Loading...
Council Minutes 1999 05/05CITY OF MC CALL MINUTES Special Meeting McCall City Council American Legion Hall Wednesday - May 5, 1999 Table Of Contents Call To Order and Roll Call 2 Business 2 AB 99-41 CUP 99-2 AB 99-29 Sewer Lagoon Bids AB 98-126 Utility Adjustment AB 99-40 MOU on Property New Business 8 Adjournment 8 Minutes - May 5, 1999.doc Page 1 of 8 MINUTES Call To Order The special meeting of the McCall City Council was called to order at the American Legion Hall by Mayor Eimers at 12:10 p.m. Mr. Muller, Mr. Colton, Mr. Eimers, Ms. Arp, and Mr. Venable answered roll call. A quorum was present. City staff present were City Attorneys Dave Bieter, Interim City Manager Bill Robertson, Police Chief Carla Donica, City Treasurer Ashley Royal, Public Works Director Bill Keating, and Assistant to City Manager Chelsi Sholty. IBusiness i AB 99-41 CUP 99-2, Approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Mr. Colton and Mr. Venable both recused themselves from the proceedings, due to conflicts of interest. Ms. Arp asked for a recess to read the 14 page document (Approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CUP 99-2). Mayor Eimers moved for a 10 minute recess at 12:13 p.m. Ms. Arp seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting reconvened at 12:38 p.m. Mayor Eimers directed staff to give a report. Mr. Robertson explained that due to new developments and recent additional information, the current preliminary designs showing a monolithic rectangle of 363 million gallons of effluent, is subject to change for the better. We have now learned that the total requirement may be 260 million gallons or less, which allows for the desi process of recalculating t weeks. DEQ will then evalua o be smaller. The engineers are now in the requirement, and this will be completed within two 'validate the recalculation one week after that. Basically, we are looking at 250 million gallons as the maximum requirement over 20 years. This is a significant impact, which will allow the walls to be lowered and the design to be more of a curved shape. The desire is to involve the public in mitigation before the plans are implemented. Staff recommends to task the successful bidder at the point of the awarding phase to take 3-4 weeks (after NEPA approval) and come back with the preliminary design with public input. Mr. Robertson noted that DEQ requires we have two cells —initially dig one hole and pump everything in that one and then work on the other. Mr. Eimers asked if the two cells could be 125 million gallons each? Mr. Robertson explained that we will know more in three weeks. He went on to explain that the Consent Order and discharge permits cover an emergency provision if we can't pump out of our ponds and stay out of the river. Mr. Muller clarified this provision if we went with 125 million gallons each. He also inquired if it was the City's prerogative to make the decision on the size, or would we have to convince DEQ? What would be the consequences? Mr. Robertson reminded the Council that if the City makes a decision Minutes - May 5, 1999.doc Page 2 of 8 DEQ doesn't agree with, they may place moratoriums on building permits, enforce fines, and etc. Council needs to define what the target is. We may not be able to dictate total symmetry, but size may be negotiable. Mr. Eimers clarified whether or not the volume required is going down and will allow us to take and separate the size of the first pond and change the second pond, which will provide additional dollars for mitigation (with a plan). Mr. Robertson validated this and expressed that we need to have individuals and parties involved to acknowledge that "we may not like it, but we need to work with it to make the best possible solution." It will be beneficial for everyone involved to have more of these kinds of meetings. Mr. Eimers thanked Mr. Robertson for the report and asked Mr. Bieter to review the Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for CUP 99-2. Mr. Bieter explained that this document was completed under extreme time constraints, so he would ask Council to recommend their changes at this time. The Council gave their input, and changes were noted. Ms. Arp had a question about the height of dams going over 36/feet—if there is a difference of opinion in mitigation, how do we deal with that? Mr. Eimers further inquired if there was a way to change it if it got adverse? Mr. Bieter read an excerpt from the Findings to show this kind of situation is covered. Ms. Arp concluded that another CUP does not need to occur if conditions improve. Mr. Robertson agreed and added it is a design/build, and Council can always pass a resolution to stop things. Mr. Bieter requested the changes indicated to be incorporated into the motion. Mr. Muller made a motion to incorporate the changes in the Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for CUP 99-2 and give the Mayor the authority to sign. Mr. Eimers seconded and asked for discussion. Ms. Arp disagreed, as they had not had the opportunity to go down one by one and discuss each point. Her concern is whether the design meets the conditions (noise, disharmonious to neighborhood, safety hazard; scenic concerns, etc.), and has not seen anything convincing her that Planning and & Zoning was incorrect in their decision. She added that she doesn't disagree with the end result of trying to deal with wastewater. She has a problem with where the proposed ponds will sit, not the total size —it simply can't be done as proposed with buffers. Mr. Eimers disagreed with Ms. Arp, stating he feels it is harmonious, as it already is a multiple use area with traffic and trucks coming in and out. Mr. Muller interjected that more traffic is inevitable with the Meckel pit and the construction of the Deinhard-Boydstun connector. There was more discussion on scenic easement and buffer size legalities. Ms. Arp indicated that the first proposal being 10 feet high might have been sufficient, but now since it has moved over to subdivisions, it is not acceptable. At a roll call vote Mr. Muller and Mr. Eimers voted "aye" and Ms. Arp voted "nay." The motion carried. Minutes - May 5, 1999.doc Page 3 of 8 AB 99-29 Sewer Lagoon Bids Mr. Robertson gave a staff report regarding the recommendation to award the $4.1 million bid. He reviewed from the last Council meeting the two most qualified, and the recommendation to go with the low bidder —Earth Tech. He gave a report on their credentials, as he did a background check. They have been involved in numerous design/build projects, to include wastewater projects, and the cities/organizations they did work for would use Earth Tech again. Mr. Robertson recommended the Council award the bid to Earth Tech. He indicated he would task Earth Tech to do a preliminary design with citizen involvement to take approximately two weeks according to the 250 million gallon requirement. Then they would be directed to build one of the ponds and have sufficient funds left to do proper mitigation. A plan would be presented to Council before this takes place. Mr. Robertson explained that until the bid is awarded, the design work cannot be done. We are also working with a tight window, with September 30 being the deadline set by DEQ and BOR. Liners need to be put down by that time as well. With NEPA approval not yet granted, Mr. Robertson will have to convince Earth Tech to go forward on their own dime due to time constraints. Recommendation to award bid to Earth Tech and sign agreement with Earth Tech. There was some discussion on whether or not the City will still have an opportunity to go with the second bidder if there is not a successful acceptance of the award. Mr. Bieter reassured that it is always inherent in a bid to go with the second bidder —there is nothing precluding this type of arrangement. There was also discussion on citizen involvement in the process and defining what role that would take. Discussion on the contract itself took place. Specifics regarding the references were clarified, and it was noted Earth Tech has an office in Boise. Mr. Eimers made a motion to award and negotiate the bid based on staffs recommendation to Earth Tech. Mr. Muller seconded. Discussion took place. Mr. Colton pointed out that initially his main concern was not having any knowledge about Earth Tech, but now he feels good about it after hearing Mr. Robertson's report on the background check. Ms. Arp said she had more of a problem with the pond, than with the bid itself. Mr. Robertson asked that the phrase, "contingent upon NEPA approval and release of funds" be incorporated into the motion. Ms. Arp asked what funds needed to be negotiated and where the cost of bid specs was drawn from. Mr. Robertson clarified regarding the grant funds, and that it was the $2.5 million. At a roll call vote Mr. Eimers, Mr. Muller, Mr. Colton, and Mr. Venable voted "yes" and Ms. Arp voted "nay." The motion carried AB 98-126 Utility Adjustment Greg Pittenger, representing Brian & Katie Charles, gave the history of the issue and reiterated discussions from previous Council meetings. He noted that he had previously met with the Mayor and Ms. Buxton regarding the matter. Because the Charles' are in conflict with bonding and ordinances of the City, the discussion centered around parameters of what is acceptable or not to remain connected. Mr. Pittenger met Minutes - May 5, 1999.doc Page 4 of 8 with the Charles to apprise them of the discussion. A letter dated 03/08/99 to Ms. Buxton, indicated that if the Charles' ever sell the property, they must pay the reconnection fee and the new owners must hook up their water to the City. On 03/16/99, Mr. Pittenger received a response to prepare the necessary documents. A "Declaration of Covenants"was prepared, which Mr. Pittenger read through the main points. The issue is whether or not this proposal is suitable to the City Council. Mr. Eimers made a clarification of the agreement. Mr. Bieter indicated he had no quarrel with Mr. Pittengers characterization of the issue, and that he was not in on the earlier deliberations; however, he had reviewed the documents, and finds no legal reason to make them hook up. However, theory states that local governments are not bound to occupational hazards (personnel, in this matter), but we will allow in this case. Mr. Bieter recommended a "sunset" clause be proposed —he read this clause written by Susan. Ms. Arp clarified whether or not the Charles were in violation of the ordinance, and Mr. Bieter replied "yes." Mr. Eimers pointed out the chance of someone else wanting to go against an ordinance. Mr. Bieter explained that in this particular case, they could take us to court and it is very rare a judge would find for the claimant. There was some discussion on subsidizing to occur for residents not hooked up to City, and what it would cost the Charles to do this. Mr. Pittenger clarified the issues, and asked if this could somehow be done legally to come up with the terms to do it. He clarified the proposal made to Ms. Buxton, and noted that under the circumstances it is not a bad resolution. He expressed he wasn't interested in negotiating a sunset clause without the Charles involvement. If the agreement could not be approved, he would come back. There was more discussion between the Council regarding the available information, violating the ordinance, and the sunset clause. Ms. Arp pointed out it was equitable on both sides to restore the cost of the well and cap it approximately at that —no motion. Mr. Colton moved to accept the recommendation of staff to conclude the matter and Mr. Muller seconded. Mr. Colton expressed his view on the need to come to some resolution on the matter and to do what we can on ordinances like this. Ms. Arp felt the completed package was coming from one side. In a roll call vote Mr. Colton, Mr. Muller, Mr. Eimers, and Mr. Venable voted "aye" and Ms. Arp voted "nay." The motion carried. AB 99-40 MOU on Property John Carey discussed the big picture of what he is trying to do in downtown McCall and gave a history of his involvement. He noted that Jack Marshall represents him regarding the Master Plan and Mr. Pittenger will talk about the contractual portion of the agreement. Minutes - May 5, 1999.doc Page 5 of 8 The stated issues are downtown redevelopment, the closure of E. Lake Street, and the marinas. He indicated the discussions on these issues have been on -going for several years with previous Councils, but it has not yet been resolved. Mr. Carey shared about himself/family/background and why he is here. He went through the history of how he got where he is today with the purchase of the Depot and Hotel buildings and Railroad right of way —an expensive and long process (he has spent an additional $2 million in downtown McCall). Mr. Marshall gave a history of the planning of downtown, to include the involvement of committees and planning and zoning. He showed exhibits used in previous Council meetings used to acquire the railroad property. At that time, the Council asked them not to proceed until there was an assurance they were consistent with the downtown plan. His second exhibit indicated the E. Lake closure. He also discussed the completion of the boulevard and stoplight. The last negotiation regarding this issue took place with the previous City Manager (Brian Olson) and City Planner (Andy Locke). They asked for a phased approach to the closing of E. Lake in August. The most recent proposal suggested making it a one-way to cut down on traffic. Mr. Marshall concluded they would like to make it a year-round closure and to make a decision on the issue. He also showed an exhibit indicating a temporary closure. Mr. Carey interjected that what Mr. Marshall has been summarizing for us is a result of a four-year process, and we're trying to get it resolved. Mr. Pittenger gave copies of the signed memorandum. He gave a history of the railroad property. He pointed out that land uses northeast of 3rd Street is the obligation of the City (paragraph 12). He discussed the award of the marina lease and discussed it's use (need for CUP). He also discussed the East Lake propositions —continue to use for a mini -mall, common area, and as a part of Legacy Park. Mr. Pittenger indicated they would like to start discussions on this today and get back on how they intend to proceed. Mr. Muller indicated he wasn't in favor of the closure of E. Lake St. before, but agreed that it may need to take place now. He also suggested the Lenora and Railroad Ave. be looked at, and requested if someone could show up at the Transportation Committee meeting tonight to discuss these issues. Mr. Carey indicated someone would be there, and began his presentation on his plan for downtown. He pointed out, using his exhibit, how he would like to construct 40-50 townhouses (with about 120 rooms), 20,000 sq. feet of additional retail, and to keep the area between the shops/townhouses and park/lake open and free from traffic. He indicated that closure was not needed immediately, but it is a part of the agreement and will need to have it done when construction begins, so today they are looking for the Council's best effort to get the street closed. Minutes - May 5, 1999.doc Page 6 of 8 There was more discussion between the Council and Mr. Carey regarding timelines, process, the role of Transportation Committee, donating funds to downtown improvement for beautification, and plans. Mr. Bieter thanked the presenters for the history and recommended the Council not to take any action at this point. Mr. Carey suggested a plan from Council to be completed in 6 months that both sides agree upon. Ms. Arp suggested this be directed to a staff person. Mr. Muller and Mr. Colton expressed their desire to see these issues resolved and the plans to be moved forward. Ms. Arp agreed, and also suggested to include public education as a part of the plan and to also include the right people so the plan doesn't get stopped in its tracks. Mr. Carey reminded the Council that they did enter into an agreement 4 % years ago, and have an obligation to see it through. There was further discussion on this issue, to include City interests, committee involvement in the past, public perception, staff and Council involvement from this point forward, bringing certain people and committees up to speed, and timeline for developing a game plan. Mr. Colton proposed that the plan be developed within 8 weeks, and to take six months to affect it. Mr. Muller seconded. Mr. Eimers had questions on public education regarding legal issues and committing to the project at this time. Mr. Carey clarified that the issue was what to do with that section of downtown. Mr. Colton explained that the intent of the motion was to develop a plan before voting it in at this time. Mr. Carey noted that the Master Plan represents the most recent plans. Mr. Bieter recommended the City not be the applicant for the CUP. Mr. Carey explained the CUP was for the marina, and the issue today was the closure of East Lake. Mr. Marshall indicated the agreement still needs some work. Mr. Eimers clarified the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. Mr. Eimers had a question for Mr. Carey regarding the dirt behind City Hall. Mr. Carey agreed to write a check to Urban Renewal within the next couple of weeks. New Business Mr. Eimers referred to a letter from Wes Rhoades to be appointed to the Transportation Committee. It has not been presented to the Transportation Committee to date. Ms. Arp asked it to be presented tonight, and put on the next agenda. Adjournment 1 Without further business, Mr. Eimers moved to adjourn. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The Council adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Minutes - May 5, 1999.doc Page 7 of 8 ATTEST: C! Cherry Woodbury, City (Minutes taken by Chels Kirk Eimers, Mayor lerk Sholty, Acting City Jerk) Minutes - May 5, 1999.doc Page 8 of 8 BEFORE THE McCALL CITY COUNCIL McCALL, IDAHO RE: SPECIAL MEETING OF } McCALL CITY COUNCIL ) SPECIAL MEETING M RESORTS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: MAYOR KIRK EIMERS ALAN MULLER MARILYN ARP BILL ROBERTSON DAVE METER, City Attorney TRANSCRIPTION BY: May 5, 1999 McCall, Idaho Mary Lou Molitor, Transcriptionist 3314 Tucker Boise, Idaho 83703 (208) 344-4852 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. z McCall City Council 5/5/99 ALAN MULLER: Can we set up here? MAYOR: Wherever you'd like. I think — is that okay with you, Bill? They can sit wherever they want? Okay, we're back in order, ladies and gentlemen. We'll turn it over to Bill for a staff report, and then we'll go to David, I guess. BILL ROBERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. What I wanted to do is give an overview of some developments that we've been learning about recently, and I'd like to make a recommendation that will impact some of the proceedings as we go forward. As the Council knows, we do have the $4.1 million to award the bid, once NEPA is approved, to the successful bidder. However, there has been some additional information that has come to light recently, some of it was discussed last Saturday. The preliminary engineering designs were showing a large monolithic rectangle, with the anticipation of ultimate containment on a 20-year basis of 363,000,000 gallons of effluent. With the rhetoric in the newspapers of recent, about the questionability of some of the figures we were using from the facility plan, we tasked our city engineers to recalculate what the requirement is. And that is in the process of being recalculated now, and will have to be approved by DEQ. However, we have a commitment that was made last 3 safety, so that you can be cleaning one and having the other one filling, or repairing one if there was a leak in the liner. The main issue that's a change here is the opportunity to, especially with additional volumes, have a significant impact on design and possibly freeing up monies for mitigation. So that we can have a plan with public involvement before we start digging ground. Now, I have discussed this also with DEQ, that I was going to be recommending it, so that they are not totally in the cold. But that's the direction that it looks like the Council should consider, in evaluating the rest of this today. Any questions, as it relates to — MAYOR: Yeah, I guess a couple. One question would be the — let's see — we go to two cells just, for example, of 125,000,000 each, you're not out of river, this year? BILL: That's correLt. We don't know how far we are not out of the river. I don't think — it may end up being 150 and 100. It may be — we'll know in three weeks what the first -year requirement is. It's likely that we would have an emergency beyond that and that we might in April end up putting something in the river. MAYOR: And that's okay for the ... BILL: No, I don't think it's okay. That's negotiation we're going to have to do. But that's — DEQ knows that's what I'm recommending, and that if the Saturday that the engineers will complete their task in two weeks, and DEQ will require week after that. It is looking like the 206,000,000, which was the minimum requirement to be down the river, is probably the number that will be required over the next three to five years. Something less initially. Furthermore, it's looking like 250,000,000 or less is going to be the maximum required over 20 years. Now that's preliminary at this point; in three weeks it should be firmed up and what — and that is a significant impact because that means the design can be lower on the height of the walls_ It also allows more flexibility. Furthermore, the two qualified bidders that we reviewed in a prior Council meeting, both have been talking to me about if they get the bid, they have some ideas, innovative ideas in any case where they wanted to make curved walls, because of the wetlands and things of that type. And the last thing that became very dear and has been becoming clearer in recent weeks is the public does want to know the mitigation before we get into the plan, even though the City did not have the money available to make commitments as to what it would be. And it's staffs recommendation that when we get to the awarding phase, but in any case in approaching this, that what we do is task the successful bidder such that over the next three to four weeks — and it really can't start until NEPA is approved, so that over the next three to four weeks after NEPA approval, that they come bad( with a preliminary design that includes citizen input on design as well as mitigation. And it will probably end up something like two ponds of 125,000,000 each or something like — I don't know. That's what they need to come up with. There has to be two ponds, according to DEQ requirements, for 4 Council agrees we go forward with it. When the decision is made and this preliminary plan comes in, and we have a look at it, if it bears out what the Council and the citizens want, then I think we have a basis to show good faith and try to negotiate with them to try to get going. They're interested in getting us largely out of the river. They want us out totally. But if we show intent of largely out, there is a high —1 think there's a high probability that there could be some success in negotiation. ALLEN MULLER: You brought up a term, "emergency evacuation." What do you mean? MULLER The consent order and the permit that we have for discharging on the river now indicates that we will be out of the river except for emergency. If there is some problem in which we can't pump into our ponds, then that's considered an emergency. As long as the plan is moving forward and it's based on what is agreed, you can have an emergency discharge. MULLER From what you're suggesting, is that if you have a pond configuration less than the 206, and I'm just going to use the 125 because that's what you figured, then you're saying that the 125 is reconfigured to meet mitigation so that it can be acceptable, hopefully, by everybody. But that there's a point in time during the year that 125 fills up and it's March? Then you take the remainder of the time until you go to the J-Ditch phase one and sprinkle, and do an emergency evacuation back to the river, and that's covered under the 6 consent. MULLER Yes. Will they agree to 125, or will they say no, 175. The thing that they will agree with is 206. While that's the number everybody's grabbed a handle on, 206 doesn't give you any — you can't build a 44 million gallon second cell and have it be worthwhile. MULLER No, I understand this. MULLER So I think they will agree to something less. MULLER What I'm saying is, do we as a Council have the prerogative to say this is what it's going to be? And if you don't like it, that's too bad. MAYOR: According to — according to ... MULLER This man has to answer that. MAYOR: Yeah, Dave Bieter, Al Barker. MULLER Yeah. I don't know if we can absolutely — I think we have a good basis ... number of things they will do. Number one is they will place moratoriums on any building permits. They can fine us. MARILYN ARP: He didn't say will do, he said the possibility of doing. He said the possibility of doing. MAYOR: Right. Right. MULLER I'm glad that you're optimistic. I would rather go with the optimism. But the possibility is moratorium, possibility is fines, possibility is other harassing on anything that we try to do. And that's — the Council then will need to — you know, will need to define what the target is. Here's what we want to accomplish, here's what we think we can get. It may not end up being total symmetry. It may not — if you have 220 with a number, it may not be able to be two 110's. It might be able — if the firsf year requirement were 150, and the 220 was a 20-year, if that were the numbers, we might be able to say, well look, 150 and 220 is only a 70 million second, that's too small. They would agree. Then we've got a base to say maybe a 130. Now, there is a basis there to argue, but it's with a•lot more knowledge than we have today. And that's the point I'm trying to bring up. MAYOR: The point is that there's a negotiation to occur. But what you're saying is that the volume required is going down, and that that volume required going down allows you to take and separate the size of the first pond, maybe, MULLER I mean, if we say logic dictates this thing — I guess if you — I guess I'm looking at this thing in terms of I&I. If 250 is a figure that's a total amount, and not 363, and 250 also has incorporated into it the I & I, and most of the I & I is — I don't know what it is, and we'll find out hopefully a lot more about that this summer. But let's say it's 30 million gallons. Now you're down to 220, and now you're building a — you said 170 million gallons, and we're at 220, now you're looking at 170 and a 50 million gallon tank. That's — that doesn't make any more sense than a 206 and a 30. MULLER It's — I think if it came out to be 220, I think you could ... MULLER Yeah, what I'm saying is, at some point in time when we decide this, can we — can we stand — I mean, I don't know if we'd win or not. I'm just saying, can we say, this is what I want it to be, and if you don't like is, that's the break. And you'll work with us, DEQ, and we've picked 150 — it comes up to 250, and we've picked 125. And we do 125 and they say, no, we want 140. And we say tough luck, we're not doing 140, we're doing 150. What happens to us? What are the — I guess I'm saying, what are the consequences of that? MR. MULLER Okay. If we pop the fuse to where they decide that they're not going to agree. Steve West made it very clear last Saturday they do have a s into a second pond and create additional — not only to change the profile perhaps and height of the walls, but to also provide additional dollars for mitigation. Up front. MULLER Yes. With the plant. MAYOR: And you said within three or four weeks the engineers would get together — well, there would be citizen involvement in ... MULLER There has to — that was one of their suggestions, to do it. And it's very clear after last Saturday, we need to do it. I subsequently met with a couple of the people who were very interested in how the project progresses. And the conversation starts off with, I don't like it, I'd rather it not happen. But if its going to happen, let's sit down and talk about how we can at least make it more palatable. And we need to have more of those kinds of meetings because then we can make some progress. And I think this gives us the opportunity to do that in a forum where, there can be participation. And it recognizes the — that's the big change, is the reduced volume. MAYOR: Sure is. So it's fortuitous that Mr. Becker has pointed out that we might be short in our initial volume at 206. And it made everybody start looking at it. [0 Okay. Thank you. David, I'll turn it over to you. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Council, for the record, I'm Dave Bieter from Moore & McFadden, city attorneys. I'm not going to review this in significant detail. I think that's what we recessed to allow you to do. I will point out that we have attempted under as tight a time constraints as I've been under, given the length of the hearing, which is also probably the longest one that I had the pleasure of participating in. But I didn't mind. We have attempted to be — to include as much as we could from as many sources as we could, our own notes, and as we recall the deliberations and information in the record. I would point out — I would hope — and I'm definitely speaking to all of you on this. I would hope that we can — even if there are changes to be made, that we make them now. Because whatever your feelings are on this project, there is an argument to be made that the longer we delay, you — your final decision is this. So that regardless of the public's feeling or the Council's feeling on this, getting this done, I believe, suits all parties. Because an argument could be made that if the findings outside, you have no final decision, and no court action can begin until you have one. I'm not suggesting that we do that and I don't think that's anyone's intention. So if — recognizing again that this is one of the most severe crunches of time that we've been under, given the length of the hearing. We attempted to include all that we could, and as memory and our notes served us. And I'd ask if possible that you come out with a decision and a direction. Even if there are ll And then on — because I know there are names that are missing, and I just looked down mine and I could see some. BIETER: Okay. If you want to hand those in now, we've got the proposed list. ARP: Well, I don't know. I'm just trying to find out. If that's to be an inclusive listing, it is not. Okay, in fact the first one was Mike Barton, wasn't it? MULLER Right. Mike Barton was the first. ARP: And not Barnes. Okay. Richard Porter, then Steve Milman. Now I've got to find my right pages. MAYOR: Page"2, number 8? Is Mike Barton? ARP: Yeah, then Rand Walker, then Roger Ehrlibach, Bill Ehrlibach, Chris Seubert, and I think they are tracking there. Steve Bixby, Tom Hanes, Julie Eddins, Rorie Bean, Ross Campbell, John Campbell, Hobie Alter, Teresa Bixby, Gene Odenmark, Don Green, Dean Martins, Peggy Klemmer, Lloyd Edwards, Carol Fighter, I think. Well, Dean wasn't listed. Ron Lemon, Delores Chisholm, Matt Edwards. changes to be made, we can do that and direct the Mayor to approve of those changes. So with that, I'd welcome any comments or — I know we have at least a few changes. ARP: I did have a few questions. Page 2, when you list testimony was heard from the following, that's certainly not a total listing. If it's implied to be, it is not. I have more on my notes that I took. I know —1 can see people who I know spoke are not listed here. So what — BIETER: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council ... ARP: I don't know what the intention was here. BIETER: ... page 2 was the zoning ... ARP: No, and then the bottom, eight. BIETER: Beginning on page 2. ARP: Yes, I'm sorry. Eight, and then it lists down to Z and double A. But that isn't all of them. I have more on my list. Is it intended to be all of them? It's not. Well, it says testimony was heard from the following, but it's not all of them. So that's just my observation. 12 MULLER Richard Porter came back up also. ARP: Okay. So the one for sure was Dean Martins wasn't listed on there and I don't know how many others. Those are the ones I have. MULLER We've got the same list. MULLER Dean Martins really just asked a question, a process question. Yeah, he was just asking if he could hear from the agencies at the beginning. ARP: Uh, positive — he talked about positive effects in the wetlands not decided, mitigation must be part of NEPA (?) ... MULLER Was that when I was up after Don Green? ARP: Yes. MULLER Yeah, because he did come up after Don Green. ARP: Well, I'm just — again, if you want to ... okay. Then on number nine, we just talked about that, that's reversed, about east and west, that needs to be changed. I would question on number 13, where it says drainage of the 13 site is to the west into a tributary of the North Fork Payette River. Is that 14 Williams Creek we're talking about? 13. MULLER On page 4? ARP: Yes. Is that Williams Creek tributary of the North Fork Payette River? MULLER Yeah, that would be Williams Creek. ARP: I would like to have that listed. Um — I would question number 20, the earthen embankments creating the impoundments are classified as dams? In fact, they classify it as high risk dam, per Idaho Department of Water Resources. MAYOR: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I don't believe — I didn't hear that word come out of — come from at the hearing. MULLER If I can interject right here. This is starting off by saying they call them dams and not embankments. That's what this was saying. Later on there's a classification of low, medium and high risk. ARP: Okay. 15 MAYOR: 17 and 30 ... MULLER 17 and 36. (several voices) ARP: Okay. MULLER So 17 and 36 are the two figures we'll use there. ARP: If that's the proposed, as proposed. MULLER That's more reflective of the ... ARP: Yeah; as proposed. And it says as proposed, and that's what we're dealing with. MULLER I wanted to make sure we were writing the same thing you were. ARP: I'm not necessarily writing. Now, going down to conclusions, page 6. Concems regarding level of mitigation for the proposal deserve additional attention by the City and as such meetings between the City representatives and MULLER But this was just saying that the earthen embankments creating the impoundment are classed as dams. ARP: Are dams rather than — okay. MULLER Then they have separate categories. ARP: Okay. On 22, on as proposed. This says, as proposed, the impoundment would create embankments ranging in height from about 20 feet high at the north and over 30 feet high at the south end of the project. The current design is substantially over 30, closer to 40, is it not? What is that? MULLER 30 — close to 36. ARP: 37, which ... MULLER If you want to be specific ... ARP: Well, yeah, that's a little loose. MULLER And the is 17 feet, so ... 16 resorts and appropriate agencies should be held. What about the Westside Coalition and those other groups? Are they not to be ... MULLER Up until this point in time, their lawyer has said that they should not participate. DEQ the series of meetings, and they're continuing. ARP: Why don't we open that, though, and such other ... MAYOR: Yeah, continue to invite — and you know, we ought to invite the representatives from Mrs. Edwards, too. ARP: Well, something I should delineate. MULLER So end resorts and others affected. MAYOR: And others affected, yeah. Which one was that? ARP: Um, it was number 5 under conclusions, page 6, and other affected parties. BIETER: So, it'd be the City representatives, end resorts, other affected parties and appropriate agencies n 18 MULLER Yeah. MAYOR: There's another one of those scheduled, is there not? MULLER They were just today trying to set up the next meeting, yes. ARP: So that would need to be changed then on the last page, the same thing, it's a repeat of that. MULLER On the last page? ARP: Yeah, the conditions. MULLER Okay: That's fine. I mean — there's two sets of dynamics here. There's the DEQ, in which they believe they have the necessity to give a response back to end resorts. And that's going to be pretty quick. And separately, as a result of what I was proposing in my staff report — and so far as a condition, we just need to make sure it's worded so that it's reflective. I think the intent is absolutely that all parties be involved. ARP: That's probably the only things I have other than personal observations, but .. 19 BIETER: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I only have one thing that - - just to point out that's consistent with everything that's been said today and at the meeting. But if these discussions lead to a change in the design to mitigate — a change in the design, especially, I guess, if it were to lower the banks or lower the capacity, that that —what's been proposed in your conclusions is that doesn't — that's inherent in the application, it doesn't require that we come back for a change in the conditional use permit. MULLER It's also consistent with 17 to 36 ... MULLER That doesn't have to — that doesn't preclude ..- BIETER: You understand what I'm saying? MAYOR: I guess it's directional. If it was going to go from 3 to 18 you'd have to come back, but if it's less, you wouldn't? Is that the truth, or what? BIETER: Right. Right. MAYOR: Gotcha. So this is a worst case rather than a best case. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, could I ask Council member Moore If he had any, and then — and then a motion is in order and discussion (unintelligible). Maybe technical issues first. MAYOR: Do you have any technical issues for David or staff? MULLER No, I don't — because I don't know if you, when you talk about about 360 million gallons of treated effluent, I (unintelligible) and say 363 because that's what they said was the size ... (multiple voices — unintelligible) MULLER They'd store about 363 million gallons — (unintelligible) everything we talked about is 363 million gallons. MULLER It is? ARP: That's the proposal, right. MULLER If we deal with — let's see here. 20 BIETER: Right. It's inherent in the approval that that doesn't require an amendment to the conditional use permit because that — it's also not a material change, I don't believe, to lower it is not — ARP: How do we know — so, how do we know that it would have to come back if it in fact found to be increased? BIETER: If it went over 363 gallons, then yes. ARP: Okay. How about the height of the dams? Because this does make me somewhat nervous when we — you know, I see that we are approving a design that is laid out and then we talk about all these mitigation things which could be good, but they're very loose. Nothing is in concrete. In fact, my question is, why weren't we hearing this quite a few months ago, where were the engineers and things. (several voices) ARP: Well, but I mean, hearing that — hearing the residents as well... MULLER I would agree, if it goes over 363 or goes over the height that's designed at this point .. MAYOR: It's gotta come back. 21 22 MULLER But that was the decision that was made last year. But the expectation now is that it is better and the Council will need to measure that when we do this presentation of the preliminary design. Because the Council can always pass a resolution and stop things. MAYOR: There is nothing that cannot be reversed, is that correct? ARP: Well, how is that reflected in here? MAYOR: Let's say that, then. MULLER Can we say that in there? BIETER: 1 think that's part of the territory, but ... MULLER Well, I don't know— I don't know. MAYOR: I think so, if I hear what you're saying. I don't think any — I don't think I heard anybody Saturday that would tell you that if the wall's lower, it's a bad deal. ARP: Okay, but I'm just saying, but I don't know what else could come around, or if it could get closer, or if it could get — that's what I'm saying. MAYOR: Well, but there'd be citizen involvement in there_ I guess if it got adverse, is that the right way to look at that? BIETER: Well, let me read what you've got here. Page 6, number 3. The MULLER It doesn't hurt to say it. decision pending before the agencies, between the Division of Environmental Quality, Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, could result in the MAYOR: In the words? imposition of conditions that would mandate revisions and mitigation of the proposal that would lead to changes in features of the project. BIETER: That'd be no problem at all. MULLER That's what I'm trying to let you know, that it is in there. ARP: And how about if the walls — if the walls come down and things like that, yet there's a difference of opinion about what the mitigation is, if it's good or ARP: Okay. But those are agencies though, right? bad. How does that — I mean, how does that come out? Do you know what I'm asking? BIETER: Right. One of the conditions is that — the need for process, obviously that's a condition and that's in there, too. I would have to — we don't want to have to come back for a conditional use permit to widen — I understand 23 that those kinds of things will go on, and that's also inherent in the conditions, that we have those discussions. If we're not going to mitigate then ... BIETER: No, 1 don't believe so, not in 24 ARP: Well, and I understand that as well. But I guess I don't want to — I ARP: You sometimes have to pay for it, but ... do not think that we need to have another conditional use permit if it's improving. BIETER: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor and Council, I'd ask that the changes that But my question is — a little — makes me nervous. we — in your motion, that the changes that you've indicated be incorporated and that we are being given authority to decide once those changes are made. MAYOR: You'd like to say that. We've got it on the computer here, so I don't anticipate that would take long. ARP: Well, 1 mean, that's subjective as well. MULLER At the outset this was to be a design bill, so there was expectation MULLER (unclear) from the conclusions of 899-2, would give the mayor the authority to sign? there was going to be some — the real design now is yet to come. MAYOR: Okay, a motion? Got it. Moved and seconded. Discussion? ARP: That Scares me, too. ARP: Well, you heard my discussion probably before. I simply don't think we went down and looked at each of these one by one by one, and I still disagree. MAYOR: Where do you have trouble? ARP: Oh, I have trouble with the same places I had trouble before. About whether it meets the conditions. I think it creates the potential of certainly noise, I think it's disharmonious, you know, I could go down ... 25 26 MAYOR: I remember number three — that's the harmonious. ARP: Well, I guess 1 don't see convincing — particularly with the testimony I heard, I don't see anything convincing that would make me think that the planning and zoning commission's decision was incorrect. I think they were dealing in the fads, they were applying the facts. And I have not heard anything that would change my mind on those particular issues. I don't disagree with — that it is authorized in that zone as a public facility, I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with the end results of trying to deal with the wastewater in that respect. I think certainly as we are looking at this project, it is not designed to be harmonious with the existing or likely character of the neighborhood. I think there's potential for the health and safety when it sits so dose and the water table is so high. It can be served; I don't have any quarrel with that. Noises — when I look at the times it's going to create noise at that — as close to those homes as it is, and potential homes. During the summer, when people want to be out, during the spring, not during the summer so much but during the spring. Scenic, you and I discussed that; we don't agree with that. I don't think you have to destroy West Mountain to ... MAYOR: Are you on 11? 27 MAYOR: And on 10, I remember the position that — the staff took the position on that that it's not destroying the feature itself. ARP: I understand that. I don't take that position. MAYOR: And I've heard the discussion before that there is a scenic, or whatever you call it, an easement -- like, say, over at Shore Lodge, where the pavilion is going to go up. Somebody, if they had a scenic easement, maybe they could preclude that. But there was no scenic easement as I understood that discussion. So even if it may block somebody, you know, they were able to do it, as an example. And as I recall, somebody from Christy's or maybe the other one said, gee whiz, I don't like that. But there was no scenic easement and so ARP: Well, this doesn't say it has to be a scenic easement. So ... MULLER I agree with staff. ARP: Okay. Tell me about number 11. MULLER I guess number 11, we're using the site — and in the best way possible to decrease the cost. I'm sure we could do a lot more if the funding was there to be able to move it to the west and not have to worry about mitigating the ARP: I'm on 10 now. Now, to be on the side of sufficient size. The total size of 160 acres is not a problem; it's where it sits on the 160 acres that is the problem. And to maintain the buffer spaces that I think are necessary. It simply can't be done as proposed. So that's my — so that's more than one that I don't think it meets. MAYOR: Okay. Well, my view— on number 3, the existing and likely character, and harmonious. That — that is a multiple kind of use area. There's a industfial park out there, there's a — you know, there are various things. Traffic, trucks are in and out of there. So this is not — I don't think this is an inconsistent use. ARP: For an R-5 and R-10 residential that you are imposing into that. MULLER Might even see more truck traffic, I think, according to what this says in terms of 2002 with that — that Boise connector is constructed from the gravel pit, which is to the south of there. MAYOR: That's true ... MULLER I don't feel it's out of harmony at this point in time. 28 wetlands situation. And if that can be done some way, 1'd be more than happy to do it. But at this point in time it's just ... ARP: This doesn't talk about cost, though. MULLER But no, I'm saying that using the 363, which is in here, we have to use those — the site as its proposed, according to the preliminary design. So I agree with... ARP: So is that site of sufficient size to accommodate... MULLER Apparently it is, at this point in time for 363, yeah. ARP: The proposed use including open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking areas, loading zones and design standards... MAYOR: As•1 recall that discussion, too, there — the discussion was that this is a facility that requires or doesn't require — help me with this, but if it was a certain facility it would require a buffer of some size. That would be a requirement. And this facility, we are within any legal buffer, or we have enough space for any legal buffers. 29 30 ARP: Which was what DEQ was saying that, what, they don't have any regulations on this? So therefore, because they don't have any regulations, we will just ignore any buffers. MAYOR: Well, there are buffers there, though. They're not ignored. But they're legal. They may be. We'll see. ARP: And in the first proposal, when they talked about 160 acres, you know, off — ten feet high, that may have been sufficient. Now that it has moved right over next to lots of subdivisions and proposed subdivisions, some not yet, some that are already platted and lots not even built on. So... MAYOR: Okay. Additional? Chelsea, could you take a roll, if there's no further discussion? Mr. - Aye. Mr. Mayor: Aye. No. MAYOR: Motion carries. Item number two. 99-29 bids. Can we — can the rest of the Council join us now if they want to? 3 contingent upon the successful completion of the NEPA (?) process and the release of funds. Furthermore, that, following up to what I indicated on the staff report, that we also task EarthTech to do a preliminary design with citizen involvement that anticipates a total requirement of approximately 250 to be finalized over the next couple weeks, and they would be fully aware of the progress of that. And how we can best approach having two cells that total that 250 million, recognizing that we would plan to build one and have sufficient funds to do proper mitigation, however that comes out of these discussions. And coming back to this body with a recommendation of what that plan is. There's two aspects that are important to keep in mind on this. Number one, until we award a bid, the design itself can't be begun because the design — the anticipation of the original plan is the design will be done by the successful bidder, number one. And number two, we also have a very tight window in that in order to be completed by September 30 — and that's a date that's been set by DEQ and EPA and'BOR, but the fad is that they really have to have the liners put down before the temperatures changes and start getting colder. And as most of us know, by September 15"' it starts getting colder. So they're really — while we may, because of NEPA approval being delayed, we may end up with EPA saying, well, it really could be October 31' instead of September 30i°. You know, 30 days on — that doesn't give the construction time any extra because it's too coldito put down the vinyl. So there is going to be a tight window and I suspect since we don't have NEPA approval yet -- I'm going to be talking with the successful bidder once the bid has been awarded. I'm going to try to MULLER Yes. ARP: Did you get that letter back on ... MAYOR: They're doing it, hundred percent. They're putting in all the money, everything, they've moved it up to 2001. Yes. ARP: Great. MAYOR: Well, they said it in a meeting — they said it in a meeting with Tom Kerr and — yes, it's done. MULLER Mr. Mayor, Council members, a couple of weeks ago at a Council meeting I reviewed the four bidders who had bid on the project and identified that two of them were both qualified and had met the specifications. One was effectively a lower price than the other, but they were both qualified. And therefore, the apparent successful bidder would be EarthTech. Subsequent to that, I have followed up on some of their credentials on other projects that were design build type projects, that were involved in waste water treatment type projects, and have found very good reports in that each of these cities or projects would also utilize their services again, and they were pleased with the results. And as a result I recommend that the City award the bid to EarthTech, 32 convince them to do some of this preliminary work on their own dime, because if we wait until NEPA is through and then they start the process and then there won't be enough time to then start digging dirt early enough to finish the project. But in any case there cannot be any commitment of City funds. It's going to be funds from the NEPA, and that's the way the contract is intended to be written and will be written. So with that, I recommend that we authorize the negotiation of the agreement and the signing of the agreement to award the bid contingent upon NEPA approval to EarthTech. ARP: I have a question about — um, we talked about needing to do this so we could negotiate the contract with the successful bidder. Obviously that's going to be expending somebody's money. The other question is, what is included in this, why wouldn't we want to actually try and negotiate, still keeping the number two on deck, and not — because again, what if we don't have successful negotiations with this bidder. Why wouldn't you do that before you actually award? You could say intent to award, but still not — but still leave the second... MULLER So what you're saying is that, have a backup in case... ARP: reason. In case the negotiations are not favorable to us, for whatever 33 34 BIETER: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, is it the negotiations of the contract with the contractor or negotiations with the agencies? ARP: With the contractor, that I'm talking about. BIETER: I think there's really kinda two, at least two things going on. First, there was a contract as part of the bid document. So that's what we'd like to — but that's — until you have an agreement on that contract, we're subject to these provisions. We're not sure we have to have a deal. We may have to go to the second bidder. That's always inherent in this process. But that — but I don't think that because of the nature of the project, being a design build, I don't think that there's anything precluding that type of changes, even after signature. I mean, we've got the conditions that the NEPA process be finished and the money be'released. That's the risk that they take, including the risk of negotiating the agreement with us. That's just inherent in this bid. ARP: Okay, so the second bidder's bid is still open to us, regardless. BIETER: Yes. MULLER Until May 24t. 35 MAYOR: Right, I'm sorry. However, you do that. However you do that. MULLER EarthTech came to me initially and said they want to have some citizen involvement during this design process. So it's consistent with what their thinking is. MAYOR: Right. That's what I'm saying, just — okay. You got it. MULLER But we're going to come back to this body with the final preliminary design. I don't want to call it the final design, because in a design build there really isn't a final per se. But we need to make sure that this body has a chance to look at what that is, with mitigation. ARP: I had another question that I asked the first time we heard about this, the deducted alternates? And additive alternate? How they got in the design in the first place, and now how they're getting out and who's approving that. Did we get an answer to that? I'd asked that the last time we had this in Council, too. MULLER All they had to do was fine screen filters, it was to break it out as to how much that was so that we could get to apples and apples type of comparison. So it really isn't our choice whether fine screen filters are in there. BIETER: And it's for that reason that I would like to... ARP: Regardless if we actually award a bid to somebody else, that's still open to us. Okay. That's what I'm trying to make sure. BIETER: Yes. That's what — there's a provision in the law that if you're — if you don't get a contract with the first bidder they forfeit their bid bond and then you move on to number two, so... It's inherent in the process. And that's why I'd like to get...begin negotiating. MAYOR: The whole thing that I'd like to ask staff to do, and I don't know how it fits with this, but I'd like staff to think about very carefully how you structure a citizen's advisory committee, you know, that's going to work with the designer, the design construct contractor. And maybe come back to —1 don't know if you'll have time, but you mentioned that in fact both, I guess, wanted to have a — go ahead. MULLER Citizen's advisory committee is a new tens. We're talking about citizen involvement. ARP: In the mitigation. 36 And the other thing is, how much of the second pond is the price of the vinyl liner, because the expectation was maybe when we put the bid out there, maybe we would be able to dig the holes and put up the walls and just not put in the liner. Maybe there would be enough differential. Because there is an additional cost for second mobilization of large equipment. And so it really isn't a decision from the standpoint of something that we're going to — or the staffs going to make as we go along. ARP: You lost me on this. I thought we were talking about there were some things that were included, one was treatment as it was coming out — refresh my memory... MULLER Fine screen filters. MAYOR: Fine screen. ARP: Right. And that all of a sudden became optional. Now how did that become optional and how was it included... MULLER DEQ. MAYOR: DEC. 37 38 ARP: DEQ said it — did DEQ require it in the first place, or what was the — that was my question. How did it get there in the first place, and now it's become optional. MAYOR: Well, I presume the process that happened is that it was in the design and challenged it, is what I would guess. Said, is this really required, and they negotiated it, and it wasn't. And — but I think its being there at all says that, even though it's not required, there would be merit if you had the funds for it. That would be my assumption. ARP: Okay. Wasn't there a second something that... MULLER The second something was how much the liner was in the second cell. And that's way at the bottom — you see the deductible alternative, the $500 in the EarthTech column? Where the second cell was only 10,001 gallons and therefore it's a very small amount of money. MAYOR: Just out of curiosity, do you re — do you have a listing or do you recall some of the people you talked to that had this kind of — this kind of thing and what they thought about that? MULLER Yeah. Crown Vantage in Parchment, Michigan, is an outfit that had design build services for a 7.5 million gallon wastewater treatment plant 39 that's responsible above Boise is a gentleman in the back who is actually out of southern California, and there's some other people — They way they work is kind of interesting. Actually, I was on the phone with some people this morning, and they're in Michigan. So they've got a lot of different people that are available. ARP: I have another question. Somebody asked me about schedules. Were the schedules between the first and second bidder about the same, or what was the... MULLER I did not really analyze the schedule of the second bidder. The requirement was that they be completed in construction by September 301°. I didn't sit down and go through it to see when they had to start because we really have a legal obligation to award it to the first unless they are challenged out with not being qualified, or we can't reach a successful negotiation on an agreement that are consistent With terms of our bid package. I would have to say it's gotta be similar, but I did not look at it. MAYOR: Okay. What do you think? MULLER And there is a representative here from EarthTech if you have any questions that he can answer, that would be helpful in your deliberation. upgrade. And it was a 3.8 million -dollar project. And it was one that was on accelerated schedule. It was conducted during the winter. They started digging ground in November and it was completed on target. They've since utilized EarthTech for some other projects and would use them again. Uh, there is Kaiser Sewage Treatment Plant upgrade in Fontana, California, for 2.2 million dollars. Must hit the highlights. There's a 5-million- gallon -a -day water treatment plant in the city of Franklin, Ohio, design build financed and operated. We're not looking at the financing, but they're also capable of — this is a large company. They're privately owned. They're a division of a public company. And the best I can calculate, they're approximately a 700 million dollar a year revenue, which means they're substantially larger than RH2. They're a large company. Is that number close? (unintelligible) MULLER Seventeen billion is the whole company, but they're approximately 700 million, from what I could figure out. They have 6,000 employees in their division. Uh, talked about Franklin, Ohio, and then there is a 4.8 million dollar project for demineralization facility in San Diego, California. And then there was a 7.7 million dollar project for a three -million -gallon -day potable water treatment facility in Massachusetts. So it covers geographically a lot of areas, both cold weather and warm weather. And again, the office of EarthTech that would be on this project is out of Boise. They happen to be headquartered in Long Beach, California. The representative who's in the hierarchy of EarthTech 40 MAYOR: Well, I guess I would move then that we adopt the Council's recommendation and award the bid to — award the bid, if that's the right word, or award the contract to EarthTech. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, the manager's recommendation — City manager's recommendation. ARP: You said Council. MAYOR: I'm sorry, staff. Staffs recommendation. Sorry. Thank you, David. MULLER I'll second it. MAYOR: Moved and seconded. Discussion? MULLER I think the primary discussions we had before on the bid was my concern, is that we really didn't know a whole lot about EarthTech and I'm glad that you went about checking out EarthTech in terms of similar projects. And if they are the apparent low bidders, I guess there's no problems with that. Maybe a lot of other problems, but not particularly with this ... ARP: Well, my particular problem is I a bid at all. So it doesn't have to do with the bidder so much. 41 42 MAYOR: Okay. Any further discussion? MULLER And that motion includes the negotiation and the signing of the — so that we can get it — because until there is a commitment on their part and our part, we're not going to be able to get them to be too serious about the project. MAYOR: I move that we award the contract and — award and negotiate the contract with EarthTech, contingent upon the approval... ARP: And release of funds. And release of funds. MAYOR: Per staff recommendation. Okay, need approval for release of funds, yeah... BIETER: Councilman is absolutely correct, without the funds... ARP: Without the funds — So, what funds are going to be used to negotiate this contract? MULLER Uh, those are going to be City attorney funds, which I think are covered by the agreement that we have of the flat rate. 4s ARP: The first one. MULLER Yes. Which is the only money that's been available to us. The 3.6 million, which is the second, as well as the residual EPA money of about 700,000, have not been available to us until NEPA approval. MAYOR: Did that answer the question? ARP: That answered my question. MAYOR: Additional comments? Chelsea, could you take a roll call, please? Aye. Aye. Mr. Mayor? Aye. MAYOR: But under the grant as well, though. MULLER None — there isn't anything that comes into being on that. MAYOR: Okay. MULLER It could be under the grant, to the extent there's extra costs and it's over and above, then it could be under the grant. But it's largely the — there was a sample contract we put forth in the bid specifications. They have already reviewed that and they've got a set of ideas from their attorney. And so we're really ready to be able to get this accomplished shortly. ARP: So the cost of the bid specs is coming out of what? MULLER Bid specs came out of the project charged to the BOR money, the grant money. ARP: Which grant money? MULLER The 2.5 million dollars. CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION The undersigned does hereby certify that she correctly and accurately transcribed and typed the above transcript from the recording of the City of McCall Special Council Meeting, which was recorded on May 5, 1999 in the above entitled proceeding. Dated this g $day of June, 1999. Mary Lo 11444olitor, Transcriber