ow if you folks have looked at.
MB. MULLER: No.
MR. BRUCE: And I don't k~ow that it's been
discussed. It's a possibility and would it be less costly
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
1
3
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
23
25
32
We also discussed some other options when we met
with them last week. Their representative has visited the
site several times and he also is a geotech~ical engineer by
training and project manager by background. And Jim Nelson
was with us, he's the owner of Nelson Construction and the
liabilities associated with bidding a project, as it's
currently laid out, are so high that I don't thi~k that we
would -- I'm sure that HDR would no go, I can't speak for
Nelson, but I.believe they would no go also.
MS. A~: I have a question. What do you mean by
current layout, is that the 2 to i slopes?
MR. BRUCE: Yes, correct. With the materials there
and a single liner there's tremendous concerns that we
discussed both with Nelson a~d their familiarity with -- and
they also do ponds -- similar ponds they've done in the mining
industry in Nevada and also in Idaho. They're OUt working at
~he Stibnite mine right now. And they've bee~ involved in
landfill projects, Boise Landfill, for example. They did a
lined facility at the Boise Landfill that was a lined ditch in
similar material and the liner failed in one y~ar.
Andso, it's -- the sa~d materials got water in --
%u=dez~leath the liner a~d collapsed into the thing and
basically it just kept filling down.
And it's a concern. It may he that it's possible to
build it. I'm not here as an expert saying that we know what
000~03
chez1 an im~ervious clay cor~? Frankly, I ~oubt ik, I think it
would probably he in the same range or more.
MR. MULLE~: [unintelligible].
~. OLSON: So, ~'re s~ill talking,ill,ns of
dollars?
looking at a fairly hefty ~verrun over what your estimate is
MR. BRUCE: Thanks.
MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. Okay. Are there other
over to the gentleman from strata. Is t~at an a~propriate -
nex~ step right now?
MS. ARP: Yeah, I think so.
MAYOR EIMERS: Shoul~ we do it right now? Okay.
MK. W~N~K: Your Honor, Georg~ Wagner again.
~%YOR ~I~A~S: Yeah. George.
MR. W~: I'd like to introduce Dr. Howard with
Strata. A~you've met Bob. They ~ the Rrimml'y
investigators for geotschnical work and they're -- in an
evaluaeion of the prelimirhary design that J.U.B. proposed for
the lagoo~.
MR. TE~Ry HOWARD: Wail, let me just introduce
1
3
4
?
9
l0
!l
13
14
15
15
2O
22
23
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
19
2O
35
myself since I haven't had a chance to meet all you. I'm
Terry Howard a~d I'm a principal with Strata and I'm also a
professor of geotechnical engineering at the University of
I had 30 plus years of experienc? in this business.
Constructed a~d designed a lot of embankments, a lot of
impo~dments, a lot of dams. This is my brother, Bob Howard.
He owaed -- has a BS and MS degree i~ geological engineering,
MR. OLSON: Excuse me, sir, could you speak a little
louder, please.
MR. OLSON: Could you speak a little louder please?
behind the geote6hnical engineering report that the city has
" Now, it seems like there's a lot of folks talking
about our design a~d they have very little information, other
than what we've provided in our report. And the truth is we
talked today. We are the ones that did all of the geologic
research and we did all of the subsurface exploration
associated with that particular site. So, I think we come
from a k~owle~ge base that no one else in this room can
support.
000~05
37
materials that are associated with that site are safe. We
have done the necessary calculations using the data that comes
from our laboratory and the factor safety for slope stability
is greater than 1.5.
Now, one thing that we've misinterpreted is that
this is not a dam, this is an impoundment, and it's a fully
lined impoundment. And that simply means that we' re going to
be controlling the water in the embankment. In other words,'
we won't allow water in the embankment. Now, sure, liners
leak and we know that, but we will desig~ an underdrain system
that will pick up any leakage and it will pick it up in a
matter that we'll know where the leak is coming from and we'll
be able to respond to that leakage and get it repaired
quickly. So, there will be no water in the embankment.
water is, of course, is the cause of many slope failures.
Now, dams, I've designed a few dams on 2 to 1
Slopes, more of them are 2 and 1/2 to 1 and some are 3 to 1,
it depends on the material. But the sa~d and ~-avel at this
site is very strong. And the thing that controls the strength
of sa~d and gravel is compaction, density. And so what we
will do is control the density duri~lg the co~s~l~/ction process
to gain whatever strength we need to make the slope stable.
That's a very easy thing to do. All it requires is a
knowledge of the design procedure ~d then adequate
construction monitoring to make s~re that the density is
12
18
21
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
20
21
~y ~ state4 this project ~uld be via J.U.B. ~d we've
let's 1~ at this site ~d the first thing ~ ~nt to
~sc~r, if the~ is ~ issue t~t w~ld cause the project
bit of ~ey to do our e~loration ~d if we ~o~d such ~
issue th~ we ~ld ~t the project ~d ~ ~uld look for
So, J.U.B. ~giRe~rs and o~ engineers looke~ at the
site, we ~de ~ee trips ~d did a little bit of preli~
~s site is a go~ site. ~e e~ts that we
~ ~e~ ~ ~lt safely.
Now, ~er~'s ~ ~te a bit of ~o~=i~ or
Slopes. ~= ~ei~el~er sa~ they ~'t put t~ir sta~ o~
~ aav~ t~e ~erience ~o ~ t~t 2 =o I sl~es in the
38
Obtained in the field.
We've also talked about bringing clay onto the site.
Well, that's silly. There's absolutely no reason to bring
clay on the site, clay is the worst soil that you can use to
build a~ emba~ent because it is weaker than the sand and
~ravel. If we're going to build a de, we use clay as the
core, simply because it provides an impermeable membrane to
water. But we don't have that situation here, we have a fully
lined impoundment. We don' t need clay. Clay makes an
embaukment weaker. So we want to build it out of the best
material and the best material is on this site.
Now, this other site has been pointed out as being
one and Mr. Olson says that it has a low ground water because
it's bruwn, well, I submit that that's not correct. I suspect
that the 9To%knd Water is relatively high there. It's brown
simplyhecause the ground water is lower than the grass roots.
The grass roots godowa, what, a foot, two feet, even five
feet. So, you're still going to have a ground water problem.
We've measured the ground water across this site and we know
it's at river level here and it's very high up here, so
there's no reason to suspect that it's not high over here. I
mean, the ground water is not going to be low here, low here
and high here. It will he high here too. So, you'll have
ground water problems associated with that site.
Geologically, the material in this site is exactly
O00607
1
2
3
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
3.9
2O
21
22
23
25
39
the same as the material in this site. Ail of this material
came from the glaciers that pushed out the Payette Lake and
deposited material from the glacier outwork. $o, we're going
to be dealing with the same kinds of problems with this other
site. I submit to you.
MAYOR EIMERS: On that -- on that point. If you're
talking, I don't k~ow, I'll ~,ke up a number, 17 fegt above
grOU~ld in one case versus 57, do you feel better about the
materials? Do you hear the q%xestion I'm asking? If Seubert
is S7 feet on the east and the altez-native site is 17, you
knaow, 17 feet down and 17 feet up, do you feel better about
the materials at 17 feet tha~l 57 feet?
MR. TERRY HOWAP2D: We'll build it safe i~ either
MAYOR EIME~S: Oh, I know, but does one versus
another make you --
MR. TERmlY HOWL%RD: Uneasy?
MA~OR EIMERS: Not eve~ %uaeasy. Does one -- do you
feel better about one than the other?
MR. TE~/~¥ HOWARD= Well, I like this site because
it's a m~ltipla use. We've taken gravel out of it and now
we've got a pit and now we can build a new use for that
particular site.
MAYOR EIM~L~S: Yeah, I'm talking techn/cally.
MR. TERRY HOWARD: Technically I have no problem
O00GOS
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3.2
13
14
15
!6
17
3.8
19
2O
21
22
23
2¢
41
,.with the various agencies to address or at least discuss and
begin addressing those issues as, let's say, a second part of
the desig~ process. A~d that didn't happen.
MAYOR EIMERS: However, addendum number 5, if I
remember correctly was the one that you guys was on contract
for and implemented and I think we've been billed for it. Is
that correct?
MR. OLSON: They haven't ~ig~ed the last addendum,
but we did authorize them to fully complete their function in
this area.
MAYOR EIMRRS: R/ght. But that was my
understanding. Have we been billed for that?
MR. OLSON: We've been bil!ed for part of it, I
guess there's another bill coming.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. OLSON: But -- again, we haven't received -- as
~hey've noted, they hav~ work product we haven't received, we
could only make detar~natio~ based on what we have.
MAYOR EI~RS: I ~ow, but I ~nderstand that --
MR. BOB HOW~tD: ~here I'm coming at, Your Honor, is
that the technical issues that the F-leinfelder 9-ronp and Water
Resources have indicated are issues a~d we're not denying that
they're issues ~d that they need to be addressed.
MAYOR EIF~RB: Yeah, ! ~derstand.
MR. TEPd~Y HOWARD: One fu~her point, I'm sorry, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3-2
13
14
15
16
17
19
2O
21
23
24
25
4
6
?
8
10
13.
3.12
13
3.4
3.,:;
3.6
3.8
.20
22
23
40
'with 57 feet, 100 feet, you know. I'm not sure I'm answering
your question, but I'm not sure what you're --
MAYOR EIMERS: Well, you're technical people, I was
just asking a techaical q~/estion. Do you feel better a
structure if the materials are the same on one site as the
other site, do y6u feel safer with a 17 foot tha~ a 57 foot?
That was the question I asked.
MR. TERRY HOWARD: There's no difference.
MAYOR EIMERS: Huh?
MR. TERRY HOWARD: No difference, I have no
difference.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. BOB HOWARD: I might add one last thought that
Terry didn't approach. The point at which this report was
prepared did not ~rovide the entire scope of work I chink that
we bad laid out originally with J.U.B. and the Payette Lake
District with Water Resources and DEQ.
As I mentioned to you folks last week, we had
planned on having several meetings with them. In particular
Water Resources, since DEQ had obtained their services as
reviewers for the State and we recognize that, as I indicated
to you folks last week, that with the review process, why
there is going to have to he compromise issues dealt with, we
recognize that. Water being an extremely important issue and
with that in mind why, we had planned on having some meetings
O00G09
42
~ mention seismic. We did a seismic analysis and it's
_'s called a pseudo-static analysis and it's accepted
procedures in the industry and the factor safety for that
amalysis was 1.3. Again, a factor safety that's accepted in
the industry. We've also did a liquefaction study and we're
satisfied that the materials o~ site are nos-liquefiable.
MS. ~P:- I need to ask a couple of questions.
MAYOR EIMERS: Please, please.
MS. ~%P: And one is a d~uab question, but I kept
hearing cohesionless, cohesionless, cohesionless, have you
addressed?
MR. TE~RY HOW/%RD: i can. Cohesionless mean~ that
it has no cohesive soil in the system, it's sand a~d gravel.
Cohesive material would be a clay.
MS. A~P~ ~ight. And so how does that apply to the
Seubert site?
MR. TE~RY HO~: Well, there is very.little
cohesive ~terial at that site, it's mostly sand and gravel.
And from our point of view sand and ~avel is absolutely the
best material you can use for a construction of almost
anything.
MS. ARP: Ca~ I ask One more on what DWR wrote about
asking for t~e other kind of -- I have to get to my notes.
The other kind of analysis. Dynamic response method.
MR. TEP~Y HOWARD: That's a method that's been used
O00GIO O0O131
43
t~s pa~ of I~o our sei~ic histo~
~ say, south~ste~ I~o. ~ so, ~'ve ~ne so~ -- let
t~S of ~alymis for ~t~ce. Rie~ ~ because th~ ~ve
li~efi~le soils ~d ~cause it's a higher earth~e riak.
~e, is the seis~c' risk ian't ~ite as ~reat,
12 pressure or pore pressure that's ~quake.
20
21
22
23
One final point, is that there will be n~ water in
the =~ug~ment b~aus= iL's a lined s~te~.
~. BOB ~: ~d to a~ ~o t~t t~ght a bit,
~ I th~ I dis~sse~ ~his with ~ folks last week also.
be ~e~ to control =he freatic ~face ~ a ~m, okay? ~d if
~ere are so~ re~cias ~hat need ~o -- ~uld need to be
d~i~ in~a t~ p~tluul~ ~e desi~, ~n t~re are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1~.
15
16
17
lS
19
20
2~
22
23
2A
25
other options available to approach, other than a roller
compacted concrete or a clay core.
And I th/~k, -- and I thirLk the real key here is
being able to understand that we -- that there is or is not
leakage in -- out of the cell. And there .are mean~ to be able
to collect seepage and to monitor to verify that there is or
isn't seepage. You could put pizometers into embankments to
also give another level of confidence that there is not
seepage in an embankment. So, I'm just suggesting to you that
there is a multitude of alternatives to be able to both
moruitor and control seepage out of this particular type of a
design.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very
much.
MS. A~P~: I have another q~estion. I'm sorry, ca~ I
ask one more question?
MAYOR EIMERS: That's fine.
MS. AP.P: About impoundment versus dam, does that
have to do with a dam being where there is water constantly
flowing in and what are the --
MR. TERRY HOWARD: ~rnat's the difference?
MS. AP, P: -- is t-hat versus an impo~dment because
this water is going to be in where and tbs difference in
the --
MR. TERRY HOWARD: Well, with a dam you've got a
45
level of water behind the dam and the water then flows through
the dam and we control that flow of water through the dam by
clay cores or other features. With t]~e impoundment we control
the level of .the water in the embankment that surrounds the
impoundment using the liner. And if the liner leaks we have a
detection system so that we can find where that liner is
7 leaking and we can cause the leakage to be fixed almost
8 immediately.
9 So, this -- a/1 impotuldment embankment is
10 considerably different, from a geotechnical point of view than
!1 a earth dam.
12 MS. ARio: Okay. I guess ~ dumb question was, when
13 I think of a dam I thiak of it also a stream, river, something
14 coming in and constantly filling that, is that different
15 [unintelligible] an impoundment? Maybe it has nothing to do
16 with t~s.
17 ~. T~RRY HO~L~%D: We can control the water that
18 comes into the impoundment you can't with a river.
19 MS. AI~P: Okay. So it's getting different kinds of
20 pressure. Okay.
21 MR. TERRY HOW~G~D: Yea.
22 MR. MULLER: D~ the pressures cha~ge, sir, from the
23 height and the volume from the flow of the water that's behind
24 the dam?
25 MR. TERRY HOWARD: No, water pressure is water
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
25
pressure, it's the same.
MR. MULLER: You have -- but it's not going to
change --
MR. TERRY HOWARD: No.
MR. MUI~LER: -- 17 feet, 100 feet, 57 feet?
MR. TE~RY HOWARD: San~.
MR. MULLER: It doesn't make a bit of difference?
MR. TERRY HOWARD: No.
MR. BOB HOWARD: To help you folks we brought, and
yOU can look at them whenever you want, some cross-sections 1
to I scale vertical, horizontal. It gives you a visual,
better visual understanding of what a 2 to 1 embankment looks.
like in both cross-section and longitudely too, for the east
embankment.
MAYOR EIMERS: At this point, I hear, I think if I
u~derstand it correctly a terrific difference between what you
guys are suggesting a~ what F-leisure!der is suggesting and
what Department of Water Resources is suggesting.
MR. TEI{RY HOW~RD: Rut remember we're the one's that
have done all the work out there.
MAYOR Elq4E~S: Yeah, and that -- but no, that's just
a concept~l difference. Because I thix~ you' re saying that
clay worsens the perfor~uarice of a dam, and IDWR is suggesting
that clay improves the performance of that. Whether we call
it a d~, a wa!l, whatever we call it, and I think we nee~ to
0006i3 0006i4
1
3
4
5
7
9
13
14
15
2O
21
24
25
47
pursue that and could we have the next --
M~. OLSON: We have IDWR here and again, I want to
~%ke it very clear it was a clay core not the entire dam
going to be clay.
MAYOR EIMERS: Right, exactly.
MR. OLSON: Is Bob Fleener in?
MR. FLEENER: Yes,
MR. OLBON: Could you come forward Mr. Fleener?
MR. TERRY HOWAP. D: Thank you.
MAYOR EIMERS: Thanks guys. Mr. Howard and Mr.
Howard.
MR. OLSON: Very nice to meet you.
MR. TERRY HOWARD: Good to meet you.
MR. OLSON: We appreciate you coming.
MR. TERRY HOWARD: YOU bet.
MR. OLSON: Bob Fleener is up from Idaho Department
of Water Resources. sonny Hornbecker was here before. And
what I want to do is I sketched the dam right off the
preliminax~ plans done by J.U.B. a~d as you can see it's over
50 feet, at 60. A~d then with ~y engineering exactness I
sketched freehand a 20 foot approXimate 3 to !. ~nd I think
that the gentlemen has stated that this is as safe as this.
A~d I'll just leave that to co~mon sense with the council.
Is Larry Paterson. Larry, could you come forward
too from the Department of Environmental Quality. I'm going
OOO615
48
to have Mr. Fleener end Mr. Paterson both be up here to talk.
I'd like th~m to answer a~y q~estions from cou~lcil that have
come up.
Mr. Fleener, do you have any preliminary commits
that you would like to make?
MR. ~R: I would like to just discuss size and
risk a little bit, just so we understand. Size is just a
measure of how high it is. And it does make a difference how
high it is. In other words, even in our rules you talk about
anything less than 20 feet doesn't have to be designed by an
engineer. That{s how safe we feel it is. We suggest it be
designed by an engineer but it does -- it's not recf/ired that
it be designed by an engineer. From 20 feet up, of course, it
does have to be designed by en engineer. An~hing over S0
feet, cr 40 feet,' excuse me, has to be -- is what you call a
large dam and it has some special requirements in ou~ rules.
The risk is just a' measure of what is downstream,
what would he damaged if ~he dam failed. So, anything over 10
feet is a dam, anything over 20 feet has to be designed by an
engineer. Just so you understand those size p~rameters.
The -- in this particular case this is a somewhat
%tnique design, it's not one that we would say is typical in
our rules, it doesn't really address these, it doesn't mean
that it can't be built safely.. Perhaps it could, but there
are some, you kmow, some things in it that we don't like to
O00G1G
5
S
10
11
'14
:I. 7
'18
2:1.
49
See and one is the redundancy that's not there. In other
words when you talk about a spillway, for instance, we -~ you
could install a pipe and get just as much water out of it, you
could empty the reservoir, but we say the spillway has to be
open simply because no one has to be there to clean it out at
certain times. It can operate by itself with no one present.
This one I think, you've heard, that it's going to
take some monitoring. You have to have a leak detection
system, you have to make sure that the thing is not leaking to
continue to allow it to remain safe. Because the only way it
would really withstand is if it's dry and what they've done is
designed a dam out of sand and'gravel that's dry. And as long
as it's dry it's probably perfectly safe. If it's not dry
then we -- and that's an analysis that we would want to see,
is what happened ~f it's not dry and a seismic event occurs?
Because we're concer~ed simply about safety for the people
that are dow~stream, for the environment that's do~nstream.
Okay. The preliminary comments.
MR. OLSON: Okay. Tha/%k you, Mr. Fleener.
Your Honor, questions from the council?
MR. COLTON: yeah. In reality then the issue about
the soils, you really haven't had enough of an advanced design
tO even really make much to comment about --
MR. FLEENER: Yes.
MR~ COLTON: -- whether the soil could be good, bad '
10
ll
'IS
50
or indifferent?
MR. FLEE~ER Yes, in fact, as he indicated in our
letter, we have not see~ a~ application, we have not seen the
plans, it's just our understanding from our discussions with
Strata and with J.U.B. of what they were planing to do.
And I think it -- from what you hear the liner is a
very important palco of the design of this dam. That membrane
is very important. A~d they' re not -- I can't say that
they're unusual, they're used in other places. The mining
industry uses them quite a bit because they have a very toxic
material that they're usually using and they -- but they
usually use them along with an i~pervlous structure and along
with a leak detection system. So.
MAYOR EIMERS: ~nen you say an impervious strHcture
what do you mean?
MR. FLEENER: One with clay in it.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. FLEENER: One that won't let the water through
it. Even though the liner leaks the water still remains in
the impoundment.
MR. MULLER: So you feel more comfortable with that
impervious clay structure -~
MR. FLEENER: That's the --
MR. MUL~E~: -- as a compouzzd of the
MR. FLEENE~: -- more typical structure.
1
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
25
about ?
about.
51
MAYOR EIMERS: That's the redundancy you talked
MR. FLEENER: That's the redundancy we'd he talking
MR. MULLER: Okay.
MAYOR EIMERS: Got ya.
MR. OLSON: Mr~ Fleener or Mr. Peterson, have yo~
e~cou~tered liner failures of a~y project in Idaho that you're
aware of?
MR. FLEENER:
MR. pETERSON:
MR. FLEENER:
MR. PETERSON:
Yes, there have been liner failures.
If I --
Yes, go ahead.
If I could just add to that question,
the Sta~e of Idaho does require all surface impoundments with
liners be leak t~sted annually, on the assumption that it's
not a ~atter of %f, it's a matter of when a~d it's the intent
~hat the leak detection annual test that gets done is to catch
them before they get a~ay, or get away too far. A number of
states have actually required double liner in these kinds of
impoundments. Some of out neighboring states require that,
Idaho does not require that at this time. But it's that
serious an issue when they leak, what happens behind the
liner, that the leak tests are required annually to catch them
before they may get too bad.
MAYOR EIMERS: But I need to ask a -- do we hear,
000619
MAYOR EIMERS: YOU don't?
MR. PLEENER: No.
MALE SpEAKEr: Mr. Mayor?
MR. FLEENE~: In fact, most of the time in
structures of this size the whole thing wi.ll be built out of a
clay sand/gravel mixture.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. FLEENE~: Because, you know, when you talk about
putting a clay core in it, it gets very expensive because
you're building really three dams. You're building an
upstream, a downstream, and a middle core at the same time.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. All right.
MS. AP.P: Now, though, I think I am hearing a
difference cause you're saying mix clay into the whole
thing --
MR. FLEENER: Sure.
MS. AR~: -- is that not, did I hear that?
MR. TERRY RO~L~2~D: I believe we're talking about two
different systems. A~d I believe these folks are talking
about an impoundment system for solid waste disposal. A~d
what they' re saying is you either put in a clay core or in
solid waste disposal systems, which we designed, you put a
thin layer of clay on the face of the embankment and that acts
as one impermeable system and then we put a liner on top of
that so we have a double system.
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
24
25
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
24
52
I'm hearing, help me understand if I'm hearing properly or
not, I'm hearing a difference between what Mr. -- what Strata
and Kleinfelder are saying, or maybe it's not even them, maybe
it's the difference between Strata and yo~ guys, what you're
saying, about the performance of clay and it's either use for
being other or not being necessary there. Is there a basic
disagreement between yo=r understanding of clay material in
there and theirs?
MR. FLEENER:
Strata's?
MAYOR EIKERS:
MR. FLEENER:
You mean between our understanding and
Yeah, or clays?
Well, the. clay -- and you don't want
tO -- it can't be.totally clay, I think that's correct. It
can't be totally impervious because clay does not have the
strength to stand there. So, you need a combination and
that's why you usually say imperwious, it has enough clay in
'it so the water will not travel through it.
MAYOR EIMERS: Right, I've heard clay core and then
I!ve heard clay on the surface.
MR. FLEENER: Right. A clay core is simply another
way of keeping the water out of this -- out of the dam.
MAYOR EI~RS: Azld clay surface is a way of
providing the redundancy the -- the water returning to --
MR. FLEENER: No, you usually don't put clay on the
surface.
~OG20
MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, I was looking for the 54
redundancy, that -- I was trying t° get in my own mind --
MR. FLEENER: Right.
MAYOR EIMERS: -- how that occurs. If I understand
what you're saying, you're saying that yo~would introduce the
clay I think, and the sand and gravel and Just kind of mash it
all together into One -- is that a tln/e statement or not?
MR. FLEEEER: Well, that's the typical dam that's
built of this size.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. ~: Now, we don't really get into the
waste treatment disposal clam, that's usually DEQ. The reason
we're involved in this one is because of its size.
MAYOR EIMEP~: P~ight, I understand.
MR. FLEENE~: Because it's a size and it's not
really a treatment dam, it's a storage dam.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. And what you're sa~ng is if
we go Sand/~ravel it doesn't have the redundancy that you guys
would see right off the --
MR. FLEENE~: P, ight.
MAYOR EIMERS: I understal%d.
MR. F~: Right. If you have a clay and 9-ravel
covered by the membrane, it does not have the redundancy.
MR. MULLE~: Does that ~ake a difference whether you
have 2 to I or 3 to i? Would you look for the same reduncLancy
O00IS2.1 O0062~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
55
in a 3 to 1 as you would a 2 to 17
MR. FLEENER: The 3 to I is simply -- it could be
safer, we don't really know without really running some tests
on it. We don't really know where -- because what we would
look at is if the water gets in there a~d, .you know, sand is
-- let's go back a little bit, sand you can pile up in a sand
-- well, if you put that in a can of water it may stay there,
it may not. If you come along and kick the can, the thing
probably collapses. That's what we're looking at with t~is
kind of material. As long as it's dry it probably stays there
pretty well. So, we would look at, you know, and the flatter
it is the more chance there is of staying there. A~d so,
we're -- that's what we're interested in, is how flat does it
have to be, made out of that material if it has water in it
because of the l~akage of the liner and not be u~safe.
MAYOR EIM~I{S: Okay.
MR. FLEENER: Okay.
MR. OLSON: Mr. Psterson, do you have anything else
to add from DEQ's perspective, anything else for the co%ulcil?
MR. PETERSON: Well, DEQ has a dual role, as you
k~ow, one is the environmental regulatory agency responsible
for reviewing the engineering design plans for construction.
The second role is as your ba~ker, or partly your banker in
that DEQ has both loan and grant funds in this project. So,
we -- we're looking very carefully on how the money is spent
000G23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
18
2O
56
'and we looked very carefully at the engineering aspects. When
we get to a s~rface impoundment of this dimension we do rely
on our sister agency, IDWR for their niched specialty in dam
safety. And so, ~e do ask them to do a complet, e review and
give us a thumbs up or a thumbs down on th~.t aspect of it so
that we can conclude our engineering design review of all the
other traditional' aspects that we see as a~ engineering review
regulatory agency. So, that's a common rule for us to play
together on surface impoundments of this size.
MR. OLSON: SO is that kind of a circumspect way of
saying that we can do this but it's going to take more
dollars?
MR. PETERSON:
that. I think that --
MAYOR EIMERS:
MR. PETERSON:
It likely would take a lot more to do
What did you say? I'm sorry.
I said it likely will take a lot more
dollars to do that kind of structure to get an engineering
sign off from IDWR for that kind of a structure. It's not if
it can be built, it's just what do you have to do to get it
built and it's going to cost more.
MR. OLSON: And that's the concern that staff has
and wants to relate to the council, is, you know, we're
looking at -- at what we believe to be costs in the millions
to satisfy regulatory and safety concerns. And why would you
want to build this if you can build this? That's the question
000S24
57
'that 'the council needs to answer. What staff would be willing
2 to propose at this point and what this is going to do is to
3 make us not be in compliance with -- thank you, gentlemen.
4 MR. PETEP~ON: Thank you.
5 MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you,~ gentle.men.
MR. OLSON: Make us not in compliance with the time
frames that we've agreed to, but we'll take the work product
that we have now a~nd we'll go to bid. We'll go to bid right
now with this design and we predict that the bids will be,
depending on if we get any, significantly higher tha~ the
estimates. And that will answer council's questions. But
.12again, we didn't want to do that because of the time frame
13 imvolved. But again, we'll put that on the table and during
14 that period of time we can evaluate other alternatives.
15 ' I'm very concerned about the second half of the
16 funding and th~ 2.5, but we'll work with the BOR and see what
17 we can do, but the -- ou~r prediction is that this will be much
18 costlier tha~ what we have in terms of predictions.
19 MR. MULLER: My concern is, obviously, the fact that
20 do we or do we not put fundings into Jeopardy for a week, if
21 we wait a week to look at alternative situations, because I
22 don't feel, you know, our -- that we have looked at all the
23 alternatives out there. I honestly don't feel that. I don't
24 have any infol-~ation. I've gone through everything I've got
25 here, all this stuff, Value E~gineering. and everything a~d I
1
2
3
4
1-I
1'7
18
:21.
2~
24
58
don't feel we've looked at everything close to that site. And
one of them is Soulen. Now, I'm not saying that's an
altez%%ative and he may say stuff it, you're not buying -- I'm
not selling my property. And you know, if you do buy it, it
stands out at fifteen thousand (15,000) an. acrs, I don't know.
But nobody has approached him for him to say one thing or
another.
And looking at that property, the distance is
somewhat further but it's not -- it's maybe -- if you look at
a quarter of a mile at his property and I go back here and if
you could -- now, I'm assumJ_ng if you condemned the Bazatus
you're looking at five thousand (5,000) an acre, a~d you've
projected eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) you would
get -- and if you could go into --
MR. OLSON: Can you help me again?
MR. MULLER: Up north of there, right in there.
MR. OLSON: Okay.
MR. MD-LJ~ER: If you could go into the Soulen's and
buy it for three, there's four hundred and eighty thousand
(480,000), that's a three hundred and twenty thousand dollar
($320,000) savings at a quarter a mile further away which is
1320 feet at a h~drsd husks ($100) a foot, that's one
thousand -- a hundred and thirty two thousand (132,000), that
saves you two hundred thousand bucks ($200,000) right there.
So, I don't think, in my own mind, I've had enough
000625
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
12
59
information to justify condemning at this point in time,
that's just my feeling. And I don't know -- but I also have a
real strong feeling on putting those ftuldings at risk and a
consent order. So, I need to k~ow from BOR, are they at risk.
I mean, are we going to pull it, if we wai.t a week to find
MAYOR EIMERS: You mean --
M~. MULLER: -- or go to bid, whatever.
MR. OLSON: The trip line is going to be in
September, Council Member Muller. I will call those folks
this afternoon if you choose this direction, but what I would
like is to show them that we're going forward. I would like
to go ahead and bid the' pre-desi9~ work that we haM, on the
Seubert site, without closing sale of the property, so that
when. these bids come in we still have flexibility to -- if
those bids come in as predicted very high not to do it. So,
if we can -- if I can approach them with ~he fact t_hat we're
being cautious with their funds, we're doing this to answer a
serious question accurately and completely, I'd be happy to
approach them on that today.
MR. MULLER: And I'd feel comfortable, I just --
right now I don't -- ex-press this to a lot of people sitting
in this room.
000827
1
2
3
4
61
heir them.
MR. M~rLLER: Well, I know that.
MAYOR EIMSRS: Right. And we're going to ask Andy
here in a few minutes to respond, if it's Andy or whoever, to
what we know about that and what that will.do --
MS. ~: Okay.
MAYOR EI~q{S: -~ to that site. That's kind of --
MS. A~P: Cause I think we're prematttre talking
about sending it out to the -- to bid on the pre-design work.
MR. DONALDSON: Yes, and Brya~ Donaldson.
MS. AR~: Oh, Donaldson.
13
14
MR. OLSON: Well, Your Honor, all I'm saying is, is
that we need to move forward with some progress and we have,
you know, apparently all kinds of geotechnical a~d design --
pre-design work ~hat's been done.
Our position is it's going to cost a whole' lot of
money whether you -- and we can put an alternative additive
for -- if we get additional land, if any is there a~d all the
cost, hut what's going to happen is, and we're very confident
at this by the way, is we're going to have costs ove~ of
millions of dollaz-s and no ~tter what the alternative is on
tb~s site. And that's what would show ~-
MR. MULLER: Well, the bidding process, if you use
all that information is going to show that?
0u06-9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
60
~alk to, and I probably say more than I should, but that's too
bad that these -- just the fact that people k~ow where in the
hell I stand. And I feel comfortable then, I can go to bed at
night and I can sleep, but I don't right now.
MR. OLSON: Rut does that fulfill your needs to bid
-- to go to a design bid build or design --
MR. MULLER: Question right here.
MAYOR EIMEI~9: Marilyn has wanted to ask a question
for some time.
MS. AP, P: I don't think that we've heard all we need
tO hear about the Seubert site. I think there have been some
proposals that have just not been noted. Granted this we-~t to
P&Z, but there have bee~ subsequent proposals that I think
make a 10t of sense. I don't think we have heard everything
the~e is to hear.~ We've heard possible proposals of reducing
-~ of getting more la~d, of reducing the wall size a~d things
like that, I don't think we've heard everything there is to
hear on'that and I think we -- and plus I had some questions
about asking some people to -- about t/~e redundancy and also
speak to the design for the leakage of the liner. My
understanding is there is a design to allow drainage of this.
And so, I don't think we've heardeverything that we need to
hear because I've been hearing in the last couple of weeks in
response to what the concerns were at P&Z, there have been
some other proposals on the Seuber~ site that we didn't even
OC, OG2S
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
62
MR. OLSON: Exactly, sir. What we'll do is we'll
put all of the additive alternates in there, all of the
possibilities will be in there.
MAYOR EIMER~: Well, I -- but I qot to run t~ough
and let me -- I would like to ask for a response to what
Marily~ was trying to add to a little bit here. What --
know, we went to Se~bert, Mr. Seabex~c's site because we felt
it would have public acceptance as a general rule, and then
Value E~gineering found that gee wiz, it's not really a very
good site, I mean, you got to kind of shoe horn it, we've been
hearing that. No matter how you -- no matter how you rub it,
that's kind of what we're hearing. A~d it's probably doable,
hut you've got to shoe hoi-~ it, so it's kind of like, you
know, it's the only woman I know, I don't love her but I'll
marry her anywayJ You k~ow, lt's just something I gotta ~o,
you know. And then -- the~l that's where we are and that's
where we're going a~d then the bad stuff starts. Then the
agency say I got a problem. Then the plan~ing and zoning goes
like this. Then, you know, and you say, well, gee wiz, I was
headed for this and now I'm beginning to hear some stuff that
doesn't sound so goo~. And it begins to say, well, shoot,
let's look at some other stuff and you know, that's -- it,s
you know, that's kind of where we are and that's why we've
called this meeting together.
And part of what's happened is we've heard som~
000630
3
4
?
'10
14
1.5
'1'7
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
13
14
17
1.8
19
2O
24
63
stuff from planning and zoning and right now the public is not
enamored with going on with where we were respecting Mr.
Seubert. Now, Mr. Seubert has done some additional work and
I'd like to hear a response from Andy or Brian or whoever,
ak~ut -- Mr. Seubert maintains that the we.tlands and the
siteing -~ or the asphalt plant can now be handled. A~d then
o~r question -- my question at this point is, is that true,
what does staff think?
MR. OLSON: Well, Andy can help me with this if you
will, Andy. But we. in conju/%ction, put together, please
excuse me, I only have about 400 memorandums here. Oh, here
we go.
MAYOR EIMERS: Do you want a light?
MR. OLSON: No, I'm fine, thank you, Your Honor.
(off-record col loquy)
Do you agree with that? Why don't you
MR. 0LSON:
go over that point.
MR. LOC~:
Yeah, the first th/ng I'll do is I'll
tell you what P&Z -- their decision and what was going on was
they -- after the first meeting more or less, they dropped the
idea of a~ asphalt plant. In other words, t~uat the asphalt
plant was another application that would have to follow a
rezo~ing and so they asked the Seubert's to try and find.a
site ~- another site on their property that's already
permitted for an asphalt plant that would preclude them having
uu0C~l
65
Property, approximately right here, to stockpile additional
gravel south of Rio Vista Boulevard. And it would he -- Rio
Vista subdivision extends -- if you take this West Valley Road
and you r~ it straight along this line here, that's the Rio
Vista area.
And so that's the -- that is the proposal that I'm
aware of.
MS. ARP: What would that take as far as rezone?
MR. LOCKE: The area --
MS. AP.P: Or what kind of a permitting process?
MR. LOCKE: Right. %~ne area above the sewer ponds
is already zoned industrial, it extends [u~tetligible] -- it
extends approximately like this and then it dips down and it
extends and dips dow~ here.
MAYOR EIMER~: This is the altex~ative site to Mr.
Seubert' s proposes?
MR. LOCKE: ~proxi~tely. What's that?
MAYOR EIMF~RS: That's the alternate that Mr. Seubert
proposed?
MS. AR~: Part of it.
MR. LOCKE: Part of it. $o what we would do is we
would have a storage area here for gravel materials, a stoz-age
area here for gravel materials and then everywhere in here
that. doesn't go into wetlands.
MS. ARP: Okay. And what permitting process would
5
6
7
9
!0
11
12
13
14
15
16
~7
!9
20
21
22
23
24
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
22
24
64
to come in, after the rezone, for a conditional use permit for
an asphalt plant located in the rezone area. And the rezone
area is right here. So, they made their positio~ on the fact
that this is not a good place to bring the industrial land
closer to the existing residences and star~ piling gravel
there was essentially -- because that was the intended use was
to stock pile gravel over there.
Now, my anderstanding is -- and I may foul this up
and you might wa~t to ask J.P. for clarification on this, but
that the gravel would be stockpiled in this somewhat of a
triangle area right here and it would extend back up to the
West Mountain road right-of-way exWcended. There's a bit of a
llne in there that's a -- it's an ii-rigation canal that brings
water tO their concrete plant.
What w~ -- what the proposal is then to is to place
gravel in here which would avoid much of the wetlands that ara
located up in here. There ~re sti~l some wetlands right down
off of -- this called Chad Drive. A~d there are some wetlands
off thiS, there's a bench right here and then it dips into a
wetland area.
And the proposal would be to stockpile gravel up in
this triangle, on.all the places that would ha outside of the
wetla/%d on the area just south of West Valley Road, at that
point West Valley Road being up here.
And then also to use a piece of the city owned
take?
anything?
I'm sorry.
MR. LOCKE: It would be a --
MS. · ~RP: $o the one above the pond wouldn't take
MR. LOCK~: Above the pond would~.'t take anything.
MS. ARP: Okay.
M~. LoCkE: I expect that you would get some
arg%Lments from the P~io Vista neighborhood --
MAYOR EIMERS: Probablyl
MR. LOCK~: -- in doing that. You -- but it would
be -- it is a perm/tted use in that zone.
MR. MULLER: Now what kind -- what store those
there? I mean, is that a long range thing or is that a short
range thing?
MR. LOCKE: I don't k~ow. Basically what we would
be doing is leasing property to Mr. Seubert to store it there,
store gravel there and thee1 however long it takes or whatever
kind of: conditions would be i~osed upon to the lease, as you
being the proper~y owners.
So, we'd have a storage site here, this would be the
primary storage area down here and it's still the same amount
of materials. $o, it's still the 770,000 cubic y~rds, give or
take. And actually maybe more since we're supposed to put a
100,~00 cubic yards to bring the wetland area up to a certain
elevation above sea level.
2
3
7
10
12
13
1¢
17
19
20
21
22
67
MS. ARP: Tell me a~in the permitting procu~
that piece?
~. ~: T~s still needs a rezone to i~dustrial.
~. ~: ~d on the process w~t -- l'm ac~lly
going to -- I'4 lik~ to have s~e kind of s~nse from ~u
as to h~ ~o p~ceed with t~t, 'cause I need to set a p~lic
hearing for the rezon~g conside~tion ~d it ~uld be a
meeting bet~ the city c~cil and the cowry co~s~ioners-
~R EIb: Right. Is =~t the -- just the same
e~ wo~d be the s~, it would -- w~t it ~uld
~oi~g is not ~ing ~to t~t ~l~d area ~d so the
usage ~d ~ less. I ~ess. But the --
Dl~t ~d ~ ~ But it ~ld ~ ~d onto a site ~at's
al~a~
~R E~: ~ich site?
~' SP~: ~t bec~es a non-issue of t~ batch
~. ~: ~e batch pl~= ~comes a --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
69
MAYOR EIMERS: I 'm not clear yet. They may not --
they may not like what happens to the asphalt plant, but in
tz-uth there's nothing they can do about it, is that a true
statement?
M~. LOCKE: It depends. As it s~ands to~ay or --
MAYOR EIMERS: No.
MS. ARP: A permitted area.
MAYOR tIMERS: If it stays in a permitted area.
MR. LOCKE: Yeah, they have nothing to say. Seubert
can just pick it up and move it over a 100 feet, whatever they
need to ~-
MAYOR EIMERS: And they're within their rights to do
that - -
MR. LOCKE: Yes.
MAYOR EIMERS: -- and Bluejay people may or may not
like it but there's nothing they can do ~bout it.
MR. LOCKE: Right.
MA. OLS0N: It's again, the rezone of the property
for storage of gravel --
MAYOR EIMERS: Right.
MR. OLSON: -- that would still be totally
necessary. And I think the co,oil, you can kind of see
what' s going on here, we ' re splitting Mr. Seubert ' s operation
and bisecting it by a number of roads into three or four
parts, I kind of lose track.
1
2
3
5
7
9
12
13
14
15
!6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
68
MR. MULLER: So, the issue is going to be the amount
of storage which is Still the same just in a different areas
that you're still possibly are going to have some controversy
from Bluejay Subdivision and possibly some from Rio Vista?
MR. LOCKE: Yeah, you' re going t9 have the same
opposition from Bluejay subd/vision that you have right now.
MAYOR RIMERS: Okay.
MR. LOCKE: In that other words, they're screaming
now because they don't wa~t to rezone and then if the asphalt
plant is to be moved over into there, they're going to scream
again on the conditional use permit.
MR. MULLE~:
MR. LOCKE:
MR. OLSON:
littler far,her.
MR. LOCKE:
Where would the asphalt plant be moved?
But no, that's ~-
It would be moved over this way a
Oh, I --
Because in the public hearings on the
rezoning the biggest initial concern was we don't want an
asphalt plant right next to us.
MS. A~P: Right.
MR. LOCKE: And so that's what brought them out.
And they said we don't want -- and we don't want the gravel
piles next to us.
MR. MULLER: Okay. Andy --
MR. LOCKE: And so that would be --
000G33
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
2A
25
70
MAYOR EIMERS: Right.
MR. OLSON: People in Rio Vista and people in
Bluejay have come to city hall and they've heard of this
option and one of the concerns that I thought was very valid,
besides the impact on quality of life, is what happens to
Boydston and Dinehard connector. ~3ain, you're separating in
having to go with trucks across all of these roads, and you
know, we're forcing something onto a sits that doesn't fit.
Exactly with Mr. Seubert as we are with our own project. It
doesn't fit, we're forcing -- and you need to determine if
that feels right.
MAYOR BIMEI~S: T~at -- I'm sorry, Alla~, go ahead.
MR. MULLER: Just going into a step further. If I
look across the street there on Mr. Bazatus' property, I look
at a sewer pond ~hat is 17 or 20 feet high is that going to
cause a problem as far as rezoning with the people that live
right across the street, which is right across the street from
there.
MR. OLSON: Mm-hmm.
MR. MULLER: As far as would anybody look at that
a~d say, well, I don't really want to look at a 20 foot high
wall sitting there, it takes away West Mountain from me and I,
you know, I've got to think of these too, so I want to bring
them up.
MR. LOCKE: That's right.
000G37
1
3
4
7
9
10
12
17
20
22
71
MR. MULLER: Is that something that could .be a
possible problem, or is there something that can be worked?
MR. LOCKE: You know, where you'll really get into
that is ~hen you get into public hearing, but in some initial
discussions with the Bluejay people it's a.-- was that, all
right, we're looking at a sewer pond or a sewer reservoir,
whatever you want to call it, I probably said sewer pond to
them, on the other side of the street from you, what is that
going to do to you. And they -- their biggest concer~ was the
wetland. They realized they' re in a bad spot where they are
and that -- this is a r~uoh better alternative for them than
what they were looking at now, in other words.
M~. OLSON: The same people that came in, Council
Member Muller, and talked to me about this 9-ravel issue and
asphalt thing, w~ went over this a~d this is the preferred
alternative. Mainly because there is so much acreage there,
we ca~ keep it low azxd we can buffer it so much.
We also went down to Donnolly and looked at t_heir
project. You really don't even know they're there until you
drive up on the ba~ks and they're Tn/ch closer than these would
be. And we would have a vegetated buffer with trees and the
whole works.
So, we'd make it a, you know, a n/ce project.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Let's see, now, so the
15
17
73
MS. ARP: I -- well, my suggestion was I'd like to
hear from Mr. Seubert as -- because he has been making some
what I would I like to know.
MA~/OR EIM~: Fine with me. Could we take a five
mi~ut e break?
MA~OR EIMERS: Would anyone mind doing that? And
~ ~- you know, we'v~ got an awfully important decision, but I
break.
MAYOR ~I~: ... Seaber~ is next. We have to
star~, i tnink coun=il has de~ided and asked if Mr. Seub~rt
point.
MR. SEUBERT: Your H~or, I'm J.P. Seubert and I
issue and the ~oving of uhe hot plant, was that the ~~
MAYOR EIMERS: Or --
1
2
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
19
2O
21
23
24
25
72
around it. sounds like there's a good chance we can go around
it.
MR. LOCKE: Essentially. You know, you ~ave to --
in order to work around it you get into a situation that may
not he workable, so.
MAYOR EIMERS: But there's a chance, you know,
there's a likelihood if you are to do it that way that you
could. Okay.
MR. LOCKE: That's right. In other words, if'you're
going to be using several piles, different piles out there and
you have to cross an arterial street then that's probably not
a workable situation.
MAYOR EIMEP~: Oh.
MR. LOCKE: Do you know what I'm --
MR. MULLER: Yeah, I know what you're saying.
MA¥OR.EIMERS: Oh, I see what you're saying.
MS. AP~: Except I' d like to hear from Mr. Seubert
on his proposal --
MR. OLSON: Mm-hmm.
MS. A~P: -- On how he would deal with this.
MAYOR EIMERS: Sure.
MR. OLSON: Thanks, Andy.
MR. LOCKE: Yep.
MS. A~P: And get to the --
MA~0R EIMERS: You can see -- what order do we want
000P39
74
MAYOR EIMERS: Or whatever you'd like to talk a~out.
MR. SEUBERT: Okay. Well, I'll cover those first.
In P&Z, it seemed to me, and I went to all of the meeting
obviously and a couple of their big concerns were the wetlands
a~d the hot pla~t and they asked me to work on that -- on both
those problems.
So, I got with my engineer and my technical people
and so forth and want to work on those two issues and number
one, we, after plotting everything out, we decided we could
leave the hot pla~t, or if it was required to be moved either
for the cells one, cells two or the so-called cor~lecter, it
would have to be moved in either case a~d we decided yes, we
could in fact move it and locate it on the ground thatwe
alreadyhave permitted. And as I said, some engineering work
went into that and so forth.
And the next thing -- so we solved that problem, but
I never was able to articulate that to them at any meeting. I
brought it up as a possibility. The reason I couldn't nail it
down is because there had ~0 be a mi~or adjustment in the
agreement that I have si~ed with the city in order to fix
that, in order to make the agreement flow ~ go. I was never
able to resolve that with anybody in the city because it
didn't seem like anyone was i~terested in talking about that.
So, I wasn't able to tell P&Z, yes, we ca~ do that. That's
number one.
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
2~
75
Number two, I was asked to address the wetlands
issue. So, I know the property fairly well out there and so
do the walker's a~d so forth, a~d I went to the cou-~thouse and
did my due diligence on the ground and the maps and so forth
and I got our engineer, who is an ex-army Corp of Engineer
gentlemen and we went to work on this problem. And I think
it's an understatement to say t~at we solved it. I think we
doubly solved it with, again, with a minor tweak in the
a~reement. We 'decided we could put 458,070 yards on our
property which is -- would be west of the cells and we could
put 220, I believe, 242,000 on the property that we would
acquire from Walkers. That would leave approximately 79,000
or something like that, left to go if the 770 is ~/1 accurate
fig~lre, and I think Bryan would be the guy to speak on that,
l~at -- but, so I'said well, we're about a h~dred -- by
staying completely off the wetlands, totally off of them,
'we're about let's say a 100,000 tons short.
So, I went to the co--house again, I thi~k first I
asked Andy whether the property north of the sewer ponds was
zoned iudustrial and he assured me that it was. I went down
to the cou~Wahouse got a plot of that 9Tou.nd, took it to my
engineer. Walked over the ~round, made s~re there wasn't any
wet grass out there, everything was totally dry. So, I said,
well, okay, how much will go on there and lo and behold
913,338 yards will go in there. Well, now, we're not
9
7
8
15
76
proposing to put that -- we're proposing =o put whatever w~u'L
go in cur drylaz~ on ther~ ~ ~ our a~eem~t, as I ~vision
it, w~!d b~ to use that ~=erial o~f first so it will be g~e
~ out of there-
So t~t -- do yo= ave ~y ~es=ions on t~ ~tl~d
~r the hot pl~t at t~s po~t?
as ~u were ~s~ssin~ and ~s ~uld be for ~dy. ~y, wh~
~. ~: There ~ul~'t be ~y approvals
~ fo~?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
28
21
77
Now, in regard to the material that it was stated,
oh, I think it was in the last meeting, maybe on a document
that I read yesterday or something that you were going to
stack all this material up for me and that was going to be a
big benefit to me and so forth and on and .it is. You know,
there's some benefit in that even though I have to go further
to get it, you bring it up out of the hole and so forth.
But what I don't think ~his council knows is, that
in these negotiations that went on for months and months, a
calculation came up of how much material I was going to lose
in th_is source. In other words i.e. if you build the cells
one and cells two here, what amount of material will I not gat
out of here that I would have gotten out if you did not put
the cells here. And that a~/%t was 509,794 cubic yards that
So, in the negotiation procedure that ~as a figure
that we negotiated on for half t_hm winter. That was one of
the i~gredients there. In other words, I'm losing T_his
~terial and what Brian has figured two dollars ($2.00) per
cubic yard that would be a million dollars ($1,000,000).
· Now, in the negotiation I did not consider what we
would lose in the connecter because we were dsaling i~ good
faith.
The point of all this is, you know, I've been
accused of trying to hold, you know, the paper a~d all that
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
going to
78
kind of stuff, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) an acre, and
ail these crazy figures. You people, I don't, you know, you
ca~ put your sewer pond where you want to, you're going to
anyway. You can put it on the moon or red (]/ina, it's up to
you.. But eight hundred and twenty thousand dollars
($820,000), when I'm losing a million dollars ($1,000,000)
worth of material just on the cells, plus I have to buy ~cound
from the Walkers a~d at least two parcels, plus other ground
to replace what I'm losing, for eight hundred and twenty
thousand' dollars ($820,000) is a bargain to the city.
Now, you can put you~ ponds where you want, like I
can put them in red Ctu~na. I don't care. You're
anyway, but I wanted to make that point clear to you.
As far as importing clays, you know, I -- you know,
we ~eard from the~ Howards, and I really appreciated their
comments, I thought they did a good job explaining it, but if
it so happens that you need clay, you know, for this
redundancy, guess what? I got olay so, you know.
MAYOR EIMER~: Where is it -- where is it J.P.?
MR. SEUBERT: Probably within t~ree miles of town at
ski hill. And by the way, it's bean analyzed for P.I. and all
that kind of stuff. It's good stuff, but then those are just
some of the things that I've never been asked about, you know,
and I really appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to
you on all those matters because, you know, I'm a taxpayer too
000642 000643
1
7
11
you want to, ~ut I'm also a taxpayer and if I can b~slp you, I
would he gla~ to. Go ahead.
f~ tl~ree -- or 2 to 1 ~o 3 ~o 1 ~d w~t I'm he~i~ is it's
a s~ll ~i~e, is therm a poss~ility of mo~ la~ there?
all convinc~ t~t i~ is, ~u ~ow, first of all, the
(Co,oil ~e~ing a= once)
~. ~: It's on the ~er~ad. Ye~, I t~ it'
was ~s~ to ~ ~ 2 to 1.
~. O~: I ~n't ~ wh~re it is, gi~ ~ a
i representation that's 1 to 1 of -- meaning a horizontal scale
2 is equal to the vertical scale of what 2 to 1 and what 3 to 1
3 is. See, that's a 2 to i li~e right there, the horizontal
4 scale is the same as the vertical scale a~d the upper line
there is a 3 to 1.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. DON~LDSON: Now, the representations, you have
to read the --
MAYOR EIMERS: Can I see that?
I MR. DON~LDSON: Yeah, you bet, sorry about that,
11 Your Honor. You have to read the bottom of the plans to
12 recognize the scale that's on them. And the plan sets that
13 you get delivered are standard procedure and standard of
14 practice a~e to exaggerate the scales. There are two times as
15 tall as they are wide. So, let's -- one inch equals SO feet
16 horizontally as one inch equals five feet vertically. So, the
17 scales are exaggerated in the vertical direction and we do
18 that so we ca~ get the information on a single sheet of paper.
1S MAYOR EIMERS: Right.
20 MR. DONALDSON: But the sheet that I have there --
211 or the ~ayor has, shows that --
22 MAYOR EIM~S: You can take this back, I see what
23 you're talking about.
24 MR. DONALDSON: -- and prove I to I relationship.
25 MAYOR EIMEP~: Right.
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
22
23
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2O
21
22
23
24
25
80
that, but I'd like to, you know, show you the difference
between a 2 to I and a 3 to 1. I thi~k you should ask Brian
01son aka)ut that.
MS. AR~: Bryan Donaldson.
MR. SEUBERT: Brya~ Donaldson, exc~se me. A man
that probably knows more about these ponds than any man alive,
but the depiction of that so-called 2 to 1 that was up there
is just not a good reading, but in the mea~time --
MR. OLSON: I sketched it right off the plans.
MR. SEUBERT: Come on put it up there, Brian.
MR. 0LSON: Okay.
MALE SpEJ~KER: NO way.
MR. SEUBERT: Any other qusstions?
MS. ARP: Well, it's --
MR. SEU~ERT: Well, now see, the idea that this is
-- is this a 3 to 1, Brian?
MR. OLSON: I didn't sketch that, that's freehand.
MR. SEUBERT: Is that a 2 to 17
MS. A~P: That's a 2 to 1.
MR. OLSON: That's sketched right off the plans.
MR. SEUBERT: Well, do you know what that is, so the
engineer could ex-plain to you what that means. That's not a 2
to 1, that's probably more like a three quarter One. Wouldn't
you say? Engineers speak up.
MR. DONA/~DSON: Sure. Let me show you a graphical
82
MR. DONALDSON: AS it would be if constructed.
MS. A~P: I've got another question and it ~ay be
for Bryan' Donaldson. What effect will building cell two have
on cell one, either the public safety, things like that,
redundancy.
MR. DONA~.DSON: Yeah, the design that was entailed
was the construction of both of cell one initially, but the
desig~ was for cell one a~d cell two. So what drainage
accommodations needed to be made to incorporate the
construction of cell two would have been built into cell one.
MAYOR EIMEI~: Right.
MI{. DONALDSON: So you could have continued that --
:
that on. That was the concept. Design both cells to
function, build the first cell, build the second cell at a
la=er date.
MS. AP~: Okay.
MAYOR ~IMERS: Oh, okay.
MS. ~= So it w~s the design, do you recall thatl
it was to design -~
MR. DONALDSON: Right.
MS. AR~: -- both in this initial --
MAYOR EIMERS: In one pass now?
MR. DONALDSON: Right.
MS. A~P: -- phase.
MR. SEUBERT: I have something to ask you on that
1
3
4
5
?
8
10
'1.1
14
1.6
17
18
2'1
83
one pass deal, Bryan, if you build them in one pass and I'll
just ask the city council, if you build them in one pass you
eliminate the middle dike, right?
MS. ARP: You mea~l build just one cell?
MR. SEUBERT: If you build one cell, is that what
you're talking about? I want that clarified for me. Is that
what you're talking about building one cell instead of two?
MR. OL~ON: No, we want to build two cells.
MR. SEUBERT: Okay. Good.
MS. ARP: Okay.
MR. 0LSON: The second would be an additive --
depending upon --
MR. SEUBERT: okay. Thanks for that information.
MS. ARP: Okay. Right.
MR. SEUBERT: Is there anything else I can help you
folks with?
MAYOR EI/6ERS: Thank yo~ very much.
MR. SEUBE~T: I appreciate the opport%u~ity to talk
to you and if you have any questions in the future call me.
MAYOR EIME~S: All right. Thanks for your hard
work. Okay. I 9~ess this is Mr. Donaldson, so please come
MR. DONALDSON: Thank you. I have a couple ~ore
comments of things that I don't think are being clearly
delineated. Let me find my notes here.
6
7
8
10
11
12
15
16
17
19
2O
21
22
'85
incorporated on the northwest slopes. So, there was some room
in there.
And the other thing is, is everybody talks about a
clay core and I don't think, after talking to Water Resources,
a clay cors is what they're really talking, about. They may be
talking about is some type of a soil amendm~lt. Do we mix in
some bentonite in a certain area to provide some
imperviousness. What do we do? Those are all issues that
have yet to be worked out, in my opinion.
Of significance is the costs estimates containing
just over a hundred thousand to address the drainage issue in
the east embankment.
A~d the last issue is --
MAYOR EIMERS:
estimates?
MR. DONALDSON:
MAYOR EIMERS:
Do you mean the design? The design
Yeah, the design estimates. The
You mean of the total design dollars
there's a hundred thousand (100,000) in there to deal just
with that bank?
MR. DONALDSON: Just in construction of the drainage
system for the east bank, the cost estimates are holding a
hundred and five thousand (105,000}.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. I see, the construction part
of it --
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
2O
21
22
23
25
The first and more crucial is that everybody
understands that the plan set shows an exaggerated vertical
scale.
The second thing that's very important is we talked
about the height of the dam or the embankment, the
impoundment. At the tail end of the east side of that pit is
a ravine in there where the drainage water that's come out
from the pit has cut a ravine. That's the 60 foot place.
It's about, what do you think 30 yards across down there at
the bottom. It's about 30 yards across out of almost 900
feet. The rest of the dike or the embankment down there is
about 20 to 30 feet. So, there's one narrow area in the
center of that dike that is actually the 60 feet tall. The
rest of it is bui%t upon existing material dow~ there and is
not nearly as tall, eve~ though the elevation is the same
agross the top.
The second is, everybody talks about all this extra
money, and what are we going to do with this east dike? Well,
if you recognize that it's a narrow portion of the east dike
that is 50 to 60 feet a/Id not the e~tire dike that is 50 to 60
feet, all of a sudden you get a feel for the area that we' re
super sensitive about.
The cost estimates contained a h%uadred and five
thousand dollars ($105,00) to address that east embarD~ment in
addition, to the underdrain system that would have been
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
MR. DONALDSON: Right.
MAYOR EIMERS: -- not the engineering, the
construction part?
MR. DONALDSON: Right.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. DONALDSON: A~ the last issue is a spillway.
have y~t to design a lagoon system that doesn't have one, this
one would have been no exception. A controlled breach of a
structure is always desirable in lieu of a uncontrolled breach
of a structure and that would have been incorporated into a
final plan set.
And the last thing is we have control over whether
or not we put water in t~is structure. You have that control.
If ~vour structur~ has a problem, some future point in time
that is so serious, you have the option or could probably
negotiate the option of not putting water into that structure
%ultil y0umade that repair.
without yOur option and the main thrux [sic] is to remember
these are exaggerated scales that you see on a pla~ set.
MAYOR E~-~: Yep. Thank you.
MR. DONALDSON: Thank you.
MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Seubert,
you want to say something else?
MR. SEUBERT: Just one thing I didn't complete
21
87
1 answering Mrs. Azp's q~estion and I apologize for that, I
2 started to and we got side tracked on the 2 to 1~ and the 3 to
3 ls.
4 MS. A~R: Oh.
MR. SEUBERT: But you had asked me and it's only
fair to answer it, I guess, about whether if for some reason
it's an engineering problem if they went 3 to Is on one part
whether there was more land available to the west and I submit
to you that I think that could be worked out since I solved
the -- we solved the wetlands issne there would be enough room
to the west to handle that. And also talked to Walker's this
morning, and they have agreed t-hat if some more land was needed
to the east if that helped that's also another option, but
again, this is just an answer to your question. Than3~ },Du.
MAYOR ~IMERS: And that would be an additional cost,
Bob? I mean, you're not --
MR. SEUBERT: NO, of course we're -- I pointed out
what ki~d of a deal I gave you --
MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah.
MR. SEUBERT: -- a~d that's up to you to decide.
MAYOR ELMERS: Yeah, I understand. Thank you.
22
23
Okay.
MR. WAGNer: Your Honor?
MAYOR EIMSRS: Brief. brief, George.
MR. W~IER: Yes, sir.
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
25
MAYOR EIMERS: Is it George?
MS. AP.P: Yes, George.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. George.
MR. WAGNER: I'll be really brief.
MAYO~ EIMERS: You will?
MR. WA~IER: Yeah. I'll be really brief. First,
~he -- first on the 2 to 1 slopes. We thought, when we first
began looking at this site, that whether or not those would be
acceptable was really a critical issue because it if has to be
-- if it has to be 3 to ls, then I -- you won't get enough
storage there and the site isn't large enough for the
facility, so, that issue of 2 to 1, 3 to ~1 is critical, we
'know it was critical and we knew it was critical as we did the
geotechnical work and the evaluations and the analysis that
wasdone.
And it's been addressed, in our opinion, it's been
addressed very completely. If there, you know, this is --
what th~ opinion that you're getting here from us is that this
facility can be designed and built there, but it must be
properly designed and built there. Do you get my drift?
MAYOR EIMERS: Sure.
MR. WAGNER: Okay. And that's the opinion you're
getting from J.U.H. and Strata.
The second item is this bid risk thing and I
listened to Mr. Bruce. And I -- you know, the process that
000G52
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
24
25
89
YOu've chosen to implement here is a design build process as
compared to a design bid built process.
A design ~- with a design built process you should
carry your design work to a place where the big risk issues
and questions have been answered so that the people that are
giving you a bid to design it and build it, don't have to put
a pile of contingencies on their bid. Okay? And what I heard
Bob saying was, gee, lots of risk here, lots of things we
don't know about. It means lots of contingencies. And the
answer to that is not to throw the job out onto the street
without questions answered, but identify what those issues are
that would affect their bid ~nd resolve those -- do enough
work to resolve those now so that when you get the bid you get
t_he bidfor what they have to do, and not the bid for a whole
bu~cb of contingencies they don't know about. ~nd someone
right now bidding this, does not know what Mr. Fleener is
'going to want to see for the finished sectio~ on that dzLke.
They don't know that. So, they're goihg to make assumptions,
be very conservative, the price will go up. ! tb~nk the price
will -- I would think that would be Just a rational thing to
do.
To me it's irrational to put it on the street %Ultll
you get ~- do enough -- if that's what you're going to do it
this way. Get the gnestions answered. P~t something on the
street that people can look at, give you a price to implement
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
9O
Without putting a five million dollar ($5,000,000) contingency
on it so that they don't get burned.
The other thing is that the seubert site is, by our
analysis and from a cost point of view, a pretty efficient
site. Moving it is not -- a~d I read sometb-~ng yesterday that
Brian had put out that said moving -- that moving it is going
to save millions of dollars because there's less earth work
and that kind of thing. ;tnd that simply is not correct. Now,
you move it you'll have the extra costs that go with p~mping
and piping it to move it somewhere. You're still going to
have to build a 360,000,000 gallon storage reservoir and
there's no magic going to happen hare that saves ~ou millions
of dollars in that process.
MR. OLSON: Your Honor, I j~st have two real brief
things.
MAYOR EI~RS: Okay.
MR. OL~ON: O~e, you know, we believe ~he risk is in
the know~ not the ~Lk~ow~s of the Seu~z~c site. I'll just
put that out real clearly. In a design build you do roughly
30 percent of the design so that you have all of the issues
identified. We have some of that now from J.U.B., but again,
it's in the knowns is the risk, not the unknowns.
Bob McKsena who just heard that ~- I was looking at
his -- some of his boss' property to condemn a few minutes
ago, but would like to say something real briefly and as a
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
courtesy I'd like to extend that to hie.
MR. COLTON: Well, I don't know, what is that going
to solve?
MR. OLS0N: Well, I don't know, he's just asked and
as a courtesy I thought I'd pass that on and if he has a
moment --
MR. COLTON: Well, it appears to me that,, you know,
there's j~st-a whole lot of mystery to this thing, as I'm
given -- taking some of A~lan's comments and certainly some of
-- I would echo some of his comments too. Is that ~- is that
there's a whole lot of stuff that we don't know. You know, we
have -- or somebody has focn/sed in on a single site ~.~d is
trying to prove that that is the only site available that we
ca~l do this. And I just cam_not buy that. You know, you're
telling me that t~e Bazatus site is the only site that is
going to work?
MR. OLSON: Financially, yes.
MR. COLTON: Well, and financially -- the f~n~ncial
information y~u give me are estimates and guesstimates,
there's notb/ng real about those figures.
MR. 0LSON: Mm-hem.
MR. COLTON: We have no idea what the Bazatus'
property is going to cost us, we have no idea what kind of
things we're going to run into there in relation to building
those ponds either. So this cost thing is something that's
13~,, 16
1.8
20
21
92
figure that's.out there that's not real. You know,
~t a guess, somebody's guess. But it's certainly not a
3 real figLLre. And so, when you're comparing these unreal
4 things to what we've -- it may be a poor site. But it's at
5 least the figures that we have there are relatively real.
These other things are imaginal-y.
MR. OLSON: Mm-hmm. So, again, staff -- staff
doesn't support that position.
MR. COLTON: When you say staff, you're talking
~_bout you and RH2, is that the staff that you --
MR. OLSON: Me, RH2, F-leinfelder, planning staff,
everyone that's looked at this thing. And no one's trying to
prove one thing at the sake of the other, all of the facts
continue to point to a logical conclusion and Seabert site is
not logical. An~ that's what we're putting forth for your
decision. If you want to go there, let's bid it. I don't
have any problem with that.
MR. COLTON: Well, I think the last instruction,
19 official thing, that we had from this council was to pursue
the Se~bert property. And I don't know that anybody has taken
any action unofficial to that. If I go back in the minutes
some mont~s ago a motion was made to pursue the Se%~bert
properties for building these sites. Now, I have not heard
any action from this council to reverse that decision.
MAYOR EIM~RS: Right.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
15
16
-~?
'18
93
MR. COLTON: And none of the actions that have taken
place, you know, have focused in on that decision that was
made by the council months ago.
MR. OLSON: You put contingencies on it that we're
pursuing.
MR. COLTON: I don't remember those, but --
MAYOR EIME~: Yeah, one was that it would be
financially or -- I don't know what they are, but at any rate,
you come up? What would you recommend to us as council of
staff?
MR. LOCKE: By -- just in going tkucough the whole
process, in terms of what we ~ave now with the Seabert site, I
think that the co~m~u~ity costs and I'm not looking at any of
the~ dollar figures attached to a~y of this. I think the
community costs are too h/gh on the seabert site and that what
we have out there now is we have a ~ravel operation that is --
and it Came out in all the meetings and everyone was saying,
you know, the Seubert's have been great neighbors in terms of
it's a bad use, no. one likes a gravel operation next to them,
but in terms of if you're going to have a gravel operation
these guys are doing a good job.
Andso it's not as noticeable at this point that
there's a gr~vel operation out there. Whe~ you displace the
gravel operation with the cells and you move the piles, the
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
2'~
94
hundreds of thousand of cubic yards next to C~ad Drive, next
to -- basically through where what would be the Dine~ard if --
the Dinehard I guess, what you wi~d up with is something that
is very obviously a gravel operation. It becomes ~/ch more
disruptive to the areas as a residential area a~d it really is
-- I mean ultimately the gravel operation if it's 30 years
from now will go away and it will -~ they have a reclamation
pla/% that they' 11 reclaim the area and restore it to a -- to
some -- whatever it is that they're going to restore it.
So, from that standpoint I think that the seubert
site is just -- it's not a good site for this. I think the
impacts are too high.
Now, in ter~ of what the other sites are, maybe
there are other sites that are better, but at this poiut what
I've seen is that the Bazatus site is the nearest, it's --
from what -- from a public standpoht, it's a lot better than
the Seubert site.
The Cavexuaugh site would be equally as good, but if,
you know, if there's high water or whatever a~d then the
distances, but those are all -- those are all financial
concez~s. I'm saying that looking at it from a comnnu~ity cost
standpoint I think that the Seubert site is not a goo~ -- not
a good place because of what -- if you could just build the
cells there and you didn't have to move the gravel operation,
that would be great as long as you could engineer it and it --
15
16
17
18
19
95
i don't know what the engineering aspects of it are, but I
just think that in order to get to the Se=bert site we just --
the gravel piles a~d operation are just going to be too much.
So, that's my opinion.
MAYOR EIME~S: Thank you, Andy.
MR. OLSON: Thanks, Andy.
MAYOR EIMERS: And we know what Brian's opinion is.
And one other thing, I want to get resolved. Is it likely
then all of our experts, Strata and Kleinfelder and J.U.B. and
~DR and whoever we might have in the room, any agencies, DEQ
a~d IDWR, it's likely or it's possible or it's something that
we're going to need to do something tO that one wall to
provide redundancy or make it stronger or do something that's
d~fferent than just compacting the nu~terials? I me~ do you
believe that?
MR. OLSON: ~Lr. Fleener?
MR. TEP~Y HOWARD: No, that's not correct. Ail we
need to do is compact the soil to a density that allows us to
get the strength necessary to hold it in place. So, there's
nothing we need to do to the soil in terms of amy height.
With the cohesionless material you can take it to as high as
you want to without doing anything other than controlling the
slope. And the reason we went to a 2 to 1 slope is economy.
It's more expensive to build a 3 to I slope, so we start with
any embankment dam and our design says let's start with a 4 to
4
7
8
9
10
96
1, 2 to i a~d if we ca~ get a 2 to 1 safe, that's the
hoose because it's cheaper.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. TERRY HOWARD: SO, the a~w~r is no, you don't
have to do anything special. But we will control the drainage
a~d we'have a redundant system to control the drainage.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. And I guess what we need to do
is decide what we need to do to make --
MR. BASTL%N: Your Honor?
MAYOR EIMER~: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. BASTIAN: EXCUse me, but we'd like to disagree
~2{ with that opinion, we think a little more evaluation on that
!3I embankment is necessary. That the drainage and subsurface
14 collection drainage hasn't been adequately addressed and so we
15 would like that as part of the record.
16 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. And you are, sir, I'm sorry, I
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Can't see.
MR. BASTIAN: With Klsinfelder, paul Bastien with
Kleinfelder.
MAYOR EIMERS: Kleinfelder. Okay. And IDWR, I'm
putting you on the spot. Are you going to require us to de
more geotech work?
MR. FLEENER: Yes, IDWR will require additional
geotechnical work to be done before we would approve the plan,
from what we've seen.
97
MR. OLSON: Does DEQ have an opinion on this either?
To put you on the spot again.
MR. PETEP~ON: We'll go with IDWR as our partner on
what they require for their portion of the approval..
MR. OL$ON: And if we don't want to do more design
work, is that going to be okay with the state government? If
we say no and just build it? Can we do that?
MALE SPEAKER: No.
MR. OLSON: Okay. Just want to be clear.
10 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. So, our options are -- let's
11 get them before Ralph has to go. What are our options?
12 MS. ARP: Well, our option -- I think one option is
13 to continue with the seubert site, but I think also throwing a
14 design out on the streeu is just, you know, I don't buy that.
15 I t~i~k you have Ko design dow~ to where you --
16 MAYOR EIMERS: But that's another option. One
17 Option is to go -- I'm sorry, Marilyn, go with Se=bert.
18 MR. OL~ON: Okay. Seubert's.
19 M~. ARP: Okay. But the only way I would accept
20 that option is that we then do the design work that is
21 necessary to answer the questions.
22 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. So along with that would be
23 design work.
24 MR. OLSON: Full design.
25 MAYOR EIMERS: F~/I! design, okay.
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
151
98
MS. ARP: I don' t know if full design is the right
term, but the design to answer the big questions so there
aren't the contingencies in a bid.
MR. OLSON: Redesign.
MAYOR EIMER~: Well, there won't -- from my
%~nderstanding there won't be contingencies, they'll put in
what they think they have to do.
MR. OLSON: Period.
MS. AP.P: As contingencies.
MAYOR EIMERS: No, it won't, it will be identified.
They will identify what they think they need to do in order to
make tha~ thing work.
M~. OLSON: That's correct.
MS. AP~: [unintelligible].
MAYOR EIM~RS: Oh, I'm sorry, Bill.
MR. KIIJ~EN: Mr. Mayor, if I may, just briefly, and
~ can be brief believe it or not.
Mr. Olson add Mr. West attended a sewer district
meeting Friday a~dbrought that board up to date and there was
some good feedback and suggestions. An idea that came up at
that meeting, that's what I wanted to speak to. Regardless of
where you ultimately come dow~, regardless of what site that
you've discussed or haven't discussed is ultimately selected,
because every site is going to have its own unique problems..
Is that if at all possible talk to BOR, talk to EPA; talk to
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
ll
15
2O
23
99
DEQ, the people that control the consent order and the people
that control the funding, see if .there's anyway that a city
like McCall, who is trying their damnes= to make an
intelligest decision that makes sense for people in the long
rue%, can get a little slack.
MAYOR EIME~S: Right.
MR. KILLEN: So that the folks that have the
difference of opinion a~d the missing information can maybe --
you can up your level of information so that when you decide
whatever it is you decide you do a -- you make a good
decision. And I think that's something we're overlooking as
an alternative here.
MR. MULLE~: I've got that written dow~.
MR. KILLEN: Okay· That's just -- I just wanted to
make sure it didn]t get overlooked.
MAYOR EIM~S: Well, we're going through the
alternatives right now.
MR. KILLEN: Well, and I guess one of them is buy
time.
MAYOR EIMERS: Buy time, okay. Marilyn, would you
put down number 2 is buy time.
MS. ARP: Buy time.
MR. OLSON: Well, I don't thi~ it's az~ option that
we have a choice of pursuing, we have to do it, no matter what
you do here.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
25
t01
MR. OLSON: And then we're already talking about
Cavenaugh.
MAYOR EIMER~: NO, that's okay. I think -- I'm
satisfied on Cavenaugh.
MR. O~ON: Okay· Okay.
MAYOR EIb: Don't worry about Cavenaugh.
MR. OLSON: Okay.
MAYOR EIMEP~: Okay. Those are the options before
us. Are there others?
MR. COLTON: Well, yeah, I don't know -- it'd be a
dead horse, but he's got a lot of -- a lot of land along that
pipe line.
(A~I council 'Speaking At Once)
MR. OLSON: South. South, Mr. Colton, do y~u want
us to continue to look south.
MR. COLTON: South.
MR. OLSON: .Okay. Can I Just put south?
MR. COLTON: Right. An~ I don't thi~k that
necessarily have to think about two cells, you know, I think
-- you k~ow, as long as we're putting some options out, let's
put some options out.
MR. OLSON: Okay·
MR. COLTON: You know, if it's two, four, six, eight
cells, I doa't care. You know, as long as it's along that
pipeline end it's something that is possible, let's explore
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
15
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
100
MS. ARP: ! think we can look at it.
MR. OLSON: Well, that's just what I said, Council
Member Atp. No matter what you decide today I have to call
those folks and get more time cause you're already past the
deadlines.' So I'm going to do that, that's going to happen.
MR. MULLER: Yeah, I've got that written down.
MR. OLSON: Yeah, cause you and I had talked about
that. The second option would be SeLLbert go to bid.
MAYOR EI3~RS: Right.
MR. OLSON: Okay. Third option is --
MAYOR EIMERS: A~ternative.
MR. MULLER: Alternative.
MR. OLSON: Alternative sites.
MAYOR EIMERS: Seek alternative, yeah. And we know
Mr. 'Bazatus is ode and Alla/~ has asked that we make doggone
sure that at least Soulen.
MR. OLSON: Yeah.
(off-record colloquy)
MR. OLSON: Can you spell that for me, please·
MR. SOULEN: S-O-U-L-E-N.
MR. OL$ON: S-O-U-L-A-N.
MR. SOULEN: L-E-N.
MR. OLSON: L-E-N.
MS. A~: Bill Soulen.
MR. SOULEN: Bill.
102
that option.
MR. OLSON: Okay.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Does it make any sense, along
with going to bid and, you know, we're talking millions here
potentially. How much are we talking, thirty thousand
(30,000) in geotech to finish it?
MR. OLSON: Something -- something -- on ~his site
that is what the figure is about 25 to 30 to answer the
q~estions that need to be answered that IDWR and DEQ have put
on the table.
MAYOR BIME~: Okay. Now, if we decided to go ahead
with option, and I'm sorry, I can't see them anymore, I think
it's number ~-
MR. OLSON: N~mber -- well, either -- it would have
to be number one. Number one is what you're talking about,
sir.
MAYOR BIMERS: Or the other. How soon could we do
the geetech if we were serious?
MR. OLSON: Gentlemen?
MALE SPEAKER: [unintelligible].
MR. OL~ON: Yes, finish it up.
MALE SPEAKER: Three to five weeks, right in there
just to down access.
MR. OLSON: That's about the time it would take us
to bid this, so we could do them simultaneously. And just get
3
4
5
?
9
12
13
14
17
20
23
24
a gauge.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. We're talking potentially a
m~llion versus thirty thousand (30,000)?
MR. OLSON: Right. And what we could do though is
both option one, option two while continui~.g to exq)lore option
three. And so, what we've done is looked at everything you
~uys want to do.
MAYO~ EIMERS: I. don't see a~y option but to do
MR. OLSON: Yeah, do all three. And then let's get
it on the table a~d then I'll be on the phone tomorrow --
MAYOR EI34ERS: And get on the horn with the people,
do just exactly what Mr. Killen has said.
MR. OLSON: Will you help me do that?
MALE SpEAKEr: Certainly.
MR. OLSON: Tha~lk you. And if DEQ will help --
MAYOR EIMERS: ~ve you got DEQ a~oard with you on
that?
MR. OLSON: Yes, sir,. I do.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. COLTON: Well, I don't think you can
automatically assume that Kleinfelder is going to do this
study either. You know, I think that we have a lot of
information from a firm that I think is a reputable firm and
you just -- you look at one ~roup and say, you're going to do
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
13
24
25
MS. ARP: Yeah, on that.
MR. KILLE~: -- if that's the case.
MR. FLEENE~: IDWR has never even met these
gentlemen before today.
MR. OLSON: What they said is we need more data.
MR. KILLEN: That's not what I just heard.
MR. OLSON: Well, that's what the gentlemen said
that they both said we need more data.
MR. KILLEN: That's not what I just heard.
MS. ARP: Well, what Kirk said --
MAYOR EISa. RS: Is what I said inaccurate?
MR. OLSON: NO.
MALE SPEAKEr: Is --
MAYOR EIMERS: No, let --
MR. F~IL~N: They' re in the same camp is what he
said.
MR. FI~EE~-ER:Yeah, I would classify that as
inaccurate statement.
· MAYOR EIMERS: As an --
MR. OLSON: Accurate.
MAYOR EIM~RS: Inaoc~rate.
MR. FLEER-ER: Inaccurate statementl
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. FLEENER: The Department of Water Resource is
only interested in building a safe dam.
105
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
104
it. I'm not prepared to vote in that direction. If that's
your recommendation they're ~m.king, I ca,not accept that.
MAYOR EIMERS: Well, maybe we need to talk about
that.
MR. COLTON: I mean, you've got a fi~ that's done a
whole lot of information a~d you say, well, we need more
information. ~ny are you going to a~. opposing firm?
MR. OLSON: Well, I 'don't think opposing, I just
think different is the issue.
MR. COLTON: Well, different firm, okay. You're
using a different firm.
MR. OLSON: I'm not trying to place people at odds.
MAYOR EIMEP~S: YOU know what we need is we need
honest to goodness -- we need good technical information to
mnk~ our decision~ a~d there's a dispute between these two.
~d it's not helpful.
MR. MULLE~: Not at all.
MAYOR EIMERS: It's not helpful. And frankly, I'm
going to he really straight forward, Kleinfelder has IDW~'s
exlDez~s in the same cap with t_hem. You know. And I'm sorry,
but that's a fact. And that m~%kes me challenge Strata.
MR. OL~ON: Yes. Yes, sir, that's my concern.
MAYOR EI/~'RS: P~ld that's a fact.
MR. KILLEN: Has IDWR tooken that position? I'd
like to hear them take it right now --
1
2
3
5
6
7
20
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. FLEENER: We have no preference on which
geotech~ical firm does it.
MS. AP, P: They want the q~estion --
MAYOR EIME~S: We want the q~estion answered. Does
it make any sense to have -- to do two and have them consult?
MR. OLSON: Well, I just -- I hate spending that
kind of money, but I think your point was accurate, Your
Honor, in saying that both IDWR and K!ein~elder said we need
mor~ data to answer questions. That's my position.
MS. ~: There was never aaly question ~-
MR. WAGNER: Your Honor. I don't know if this ~elps
at all, but I'll throw it cut. Typically what happens when
one professional engineer is working on a project and doing
the~ study and ano'ther one is asked for a second opinion, what
happens is that -- what should happen is that the. party that's
~oing the second opin/on, it's like you give a good second
opi~ion~ typically, re,flews the work product that the first
has done, they meet with them, they discuss the issue that
they see. And gen~erally speaking what happens is that the
answers get on the table that are needed to fill in the voids
for the second party.
MAYOR EI~R~: Okay.
MR. ~FAGNER: And if that doesn't happen then they,
both come back to the client and you say, okay, we've gotten
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
107
together, we've both -- they, you know, we've done work, we've
given to them, we've discussed it with them, they have
thorough knowledge, they've reviewed it, they've given input
back to us and then the public entity -- this is the
professional way to do it. Now, that's not what we're seeing
here. What we're seeing here is work being done and then
con~ments about it flying back into the city from all over the
place. And a lot of that is happening because those people
don't have good infoz~ation a~d have not sought to get it.
And I thi~k that a lot of these --
MAYOR EIMERS: Well, maybe --
MR. WAGNEr: -- issues might resolve the~elves with
a proper behavior from the professional community that I don't
thi~kyou're seeing here, quite frankly.
MAYOR EIMERS: Well, b~t that's amongst the
professional community, but I think you bring up a good point
a~d that would be -- one option would be for Strata to go
ahead and complete the work and Kleinfelder be the reviewer or
the second opi~lion and -- like HDR did On the w~ter thing.
And those could go on sin~/ltaneously, could they not?
MR. OL$ON: Yeah, Your Honor, again, I'm, you know,
my goal here is to look out for the taxpayers of the City of
McCall who really bear the burden to this. And I think that,
you k~cw, the district has taken a position on this that they
favor the Seubert site, at least that's what I talk ~- maybe
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
19
2O
21
22
23
25
109
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Thank you, Ted. Well, then I
would make a motion that we pursue all three of those. And
that we will pursue all three simultaneously and that we ask
the sewer district to step up to half of the cost of the
geotech, and if they won't the city absorbs it. Do it a good
faith effor=.
MALE SPEAKF/{: We'll consider that.
MAYOR EIMER~: And I make that motion.
MR. MULLER: I'll second.
MS. AR~: I have a question, what do we mean then,
what are we pursuing with alternative sites, we're looking at
the Soulen site, what are we doing on the Bazatus site then?
MAYOR EIMERS: The Bazatus site will be known, to
the extent that we know it and we're going to do what Ralph
said~ we're going 'to go to the south --
MS. ARB: Okay.
MAYOR EIMERS: =- and see 'if there's a~y~hing down
the pipeline. And we're not going to constrict ourselves to
one site or two sites and maybe we can do three or four little
ones, I think we probably blew some economy to scale, but who
knows, maybe it's doable out there.
MR. MULLF~: And if, I think you might also'want to
put down, if & site becomes available that that has to be
em~plored.
MR. OLSON: Oh, absolutely.
1
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
1~~
'~0
108
~hey could help, you know, contribute some new costs for this
type of process.
MS. ARP: We need to ask the district about that.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Is the district represented
here?
question.
MR. OLSON: Yeah, Mr. -- yeah, Ted is back there.
MAYOR EIMER~: Is Ted here? Okay. Hi Ted.
MR. WHITEMAN: Pardon me, I didn't hear the
MR. OLSON: Well, I ~as just saying that you guys
are picking up the bill for J.U.B. to be here today, if we've
got -- the proposal on the table is that both Strata and
Kleinfe!der proceed ~- Strata proceed with it and Kleinfelder
review, would the district help us pick up some additional
costs on this, in some proportion?
MR. WHITEMAN: That's something I would be willing
~o take to my board, I ca,not give you that -~ I don't have
the authority to give you that kind of an answer right now.
The reason for the district asking Strata and J.U.B. to be
here today, in the district's opinion, was to provide you with
all the information that we had and we understood that there
was not a mechanism in place right now for that co~a~h~ication
to take place~ We were interested in yo~ getting ali the
information that's available to you right now. And beyond
that, it is your decision as the prime agency here.
110
MAYOR EIMERS: Somebody may --
MR. MULLER: There ~ay be an unkulown site there, I
don't know.
MAYOR EIM~S: -- jump up and say, how would you
like mine.
MR. OLSON: Sure.
MAYOR EIMERS: You know.
MR. OLSON: And I would encourage the new~paper to
put that out that we're as the --
MS. AP.P: My theory also that again, that staff and
everybody hack off now from what they say, this is my
preferred site and these are the reasoma and things llke that,
we have to do this in a ~ood faith effort. And we need an
accurate --
MAYOR E~M~RS: You're saying just go forward on
tecb~lical information.
MS. A~P: Right. That let'S get the technical
information, because ass/n, some of th~ stuff I heard today
about just, you know, throwing the deslg~out there as it is,
I see as a ge=up to discredit some of ~hese and that's just
the' way I feel about it, so we have got to have --
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: [unintelligible]
MR~ WAGI~ER: Your Honor?
MS. AP.P: -- well, that's
MAYOR HIMERS: Yeah, I don't agree with that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
2¢
111
M~. WAGNER: Your Honor? I have one little bit of
input. On this -- bidding the Se=bert project bid now, if you
put that onto the street now and say to people, come spend
money, it's designed to build, come spend money designing this
and putting your bid together, but in the meantime we may be
going somewhere else. There' s - - see, there' s a~ element
there of fairness to the contracting community too that should
be considered. I mean --
MAYOR EIMERS: Well, George, but -- okay, we'll make
a decision on Se=bert today if you w~ult. I mean, we can try.
And we'll see where it comes out. I mean, that's what yDu're
saying.
MR. WAG~qE~: No, I'm saying --
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
MR. w/%GN~R: -- I would recommend that you do enough
work on this Seubert site that you get a lot of the unk~ow=ls
answered a~d then when you take it out to hid have ttuat be the
projec~ you're going to do.
MR. COLTON: Do you ha~ a motion, Your Honor?
MR. WAGNER: Or another one?
MAYOR E!ME~S: Yeah, I've made the motion and it's
second. It's been motioned and than seconded. But maybe, if
somebody wants to reconsider we can ~ke a decision here
today.
MS. AP~: We haven't voted on it yet.
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
23
113
MAYOR EIMERS: And that's valuable.
MR. OLSON: I need this to go to BOR. I need that
second option to go to BOR. So, that's my --
MR. MULLER: To do what now?
MR. OLBON: I need to show that we're moving forward
on this and trying to get some hard numbers to answer your
questions to go to BOR. I need that in my pocket.
MS. ARP: Why can't you be doisg it u~der the number
one, you could be getting that ~der the number one.
MR. OLSON: No, I want to put OUt a bid document.
MS. AP.P: But why ca=l't you bid it out --
MR. OLSON: And that's my request.
MS. ~: -- with a number one, I'm asking?
MR. OLSON: Because this is much more tangible a~d
we'~e doing -- wa're covering all of our bases, not just one.
MAYOR EIMERS: To run it parallel, maybe.
MS. ARP: I gness on ~y take on your mo~ton is that
I think~ it's probably too broad to any -- I think we need to
-- I ~uess, you know --
MAYOR EI34ERS: Okay. Now, what would you do7 We're
in this discussion, what would you do to make it more useable.
MS. ARP: Okay. If we're not willing to -- I g~ess
I'm hearing a lot of interest on the alternative sites. I
g~ess I still think that the Seubert site is doable. I think
the city wins a lot in that, I think with the cor~%ector,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
112
MAYOR BIMERS: I know, I can withdraw the motion
too, can't I? We could Tote on whether or not we want to do
Se=bert? It's up to you guys, what does the Council want to
do?
MR. COLTON: Well, I don't think that, you know, you
were Just throwing out that one option, the alternative sites
to me still are worth exploring. I think putting Seubert -- I
agree with George in the sense of putting Seubert out to bid
with what we know right now, without answering the question,
is not going to gain us anything.
MAYOR EIMER~: Well, what you will learn is what the
construction community is really worried about and that's what
makes the cash register run. And I think right now, that if
danger =- this jnst may -- you k~ow, it scares me, Mr.
Seubert's site sCares me because of the upside potential in
the estimate, so I really want to be careful with Mr.
Se%Lbert's site a~d that's just my judgment. A~d I've been
sitting and listenJulg and I'm only one judgment, you've got
one, you've got one, you've got one, and you've got one. And
we can call our judgments up and see where they go, or we can
go forward gathering more information that will help us. And
at worst, if we put it out to bid, what you're going to learn
is what Mr. ~DR was here telling us, is what they're worried
about.
MR. OLSON: And Your Honor, I need --
think there's a lot of things there. However, I am willing to
look at alternative sites. Because my understanding also,
with people who've talked to BOH, is they're not focusing so
much, but, again, we want this in writing, but the September
side is they are -- or they are --
MAYOR EIMERS: [unintelligible] .
MS. ARP: Right. The what, 2000, Januar~ 1, 2000.
MAYOR BIMERS: Well --
MR. 0LSON: September 30th.
MS. AR~: '99. okay, same thing. Right.
MAYOR EIME~: Still starts following the same
thing.
MS. ARP: Right. On that, so.
MAYOR EIMERS: Well, what -- okay, so -- I'm sorry,
go a~ead, Marilyn'.
MS. ARP: No, I'm done. I know Ted Whiteman is --
MAYOR EIMER~: I know, but I'm going to keep it up
here for awhile.
MS. ARP: That's fine.
MALE SPEAKER: Well, I think these things that
you're talking about that I certainly call for the question.
MAYOR EIME~S.' Well, I'd like one ~ore --
u/nfor~unately one question did not get answered. ~at do we
think -- well, we're going to answer all three of those, what
do we thing the effect -- we heard Mr. Seubert ~a%d I think I
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
16
!7
18
19
2O
21
22
23
115
got a document from him saying it maybe as high as a million
dollars. Go back on that, do you have a rate drawing, Brian,
on the connector?
MR. OLSON: I do, sir.
MAYOR EIMERS: And can you show us the effect of
that.
MR. OLSON: Bear with me.
MR. COLTON: So, Your Honor--
MAYOR EIM~RS: Okay.
MR. COLTON: I'm going to have to leave now.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. We can do that afterwards.
Let's vote on the question --
MR. OLSON: Okay.
MAYOR EIMERS: -- cause he wants to go. Could we
have a -- we're t~lking contracts here.
MR. OLSON: Yeah, let's do a role call vote, Your
Honor.
MS. ARP: Okay· I have a marion to --
MR. COLTON: Why are we doing a role call vote?
MR. OL$ON: I just want to be sure that we're
totally accurate in this instance, it's a very important vote.
MR. COLTON: This does not call for a role call
MR. VENABLE: Is there any objections to a roll call
117
· ix or whatever. Is that correct?
MR. TERRY HO~VARD: That's col-rect.
MR. VENABLE: Well, tell me, would you be interested
to indemnify the city against anything, the damages if the
site were to fail -- be built there and than fail? I mean,
are you giving us a 100 percent that it will never go bad?
MR. TE~Y HOWARD: What I can give you is my best
engineering calculations based upon the information that we
have discovered at the site. And 30 some odd 'years of
experience in doing this kind of work and the work of a lot of
engineers behind me that have had -- that have helped me put
this report together, including my brother and J.U.B., I've
never had anyone ask me to indemnify them for my engineering
Judgment. I think that's an u~fair question.
MR. VENABLE: Well, I just asked if you would be
inclined to do that. I'm after safety. I want the DEQ on
this and the IDW~, I mea~ safety is paramount and now -- a~d
we have a lot of in~ox-matlon from other people that say that
this pai~icular type of thing, the 2 to I is not safe. It's a
high risk, a !erie high risk ~am.
DR. HOWARD: But none of those people have
accomplished the study that we have accomplished. They are
basing opinions on i~formation that they do not have· We have
the information. We've done the calculations. We know the a
2 to I slope will be safe. Now, Water Resources has some
000~,3.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
'13
'~7
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
5
6
7
9
I0
11
13
ia.
15
17
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
116
MR. COLTON: Yes.
MR. %'ENABLE: Is there any reason we can't have a
roll call vote?
MS. AR~: The motion I have is to move forward -- to
proceed with the investigation of three options in the sewer
district to, in good faith, pay one half of geotechnical work.
MAYOR EiMERS: Hight. And you' 11 pursue those three
options.
MR. OLSON: Yes, sir.
MS. ARP: And no one seconded it?
MAYOR RIMERS: Okay. Does anybody want a role call
vote or doesn't want a role call vote.
MA3~E SPEA~K~R: It doesn't make any difference, but
we dc not have to have a roll call vote.
(All 'council members speaking at once)
MAYOR EIME~S: Do you want it or not?
MR. COLTON: No, I don't want it.
MAYOR EIMEP~: Okay. Let's -- okay, let's just --
up or down. Okay. Any further discussions?
MR. VENABLE: I would like to ask this question,
that's from Strata. Now, I've heard you say that it doesn't
make any different as far as the strength and safety of the 2
to 1, the 3 to i on the dam site at Seuber~'s pond site. And
you say that with proper compacting this with sa~d and gravel
can be made as safe as if you put a core in or put in the clay
118
issues and I think that's fine, that's their position. And
with the data that we have we cazx go to Water Resources and
clean up that -- those issues. We don' t need to do a lot of
new exploration. We do ~ot need to do a lot of extra things.
We can get those things cleared up relatively quickly and
relatively inexpensively.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. VENABLE: Thank you.
MAYOR EIMERS: Tha/Lk you.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay.
The motion is to p~rsue all three of those simultaneously.
Ail in favor say Aye.
COUNCIL: Aye.
MAYOR EIMERS: Oppose?
MS. ARP: NO.
MAYOR EIMERS: Motion carries.
MR. OLSON: Your Honor, may I now answer your
questions regarding the connector?
MAYOR EIMERS: Yes, sir.
MR. OLSON: Would you please help me? We better
move it forward so they can look at this.
What we have here is a map with t/xe existing cells
here, the city property is outlined in blue here, the existing
city easement of right-of-way is right here, comes out here~
The property that we would need to acquire for the connector
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
is in red. As you can see it's very very minimal.
MAYOR EIMERS: When you say minimal what does that
mean?
MR. OLSON: Two acres· 80 feet wide by --
MR. MULLER: We estimate the cost of acquisition to
be less than a hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000).
MAYOR EIME~S: Oh.
(Everyone speaking at once)
MR. MULLER: Lots of materials up here,
[unintelligible] exca~-ating those materials, so 70 feet wide,
however long that -- that parcel is, I think this -- the
information I was give~ -- well, 70 feet by [unintelligible]
3,30'0 feet and 70 feet deep, apparently that's what you have
to [%u~intelligible] 5 by 27 is 598 {u~intelligible] cubic
yards for two dollars ($2.00) per cubic yard, so there'd be a
possibility of --
MS. AR~: ~ow long is that, Allan?
MR. MULLER: 3300 feet is what I have.
MS. AP.P: Is that the [unintelligible] number t-h~re?
MR. OLSON: I don't have section lines on here, but
approximately right here is [unintelligible] Drive and this
would be the other extension of -- it's called wilson Road,
[unintelligible] that right there is a quarter mile.
MAYOR EIMERS: A quarter of mile, so that's 1,250,
so that might be right. It's in red?
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
2"t
that. But Bryan Donaldson is the one that could answer that
a/id I think he went outside. But I do know my propex~y is
3,300 feet from east to west, that much I do know. And it
depends on how wide you want to -- my permit r%uls 80 feet deep
there, with that in mind. I use 70 because it was a more
conservative figure to calculate those materials. I suspect
you're going to want more than 70 feet wide if you W~lt to put
the darn thing there. But certainly my permit goes 80 feet, I
only use 70 to calculate those yardages.
A~d if anybody in this room thinks, an~ it's only
fair to let you know, that you're going to condemn my
property, and that word I've heard brought up in several
meetings, if anYb~y in this room t-hi~s that they're going to
condemn my property, take my ~terials, chop up my land, move
my hot plant and my scale and two offices and chop up my
property and not go into -- and this is no threat, believe me,
this is no threat -- the threatening word is condeuu~ation.
That's the t~reshold word. And when you do t-hat all these
other things are going to fall into place. I'v~ already
talked to -- I just won't say anymore about it, it's so
obvious it doesn't need end, more words.
MAYOR EIMEP~: Thank you.
MR. SEUBERT: Thank you.
MR. OLSON: That's all we have unless the council
has other q~estiorb~.
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
15
16i
17
15
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
$
7
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
2¢
desi~.
120
MS. ARP: Yeah.
MAYOR EIMERS: [unintelligible] .
MR. OLSON: 1700 feet so. Well, now here -- there's
a couple of -- this is a county right-of-way right here --
(Council members and audience all speaking at once)
MR. OLSON: And I don't know, you know, but our
estimate is 120,000 without doing it.
MR. SEUBERT: Say that again, Brian.
MR. OLSON: If they're not willing to sell, I don't
know what happen --
MR. SEUBERT: What is it?
MR. OLSON: -- the value of the property would need
to be [unintelligible].
MR. SEUBERT: This picks up with the materials,
right? And chopping up my lands and moving them off land --
and business disruptions, don't forget them, but again, do
what you what to do, but you're still causing --
MAYOR EIMEP~: Mr. Seubert, have you seen this
design?
MR. SEUBERT: You bet. I've seen about nine
Is this ~- is this the one that
MAYOR
you're talking to?
MR. SEUBERT: Well, I can't say whether that is or
not, I think there's a final version. Another version after
000~'$.'!
122
MS. ARP: Do we know r~ally then what we' re going to
do?
MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, I think so. I think so.
MR. OLSON: You've asked me to proceed with
additional design work to answer IDWR and DEQ concerns on the
Seubert site. Request that the district make a good faith
effort to share the additional costs of that and I'll be
working with Mr. White~ -- but I'll be working with Ted on
that.
Secondly, proceed on the Seubert, to obtain a bid
for the design build process· we'll do this in timing to use
as much of this information
MS. ARP: Correct.
MR. OLSON: -- from nu~ber I --
MS. AR~:~ Correct.
~. OLSON: -- as we c~/~ get.
MS. ~P: Correct.
MR. OLSON: And answer all -~ as ma~y questions as
we possibly can.
MS. ARP: Right.
MR. OLSON: And third, you've asked me to explore
all the other alternative sites, scour the coantryside, so to
speak, I think ~uld be a good term and we'll definitely do
that.
And fourth, it's not on here, but I'm going to have
1
2
3
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
123
to do it in conjunction with this and that's work with BCE and
DEQ.
MS. ARP: Right.
MR. OLSON: On some kind of extension not
MS. ARP: Eight -- right.
MR. OLSON: -- my feeling is we're not going to get
an extension on the construction completion date.
MAYOR EIME~S: No.
MR. 0LSON: But maybe on the up-front date for the
contract. And I think that that might help us because then
we' 11 have some s=rety on the second half of funding and then
we could put it all out there for more economy to scale,
without having a -- as an alternate.
MAYOR EIMERS: What about two -~
MR. OLSON: Without two separate cells, they're both
beiag bid at once. Or just one being bid for sure.
MAYOE EIM~R~: Now, you're talking about maybe the
[unintelligible] will then happen -- happened, or some portion
thereof --
MR. OLS0N: Yes, sir. And I really appreciate the
council's deliberations on this. Thank you, Your Honor.
MAYOH EIMERS: Thank you, Brian. Is there anything
else you all want to ~-
MS. ARP: I'm sorry I can't
MR. BRUCe: May I address you One more time?
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
125
engineer that was working for the city at the time, the two
firm~ were very non-cooperative. The city administration was
very non-cooperative a~d then there was a wholesale change of
government to the form you're in now and a wholesale change of
city council and as a result, when we made our presentation on
what we had done, which cost the city, I t~nk, approximately
eleven thousand dollars ($11,000). We made the presentation
to an entire new council and again and a very -- and a very
hostile environment and virtually all recommendations were --
were ignored and I don' t -- I think you already did a Value
Emgineering and I don't know -- I ~uess I don't know the scope
or extent of the Value Engineering you did on this project,
but what's happening here with your two geotecbnical engineers
a/zd the conflict there, is similar to what we went through in
the .Process that we -- when we were doing the water system
Value Engineering or engineering analysis as it was called.
It' S extremely -- it' s extremely difficult and .they
-- I think you need to try and find a better way of trying to
arrive at the answers when there is dispute. I don' t know,
can't suggest to you what that may be. I think George had a
-- had a viable way.
We do Value Engineering studies all around the
country, we just finished one up in Georgia for the Corp of
Engineers. It's a tough process. That's all I'm pointing
out.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
6
7
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
124
MS. ARP: Oh, it's
MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, sure. Please, sir.
MR. BRUCE: Along the lines of what you've approved,
I think that it should be pointed out that if you proceed with
the option 2 part of that, the bid, the -- there's a fair
amount of costs associated with that, both on the contractor's
side and the engineer's side.
MS. ARP: Brian?
MAYOE EIMERS: Bria~, you better listen to this.
MR. BRUCE: There's a fair amount of cost associated
with that on the engineer's side and the contractor's side.
And, of course, that's at risk. And it's even at more risk
now because you've got other things going on at the same time.
And so --
MAYOR EIMERS: We may not get anything.
M~. BEUCE: -- you know, don't be surprised if you
don't get any. Because there's so ma~y -- there's so --
there's so many questions unanswered, as well as the risks
associated with the project itself that I frankly ~- I
couldn't justify spending any money on it. I don't know about
other contractors and engineers, but it's -- it's difficult.
And the other thing I'd like to point out, since you
did bring it up, is that we -- HDR did perform, four years ago
an analysis of your water system design, that was do~e in a
very difficult envirozunent, I'll put it that way. The
126
MAYOR EIMERS: We did that, Value Engineering said
go to an alternative site if you've got One. And, you know,
now we're back talking about trying to make that real. To
find out if we really stay here or go.
MR. BRUCE: Yeah.
MAYOR EIMERS: One thing I would like to ask you.
If you don't respond --
MR. BRUCE: Yes, sir.
MAYOR EIMERS: If you don't respond, will you --
will you explain to us why?
M~. BRUCE: Oh, absolutely. I'll send you a letter
MR. 0LSON: Well, yeah. It's just --
MA~E SpEA~E~: Well, what George proposed --
MR. OLSON: But what George was saying was that in
different area than I do, he has the risk of the unknowns, I
have the risk of the k/%owns.
000639
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
10
13
14
15
19
2o
21
24
25
127
MR. BRUCE: And we also have the risk of the costs
of putting, it together a~d then you deciding to do something
totally different.
MAYOR EIMEP~: Right. That is what George was
talking about.
MR. VENABLE: Can I ask a q~/estion of you, sir?
MR. BRUCE: Yes. I'm sorry.
(Council members all talking at once)
MR. VENABLE: [unintelligible] a few years ago, said
you were in a hostile environment and were your
reconunendations or your bids or whatever, they were ignored?
MR. BRUCE: Virtually all of them, yes.
MR. VENABLE: Could you ts{1 me if you k~ow what the
difference in the costs was and what we finally got and what
your. bid was?
MR. BRUCE: We ~~ I don't believe --
MA~E SPEAKER: You k~ow what, you had a greater
effect than you have any idea.
MR. BRUCE: Well, that's good to know.
MA/~E SPEAKER: Well, I'll tell y~u what happened is
that, number one, some of your recommendations were put in
place like, the storage tar~k came out and --
MR. BRUCE: Yes. I u~derstand.
MALE SPEAXER: -- and you did stuff. And your
a~alysis was important in the trial that just got a 1.8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
129
MR. BRUCE: Thank you.
MR. OLSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Brian. One other thing,
and I would put this out [unintelligible] one thing that you
really need to pay attention to, Brian, along wi~h looking at
the alternatives, WOrk with the county, work with everybody on
MR. OLSON: Yes, sir.
MAYOR EIMEP~: Make that rascal real.
MR. OLSON: Okay.
MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, sorry. Yes, please.
MR. WHITEMAN: Mayor, I'd also like t~ encourage the
council %o seek what Bria~l has already offered to do with you
and .that is to talk with the Bureau of Reclamation a~d discuss
their time lines with that. I had a conversation with Ron
Gullus [phonetic] last Friday morning before ou~
[u~lintelligible] board meeting, a~d the information -- I hope
that you've already heard this before, was that there is a
September 30th, 1998 deadline, okay?
MAYOR EIMERS: Right. Right.
MR. WHITEMAN: And that the information I got from
Ron is that the BOH is willing to let that date slide
somewhat.
MAYOR EIMERS: Okay.
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
15
19
19
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
128
million dollar award to the city in 8~m~ges against Montgomery
Watson.
MR. BRUCE: Well, we were thankful that we weren't
called into that process, but I'm glad that it worked out for
you.
MAYOR EIMERS: SO, don't go away thinking, gosh,
that was awful.
MR. BRUCE: Okay. No.
MR. %~NABLE: I still haven't been able to hear an
answer to this last q~estion. I asked you, do you have any
figures in your mind that the difference between what your bid
or building of the plant -- what our final costs was, you
MR. BRUCE: NO, sir. No, sir, we only suggested
some alternatives, that we thought could save some money in the
project and we also suggested some alternatives that we
~hought WOuld improve redundancy, in terms of a safer water
supply System and in fact those red, dent -- redundancies that
were suggested appeared to be also lower costs, but they
involved wells and apparently wells were not acceptable to the
community at that point in time, at least that's what we were
told. After we gave Our analysis that -- that was the last we
had heard ~bout it entll -- virtually until the lawsuit
situation then came up, so.
MAYOR EiMERS: The wells were the closing argument
000~'?
130
MR. WHITEMAN: He said that they have reattached
priority to the September 1, 1999 date.
MAYOR EIMERS: September 30, isn't it?
MR. WHITEMAN: Or September 30th, 1999 date as being
the date when you need to be complete with the project.
MAYOR EIMERS: We're out of the race.
MR. wHITEMAN: So I'd like -- I'd like to. underscore
that you have a time flexibility here to pursue other options.
MAYOR BIMERS: Thank you, Ted. And I don't know if
he's still here, Bill's here -- tha~Lks to klm for that.
MR. OLSON: Oh, he's gone.
MAYOR EIMERS: O~ay, well, if you see him convey
that. 'I appreciate that and I also appreciate him catching
the inconsistency. Let him know ~hat when you see him. When
I linked up IDWR with -- with Kleinfelder it [unintelligible]
thank him for both.
Okay, are there any other things that council would
talk to?
MR. VENABLE: I'd make a motion we adjourn.
MAYOR EIMERS: All in favor?
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Aye.
MAYOR EIMERS: Opposed. Thanks everyone.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
MEETING CONCLUDED
C~RTIFICATI ON
I (WE} CERTIFY THAT T~ FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM
T~ E~ECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING OF THE pROCEEDINGS IN THE
ABOVE -E~TITLEDMA'~'%'~K.
NORTHWEST TRANSC~-I~TS, INC.
P.O. BOX 890
NAM~A, IDAHO 83653
(208) 466-2743
CARPENTER
TP. ANSCRIBER
11/10/98 .