Loading...
Council Minutes 1999 06/10CITY OF MC CALL MINUTES Regular Meeting City of McCall Thursday - June 10 , 1999 Table Of Contents Call To Order And Roll Call 2 Public Comment 2 AB 99-55 John Wolf Self Fueling Station 3 ConsentAgenda................................................................................... 3 AB 99-54 Resolution No. 5-99 Destruction Of Records .............................. 3 AB 99-56 Golf Course 1999 Budget.......................................................4 AB 99-58 Cooperative Agreement......................................................... 5 AB 99-57 City Manager Position........................................................... 5 AB 99-60 Downtown Improvement Request............................................. 6 AB 99-59 4tn Of July Fireworks............................................................. 6 Adjournment 8 MinutesJune 10.doc Page 1 of 8 MINUTES ICall To Order o The regular meeting of the McCall City Council was called to order by Mayor Eimers at 7:00. Ms. Arp, Mr. Eimers, Mr. Muller and Mr. Venable answered roll call. Mr. Colton was absent. A quorum was present. City staff present were City Manager Bill Robertson, City Attorney Dave Bieter, and City Clerk Cherry Woodbury. Public Comment I Hugh McNair presented a letter regarding payments to RH2 on the Savannah Ridge project. He did not agree with the services and the charges. He commented if resolution could not be obtained then a mediator / arbiter may have to resolve the matter. Lee Hanson stated she was a retired flight pilot and had aircraft experience. She read her husband's letter in opposition to the 24 hour fueling proposal by John Wolf. Basically, the letter cited possible noise and safety issues. She stated that signed comments were also added to the letter. She urged the Council to take a seriously look at the proposal and give the public a chance to provide their input. Ron Hamilton spoke in opposition to the 24 hour fueling and cited noise would be an issue with the increased traffic at the airport. He also commented on the fact there are two schools and a church in the flight path of aircraft. Additional Items - Staff requested that three items be added to the agenda — AB 99-59 relating to 4th of July fireworks display, AB 99-60 pertaining to Downtown Improvement display items, and an invoice warrant for $41,670.72 to Seubert for final payment on AI P 06 / 07 Dave Bieter recommended that no discussion on the J Ditch be in public because most everything to be said could effect or have a bearing on the legal issues involved. He commented that there were too many pieces of litigation pending. Mr. Eimers felt that asking for committee participants could be discussed in public. Don Green stated that part of the reason there is litigation was because of the need to resolved the issue with the attorney and then get to the point of public discussion Linn Goodwin, Sewer District employee, read comments on the sewer project into the record. She supported the formation of a citizens committee to review the project and look for possible alternatives. MinutesJune 10.doc Page 2 of 8 AB 99-55 John Wolf Self Fueling Station Geoff Rowe reported on this item. Mr. Rowe stated that there had been discussion with the FAA on the minimum standards for the airport. Mr. Rowe requested that this item be tabled at this time. He was in the process of revising and rewriting the minimum standards. He had obtained other airport standards for review. During revision of the minimum standards the 24 hour self fueling issue would be reviewed. He noted the self fueling station being a 24 hour service had not been decided. He reported that pilots had commented to him that they were not refueling in McCall because the price of fuel was cheaper elsewhere. Mr. Muller commented that the minimum standards should also take into consideration the economic feasibility of businesses at the airport. Mr. Muller also suggested, to allow more public input, an evening meeting of the Airport Advisory Committee be held to discuss the minimum standards revision and the self fueling issue. IConsent Agenda 1 AB 99-54 Minutes Of May 27, 1999 — Regular Meeting Invoice Approval List Dated June, 1999 Payroll Report Dated June 4, 1999 Nonprofit Hawker's License — Lion's Club / Fireworks Purchase Order For Signs — Police Department Resolution No. 5-99 — Destruction Of Records There was discussion on the Moore McFadden bills and the Franklin Building expense for Airport. Bill Robertson reported on Mr. McNair's letter and stated RH2 had discontinued any work on the Savannah Ridge project. Mr. Robertson felt the Engineering Board should be the vehicle to assist in resolving this matter. Mr. Robertson stated the issue was at an inpass and Mr. McNair had not paid for any costs incurred for plan review by RH2. If technical aspects of the review prove to be valid then the cost to the customer, Mr. McNair, would be valid. This is what the Engineering Board would be tasked to decide. Council agreed to hold payment of $1,268.09 to RH2 until there was time for review by the Engineering Board. Discussion followed on how to provide the customer some idea ahead of time what the costs for engineering review would be. Mr. Robertson suggested contacting another city such as Boise to inquire how they handle plan reviews. Mr. Muller moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the additions and changes. Ms. Arp seconded and the motion carried unanimously. MinutesJune 10.doc Page 3 of 8 Business i AB 99-56 Golf Course 1999 Budget Bill Robertson presented the agenda item and requested that Council take action after the presentation and discussion. Mr. Robertson noted the budget worksheet had been discussed with the Golf Course Advisory Committee. Mr. Robertson commented that the drainage system installed on the course was beneficial and improved playing conditions. Dan Pillard stated that private tournaments, corporate outings, and increased public rounds would all contribute to the projected increase in revenue. Mr. Pillard reported that work was being done on the SMR course to improve and make it more viable for public play. Mr. Robertson reviewed the large expenditure items. He commented the goal was to continue having a good solid improving course and an increase in food consumption (boost income from the Clubhouse). Mr. Robertson discussed the depreciation expense. He reported a plan was still needed to make the fund profitable to comply with the covenants on the bond for the Clubhouse. The other options would be for the City to subsidize the course or privatize it Mr. Robertson noted that the loss in the fund for last year was $181,198.00 and this year projected at $166,202.00. Thus, there was some gain in reducing the loss. Mr. Robertson also noted that the cost of the irrigation well was incurred last year but paid this year. Ms. Arp inquired where the additional funds would be found to cover the increase in the Golf Fund when the budget was amended. Mr. Pillard reported that increase in the salary line item was a result of mowing more grass and more use of the equipment. He commented the goal was to give a good amenity for visitors and customers to enjoy. Mr. Eimers stated that an Enterprise Fund was to be self-sufficient. It concerned him that it would be another year of operation in the red. Mr. Eimers would like to see the calculation on number of customers / rounds of play in a good year and determine, given that were the present case, if the course would make the needed revenue to break even. Mr. Venable felt that the course was a benefit to the community and an attraction. He was in favor of giving every opportunity and support of funds to make it successful. He suggested the possibility of subsidized funds that would be on a loan basis to the Golf Course. Mr. Robertson asked that Council for conceptual accept the proposed budget. Mr. Venable felt it was a working projection. Mr. Eimers would like to see historical play and apply today's rates and see if the revenue would cover the proposed expenditures. MinutesJune 10.doc Page 4 of 8 Mr. Muller would like to see the course be successful and wondered how it could operate on a loan basis from the General Fund. He felt it is an amenity to the community and that should also be a consideration. However, he felt if the fund was subsidized by the General Fund, it may be a real hard sell to the public. One of the questions was how long does the City let the fund operate in the red. The investments in the Clubhouse, irrigation system, and SMR course were the elements that contributed to deficit. Mr. Muller felt that the deficit may not be able to be fixed. Mr. Eimers inquired about increasing rates, but Mr. Muller felt that would not be a solution. Mr. Eimers thought consideration should be given to looking at the budget from the point of revenues and "making" the expenditures fit within those revenues to obtain a balanced budget for the Golf Fund. Discussion took place on marketing of the course and the allotted $20,000 not yet spent for advertisement. Council agreed on the conceptual budget so long as it would fit in the overall City budget. AB 99-58 Cooperative Agreement Bill Robertson reported that JUB had been confronting BOR and making allegations. BOR communicated to Mr. Robertson that no action would take place on the Cooperative Agreement until the volume figure requirements were confirmed by DEQ. DEQ and RH2 were working to confirm volume requirements. Mr. Robertson reported that DEQ was being reorganized and this was taking up a portion of the time. He believed DEQ was diligently working on the issue. AB 99-21 J Ditch Dave Bieter advised Council go into Executive Session as there were numerous pending litigations. He felt what Mr. Robertson had reported on the above Cooperative Agreement was all that could be made public at this time. Council decided to address this item later in Executive Session. AB 99-57 City Manager Position Bill Robertson commented due to the death of his father, Mr. Colton would not be present to report on this item. Mr. Muller noted that per Mr. Colton's summary and recommendation from the committee Mr. Robertson was candidate of choice. Mr. Bieter stated Code whereby the City Manager serves at the pleasure of the City Council and a contract as not required. Mr. Bieter stated that the City Manager does not fall under the City's Personnel Policy. Mr. Bieter stated that Mr. Robertson could be hired and then the terms under which he would operate could be negotiated. Mr. Eimers moved to retain Mr. Robertson as the full time City Manager and have a special Council meeting within 30 days to set the job requirements, Council expectations, and establish employment conditions such as salary range, vacation, etc. MinutesJune 10.doc Page5of8 Mr. Muller seconded. At a roll call vote Mr. Eimers, Mr. Muller, Ms. Arp and Mr. Venable voted "aye". Mr. Muller moved to incorporate medical coverage / health benefits for the City Manager based upon the hiring date. Mr. Eimers seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Council set July 6th at noon as the special meeting to discuss expectations and job requirements. Council agreed that legal counsel should also be present. An Executive Session will be on the agenda. AB 99-60 Downtown Improvement Request Bill Robertson presented this agenda item. He gave background information on what the Downtown Committee had been doing on the improvement project. At the Committee meeting this day the project engineer, Keller & Associates, presented plans on the project. Numerous representatives from organizations and the community were present and gave input to the plans. Mr. Robertson reported the Committee would like to display samples of the items such as the light, bench, trash can, etc. at Art Roberts Park for the public to see. He reported the supplier had agreed to this but had asked the City pay for these items that had been used as samples, should they not get the bid. No action was required by Council at this time. AB 99-59 4th of July Fireworks Bill Robertson gave a report on this agenda item. All licenses and approvals have been obtained. He noted that the display would be larger than previous years. Ms. Arp moved to approve the 4th of July fireworks display. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. IReports a Staff City Manger - Reported that several Council members and staff would not be present at the next regular meeting in June. He recommended that the June 24th meeting be cancelled and any items be moved forward to the July 8th meeting. Mr. Eimers moved to cancel the June 24th meeting based on the inability to get a quorum. Mr. Muller seconded and the motion carried unanimously. - Stated the Quaker Hill issue will not be ready to come before Council until the second meeting in July MinutesJune 10.doc Page 6 of 8 Noted the presentation on the Downtown Improvement project will come before Council on the July 8th meeting Reported that sign ordinance would not be discussed in a joint meeting with the Commissioners unless it was July 6th. Council agreed on July 6th at 7:00 pm for a special meeting. Attomey - Nothing further Golf Course Superintendent - Gave report on condition of course Completed work on road and landscaping Reported the irrigation system had leaky sprinkler heads which will be covered by warranty Stated tees will be rebuilt Working on marketing plan that would be site specific and work for this type of area Working on automating park irrigation systems Reported the deck at Mill Park needed major renovation City Clerk - Reported on resolving customer utility adjustment and hardship requests Worked with legal counsel on several issues - Continued work on reorganizing of files and sorting through attorney files - Mention City auction proposed to take place the end of August Council Ms. Arp - Inquired about paving plan status Mr. Muller Inquired about update on Udell property issue — Mr. Bieter reported there was no new information — Mr. Robertson is to investigate with Susan Buxton Would like Idaho Power funding proposal for undergrounding of utilities - Would like to start on the employee bonus program and to meet with Mr. Robertson Friday morning Mr. Venable - Nothing further Mr. Eimers - Inquired about the unauthorized pumping of airport waste holding tanks Regular meeting of the McCall City Council ended at 10:00 p.m. Council recessed for 5 minutes and reconvened at 10:05 p.m. MinutesJune 10.doc Page 7 of 8 IExecutive Session Mr. Venable moved to go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(f) to consider pending litigation. Mr. Eimers seconded. At roll call vote Mr. Venable, Mr. Eimers, Ms. Arp, and Mr. Venable voted "aye." Mr. Muller moved to authorize, if necessary, the City Attorney to seek Federal ruling on the Force Majure of the Consent Order. Mr. Eimers seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Arp stated that over the next 2 — 3 weeks contingent upon volume issues being resolved, she and Mr. Robertson will be putting together a plan, charter, and recommended constituency for a citizens' panel on the lagoon project. Tom Grote inquired about the first motion and was not clear what that meant. Mr. Bieter explained that a State judge could not interpret a Federal issue. Mr. Grote also asked for clarification on the connection between the required volume and citizens' committee. Council and Mr. Bieter responded on the matter. Adjournment Without further business, Mr. Muller moved adjourn at 12:25 p.m. Mr. Eimers seconded and the motion carried unanimously. ATTEST: Cherry oodbury, City Clerk a e Kirk Eimers, Mayor MinutesJune 10.doc Page 8 of 8 RECEIVED JUN 0 7 1999 MOORE &;McFADDEN 1 2 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 RE: BEFORE THE MCCALL CITY COUNCIL McCALL, IDAHO SPECIAL MEETING OF ANNEXATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ) May 1, 1999 McCall, Idaho 9:10 a.m. SPECIAL MEETING - MCCALL GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE ANNEXATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: MAYOR KIRK EIMERS ALAN MULLER RALPH COLTON RAY VENABLE MARILYN ARP DAVE BIETER, City Attorney SUSAN BUXTON, City Attorney BILL ROBERTSON, Interim City Manager CHELSI SHOLTY, Assistant to City Manager 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. 3 MAYOR EIMERS: Susan, am I right? Do we want to deal with it right now? MS. BUXTON: Yes. MAYOR EIMERS: David? MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, that -- the items on your agenda, in order, are annexation, zoning -- MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. BIETER: -- after annexation, and then the CUP. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. BIETER: The conflict, if it does exist, wouldn't be involved in the first two items. That's not an application before you in the sense that it's a permit. Conditional use permit is the only application before you in that sense. So, we don't we have to -- we shouldn't -- I don'_t think we need to deal with that until the third item. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. A11 right. So then, with that, we'll go to our first item of business, and this section does not require public testimony but involves the annexation or the possibility of an annexation. And we'll deal with that by turning it over to staff for a presentation. Bill or David? MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council -- why don't I step up just to make sure that I -- For the record, my name's Dave Bieter from Moore, 1 2 3 4 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 MEETING BEGAN AT 9:10 A.M. MAYOR EIMERS: We're here for a special meeting of the McCall City Council. Chelsi, could you take roll, please? MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Muller? MR. MULLER: Here. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Colton? MR. COLTON: Here. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR EIMERS: Here. MS. MS. MS. MR. SHOLTY: Ms. Arp? ARP: Here. SHOLTY: Mr. Venable? VENABLE: Here. MAYOR EIMERS: There is a quorum. We're here today to deal with three topics. One is a potential annexation, one is a potential zoning of any property that might or -- might be annexed, and the last is a conditidnal use permit hearing. That the last two, the zoning matter and the conditional use permit matter are both open for public testimony. We will -- at this moment I think there's a legal issue to be dealt with, and it's respecting a couple of Council Members that have been -- am I -- MS. BUXTON: That would be -- 4 McFadden for the -- the city attorneys. The first item on your agenda from a legal standpoint, is pretty straightforward. Idaho Code allows the City to annex property contiguous to the city in parcels of less than five acres or if an owner has taken a parcel and begun the sale of parcels of five acres or less, then that whole parcel becomes subject to annexation. There is no public hearing. The sole question is, what the Council's wishes are on the area to be annexed. In your packet is a -- is the area -- this is the easiest way -- this is the best map I think that has it on there. I think there's -- it's probably in your packet in a couple places. But, you have at least two choices in annexation. The -- what's bolded is the area that's been noticed up and it can -be -- is subject to annexation. So your broadest scope would be that. That area has been noticed up. That's the area under consideration. But you have -- within that, you could take that whole parcel or -- and we're prepared with legal descriptions on -- however you'd like to proceed. You can include the Blue Jay Subdivision and that area adjacent to it or the area that's defined by West Valley Road that leads to the site of the proposed conditional use permit. You can limit it to that. So we're prepared for your decision, whichever you'd like. Obviously, the other range of decisions 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 is not to annex it. But those are really the sole legal issues. The whole area is on the table. A smaller area can be annexed if you like. And the decision to annex is solely yours. And there is no public hearing. I'd stand for questions but the -- again, the issues in this part of your agenda is pretty straightforward. The only other real legal standard is that it reasonably assume to be used for orderly development. And again, I don't believe that that's -- any way you define the annexation, I don't believe that that's a problem. It is contiguous to the city. City services are nearby. Bill will be addressing that part of it. But, from a legal standpoint, those are the only issues before you on this agenda item. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. I -- David, can you point something out to me, please? MR. BIETER: Yes. Sure. MAYOR EIMERS: Please. Can you point something out to me on the -- or maybe Ralph can. Can you show me specifically what -- the two sections that he's talking about? MS. ARP: There's one that's really delineated for us. MR. BIETER: This piece, this black line -- MAYOR EIMERS: Yes. MR. BIETER: That's the whole area that's been advertised. 7 first thing -- if we were to say we don't want to annex, then what happens? Today? MR. ROBERTSON: You would make the decision to not -- you have really three choices. Annex nothing, annex the whole of what has been posted, or annex the smaller portion which excludes the Blue Jay Subdivision. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. ROBERTSON: Basically. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. ROBERTSON: Those are the three choices. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Now, if we don't annex it, -- if we don't annex it, does it fall out of the purview of the City Council? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. It remains in the impact area and remains part of the county, but in the city impact area. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. So, if we -- so to -- if we choose to get to the conditional use permit part of the public hearing today we have to annex in order to get there? MS. ARP: Mm-hmm. MR. ROBERTSON: You must annex before we -- otherwise the next two steps we don't go to. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. Okay, now, Let's say that -- just as an example, let's say that we did the annexation and then we went through the zoning and then we got to the conditional use permit and we denied the conditional use 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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BUXTON: Over to the city limits. MAYOR EIMERS: You do not -- but within this corridor -- MS. BUXTON: Mm-hmm. MR. BIETER: You don't -- it's both parcels that are contiguous. You can go along the West Valley Road line -- MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, these two here? I got ya. MR. BIETER: This is the Blue Jay Subdivision and we would exclude Blue Jay in the second motion -- it's all -- MS. ARP: It would be this whole thing? UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Would be excluded. Yeah. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: If you want to (unintelligible]. MR. BIETER: A11 we're saying is you don't need that. It's all on the table. MAYOR EIMERS: I understand. I'm just trying to see it on the map. MR. BIETER: You could go this way or you could go that way. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So this would be Blue Jay and that's the -- that's the other one. MS. BUXTON: I have an extra map if anybody wants to look. MAYOR EIMERS: From another standpoint, if we -- from a legal standpoint -- we're going through this, as I understand it -- and help me -- tell me if I'm right. The permit, could we then return and de -annex? How does that work? MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council -- MAYOR EIMERS: I'm sorry. I'm just -- just dating this. MR. BIETER: Sure. MS. ARP: We need to know. Everybody needs to know. MR. BIETER: You always have the option of removing sections of property from your city limits. Annexation is the ordinance -- publishing the ordinance will make that decision final. It's not on your agenda that -- we'd get into -- MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. BIETER: -- an agenda item if that's -1 if that's your wishes. But you can always -- MS. ARP: Or you would do a reconsideration. MR. BIETER: Exactly. MS. ARP: I mean it would be timely to go reconsideration. MR. BIETER: That would be the way -- I mean, procedurally, you could probably get there. It's not an agenda item. You can reconsider things that you've done. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. BIETER: But the annexation is legally final upon publication of the annexation ordinance. 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 9 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. A11 right. That being the case, then, I can't -- the -- is it north -- MS. ARP: It's the north section -- the Blue Jay Sub is, what, is south of West Valley Road? MALE SPEAKER: Yes. MALE SPEAKER: This would be -- the Blue Jay Subdivision right in here. MS. ARP: Is this one? MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. And I don't know how to make the motion other than -- okay, well, then, -- MR. ROBERTSON: We could give you the legal metes the bounds but I don't think you really want that. MAYOR EIMERS: No. I think -- MALE SPEAKER: Does anybody have -- can people know what we're talking about? MS. BUXTON: I've got an extra map here if somebody wants to look at that. (Off -record colloquy) MAYOR EIMERS: One other issue is that if we do the annexation, I've been instructed by County -- or at least advised by County that we don't want to go down the middle of the road. MR. ROBERTSON: We do not. The -- MAYOR EIMERS: You want to go on one side or the other. 11 doing that, that made the whole -- MS. ARP: That made it -- okay. Got it. MR. BIETER: -- the whole thing potentially annexable. Okay. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. SISTER: That'd be all I'd have. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, David. MR. ROBERTSON: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, I'm Bill Robertson, city manager. And the -- as it relates to annexation, the public services aspect of it, I will just read through for your information to -- so that we can evaluate or have that information on the record. Regarding sewer, there exists a fifteen -inch sewer main serving the McCall Industrial Park. Extension of the sewer services to the area to be annexed if it includes the Blue Jay Sub, because all of this is going to largely relate to only if you include the Blue Jay Subdivision in the annexation. And I'll come back at the end and put that in -- FEMALE SPEAKER: Excuse me. We can't hear back here. (Off -record colloquy regarding sound) MR. ROBERTSON: The extension of the sewer services to the area would be fairly simple when the time came to do so, topographic, because the area at the present time is served by septics or by wells. Topographic constraints 1 2 3 4 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 10 MR. ROBERTSON: I'll answer that question -- I'm going to answer it in my portion of it, which will be in just a moment. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MS. ARP: Are we gonna get a staff report? MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. A11 right. Is there going to be a staff report now? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes, sir. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Please. MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, just before Bill begins -- I mentioned it in my presentation, but the property north of West Valley Road, while it was forty acres, a portion of that has been split off and sold separately. The law's clear that once you've done -- once you've begun to sell parcels of less than five -- five acres or less, that whole area is subject to annexation. Obviously, that's not a five now. But since a portion -- and I do have the county records on that, if need be. But an eighth of an acre has been split off, making the whole parcel subject to annexation. MS. ARP: Okay. So what happens to this eighth of an acre? Is that -- MR. SIFTER: It would also be -- MS. ARP: Still a part of it, okay. MR. BIETER: Yeah. It would also be -- it would be in part of the annexation but it's not -- yeah. That's -- in 12 associated with the drainageway just west of Boydstun Street would need to be overcome. From a water service standpoint, it's not near the area under consideration. There exists a twelve -inch main to the east of the waste water treatment plant. The line would need to be extended to the west to serve the area under consideration for annexation upon the decision to have water extend to that area. The 1993 McCall Water Master Plan calls for an eight -inch line to be extended from the waste water treatment plan to Boydstun Street, then north to Highway 55. Once completed, service would be available to the annexation area. The McCall Police Department currently provides reciprocal services for the Valley County Sheriff's Office in this area. There are fourteen homes in the annexation area, if we include Blue Jay, and ten undeveloped parcels. The streets would become responsible -- the responsibility for maintenance of an additional three-quarter mile on West Valley Road, Wisdom Road and Blue Jay Drive and a small portion of Chad Drive. Half a mile is paved, quarter mile is gravel. A11 the streets are built to city standards. The fire services are currently provided by the McCall Fire Department District, so there's no change in that. From a recreation standpoint, the residents would 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 13 continue to be able to participate in the McCall Recreation Programs. Currently non-residents pay a higher enrollment fee so it would be at the city fee. And the library services remain roughly the same. Residents will not be charged for a library card. Planning and zoning and building services are currently provided. It would change from impact area to city area. From a tax revenue standpoint, this represents a very rough fiscal analysis of annexation. The area under consideration for annexation, in the whole, currently has an assessed valuation of one million six hundred nine thousand three hundred and thirty-seven dollars ($1,609,337) net of homeowners' exemptions. And at the current City levy rate of .005173012, the City would collect seven thousand six hundred ninety-six dollars and two cents ($7,696.02) yearly in revenue. The revenue would offset increased costs associated primarily with street maintenance and police protection. ' The Public Works Department estimates fifty-five hundred and ten dollars ($5,510) a year to maintain the area's streets. The Police Department estimates two thousand seven hundred and forty-eight dollars ($2,748) a year for a total of eight thousand two hundred and fifty-eight dollars ($8,258), approximately. 15 the line of the annexation leaves the roads in the county. So the City then has no additional expenses related to road maintenance or to police, with the exception of we would have police support for the Ray Alford forty -acre section. But there would be no road maintenance costs. So therefore, there would not be an increased substantial coat to the City for road maintenance and police, and there would not be the revenue to offset it. So that's the real bottom line. The roads do stay in the county. MAYOR EIMERS: The roads would stay in the county -- MR. ROBERTSON: They stay in the county. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. ROBERTSON: I have reviewed that with the county commissioner and he's in concurrence that that's a reasonable way to do that. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. ROBERTSON: Any other questions on the staff report from the Council? ' MAYOR EIMERS: So give me -- I wrote down the rough numbers if we annex both Blue Jay and Mr. Alford. MS. ARP: The whole schmere. MAYOR EIMERS: The whole schmere. What are the costs if we don't -- if we just do the -- Mr. Alford? MR. ROBERTSON: Basically, I think the costs would be very minor. 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 14 With the eight undeveloped parcels in the Blue Jay area, revenue would rise with development. This would place an increased burden on the Police Department but have no impact on the street maintenance. Assuming each property is developed with an eighty thousand dollar ($80,000) home gives us a total of six hundred and forty thousand (640,000). In that half of the homes will receive a homeowner's exemption -- value at a total of a hundred and sixty thousand (160,000) -- the total net increase in assessed valuation will be four hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($480,000), netting an additional two thousand four hundred and eighty-one dollars ($2,481) a year. This is a conservative estimate. If the homes were more expensive from an assessed valuation, then of course that would increase. Additionally, the forty acres of Blue Jay -- north of Blue Jay, at some point, will be developed and will have an impact. Now, the bottom line on it is if we annex the entire area, including Blue Jay, our costs will go up by about seven thousand -- I'm sorry, eight thousand two hundred and fifty- eight dollars ($8,258). And our revenue would be seven thousand seven hundred dollars ($7,700). So it will cost the City an additional difference in order to provide the services. If we do not annex the Blue Jay Sub portion of it, 16 MAYOR RIMERS: Okay. I understand. Okay. MR. ROBERTSON: We don't have a number on it because it really is more directly related to his specific requirements for police -- MAYOR RIMERS: Okay. MR. ROBERTSON: -- response. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Well, then -- Marilyn? MS. ARP: Oh, I have another issue. In fact, it's been alleged that the Council should not even be hearing this annexation, so I would like to hear from our attorneys because that's what we hired 'em for. MS. BUXTON: As the Council knows, we've recently received correspondence from Mr. Milleman on behalf of Mr. Manchester and M Resorts, alleging that the entire City Council should recuse themselves and -- leaving you without a decision maker. In reviewing the cases that were alleged -- that were supplied to us and doing a little of our own research, we disagree with his contentions that the City Council is bias, and don't believe that the City Council, as a whole, is bias or that the fact that the City Council now has interest in the Bezates site due to the quick -take proceeding, would then, therefore, be precluded from making a decision on an annexation or a rezone or a conditional use permit on a property. It would be like the City having property dedicated to it for a park and then not being able to make any decisions 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 17 to do anything with that parcel. So we disagree with that. And Mr. Milleman, with his -- I don't object to his letter being placed in the record for the public hearings. That's fine. I don't know, does that -- that's -- also there's a case on point that deals with it. It's called Simmons versus the City of Moscow. In that situation, the Court -- the Idaho Supreme Court found that where there was a benefit and a desirable, necessary public improvement, that the interests of the city council were the same as those of the people of the rest of the city. Any questions? (Off -record colloquy) MS. ARP: We11, people couldn't hear. It was basically that our attorneys are telling us that, in fact, we can move forward on this. But I just wanted to hear what they had to say. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. (Off -record colloquy concerning sound) MAYOR EIMERS: Okay, you couldn't hear Marilyn either. (Off -record colloquy concerning sound) MAYOR EIMERS: What was just said is -- and I think Susan said she doesn't mind it being entered into the record, 'cause I think it has. Is that a true statement? 19 them. MAYOR EIMERS: Thanks, Susan. Okay, are there questions of staff? MS. ARP: No, I don't have -- I don't have questions of staff but I have some other questions. From my personal point of view, we had requested -- the City Council had requested that we have agencies here to be able to answer some of our questions about sites. And I guess my personal point of view is I'm not interested in annexing just to annex unless I am convinced that this indeed is the site and all the information is on the table. So I think it's appropriate to begin -- [Applause] MAYOR EIMERS: Ladies and gentlemen, please, we're going to ask that there not be clapping or jeering or -- please treat everyone with dignity and respect, and we're trying to run a public hearing here -- or a Council meeting, and we're trying to get a good record of it as well, so, you know, please -- please refrain from outbursts, if you will. Okay, Marilyn -- MS. ARP: well, I guess I think that this is the appropriate time to do that since we, in fact, had said that we were going to do that. I believe there are some agency folks here who I hope can answer some of my questions. MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, and I would suggest we're going 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 18 Mr. Milleman suggested in a communication to the City and/or attorneys, that we could not -- the Council could not participate in the annexation. Susan as -- Susan Buxton, the City's Attorney, has taken the position that the Council can, in fact, and stated a case that -- the case law that would permit it. So, Marilyn asked for our attorney's position on it, and the City Attorney's position is that the Council can, in fact, deal with that issue. Did I say that all right? MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor, would you like me to rephrase anything? MAYOR EIMERS: Please. If you wish. And please talk right to them and as loudly as you can, Susan. MS. BUXTON: A11 right. I apologize to everybody. I'm not a morning person. I don't talk very loud in the morning. MS. ARP: You'll get better. MS. BUXTON: I will get better as the day goes on. Basically, we reviewed the cases that were supplied to us and reviewed other cases that the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho and other cases and the statutes, and we do not believe that the City Council, just by solely being the owner now of the Bezates site is -- is biased, so that they would not be able to make a decision on the annexation, the rezone upon annexation and conditional use questions that are before 20 through a process here, though, just as we have over the last six months to a year, and the process is, we're going through an annexation to a zoning to a CUP, and in the CUP's process itself the site issue is not an issue. And that's the real crux of what we're going to do today. And furthermore, you know, I go back to -- starting late last spring, we've gone through exhaustive testimony in public, in public hearings -- excuse me, in City Council meetings, hours upon hours -- and I don't know how many meetings, special meetings, regular meetings -- receiving testimony, deliberating on that testimony, again, hours and hours, making decisions based on that testimony. You're making judgments and votes on that testimony. And that those judgments have been based on the testimony which was received in public. And the conditional use permit doesn't talk to sites, but the people are here today to address the sites. And what I'd suggest from the agencies and what -- what I would suggest we do is we delay that until the deliberation of the conditional use permit. And then we can ask any questions of any of the agency people that are here. And frankly, the NEPA process is still underway. As of yesterday it wasn't done. And that -- you know, that's where discussions of alternatives are going to be brought forward, so -- other than what we have done as a Council. MS. ARP: Mr. Mayor, I would respectfully disagree 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 21 with that process because I think when we are talking about an annexation, the reason for the annexation is to be able for us to deal with that property. If that in fact is not -- I don't -- because apparently we still have question as to whether in fact that is the only and the best site on that. So I guess I would respectfully disagree. I think now is the time to have the discussion before we do an annexation. MAYOR EIMERS: Well, we've gone -- my view of that is we've gone through the process -- public hearings, deliberation -- excuse me, public testimony, deliberations and decisions that bring us to where we are today, which brings us to applying for a conditional use permit, which is the -- and I asked earlier about, okay, if we deny the conditional use permit, can we break out of the annexation, so the real reason for being here today is the conditional use permit. And I've been told by counsel that -- if I understand it properly, that that conditional use permit, the site discussion is irrelevant or not part of that, but in the deliberative part of that, it very much is. So, and I would say that we follow the agenda as presented by staff and that's my position. And if you wish to do something different you could make a motion to try to amend it. MS. ARP: Well, I'm quite willing to follow the agenda. A11 I'm saying is I think the discussion is 23 want -- if you want to go to a question period directed from the Council, that's I think all of your collective prerogative. In a strict sense, in any public hearing -- and I think in the strictest sense on the annexation, you have an area that you're considering, and the question is whether you want to annex that or not. Annexation is a Legislative decision, though. It's whether you think you want that in the city limits or not. So -- but -- so this is your -- questions directed from you -- you can do what you'd like. What I'm addressing in the strictest sense is the zoning and the CUP. The public hearing portions are site specific. And to a certain extent, the annexation is too. But we have those items on the table for the public hearing and it's not really under consideration what other sites might be. Does that -- does that answer -- that's as fully as I can answer the question. MS. ARP: I'm not asking for the public to be in fact part of this discussion. I'm asking that we can get answers from agencies, and that discussion. MR. BIETER: I think in the strictest sense you have -- we have an area of property and even the annexation is, to some extent, site specific. But it is your agenda item to direct how you'd like. It's not a public hearing and you can 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 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 appropriate now. On -- I'm quite willing to follow the agenda. But I think the discussion is appropriate now. MR. MULLER: Well, I -- we must have a disagreement. I would probably refer to legal counsel -- FEMALE SPEAKER: Louder. MR. MULLER: I would refer to legal counsel in the fact that we do have a disagreement. Is this in fact an issue that we need to discuss, considering the annexation and the zoning and the CUP really is not relevant to looking at alternative sites. Under the NEPA -- I'm assuming that's under NEPA and I'm assuming that's going to be addressed by government agencies when that process is completed. And I would think a lot of things would be contingent on how that -- how that's going to play here. MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, again, the items you have on your agenda this morning are -- there are only two public hearings. That's zoning and that's the CUP. The annexation issue is your agenda item. MR. MULLER: Right. MR. BIETER: And you can -- well, annexation -- I don't see where annexation of this site depends on what other sites are. I mean we have a site before you to consider whether you want to annex that or not. But it is your agenda item to direct questions the way you want. And so that if you 24 treat this the way you'd like, I think, by -- MS. BUXTON: And also to add to that, the agency -- there are some agency people who did come to the meeting and to the extent that they can answer questions, realizing that this is in -- this is still in the middle of a NEPA and Idaho state law environmental information document preparation process, and those decisions are not final at this time, so the agency people may not be able to answer every question. But they are available and if the Council would like them to answer questions, they may be able to answer some. MR. COLTON: And is this kind of like -- is this kind of like -- it's kind of like how you approach the questions, I guess. Is this kind of a legal thing? Like can I ask the agency heads a question for clarification? Is that possible within this agenda item? MS. BUXTON: Again, we believe that -- MR. COLTON: I think it kind of -- you know, we're getting to this chicken and egg argument, it looks to me like. MR. BIETER: Absolutely. And to a certain extent that's inherent in this. I think you can -- you, collectively, can decide how you'd like to do this, and if you want to direct questions, you can do that. MAYOR EIMERS: Well -- MR. MULLER: I don't -- 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 25 MAYOR EIMERS: What's your view? MR. MULLER: I don't -- my view is I don't see the point of directing questions at this time on annexation. You get down to -- MALE SPEAKER: We can't hear you. MR. MULLER: You get down to CUP, that's -- I don't mind working at it that way. I don't see an annexation site other than the Bezates site as -- is the site that we really need to be -- that's the only site we're really considering right now. MAYOR EIMERS: That's my sense of it, too, Alan. As we're here to talk about the conditional use permit on the Bezates site, this takes us to that. In our deliberations of granting the conditional use permit, then -- then we're -- I would suggest that would be the proper time to ask the -- anything we might wish of the engineers or the agencies or whoever else is here. That's my sense of it. MR. COLTON: Well, you know, obviously, we're going to have some kind of a disagreement on that particular issue. I think -- information is information. I don't care when it comes up, you know. If I have to wait, you know, for a while to ask a question or not is -- you know, I'm sure we can go through these games, and I would make a motion that we not do this and that and the other thing, and we get into playing these games up here, and I really didn't want to do that. 27 you know, if we back up, this Council and the preceding Council has voted, you know, to do a whole bunch of things, you know. We voted for high -rate land application at one time or another. We voted to go into the Seubert site on another occasion. So we've had a history of voting for a whole bunch of different things, and then different information comes up and we change our mind. And -- or, you know, hopefully for the better. I'd like to see some of the questions answered. MR. HAYNES: Ralph, if I can interrupt for one second? MAYOR RIMERS: Tom, please -- MR. HAYNES: I need to make a presentation to you. MAYOR EIMERS: Hang on, Tom. Not -- MR. HAYNES: Right here, I have three hundred MAYOR EIMERS: Tom -- not right now, Tom. MR. HAYNES: You need to hear this before you talk about not letting us talk. MAYOR EIMERS: No, Tom, please. We're following a process•here and -- MR. HAYNES: Okay, the process shouldn't be annexation 'tit you hear from the public. Now, don't shake your head at me. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Tom. We11, what's the sense of Council? Ray, we haven't heard from you. What's your feeling? Do you have a feeling? 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 for the 26 You know, I think that most of these people are here information and the more information we can give people better off we're going to be, you know. And if there's something that -- some rationale that we chose to annex this particular piece of property because it was the best piece of property to put the sewer lagoons on, I would like to be able to comfortably have some support for making that decision. And part of that is asking some of the agencies questions like, if you've reviewed all of the potential sites that we could possibly put these ponds on, is this -- is this the section or is this the area that is best? MAYOR RIMERS: From their standpoint? MR. COLTON: From their standpoint. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. COLTON: You know, and I think that question kind of relates to how much I think we should annex. You know, first of all, I think I've been on record a hundred times of saying I'm not in favor of annexation, period, having been annexed myself, and so -- and I've made that clear to everybody. You know, I don't think that's any big secret to someone. But I think questions like that, you know, I would hope could be answered. And I think that we -- if there's some sound evidence to support that, then I think a lot of people would like to know that. Including me. Because we -- 28 MR. VENABLE: It seems like we've heard so many times the same information, I've -- if we're going to hear it again let's put it in a place where it's going to make an impact for or against, and that would be at the time of the CUP decision. MAYOR EIMERS: That's my sense of it tco. What we're really doing is walking through a door to get to the real reason we're here today is to -- MALE SPEAKER: But don't -- MAYOR RIMERS: -- is to hear public comment respecting the conditional use permit, and I think it ought to be in the deliberation section that we talk about that. That's my sense of it. And so I -- you know, my recommendation is, is that we go forward, as laid out by staff. And I -- you know, I respectfully hear Marilyn, I hear what you're saying, and, Ralph, I hear what you're saying. I just think it's appropriate -- MR. COLTON: Well, maybe as a strategic matter, then, can I request that that particular item be placed last on the agenda? MAYOR EIMERS: It is -- MR. COLTON: You know -- MAYOR EIMERS: It will -- MR. COLTON: Is that possible for the -- 25 MS. ARP: Is what -- the annexation? 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 MR. COLTON: The annexation part. MS. ARP: No. 'Cause we can't do anything else until that's decided. MAYOR EIMERS: Well, and -- MS. ARP: That is -- dependent. MAYOR EIMERS: And, you know, it's this way --- and that's why I asked the question, if we decide on this conditional use permit to not do it, what do we do? So -- I mean that's why I asked, so I understood. MS. ARP: Well, I -- to my mind, my votes are dependent on getting the information I need to vote one way or the other on the annexation. I am not interested just in annexation, to have another piece of property. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MS. ARP: So -- MAYOR EIMERS: We11, then MS. ARP: Well, do -- MAYOR EIMERS: Okay, if you choose to -- if you choose to do it, how -- you know, I've stated my opinion. How do you wish to deal with it from here? Do you want to make a motion? MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor, I visited with the state agency people that are present and they will answer questions if they're able to at such -- you know, at the time that you designate. 31 MS. SHOLTY: Ms. Arp? MS. ARP: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Venable? MR. VENABLE: No. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. So, we're going to talk about the zoning at this -- excuse me, we're going to talk about the -- the -- MS. ARP: The annexation. MAYOR EIMERS: -- annexation at this point. And we'll defer the discussion of site to the conditional use permit. MS. ARP: Okay, I have a question on the annexation. MAYOR EIMERS: Sure. MS. ARP: You know, you hear about spot annexation and I don't know what the other terms are. If we would annex, excluding Blue Jay, how is that perceived? Because we're going through, what, a forty -acre corridor to whatever number of acres that is, is that -- proposing to annex. Anybody want to speak to that? MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm not sure that I'm the one to address it, but I will. MR. ROBERTSON: I can address it. MR. BIETER: Symmetrically, I think you're right. I think it makes more symmetrical sense, which is part of the -- at least part of this issue. It makes more sense to include 1 2 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 30 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Alan? Okay, guys, what do you wish to do? MS. ARP: I've stated what I wish to do. MAYOR EIMERS: I have too. MR. VENABLE: I just think it needs to be done under the CUP permit. MAYOR EIMERS: Do you want to make a motion or should we just go? MS. ARP: Oh, well, I'll make a motion that we have our deliberation, including questions to the agencies at this time in the agenda, which is number one, considering the annexation. MR. COLTON: I'll second your motion. MAYOR EIMERS: Moved and seconded. Discussion? A11 in favor? MS. ARP: Aye. MR. COLTON: Aye. MAYOR EIMERS: I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was going to have a roll call. Shall we have a roll call? Chelsi? MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Muller? MR. MULLER: No. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Colton? ME. COLTON: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Eimers? MAYOR EIMERS: No. 32 them both. I don't think in -- forty acres, comparatively speaking, is a relatively wide corridor. What I think -- as I read the cases and understand this area, it's -- there have been cases where they take a street or they take a small parcel to try to open it up. I don't think forty acres puts us in that. But I think -- I think the focus of your question is a correct one, that symmetry's part of -- part of the analysis. And it makes more symmetrical sense to include that. MR. ROBERTSON: From a normal planning standpoint you would try to keep the bounds of the city and have to have some symmetry, and so the natural growing, from a planner's standpoint, would be to do that. But there have been public testimony in the past where the residents of Blue Jay, as you know, have indicated that they would rather not be annexed. And so that is a valid consideration. MR. COLTON: And the cost of -- MR. ROBERTSON: Cost to annex them is more expensive for the City than it would be to -- MALE SPEAKER: To not annex. MR. ROBERTSON: -- not annex them. Right. MAYOR EIMERS: Well, I would move then -- I'll make a motion that we not annex Blue Jay and that we annex the other parcel. MS. ARP: You probably just need that in the 33 34 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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 affirmative what you want to annex, I think. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Then -- it would -- I would -- it's not described on the map as anything in particular. I would move -- is it described as Mr. Alford's property? Is that -- or the Alford? How's it described? MR. ROBERTSON: Well, we have the metes and bounds and the legal description. You can generally refer to it I believe that way. MR. BIETER: That that would be enough, I think. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. BIETER: We -- we could give you the -- MR. ROBERTSON: But we have the metes and bounds. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay, then I would move that we annex the Alford property. MR. ROBERTSON: And -- MS. ARP: And -- MR. ROBERTSON: -- the City -owned Bezates. MS. ARP: The City -owned -- MAYOR RIMERS: Oh, and -- yeah, and the City -owned Bezates property. MR. MULLER: I'll second it. MAYOR EIMERS: Moved and seconded. Discussion? Chelsi, could you take a roll call, please? MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Muller? MR. MULLER: Aye. 35 proposal, anyway, on the table, is not to change the zoning in any way. That was the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I under -- we will open a public hearing and I understand that several of you, not all of you, want to comment on what's going on here. I believe that your comments are to the conditional use permit. And I'd ask -- we will give you every chance to express all those opinions. A11 we have here is, in a technical sense, land annexed to the city comes into the city unzoned. There's no zoning designation at all. What we're proposing is not to change the zoning in any way. That was, again, the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And that is also the City's recommendation as the applicant. There will be a public hearing, but I think what you're here to address is the conditional use permit. Unless -- if you do have items that refer to the zoning of this property, then by all means express those now. But we are not proposing any change at all in the zoning of the property. I just -- I want you to understand that before we begin this part of it. So, I don't know that there's any other staff part of that presentation. The only point is it comes in unzoned, we need to zone it. We have prepared an ordinance that would -- assuming you approve it, and you have annexed, so now I would recommend that you zone it. We have an ordinance that. 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 MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Colton? MR. COLTON: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR EIMERS: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Ms. Arp? MS. ARP: No. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Venable? MR. VENABLE: Aye. MAYOR EIMERS: Motion carries. Now we're onto the second agenda item. MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor -- MAYOR EIMERS: Hang on a second, if you would. MR. BIETER: Okay. Sure. MAYOR EIMERS: Which is a zoning -- which is a zoning issue. And there will be two sections to this. One will be a short staff report and the second section will be a public hearing section should members of the audience wish to talk about the zoning or the rezoning issue. David? MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, again, for the record, I'm Dave Bieter from Moore, McFadden, the city attorneys. This, again, is -- from a staff standpoint, it's I think even shorter than the annexation. And I -- I want to state this to the public before we begin. This -- the 36 designates the zoning boundaries, the same as before it was in the city limits. So, that's -- at the end of this, should you be inclined to -- and again I'd sure recommend that -- we have an ordinance prepared and I'd ask that the motion be to approve that ordinance. MS. ARP: To approve the ordinance. MR. BIETER: And that would be -- it would also include the annexation section and the -- and the zoning of that area. It doesn't include the conditional use permit. Your action on that ordinance stands alone. Is that clear, Mayor? You're looking like you're not following me. MAYOR EIMERS: I'm not -- I'm sorry. Can you -- I'm sorry. Go through it again. MR. BIETER: Okay. MAYOR EIMERS: Sorry. MR. BIETER: You have chosen to annex the property. In the technical sense, that property comes into the city limits unzoned. It has no zoning designation at all. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. BIETER: By ordinance, you need to designate those -- the boundaries of the city, metes and bounds, we've had that prepared, and designate the zoning designations of that area. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. 37 38 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 MR. BIETER: Before it was in the -- before it was proposed to be into the city limits, it was in the area of city impact, it had a zoning designation at that time by the county. But the city and the county negotiated that. But it is county zoning. And those zoning designations are proposed to stay exactly the same after annexation. That's the request of the applicant. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. BIETER: That was also the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. MAYOR EIMERB: Right. Got it. MR. BIETER: We do need to open a public hearing because it is the zoning of property. But I just wanted to -- I want to stress that we are -- unless they --- unless the public has a desire to zone that in some other way, those are the comments that would be appropriate. Otherwise, the zoning will stay the same. You need to -- in your motion you need to approve an ordinance that we have prepared -- MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. That's right, that's where it's -- MR. BIETER: -- zoning that area. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. And that ordinance you've already prepared -- MR. BIETER: Yeah. MAYOR EIMERS: -- says -- 39 be allowed. So again, please respect the way we need to do this in order -- so we have a good record of it. MAYOR EIMERS: Thanks, Susan. MS. BUXTON: And if there's questions from the audience with regard to how to do that, we'd like to hear them now before we open the public hearing. MAYOR EIMERS: Say that last sentence again, Susan. MS. BUXTON: If there's a question from anybody from the audience about how to present your testimony -- MAYOR EIMERS: Oh. MS. BUXTON: -- please ask it now so we can -- before we open the public hearing. Does anybody have a question about that? FEMALE SPEAKER: I have one question. I didn't quite understand what you annexed. Did you annex Blue Jay -- MAYOR EIMERS: No. MS. ARP: No. MAYOR EIMERS: No. FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. MALE SPEAKER: Just -- FEMALE SPEAKER: Now, was Mr. Robertson talking about -- was he talking about just slue Jay annexation? was he talking about what you annexed? When he gave you the figures. That was a little confusing to me. MAYOR EIMERS: It was -- 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 MR. BIETER: Ordinance 730, in sequence. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. I understand. MR. BIETER: We will distribute that if you'd like to see it before that. That's all it does. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. MR. BIETER: Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: And we'll now take public testimony respecting the zoning. Again, I'd -- and I'll say this in a little bit -- as we go through this, please let's treat each other with dignity and respect. Let's not have outbursts. Let's make -- let's give respect to that person making testimony, whoever that person is. And, you know, it's -- let's constrain ourselves to presenting the testimony and receiving the testimony. Thank you everyone. MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor, may I make one thing -- MAYOR EIMERS: Susan? MS. BUXTON: In public hearings Idaho Code requires there to be as best attempt possible at recording, a transcribeabie record, so you need to -- you need to state your name and address for the record, and then one speaker at a time, always. So no outbursts can be allowed from the audience because you couldn't -- you can't tell if you're trying to transcribe it later, who that was, so that will not 40 MS. ARP: The majority was about Blue Jay. MAYOR EIMERS: It was -- FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. MAYOR EIMERS: Well, I think -- the numbers -- the eight thousand and the seven thousand was both. Correct? MS. ARP: Was the -- MR. ROBERTSON: Which is predominantly Blue -- the expenses related to Blue Jay. MS. ARP: The whole parcel, including Blue Jay. FEMALE SPEAKER: Okay. MR. ROBERTSON: Right. FEMALE SPEAKER: Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Yes, ma'am. Okay. Ralph, could you -- MR. COLTON: We're going to open the public hearing at this point to talk about zoning only, first, right? MAYOR EIMERS: Right. Just zoning. MR. COLTON: Not the conditional use permit. ' MAYOR EIMERS: Correct. MR. COLTON: You want to officially open? MAYOR EIMERB: Okay, so we'll -- we will officially open the public hearing, and Ralph will read out the people that are on our list here to testify. MR. COLTON: This is the -- to -- the first issue is just zoning, and the first gentleman is Mr. Steve Milleman. 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 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 MS. ARP: Why don't you tell them who's next so they might be ready. MR. COLTON: And, Rand Walker, you're on deck. MR. MILLEMAN: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, staff, my name is Steve Milleman. I represent M Resorts, which is an adjoiner to the property, which you have just annexed. I want to note for the record that in participating in this hearing and the hearing to come we are not waiving and we are specifically reserving all claims, which I made in my correspondence to this Body, and which I will discuss in more detail on the CUP public hearing. I have a question, however. As I understand it, what I've just heard is that the recommendation to this Body is that the zones currently in existence will remain in existence, correct? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. MR. MILLEMAN: So the subject property for the lagoons would remain in an R5 and an R10 zone? As recommended. MALE SPEAKER: Yes. MR. MILLEMAN: Now, there was also an application for an amendment to the general plan. Is that being pursued here or is that being withdrawn? MALE SPEAKER: That was withdrawn at the Planning 43 of your own, you rejected it. You voted to condemn Bezates' land. You voted for -- you didn't even own it. It wasn't even in the city. You condemned it anyway. Oh, well, that's a small technicality. How are we going to get there? We'll have to annex. We'll annex all the way out to it. This isn't a vote. You've done it on your own. Don't be surprised when it gets to court. It already is. But don't call this a public meeting when it's not. MR. COLTON: Mr. Alford, you're next. Julie, you're on deck. (Off -record colloquy concerning sound) MR. ALFORD: As I seem to be the brunt of anything that is being discussed here, I take exception to your -- to determination of my property, and I probably will have to hire an attorney to prove that, and so I won't discuss that at this point. I have to agree with Rand Walker. I believe state law is being stepped upon quite heavily. And it will probably end up in court before it does really get squared away. I think rather -- I have brought up many subjects to this Body and to their zoning commissions as far as the legality of what is being done, in the manner as to which it's being done, and in the rotation of which it is being done. I have to agree with Mr. Milleman's previous letter that he read at the Planning and Zoning meeting. And I think 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 and Zoning Commission meeting. It is not before the MR. MILLEMAN: MALE SPEAKER: MALE SPEAKER: MR. MILLEMAN: general plan before the MALE SPEAKER: MR. MILLEMAN: 42 In that -- It is not before the -- It is not before the -- So there is no amendment to the Council? No. In that case I support the zones that are designated. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thanks, Steve. MR. COLTON: Rand. And, Ray Alford, you're on deck. MR. WALKER: My name's Rand Walker. I live in McCall, Idaho. I'm a property owner in an area. This entire zoning issue is a sham. It's a disgrace, and you have disgraced us by saying that this is a public hearing, that we are going to get a say in this matter. A11 of this was decided beforehand. There is no public comment. The people who are being annexed were annexed by force. There's no advertisement of this meeting that says that this is a discussion and a vote on annexation. In the papers it says this is a meeting to discuss whether or not to go ahead with J-Ditch. I haven't heard that even brought up yet. From the very first, going clear back to the Value Engineering study, it was done in private. People were not involved. You people voted for a Seubert site and for reasons 44 there's some big problems here. But at this point in time I would like to say one thing about the annexation. You have proposed and currently have voted on, and I guess for all practical purposes once you follow through with the proper procedures, you will have annexed my property which enables you to get to the one hundred and fifty-seven acres of Bezates property which you currently wish to put a sewage holding pond on. Your attorney said that it really wasn't strip zoning as which is prohibited by law, because it's forty acres wide. That's thirteen hundred and twenty feet, I believe, if I'm correct. It's just a wide strip, as far as I'm concerned, and you are strip annexing. But the thing that you have done is you have taken a parcel of ground that is not going to provide you with very much revenue. Because there is my house, which is a 1977 Fleetwood home, there is one more small house back on the back of it, which is a twelve -wide Fleetwood or something of that -- Nashua, I think it is -- neither one of those buildings or anything else that's on that property is going to provide you with near the income to sustain the cost that you could have. But what I would like to do is I would like to make comment to the citizens out here, because you people have all those records. And, by the way, you have -- and your attorney did not mention it, nor did your planner -- that at the last 45 46 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 meeting, I, under Section 50-222 of Idaho State Code, did protest the annexation of my property. But nobody failed to bring that up. You said that the people of Blue Jay protested. Yes, they did, and so did I. But what I'd like to make comment to these people and to the rest of the citizens of McCa11 is that if this annexation goes through, you people, as taxpayers, are going to find your taxes are going to go up, dramatically, to support my piece of property which only has two very old buildings on it, other than an old shop building. Your taxes are going to go up. Is this what you want? Is this what you call proper representation? Is this the proper way to run a city? I personally do not think so. I absolutely do not. I have other things that I would like to make comment when we get down to the conditional use permit. And I believe my name is on that list. But I do want you people to realize that your taxes are going up. Everybody in the city of McCall's taxes is going up, to support this project. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Ray. MR. ALFORD: Thank you for this appointment. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Ray. MR. COLTON: Julie. Chris, you're next. MS. EDDINS: My name is Julie Eddins. I'm a tax paying resident of the city of McCall. And I came here primarily to speak to the annexation for the reasons that were 47 I'm fifty-seven years old and I've lived here a long time. Zoning is already a thing that we agree on, but I you got -- at this kind of a meeting you've got to say what you want when you -- when you get a chance, so I reserve the next conversation for the conditional use permit. But I'd like to present you with a petition that took us about eight days to do. I've been involved in so many of the little things for quite awhile, as you all know, and it was -- most of the time it's very hard to get a petition to go anywhere. You've got your friends and you got this and that and you got a little guy that's interested 'cause he's involved. But this is something you won't believe. We started this thing -- well, let me read it. It said, "We, the concerned citizens of McCall, in Valley County, thoroughly disagree that the winter storage lagoons are an appropriate use of the Bezates property. A facility of this nature does not belong in a residential area. Due to the health and safety concerns" -- little mispronunciation there -- "the facility belongs in an industrial park, possibly the Seubert site." Now, we started handing these -- or carrying these around with us and putting them everywhere. It didn't make any difference if it was somebody from out of town that has property or buying or reading the newspapers, they couldn't wait to sign this petition. I went to the post office. I 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 stated before. A lot of us felt that you would be hearing comments on the annexation. I will save my comments for the conditional use permit. But I want to point out to you that your sign -in sheets say "zoning", on the top, and conditional use permit, and many people took the heading "zoning" to mean that they were going to be heard on the annexation. MR. COLTON: Chris. And then Colleen and Roy Bean, I guess -- Rory Bean are next. MR. SEUBERT: My name is Chris Seubert. Reside on 1121 Chad Drive. I'm going to reserve most of my comments for the CUP application. Alls I have to say on zoning is that I agree with the recommendation that the zoning remain as is zoned, which I believe is in no way compatible with the CUP that has been applied for on the adjacent Bezates property. Thank you. MR. COLTON: Bean. Tom, you're on deck. MR. BEAN: My name's Rory Bean. I live at 280 Wisdom Road. Just quickly, I just don't approve of the annexation of the area. I think it was done improperly. And I appreciate Marilyn Arp, there. Thank you. MR. COLTON: Tom. And then Larry Moody is on deck. MR. HAYNES: My name is Tom Haynes. I live at 338 Carmen Drive, McCall, Idaho. My phone number is 634-8653. 48 stood at the post office. I had people lined up. Well, if you've been here as long as I am they all know there must be something going on if you're signing something on top of my hood. They're standing in line and they're -- they're -- well, I wait -- I'll wait. This is something I absolutely am against. So, in a week, we have three hundred and ten signatures. Okay. Councilman -- Ray, Alan, would you look at me? We've got three hundred and ten signatures. MR. MULLER: Good. I understand. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Tom. MR. HAYNES: I think you better look at the names. These are the people that you've been living around, doing things with, kids you've been teaching, these are the people that don't want the lagoons out there. So that's all I need to say in this portion of it. I'd like to present this to the Mayor. MAYOR EIMERS: Thanks, Tom. Thank you, Tom. MALE SPEAKER: Is that to go into evidence? If so, it has to come here. MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah. Over there. Thank you, Tom. MR. HAYNES: Okay. MAYOR EIMERS: Chelsi, you're keeping those -- MR. HAYNES: Thank you. MR. COLTON: Larry Moody, I think you're next on the 49 50 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 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 list. And then we have Roz Campbell and I believe it's John Campbell. MR. MOODY: My name's Larry Moody. I live at 115 Coy Road. I'm not in the city limits. I'm in Pine [unintelligible] Subdivision. I just want to go on record to let everybody know my opinion that I don't think any of this has been fairly done. That I'm strongly against any annexation. Strongly against the location of the ponds, of the taking of the Bezates site. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. MS. CAMPBELL: No comment at this time. Roz Campbell. MR. COLTON: Roz Campbell. And John Campbell, I guess. I think that says Campbell. I'm not -- MR. CAMPBELL: Right. MR. COLTON: Okay. 979 -- MR. CAMPBELL: 979 Valley View. I just want to go on record as opposing the annexation. I believe that instead of working the problem out, I believe that Council is digging a hole that's just that much deeper. Thank you. MR. COLTON: That was the last name that I have on my list MAYOR EIMERS: Are there others that would like to. 51 This has gone on for nine months. Nine months of no public information. We're waiting on a NEPA document. A NEPA document's supposed to show us alternatives. It's supposed to come out with where the best site is, and therefore we ought to move forward there. We shouldn't even be talking annexation until we have a NEPA document. We shouldn't have bought the property 'tit we had a NEPA document. Shame on all of you. Okay. Annexation. Ralph, 1993, you remember, you and I lived in Rio Vista. 1993, about September, Rio Vista was annexed. Okay, that's almost six years ago. Ralph and I got on the council at that time because some of the promises we heard as we were annexed, so all of you know, were that -- Ralph and I both lived on unpaved streets. The level of service in the City of McCall is supposed to be paved streets. Well, guess what, six years later Ralph and I worked hard to get paved streets in Rio Vista 'cause that was one of the promises. We worked through five-year action plans. I talked with Bill Keating before the P&Z hearing about three weeks ago or so. Ralph still lives on an unpaved street. I lived on an unpaved street. There's about two miles of unpaved streets out in Rio Vista to this day, six years after annexation. You didn't even talk about paved streets. You talked about maintaining streets, not paving streets. That's the standard in McCall, paving streets. 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 testify on this subject that did not have a chance to? Is that an arm or are you just holding your -- MR. MARTENS: No, that's an arm. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. COLTON: Dean Martens I think has his hands up. And, Don Green, did you want to -- MR. GREEN: Yes. MR. MARTENS: My name's Dean Martens, 321 Cece Way. And, Julie, I have to differ with you. It did say "zoning" on the top, and I wasn't going to testify on zoning, and it did say zoning, but I heard the staff talk all about annexation so I heard a staff report about annexation, so I'm going to talk about annexation mostly. Although, I do support the zoning remaining the same, if I can go on record there. A lot of talk up here. No financial interest I heard over here from our attorneys. If I was sitting up there, and I have, if I had plunked down 1.2 million on a chunk of property I would have thought I had a financial interest. I don't know. 1.2 million is a significant part of the City of McCall's budget for one year. I'm glad the vote went forward about letting the public know about the agency comments. I don't know what we're hiding behind here, but the true colors of three people came forward. They don't want the public to know what's going on. And that's the reason we are where we are right now. So, unfortunately, the cost than what I heard here. And the cost better pave Rio Vista before you pave 52 to the City is higher to the City is, you Blue Jay because you've got a backlog sitting there of about two miles of road. And that was the promise of six years ago, and here we sit. Six years ago. The other advantages you might get, which I get, is I no longer have to pay fifteen dollars ($15) for a library card each year. And every time my kids are in a rec program I don't have to pay the extra two dollars ($2). So those are the advantages you'll probably see. And I may be back for the CUP. Thank you. MR. COLTON: Don, I believe you had your hand up next, and then this gentleman here at the door. MR. GREEN: Don Green, 285 Blue Jay. Obviously, on annexation, I do oppose any annexation at this time. But I'm going to go on to read something else here: "April 16th. The applicant has not requested a change in the zoning map designation. Public hearing speakers support not changing the zoning designation." And I believe that's why we should leave the zoning as they are. And it was a 3-0 vote by your P&Z. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Is there another? MR. COLTON: I think this gentleman here had his 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 53 hand up. I don't know if he wishes to -- changed your mind or not. MR. BIXBY: My name's John Bixby. I live at 290 Wisdom Road. And I just want it let known that I'm opposed to the annexation of Ray's property. Kind of amazed at the way things are handled here. And one of my questions I guess is -- you've voted to annex it -- when does it officially become property to the City? MS. ARP: When the resolution gets advertised, I think, isn't it? Published. When the resolution gets published. talking? MR. BIXBY: So what are we -- in days, what are we MS. ARP: Is it one publishing? Which would be Thursday. MR. BIXBY: So, on Thursday, after that publishing, it's officially City property? MALE SPEAKER: Mm-hmm. MR. BIXBY: Okay. And I'm also amazed -- I mean this whole project of the sewer pond seems to be the cart before the horse. And what Dean said, as far as the NEPA process, a lot of those procedures should have been taken care of before you got this far along with the property and purchasing of it. I'm amazed to hear your City Attorney say that you 55 MR. BIETER: That's -- that's how it will be zoned. That's the method of zoning. MS. ARP: And it's 730, right? That -- MR. BIETER: 730, yeah. MS. ARP: Oh. But now does this include -- MR. BIETER: You probably have two versions in your packet. MS. ARP: I probably do have two versions. And I think I -- maybe I don't have. MR. BIETER: No, you don't have. MS. ARP: No, I bet I only have one version then, -- MR. BIETER: You have one version. MS. ARP: -- which would include the Blue Jay, so it's not correct. MR. BIETER: That's correct. MS. ARP: Okay. MR. BIETER: We have different exhibits -- we have different exhibits to attach that -- that will reflect what you did on the annexation so -- MS. ARP: So how do we know which 730 we're approving? Just as a -- I mean I've got a 730 that's not correct. MR. ROBERTSON: It's only not correct because of the metes and bounds -- MS. ARP: Right. Why don't we have A and B? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 54 can't be unbias or prejudice towards a site. That is really amazing to hear that from lawyers. And I just would hope this Council really reflects hard on the procedure and whether this is the proper site. And like Tom said, three hundred plus signatures is a hefty portion of the citizens of this area who are opposed to this site. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, John. MR. COLTON: Was there anyone else that wished to speak with regard to this particular issue? I guess now it's the conditional use permit. MAYOR EIMERS: Well -- no, we need to close the public hearing. We'll close the public hearing on the zoning issue and we'll deliberate on it, and then we'll go on to the conditional use permit. MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just -- as I stated earlier, whatever your inclination -- if your inclination is to leave the zoning the same, please put your motion in the -- we'll circulate this ordinance that does that if you don't have it in your packet. MAYOR RIMERS: Do you want us to approve the ordinance -- MR. BIETER: The ordinance. 25 MAYOR EIMERS: -- if we do this? 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 56 MR. BIETER: You do. We have exhibits -- MS. ARP: Okay. MR. BIETER: We have Exhibits A and B depending on what you've done. MS. ARP: Okay. MR. BIETER: We can circulate those exhibits if you'd like. MS. ARP: Okay. It gets very confusing when I see the same number a month from now. MS. BUXTON: The reason you have the same number, Ms. Arp, is because it's the -- it's an -- you were either going to approve it with Blue Jay or without, or with Alford or without, so we needed to know which one, 'cause the ordinance number -- it was sequential. MR. BIETER: The ordinance number will be the same either way. MS. ARP: It's the same -- MS. BUXTON: It's sequential. MS. ARP: I know. But it doesn't give me -- I know. MR. BIETER: We have an Exhibit A and a B, and we'd be glad to give you those exhibits if you'd like. MAYOR RIMERS: Okay. Does somebody wish to make a motion? MS. ARP: Yeah, I will, since -- since you've already voted to annex. I -- oh, we've got to do three 57 58 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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 readings -- this is an ordinance -- all that, huh? I move that we suspend the rules and read Ordinance Number 730 by title only, and only once. MAYOR EIMERS: For three readings or just one reading? MS. ARP: One reading. We'd have to do three readings down the road. MAYOR EIMERS: Is that MR. BIETER: I'll read the title. You need to vote on that motion. MS. ARP: We need to vote 'cause we suspend the rules, so it's a roll call vote. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. Is that you -- MR. BIETER: Yes. MAYOR EIMERS: -- have we done what you wish for us to do? MR. BIETER: Yes. Yes. MAYOR EIMERS: This is -- MALE SPEAKER:. Let me have a second [unintelligible] MAYOR EIMERS: Moved and seconded. So this is for the first reading only? Correct? MR. BIETER: By title only. Spend, accept. You MS. ARP: No, one reading only. MAYOR EIMERS: One reading -- 59 Okay. Now I'm there. - MS. ARP: Yes. MAYOR EIMERS: A11 right. Now I understand what -- MS. ARP: If we -- if you are going to put a zone on this, you have to do it right now -- MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MS. ARP: -- with one reading only. MAYOR EIMERS: I agree. That's why I was looking at the attorneys 'cause I thought you meant just one reading today. Chelsi. MS. ARP: No, one reading only. MAYOR EIMERS: I understand. Okay. Roll call, MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Muller? MR. MULLER: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Colton? MR. COLTON: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR EIMERS: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Ms. Arp? MS. ARP: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Venable? MR. VENABLE: Aye. MAYOR EIMERS: Motion carries. MR. BIETER: You ready? 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 MS. ARP: By title only. MR. BIETER: By title only. MAYOR EIMERS: That's why I asked. 'Cause that was -- MS. ARP: Okay. MAYOR EIMERS: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call. MS. ARP: Oh, I want discussion. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Please. MS. ARP: And to make sure everybody is clear about this, this is -- the zoning would be as recommended by the Planning & Zoning, which is current zoning, which I believe since this is being done there seems to be consensus that this is the correct zoning. And I -- because the P&Z did hear that. So -- MAYOR EIMERS: Right. And that's the recommendation. MS. ARP: I want to be sure that that zoning gets put on that. MAYOR EIMERS: And this is the first reading only? There will be two additional readings? MS. ARP: No. MAYOR EIMERS: No? MS. ARP: One reading only. MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, okay. Passing and one reading. 60 "Ordinance Number 730, an ordinance of the City of McCall, Idaho, annexing certain real property in Valley County, Idaho, establishing appropriate zoning designation for the annexed land, providing for related matters and providing an effective date." MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MALE SPEAKER: You have to adopt it. MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah. You have a motion? Do we then have a motion, Marilyn? MS. ARP: I don't know, you want to adopt it or not? MAYOR EIMERS: Do you want to make a motion? MS. ARP: I don't know I'm having second thoughts whether I want to adopt it or not. MAYOR EIMERS; Okay, let's -- MS. ARP: No, I do want that -- I do want that zoning on there, so I'll move that we approve ordinance Number 730. MR. COLTON: I'll second your motion. MAYOR EIMERS: Moved and seconded. Discussion? As long as we -- can we take a roll call on everything today, Chelsi? MS. ARP: We have to on this. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Muller? MR. MULLER: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Colton? 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 MR. COLTON: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR EIMERS: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Ms. Arp? MS. ARP: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: Mr. Venable? MR. VENABLE: Aye. MAYOR EIMERS: Motion carries. Okay, before we go on to the conditional use permit, could we take a five or a ten minute break for a -- to get a cup of coffee and whatever else we might choose to do. Is that okay with everyone? MS. ARP: It's okay with me. MAYOR EIMERS: Five minute break. (Recessed at 10:28 a.m., until 10:45 a.m.) MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. We're at the third part of our agenda now, which is to consider the City's conditional use permit application. The first thing we'll do is we'll allow any Council. Members that would feel the need to disclose -- MR. COLTON: Mr. Mayor, I -- I'm going to have to recuse myself and I would like to stand in the back of the room -- but I do own a piece of property in -- close to the effected area. And I've been advised by counsel here that I possibly could have a conflict. And so, with that being said, 63 where you live, and let us -- give us the benefit of your testimony. But as both staff and others comment, please refrain from any kind of outburst, whether negative, positive, clapping, booing, whatever it might be. We'd also -- there are, I think, in excess of twenty people to testify. We'd like to ask if you could please, that you limit your testimony to five minutes if you could. And Chelsi will be our timekeeper. And toward the end of the five minutes she'll be letting us know, and then if you could please, we'd like for you to wrap it up. Let's see, are there other issues I need to bring up? MR. MARTENS: Question? MAYOR EIMERS: Sir. Should we entertain a question? MR. BIETER: It's your choice. MR. MARTENS: At hearings in the past if people had agreements with someone who was speaking, they were allowed to give their time to that speaker. Are you going to allow that? MAYOR EIMERS: I don't see any -- does anybody have a problem with that? MR. MULLER: You want to say that again? MAYOR EIMERS: No, what Dean -- is that Dean? MR. MARTENS: Yes. MAYOR EIMERS: I think what Dean's saying, if somebody is on the list and he just wants to say two minutes. 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 62 I would like to recuse myself from this particular item on the agenda. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay, Ralph. MR. VENABLE: Well, it's been pointed out to me that there's a black and a white and gray area, and before you get from white to anything else you kind of get off-white, so there's a possibility I have a conflict as the -- a question of my employment as the pianist at the Shore Lodge. So, since the M Resorts is adjacent to the sewer pond where the CUP is being sought, which is the CUP is being sought for, I've been advised that -- to eliminate any possibility of a challenge of a vote I might make for or against anything, that it would be advisable to recuse myself. So that means I will be making no comments, asking no questions and not voting. So, with that, I'll be sitting someplace else. MAYOR EIMERS: Thanks, Ray. How's your leg? MR. VENABLE: Oh, the leg is beautiful. It's the mentality that goes with having the handicap that gets me. MAYOR EIMERS: Thanks, Ray. Okay. The second thing is -- I'd like to once again -- we're going into the conditional use permit now. I'd like to admonish all of us to treat each other with dignity and respect. No public outburst please. When we getto the public comment section, like for you to do, as we done before, please come up, state your name, 64 worth, can he assign his three minutes, in effect, to somebody else. MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, from a logistical recordkeeping standpoint, I don't know -- I don't think we're -- Chelsi, I don't know that we can track all that. MR. MARTENS: Well, we've done it in the past. MAYOR EIMERS: If it's easy to do, Dean -- if it's easy to do, I sure as heck don't have a problem with it. MALE SPEAKER: Put my name on the list please. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MS, ODMARK: Put my name on the list too. MALE SPEAKER: Jean Odmark. MAYOR EIMERS: Jean. MS. ARP: Who's got the list? MAYOR EIMERS: Chelsi's got it. MS. ARP: Oh, okay. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. BEAN: Put my name on the list too for Mr. Milleman. Rory Bean. MS. ODMARK: Actually that's where my time is going to go also MR. BEAN: Mine also. MALE SPEAKER: Oh, okay, I see what you're doing. A11 right. MR. MARTENS: That hasn't been a problem in the past 65 66 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 though, Bill. That's exactly how they -- it's the same amount of time -- all. apply to MR. ROBERTSON: I don't have any problem with it at MR. MARTEN: I heard to you say there's problem. MR. ROBERTSON: I said that was a problem -- (Off-record colloquy) MR. ROBERTSON: If we count 25 people that won't MR. MARTENS: Same amount of time if we all -- MAYOR EIMERS: I know, but Susan, could you say what you just said, please. MS. BUXTON: If a person like Mr. Milleman would like to -- would need more time, if he would just request that at the beginning of his -- at his presentation, and go ahead and -- you decide -- MS. ARP: Grant him that. MS. BUXTON: It'd be easier. MAYOR EIMERS: A11 right. The objective is certainly not to shut anybody off. That's not the objective at all. MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, two of those people were already on the list so we'll strike their second request. MS. ARP: They only get one. MR. BIETER: Right. report draft. It was prepared in May of 1998. Exhibit Number 4 is used as the bid specification Exhibit Number 5 is treatment facility plan which plan, and this is draft dated Exhibit Number 6 is 67 the contract documents that were on the J-Ditch Phase II. the City of McCall waste water is an update to the facility February 1999. the draft supplemental environmental assessment and environmental information docket that is dated February 1999. Number 7 is a confidential memorandum written by Kleinfelder, July 20th, 1998, concern with seismic problems as related to the Seubert site. Number 8 Exhibit is a July 28th letter from Department of Water Resources to the City, in which they also were saying there would need to be some additional evaluation specific to seismic activity. July 28th, 1998, a letter from the City to the Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District identifying what the status was but including also issues relating to various effluent storage sites specifically between Seubert and what has become the Bezates site. Exhibit 10 is a letter from the City of McCall to JUB Engineers and Strata, following up to a council meeting where it had been stated publicly there was additional 25 information available, and this was requesting that 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 MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, okay. Okay. A11 right. MS. ALFORD: I'd like my name on there, but [unintelligible] -- MR. EIETER: What's your name? MS. ALFORD: Karen Alford. MR. BIETER: Karen Alford. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay, so we'll start with a staff report. MR. ROBERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. We need to introduce some items into evidence. My name for the record is Bill Robertson. I -- yes, it's Bill Robertson, city manager. We need to introduce some information into evidence and so I'm going to go through that information. Exhibit Number 1 is a J-Ditch Project/Value Engineering package prepared by JUB Engineering. Exhibit Number 2 is a series of volumes of the facility plan report, dated 1995 through June of 1996. MALE SPEAKER: Now, Bill, are those draft forms still or final? MR. ROBERTSON: I don't know the answer to that. It doesn't say it's draft. So I do not know the answer to that. It's a technical question you're asking, and that's why I won't venture a guess. But it does not say draft. Exhibit 3 is the City of McCall/Value Engineering 68 information. Exhibit Number 11 is dated August 7th. It is a letter to J.P. Seubert and George Bezates accepting the offer that had been presented to the City and waiting response. Exhibit 12 is an excerpt from the August 13th council meeting specifically related to why we were not going to be able to get information from JUB in that they weren't -- they didn't really have additional information to give us. April 2nd -- Exhibit 13 is April 2nd, 1999, a letter from Kleinfelder, doing an engineering calculation using Strata's data on the Seubert site as it relates to seismic activity, showing that it did fail. Exhibit 14 is a copy of an affidavit of Steven Dunn, who's with the Bureau of Reclamation, as it relates to the Westside Coalition suit against the City of McCall. Exhibit 15 is an affidavit of Ronald J. Gullis of the Bureau of Reclamation related to the same issue, Westside Coalition against the City of McCall. Exhibit 16 is an affidavit of Larry Peterson from DEQ to -- related to the same subject, Westside Coalition suit against the City of McCall. Exhibit 17 is the opinion, memorandum, decision and order from Judge Winmill denying the TRO and expressing an opinion about the likely success of that suit proceeding. Exhibit 18 is a copy -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 69 MAYOR EIMERS: Temporary restraining order is TRO? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. Sorry, Your Honor. MAYOR EIMERS: No problem. Thank you. MR. ROBERTSON: Exhibit 18 is a copy of the court case related to State of North Carolina versus City of Virginia Beach, which is cited by Judge Winmill. Exhibit 19 is a copy of the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission, April 6th, at which these subjects were discussed. Exhibit 20 is the Planning and Zoning Commission finding and conclusions related to the appropriate zoning designation upon annexation. Exhibit 21 is the City of McCall Planning and Zoning Commission facts and findings, conclusions related to the denial of the conditional use permit. Exhibit 22 is a copy of the City of McCall's conditional use application. Exhibit 23 is -- are extracted pages that are referred to in the application for the conditional use permit that are from the City's comprehensive plan. And they are six pages specifically. And it was more convenient to do that instead of put in big books. Exhibit 24 is a copy of the McCall general plan land use map. 25 25 and 26 are publishers affidavits of publication. i 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 now all go into -- MS. ARP: I understand that and I have no quarrel that they go in. My problem is that I'm supposed -- it sounds like we're running right to make a decision -- I don't have a chance to review those before I have to make a decision. I find that -- MR. ROBERTSON: These are the only documents we've been working with for the past -- or the City's been working with -- MS. ARP: I understand that. And I have a stack of documents like this. But when you have it in the record, that's what we are dealing with. I would have liked an opportunity to go through those and review those. I don't have that opportunity. I'm sitting up here right now, so -- all I'm saying is, if we don't make a decision today, fine, I will take the opportunity, I will look at that. MR. ROBERTSON: And if -- they've always been available to you. MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, -- MAYOR EIMERS: Please, David. MR. BIETER: -- Members of the Council, the only official part of the record at this point is what's come forward from the Planning and Zoning Commission. And then, apart from that, although the same terminology is used, you have the city records that obviously is just about everything. 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 27 is a copy of what was mailed out and posted, the notice of public hearing. And 28 is a copy of the addresses to whom that was mailed. People within the necessary distance. And the last exhibit, Exhibit 29, is the draft finding of no significant impact that is waiting to be approved as a result of the NEPA process. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Bill. MS. ARP: Can I make a comment? I have a process question on this now. Is this all being entered into the record today? Was it in the record? I went and looked at the record, I was gone this last week, asked for the record, looked at it a week ago, and some of those things were in it but many of them were not. And probably -- I -- and maybe some of those I've never seen, most of them I certainly have seen. So my process question is, I didn't have a chance to look at that in the record. MR. ROBERTSON: We11, if I could ask a question, Ms. Arp, what you looked at was the -- MS. ARP: Was that. MR. ROBERTSON: This file? MS. ARP: Mm-hmm. MR. ROBERTSON: Which is public comment submitted April 6th. If the public hearing was held today these will 72 MS. ARP: Mm-hmm. MR. BIETER: The only real way to get this into the record now is to put it in now. MS. ARP: Mm-hmm. MR. BIETER: Because we've got a record that was forwarded to us, now the public hearing's open and here all this is. I don't know of another way to make that -- the conditional use -- or the Planning and Zoning Commission's records come forward and become part of this. MS. ARP: Mm-hmm. MR. BIETER: Unless those were introduced then they're not officially part of the record until now. I don't know of another way to make that happen. Obviously, they're all public records and City records and subject to review from any member of the public -- MS. ARP: well, I guess if you're making them -- MR. BIETER: Logistically, I don't know what you'd do. MS. ARP: -- if you're making them part of the official record it seems to me that to have an opportunity to go through that official record would have been -- if you want a decision today, I mean and that's certainly what I'm hearing, that's my quarrel. But that is just simply -- I like to be prepared. I want to be prepared to make a decision. And while certainly some of those jog my memory, I did not 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 73 have them pulled together to be able to go through them. And I did go through that record that was in -- MS. BUXTON: But -- I guess what you need -- MAYOR EIMERS: Is there anything that's not been before us? MS. BUXTON: What Dave is saying that the public record is created at the public hearing -- MS. ARP: Okay. MS. BUXTON: -- period. So that is a compilation of all of documents that you have been reviewing -- MS. ARP: Understand. MS. BUXTON: -- all along. So you cannot, until you have a public hearing -- MS. ARP: Okay. MS. BUXTON: -- designate the public record until the public hearing. And that's -- MS. ARP: Okay. I -- MS. BUXTON: That's why -- I understand -- except for the Planning and Zoning Commission's -- MS. ARP: Right. MS. BUXTON: -- record it comes forward. So well, I understand what your concern is that -- that's MS. ARP: Yes. And I hear what you're saying. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Staff report. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, 75 consistent with requirements of McCall City Code. Additional postings beyond that what's required were made at City Hall and the Post Office and Star News. On April 6th of this year, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing in this room on the proposed conditional use permit. Public testimony was taken and the result of that hearing was a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council to deny the requested conditional use permit. I believe you have a copy of their recommendation in the record. On April 12th consistent with -- of this year, consistent with requirements of McCall City Code, notice of McCall City Council public hearing on the requested of conditional use permit was mailed to each owner of property within three hundred feet of the perimeter of the project site. Record of that mailing is -- was just introduced by City Manager Robertson. On April 15th notice of the application and public hearing before the City Council was published in the Star News, which is the official city paper, consistent with requirements of McCall City Code. An affidavit to that effect was introduced into the record by the City Manager. Notice of the application of this hearing was also duly posted on the project site as required by City Code, and additional postings beyond those required by Code were made at 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 74 since our beloved City Planning and Zoning administrator has departed, I've been elected to stand in his stead to present the City's application to you. My name is Gene Peterson. I'm a planner with RH2 Engineering. I'm going to provide a little bit of background, go through the criteria that are established in the code, and provide a brief summary at the end of that. On February 19th of this year the City filed an application for a conditional use permit to construct a effluent storage impoundment on property that's commonly known as the Bezates property that's been condemned by the City. Construction of this facility is required to comply with a consent order that the City has entered into with DEQ. This consent order requires, among other things, that the City cease all discharges of effluent to the North Fork of the Payette River. In order to do that, accomplish that requirement, it's necessary to store the effluent that comes out of the City's waste water treatment facility for most'of the year. And this effluent storage impoundment will allow the City to meet this requirement. The conditional use application was complete and included all the elements required by McCall City Code, Section 3-3 -- 3-31030. Notice of the application and the public hearing before the McCall Planning and Zoning Commission was given 76 City Hall and the Post Office and Star News. In the Code there's a series of criteria that are outlined in Section 3-31030. And there's eleven of those. Those are the criteria that are specifically referred to for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider in their recommendation to the City Council. In keeping -- in an effort to be consistent with that -- and parallel in that construction, we're just -- I'm just going to briefly walk through those criteria and present our position with regard to their applicability and consistency. The first criteria that's specified in the Code for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider is that the proposal constitute a conditional use that's authorized in the zoning district involved. The McCall City Code defines a public service facility as buildings, power plants, substations, water treatment plants, pumping stations, sewage disposal or pumping plants and other similar public service structures operated by a public utility or by a municipal or other governmental agency for the purpose of furnishing electrical, gas, communication, water, sewer or similar services. The proposed facility is an integral and required element of the City's sewage disposal plant which is also often referred to as a waste water treatment plant. The 77 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 "14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposed facility includes sewage disposal pumping plants, both to pump the treated effluent from the treatment plant and from the storage lagoon to the J-Ditch mixing facility. A public utility -- in other words, the City of McCall sewer utility and a municipal agency, the City of McCall, will be operating the proposed facility. The sole purpose of this facility is to allow the City of McCall to furnish sewer services in compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Idaho Department -- Division of Environmental Quality Rules and Regulation. Therefore, the proposed project is a public service facility pursuant to McCall City Code. As was mentioned earlier and as you acted on earlier, there are two zoning classifications on the project site. The western half of the proposed project site was zoned earlier today by you as R10, Rural Residential 10. The eastern half of the proposed project site was zoned R5. So we have two different zones and, therefore, two different chapters of the McCa11 zoning Code that apply to this application. Chapter 3-5-030 establishes the conditional uses that are permitted in the R10 zone which is, as I mentioned, the west half of the site. This section specifies that, quote, "The following uses maybe permitted." And then it lists a series of uses, and use Number H is public service 79 not permitted in the R5 and R10 zone. There are several problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, you've got to look at the definition. The definition is for extractive industries. What we're proposing is neither extractive nor industry. None of the materials are being taken off site. We're not extracting anything. We're moving materials around on the site. And this is not an industry. This is a public utility. There is no commerce involved. Nothing is being sold nor marketed. This is not an extractive industry. It is a public service facility with benign operations and no commercial aspects. MAYOR EIMERS: Ladies and gentlemen, please, so everybody can hear. Thank you. Go -- MR. PETERSON: Second and probably more problematic for the City from an administrative perspective, if you carry this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, you end up with an absurd result. If all excavation -- meaning digging dirt and moving it around on your property -- is an extractive industry, then the only zone in which that could occur would be the I or industrial zone. And if the City were to apply that kind of an interpretation, all construction would have to stop in every zone in the city. Any construction that would involve grading -- such as perhaps a golf course -- should be stopped, if you were to adopt that line of reasoning. 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 78 facility. McCall Code Section 3-6-030 establishes the conditional uses that may be permitted in the R5 zone. And this section also specifies that public service facilities are permitted as a conditional use in the R5 zone. The proposed project is a public service facility pursuant to the municipal code, and a public service facility constitutes a conditional use that is authorized in the zone districts that we're talking about. At the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the argument was postulated that the proposed project did not constitute a conditional use authorized in the R5 zone. This argument was based upon the definition of "extractive industries" in the McCall City Code. The definition of "extractive industries" in the Code is any mining, quarrying, excavating, processing, storing, separating, cleaning or marketing of any mineral or natural resource. Mineral for the purpose -- for these purposes, also including the so-called common varieties of earth materials. The argument was made that since the proposed project involves substantial excavation, and it does, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, involving so-called common varieties of earth materials, it is therefore an extractive industry within the meaning and intent of the Code. And if the proposed project is an extractive industry, it's 80 therefore, in our opinion, it has no merit. The second criteria is that the proposal be harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives and with any specific objectives of the comprehensive plan and the zoning code. The McCall comprehensive plan contains numerous objectives that are supported by the proposed project. I'll relate brief summaries of some of those objectives in the order in which they appear in the plan. Those excerpts were previously introduced as exhibits for this hearing. Page 10 of the comprehensive plan contains three relevant objectives. One declares that State standards for water quality and waste water treatment should be adopted as the minimum standards for McCall. And the facts are the State water quality standards evolving from the Federal Clean Water Act are the fundamental drivers of this project. And by constructing this project the City will in fact and in practice be adopting these standards as their own. The second objective on page 10 urges adoption of standards and procedures for protection of stream channels and water bodies. The procedures and functioning of this project are elemental and are totally designed to protect water bodies. Specifically, the Payette. The cessation of effluent discharges in the North Fork of the Payette will protect water quality and -- the water quality and ecology of the stream as 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 81 well as downstream water bodies such as the Cascade Reservoir. A third objective specifically speaks to the protection of the North Fork which is obviously the major purpose of this proposed project. Page 11 of the comprehensive plan proposes strict controls on sewage treatment. Total elimination of discharge to surface water represents one of the strictest treatment controls imaginable. There are very few areas in the world that do not discharge to surface water. I guess that's a -- well -- Page 12 includes another objective related to strict enforcement of waste water discharge specifically related to the North Fork of the Payette. Again, this project is about as far as you can go in terms of protecting water quality in the -- in the stream. With regard to siting of public service facilities the comprehensive plan refers to them as public uses. And on this matter the plan states that the need for future public uses is limited and their precise location is not determinable at this time nor is it indicated in the plan. The intent of this was to allow the City -- 'cause that would be the primary agency providing public service facilities -- to site facilities consistent with the needs of the city, and therefore the siting and location of this facility is consistent with the locational criteria and objectives of the 83 hearing is evidence that that is what we're doing. A third purpose is to implement the comprehensive plan. As noted above, the comprehensive plan contemplated public uses as proposed here and allowed for the location of public services facilities as determined by the City. A fourth relevant purpose of the zoning code is to facilitate the provision of public services and promote public health, safety and welfare of all residents and visitors. This project is a necessary public service that will substantially promote the health and welfare of all residents and visitors to McCall. Third criteria is that the proposal be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with existing or likely character of the r.eighborhood and that such use will not change the essential character of the surrounding area. In order to establish harmony and appropriateness it's necessary to establish the existing, likely or essential character of the area. The reality of the matter is -- I'm sure you all know where we're talking about -- is that there are a broad range of disharmonious land uses characterizing the vicinity of the project. These include the Slue Jay Subdivision which is a residential area, directly across from the proposed site. The White Tail PUD golf course which is a commercial recreational facility directly north of the 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 82 comprehensive plan. Page 50 of the comp plan recommends that sanitary sewer service be mandatory for the City of McCall and adjacent areas. Without this project the objective of providing sewer service throughout the city cannot occur. The City would be precluded from providing sewer service to any new customers because it would be in violation of its NDPS permit and probably under moratorium. Chapter 2 of the zoning code sets forth five objectives, most of which -- many of which are supported by this proposal. For instance, one purpose of the zoning code is to ensure that the physical growth is carried out in an orderly way which compliments the landscape, ecology and existing urban character of McCall. Without this project a moratorium on new connections to sanitary sewer system would likely be imposed. Therefore, this project is necessary to ensure that physical growth is carried out. Because without it, physical growth would be severely restricted. And if you just think about it, if you can't connect to the sewer you're going to force the growth out into the [unintelligible] lands, contrary to the objective of supporting the urban character of the City of McCall as specified in the zoning code. Another purpose of the zoning code is to regulate the use of land. The very fact that we're here in this 84 property. The Alford property which is a rural residential area. Mr. Alford described what he has on his property. A couple of mobile homes. I believe he has a business that he runs out of his home there. McCall Industrial Park. We have the Seubert gravel pit. We have the Edwards property which is an open pasture. We have the balance of the Bezates property which is another open pasture. The area is also bisected by a major haul road for the Meckel [phonetic] gravel pit that is -- that seasonally generates extensive truck and heavy equipment traffic. Further, when the proposed Dinehard/Hoydstun connector is constructed in 2002 the area will -- traffic will increase in the area and have a tendency to shift toward higher intensity uses. Given these realities the existing character can only be characterized as mixed. Within a relatively small area, industrial, residential, agricultural uses co -exist. Therefore, the area truly has no essential character as contemplated in the zoning code. The future character may tend towards more intensive uses because of the construction of the Dinehard/Hoydstun connector. However the character of the area evolves, the proposed facility will be in harmony. The project when completed will be a benign facility. There will be very limited human and mechanical activity. The impoundment 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 85 embankments will be seeded with native grasses and shrubs. Trees located within the footprint and capable of being transplanted will be relocated to the buffer area. Additional trees will be planted around the perimeter to shield the impoundment. The native appearance of the embankments will appear as a hillside and be in -- and harmonious with the likely character of the neighborhood. The fourth criteria is that the proposal not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Three concerns relating to health, safety and welfare have been identified. These relate to the potential failure of the embankments in an earthquake, aerosol drift and potential contamination of groundwater. As documented in the geotechnical reports prepared for this project the embankments have been fully designed to comply with the dam safety requirements of the State of Idaho. This includes providing a safety factor during the maximum probable seismic event specific to the McCall area. To ensure compliance with these standards the facility will be -- is required and will obtain a dam safety permit. With such a permit the reservoir will not pose a safety hazard to area residents or those working in the area. If an earthquake were to occur that was big enough to cause 87 Combined with the fact that the cells will rarely be full -- MAYOR EIMERS: Please, ladies and gentlemen, let's show dignity and respect and remain quiet while other people are testifying, please. Thank you. Thank you. MR. PETERSON: When combined with the fact that the cells will rarely be full, it becomes even more likely that water particles could ever reach beyond the security fence. The proposed facility will include an extensive subsurface drainage system and groundwater monitoring network that will prevent off -site contamination of groundwater. In the unlikely event of leaks of treated effluent the groundwater quality monitoring network will detect such a leak and allow for remedial action. Further, as the hydrogeologic report for the project documents, the subsurface drainage system will direct flows away from existing wells in the Blue Jay Subdivision. And the same health conclusions that we just talked about related 'to aerosol apply to this notion of contamination. The health risks associated with contact with this treated effluent are minimal. The fifth criteria is that the proposed project not cause any substantially -- any substantially harmful environmental consequences to any land or waters within the planning jurisdiction. 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 86 failure, there'd be -- most things around here would be flat. The February draft -- February '99 draft update of the facility plan contains a description of modeling that was done to quantify the potential for aerosol drift. This modeling indicated that if a sprinkler nozzle was placed at the top of the embankment and the wind was blowing at thirty mile per hour water particles would travel a maximum of about a hundred and eighty-seven feet. This is -- the challenge with this set of assumptions is that there aren't going to be any sprinklers on the top of the embankments. The only spray that could be generated would have to come from wind -induced wave action. And considering the very short fetch over which the winds would blow and the fact that the highest water in the impoundment will be three feet below the top of the embankment it would be virtually impossible for a spray to be created that could be blown off site. And if the winds were really blowing that hard it is also highly unlikely that anyone would be outside. I would -- and therefore they would not be exposed to any aerosol. Furthermore, as is also included in the update to the facility plan, even if they were exposed there's no health risk to the individual. The quality of the water that will be stored In these facilities is such that the -- for example, California health regulations would allow human recreational activities in this water. 88 The proposed facility will allow McCall to remove all of its treated effluent from the North Fork Payette River and therefore the Cascade Reservoir. This will have a highly positive effect and impact on the waters of the planning jurisdiction. 1.9 acres of wetlands are proposed to be displaced. The proposed project is subject to a Section 404 wetlands permit that is currently being reviewed by the Army Corp of Engineer. As proposed in the Section 404 permit and the mitigation plan accompanying that, the displaced 1.9 acres of wetlands will be replaced and an additional 32 acres of heavily impacted and degraded wetlands will be restored. The project will have a positive impact on wetlands in the planning jurisdiction. The facility will be lined with 60 mil plastic liner, contains an extensive underdrain system that I referred to before. The facility will constantly be monitored for leaks which are highly unlikely and the groundwater will be tested on a regular basis. Groundwater in the vicinity of the project will not be harmed. The sixth criteria is that the proposed project not create excessive additional public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 In contrast to other possible uses or other existing uses in the area the proposed facility will not create a need to improve any existing infrastructure with regard to transportation or public facilities, et cetera. Public safety I mean. In addition, as mentioned -- as I mentioned before, this improvement will allow the City to promote the economic welfare of the community in two ways. First, by fostering and promoting environmental quality, and, second, by allowing connections to your sewer system. The seventh criteria is that the proposed project be adequately served by essential public facilities and services, including highways, streets, police, fire, drainage, refuse, water, sewer and schools. And this project does not require any additional public facilities or services. The eighth criteria is that the proposed project not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions of operation that will cause unreasonable production of traffic, noise, fumes, glare, odors or other forms of pollution. The proposed project will generate virtually no new traffic. Operation will require daily trips by city maintenance personnel. The proposed project -- the proposed use will -- in the long term, considering the alternative, would generate much less traffic than any alternative use that would possibly 91 Water being stored, as I referred to several times, is highly treated waste water effluent. It will contain nitrogen and phosphorous which are the primary nutrients needed to grow algae. The lagoon will be filled during the winter and will be covered with ice part of the winter and early spring. In the spring when the ice melts, the water temperatures will mix and there will be a week or two when musty odors are noticeable. This was described in -- I don't know where they ail went -- but in one of the books prepared by SUB Engineering for the facility plan. The ninth criteria is that the proposal have vehicular approaches to the property so designed as to not create detrimental interference with traffic on the surrounding public thoroughfares. The facility will have one access point at the intersection of Wisdom Road and West Valley Road, and this access will not interfere with traffic. The tenth criteria is that the proposal not result in destruction, loss or damage of an important natural, scenic or historic feature. On the property there is one somewhat important historic feature on the site. This is a gravesite located on a knoll near the southwest corner of the property. The project will preserve this gravesite and provide the grave with a five hundred foot buffer. The other existing natural feature that will be 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 90 occur on the proposed site. With regard to noise, the only noise produced will be created by the pumps and the equipment related to the pumps on the project site. This pumping will occur during the irrigation months in the summer. The pumps required for the facility will be about three hundred horsepower. Pumps of this size typically produce low frequency noise between about eight -two and eighty-nine decibels when measured at three to five feet away. As proposed, the closest residents -- as the project is currently proposed, the closest residents are about four hundred feet away from the pumps. At a hundred and fifty feet in distance from the pumps the noise levels generated would be less than fifty decibels. According to the standards published by EPA, fifty decibels is the equivalent of what they characterize as a quiet urban neighborhood. For comparison, fifty decibels is about the same as the noise a dishwasher, in another rooms, makes. Therefore, the noise generated by this project will be imperceptible to the surrounding homes. The proposed project will not generate any smoke, will not generate any fumes, it will not generate any glare. A11 waters -- all water bodies, including this one, have characteristic odors. Maybe a musty smell or something like that. 92 disrupted is the existing open field on which the project will be constructed. However, this field does not constitute an important natural feature within the meaning of this criteria. This finding was confirmed in part by the results of our consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation who concluded also that there's no significant features on site. The facility as proposed, in its second phase, would block views of Red Ridge for some property owners to the east and Brundage Mountain and Granite Peak for a portion of the property to the south. However, this -- this criterion is intended to prevent destruction of the actual features, such as a gravesite. And blocking of views does not destroy or damage the feature. The eleventh criteria is that the proposed project be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use, including yards, open spaces, snow storage, walla, fences, parking areas, loading zones and the design standards applicable. The project site is composed of about a hundred and fifty-seven acres. The proposed facility will occupy about seventy-six acres including the fences and everything. The site meets the requirements of the Idaho DEQ and is of sufficient size. Just by way of a quick summary, as we stand today, 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 93 the proposal is to build the first cell, in the near term, based on the results of the bid documents which we can answer questions about if you need to, which will be about 206 million gallons which would be approximately as is shown here, probably a little bit longer than -- the cell would end up being just a little bit longer than is shown in this drawing. The final designs are not done. They will be done by the winner -- low bidder when that is awarded because this is a design built project. So the first phase would be the northern cell. Subsequent to that, at some future date, the southern cell would be constructed. In summary, a complete application for a valid conditional use has been filed and properly noticed, consistent with McCall City Code. The proposed conditional use is not inconsistent with the criteria established by the City's Code and should be granted. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Gene. Okay. MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just for the record, MAYOR EIMERS: Dave. MR. BIETER: -- that -- although the comments obviously come in orally, the document he was working -- for will also be entered as an exhibit in the record. 95 right now. Please read it carefully. We stand unite with Blue Jay Subdivision and Westside Coalition. Concerning this matter you have misplaced all public confidence. Please be reminded that your first commitment is to the community which elected you, not to the DEQ or BOR. You are failing this community. It is not reasonable or ethical to compromise the entire west side of McCall to this project. The City's public processes concerning this matter are illegal and with intent. It is imperative your decisions immediately correct this dreadful situation. Thank you. MS. ARP: Can I ask one question? You did not go through what the concerns are in the letter? MR. BARTON: I did not. They need to be -- MS. ARP: Could I ask you to do that since this is my only opportunity, apparently. MR. BARTON: To read the letter? Okay. .This letter represents the comments and concerns of the First Valley View Corporation and Valley View Subdivision Number 1. "Our subdivision adamantly opposes the construction of the S-Ditch holding ponds at the Bezates site. It is of our opinion after study, research and discussions that this project -- that a project of this manner in such 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 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MS. ARP: Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, David. Okay. Staff report completed. Okay, we're ready now I believe to open up for the public hearing section. And as we said, if you could please limit yourselves to five minutes. Once again, audience, please be respectful of everyone. Please come up, identify yourselves. Chelsi will let us know at the end of five minutes. And we already know that Mr. Milleman is going to request some additional time. So please let us know when you get here what you think it might be. Council can -- council can decide -- or hear, and -- having said that, we'll go ahead and open it up. And, Chelsi, could you -- I guess what Ralph did worked fine, where we have the first -- the next person you'll call and then let -- who's on deck know. MS. SHOLTY: Mike Barton and then Richard Porter's on deck. MR. BARTON: My name is Mike Barton. I'm with the First Valley View Corporation. I reside at 922 Valley Rim Road. I'm here to represent Valley View Subdivision Number 1 which held a special subdivision meeting last night concerning this hearing. We oppose the construction of the ponds on the Bezates site. We are submitting a letter into public record addressing the concerns of our subdivision. I'll do that 96 close proximity to our subdivision is totally incompatible. We feel we will suffer irreversible and unavoidable impacts if this project would be completed. Including reduced property values, excessive noise, unacceptable aesthetics, uncontrolled amounts of fog, mosquitos, insecticides, obnoxious odors, and public health and safety risks of unreasonable and intolerable proportions. We are also very aware that these many problems associated with this project are unpredictable and uncontrollable, even under the best attempts to contain them. The cumulative effects of these many problems would be infinite and profound. "The people that live in our area invested in their property for the environmental peacefulness which we now enjoy. If this project is completed that peaceful environment would be forever changed. The very threat of living under a very high earthen dike structure, containing such a large amount of sewage effluence, within a very short range of a known earthquake fault is a totally unacceptable public safety risk. "We are concerned that a breach in a facility could destroy Williams Creek as we know it, and in all probability our subdivision's common area at the creek's entrance of river and any human lives which may be in the way. 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 97 "It would be a great concern to live next door to this bathtub with a constant threat to home and family. .This event could also be caused by other conditions, such as an extremely wet year event or any leakage causing the dike to weaken. Under no conditions should any effluent be allowed to be released into the Williams Creek drainage. This is a small but pristine trout spawning creek which must be maintained and preserved in its present state for the production of the creek bed itself -- protection of the creek bed itself and for the protection of our subdivision. "Noise pollution involved after completion of the project will be of great concern. Facilities of this type must receive constant maintenance involving heavy machinery and constant noise from pumping stations which is unavoidable. When summer arrives this is not what we want to open our windows to. "We wish to enter our subdivision along the only existing road entering to it with the current view of Red Ridge to the west, a very open and complimentary view, a view with no odors. "The massive size, height and length of these proposed structures will discredit the only entrance to our subdivision, along with other circumstances created, will serve to reduce our property values. 99 which was established in 1976 following the establishment of Rio Vista Subdivision and preceding establishments of Valley View Subs 2 and 3, Pine Terrace 1 and 2, Blue Jay Sub and, most recently, Falcon Ridge Estates. This long list of subdivisions which includes a very large percentage of lot owners on the west side of McCall, shows the longstanding commitment towards residential development in this area by local governments. Precedents have twice been set by other commissioners -- other commissions concerning this issue, both -- all three -- well, both of which resulted in unapproved CUPs. "I'm referring to the latest attempt to rezone the Seubert site which is in such close proximity and with similar problems. "The second precedent I'm referring to was set on or approximately June 22nd, 1987, concerning an application for a gravel pit on the very parcel of property we are now evaluating as the Bezates site. Again, this resulted in an unapproved CUP which stated, this area is not compatible for an industrial area. No fill material can be mined from this site. And we now have a third CUP with unanimous disapproval. "It matters not what year, 1987, 1988 or now 1999, or whom is the applicant, the City, DEQ, the BOR or any private individual. We will not accept a double 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 "We now enjoy the sunny days of our long winters. We cannot accept the fog instead of sunshine on these days. A very uncontrollable element of a very large surface area of these warm ponds, foggy days will promote a very bad attitude for the entire west side of McCall by creating intolerable change. .We are concerned of possible contamination of our groundwaters as our entire subdivision operates on private wells. "There is absolutely no chance that noxious odors will not persist. With the phosphates at a concentrated high level and the depth and temperature of the effluence at such large -- at such proportions, the algae growth will certainly be prevalent, which will lead to odors in uncontrollable proportions. This combination will also promote a certain advance of mosquitos, possibly disease carrying, causing serious health and safety concerns. "The spraying of insecticides to rid the problem or the use of chemicals to rid the algae problems would in itself create other very serious health problems, exposing residents and our growing children continuously and long-term to hazardous chemicals. There is no sure fix for these unavoidable circumstances. "We feel we have specific established rights pertaining to the environmental status of our subdivision 100 standard. "Industrial use is still industrial use, dust still duet, noise is still noise, pollution is still pollution, public health and safety is still public health and safety. "And, three, good, sound CUP decisions are still three good, sound CUP decisions. "Our rights must not be compromised. Due to the long-term profound effects and seriousness of the concerns, it would be arbitrary and capricious to allow a project of this nature and industrial proportion to be placed in such close proximity to these long-established neighborhoods. "We believe that in light of the level of controversy and the potential impacts, both environmental and economic, to ourselves and our neighbors and the history of the CUPS in this area, proves that this site has now been proven totally unacceptable for this project. Thank you." MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. MS. SHOLTY: Richard Porter. MAYOR EIMERS: Who's next? MS. SHOLTY: And Helen Porter's on deck. MR. MULLER: Richard Porter. 101 102 1 2 3 4 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 MR. MARTENS: Can I ask a process question? MS. ARP: We have a process question. MAYOR EIMERS: Sure. MR. MARTENS: I heard a vote at the very beginning -- MS. BUXTON: For the record, sir, your name. MR. MARTENS: My name is Dean Martens. I heard a vote at the beginning of this meeting, a 3 to 2 vote saying we were going to hear from agencies at some time, questions and answers, and I talked to Mr. Bieter who seems to think questions can't be asked at this time. But the Council, in my experience, has always asked questions of staff or related agencies at the beginning of a public hearing, and I believe everybody here heard that and maybe it will make a lot better comments if they hear those questions and answers, before this meeting. MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah. Well, our decision was to hold that until the deliberation section -- MR. MARTENS: Until the CUP hearing is what -- MAYOR EIMERS: Right. Until -- until -- MR. MARTENS: And I think a couple of -- the newspapers heard here and I asked -- I've asked about six or eight people, so I'm just -- just bringing it up. MAYOR EIMERS: What I said at the beginning, Dean, was that -- to hold that until the deliberation section. That -- 103 MR. MILLEMAN: I understood that -- resolution that people didn't have to give their minutes over. I'll try to be as brief as I can. I will not be five minutes. If you feel I'm wasting your time, tell me and I'll stop. MAYOR EIMERS: Steve, the only thing I would say is that it's ten to 12:00 and we are going to break for lunch, so could you give us an estimate how long you might be so everybody knows? MR. MILLEMAN: Twenty minutes, perhaps. MAYOR EIMERS: Twenty minutes. Okay. So we'll be -- we'll break for lunch after Steve is done and -- so he -- and he estimates about twenty minutes, if you couldn't hear what he said. MR. MILLEMAN: For the record my name is Steve Milleman. I represent M Resorts, an adjoining property owner to your proposed storage facility. And for the record again, M Resorts reserves and specifically does not waive the claims regarding the process that we are engaged in, which are communicated to you in my April 28 letter. And before I go forward, you heard the advice of your attorney on whether you had a structural conflict, that is, whether you as a City Council could act as impartial quasi-judicial hearing officers because you're not politicians anymore. You sit here as judges. And I heard the advice of your counsel. What I do want to ask -- that was part of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MR. MARTENS: That helps us make comment. Thank you. MR. PORTER: Okay, I'm Richard A. Porter -- MAYOR EIMERS: Excuse -- oh, Mr. Porter, can I -- MR. PORTER: Oh, I'm sorry. MAYOR EIMERS: That's all right. In -- okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Porter. I'm sorry. Please go ahead. MR. PORTER: Okay. To Mayor, the Council, I'm Richard A. Porter and I'm out of Valley View 2 and we're 10 completely in agreement with Mike Barton which represents 11 Valley View 1. And I might say everything he said we are a 12 hundred percent behind him. 13 Thank you. 14 MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. 15 MS. SHOLTY: Helen Porter and then Steve Milleman. 16 MR. MULLER: Helen Porter. 17 MR. PORTER: No, Helen will pass. She had to go 18 home. Thank you. 19 MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. 20 MR. ROBERTSON: Steve Milleman. 21 MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor -- excuse me, Steve. 22 MR. MILLEMAN: Okay. 23 MALE SPEAKER: I just want to know how many minutes 24 were -- how many people were taken over approximately, so we 25 can get kind of a -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 request. The secondary part of my request went to the individual mindsets of Council Members. And I want to first ask if each of you has had the opportunity to review my April 28 letter. MS. ARP: Yes. MR. MULLER: [unintelligible]. MAYOR EIMERS: I read them, yes. MR. MILLEMAN: Okay. Then I want to ask -- and, Mr. Mayor, you and I go way back and I mean no disrespect by this. I sent the letter because I believe you are honorable people. I cited in my letter a number of sworn and public prior statements in which you are on record as saying the only place that this project can happen is on this site. In two viewpoints and a letter to the editor, in your sworn affidavits in Westside Coalition versus the City of McCall, this has been your position. I want to again ask, if as you sit here you -- MS. BUXTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object right now. This is a public hearing. This is not a cross- examination of the Council. MR. MILLEMAN: I'm going to tell you that I have -- MS. BUXTON: Mr. Milleman, let me finish my objection please. This is usually something we would not do. You would not have objections in a public hearing. It is a 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 quasi-judicial proceeding, that is true, but it is a quasi- judicial proceeding, and that is different from a judicial proceeding. So if Mr. Milleman would like to present his objections to your legal advice that you've already received and to your participation, he certainly can do that. But at this time it is my advice that it is not a correct time for him to cross-examine you. And if you would like to go ahead with your public comments please make them, Mr. Milleman, right now. MR. MILLEMAN: Counsel, how can you advise Mr. Eimers as to whether he can sit impartially himself based on his prior public statements? How can anybody but Mr. Eimers answer that question? And I asked in my letter for a response on the record. I'm entitled to a response on the record. My client's property rights are in the balance. MS. BUXTON: Mr. -- we -- again, this is Ms. Buxton for the record. We respectfully disagree with Mr. Milleman, that he is not entitled to a written response on the record to a letter received by my office on the morning of the 28th of April before this hearing. And there is no requirement by law that he receive such a response. And if Mr. Milleman would like to continue and make his objections for the record and his comments for the record 107 group of people, that you will not give any weight to what consequences a denial of this permit would have on your acquisition of the property to the tune of $1.28 million; on the constant threats that we have heard that if this train doesn't get to the station by October 1, you will be fined twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) a day or on where this will leave you in terms of any other pending external pressures. And I will leave it at that. And if you cannot disregard those things, then it is my position -- MAYOR EIMERS: Could you state that one more time, please. MR. MILLEMAN: I certainly can. It is my position, that as quasi-judicial hearing officers you have to be able to proceed and to say clearly, at least to yourselves, that you will not give any regard to what consequences your denial of this permit would have on the fact that you have already purchased the property for $1.28 million, on the fact that you have a time line and you have been repeatedly told if you don't meet it you will be fined twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) a day or on the fact of any other pending matters. Okay. Anything less than that, is doing the concept of due process a disservice. And that is our position. And in response to counsel's position, it isn't just that you own this property, it's a far cry from that. You've invested $1.28 million in this property, plus engineering 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 24 106 at this public hearing, we encourage him to do so. MR. MILLEMAN: I've not asked for a written response. I have called into question I think a predisposition on the part of the Mayor that makes it impossible for him to ignore the outcome consequences. I simply asked for him to respond as to whether he believes he can disregard the fact that the City has $2 million invested in this property, and the other issues that I've raised in my letter. If the Mayor does not desire to respond, I will move forward and respect that. MAYOR EIMERS: Should I respond? MR. BUXTON: No. [Audience disruption] MR. MILLEMAN: Mr. Mayor, if you would like to -- Mr. Mayor, if you would like to respond, you certainly can. But our advice is that you have no obligation to respond to Mr. Milleman. He has the opportunity to object to that, and he -- MAYOR EIMERS: Sure. A11 I would say is that my view is I have an obligation to represent, to the best of my abilities, honorably, openly, always with the beat interests of all the citizens of McCall at heart. MR. MILLEMAN: And I would close this discussion with this -- and this goes to all three of you -- if you proceed with this hearing, then you are saying to me and this 108 fees, totaling expenditures now of more than $2 million. In this specific property. You have repeatedly been advised that if you don't build this thing by October 1, you're going to be fined twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) a day. I made my letter -- submitted it to you not to harass you but because as honorable people, I cannot imagine how you can separate those external pressures from your role today. If you tell me you can, I will proceed. MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor, Council, it is the position of the City Attorney that what Mr. Milleman'a asking you is not required of you as a quasi-judicial body, and all factors that weigh in this conditional use permit are appropriate for you to review and look at. MR. MILLEMAN: As far as the record I would ask that if it hasn't already been done, the entire Planning and Zoning Commission record, including the entire record from the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing be made a part of this record. Is there any objection to that? MALE SPEAKER: MR. MILLEMAN, which were submitted in MALE SPEAKER: MR. MILLEMAN: It is part of the record. Okay. Including all the letters the Planning and Zoning process? Yes. Yes? 25 MS. BUXTON: That's correct. 109 110 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 MR. MILLEMAN: Okay. In addition, M Resorts has submitted forty-eight exhibits which I tendered at the beginning of this meeting and I understand that they are numbered M Resorts Exhibits 1 through 48, and they have been made part of this record? MR. BIETER: Yes. For the record, Mr. Mayor and Council, we will assign the next sequential exhibit number to all that as one exhibit and each one will be a subsection of that exhibit. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MS. ARP: So that was in that stack? MR. BIETER: No, he's presenting it now. MS. ARP: It's something right now, okay. MR. BIETER: He's previously given me the stack that MS. ARP: Okay. MR. BIETER: -- we will keep in the file. MR. MILLEMAN: These consist of three things. A tube containing large drawings, a bound set of exhibits and some photographs. And I will try to highlight those as I go through because I know you haven't seen them yet. MS. BUXTON: Mr. Milleman, one thing for the record, it's my understanding that there may be some letters from the Planning and Zoning hearing that are not actually in the packet now. At this point, I would assure Mr. Milleman that 111 residential development. In the ensuing three years approximately a million dollars has been invested in the furtherance of that development. It has preliminary plan approval for all phases. It has general plan approval for Phase I which contains an eighteen hole golf course and associated facilities. Several of the greens and fairways are immediately north of the common boundary line between you and the White Tail property. This is the PUD that you and your predecessors approved in 1996 and pursuant to which entitlement my client has been investing money for the last three years. To the east you have Mr. Alford's property, the Blue Jay Subdivision, Pine Terrace Subdivision. To the south you have Ms. Edwards' property and to the west you have Mr. Bezates' remainder property. Your berms, in our case, were located fifty to seventy-five feet from our property line. They are approximately fifteen feet high at the northeast corner. They are approximately twenty-five feet high at the northwest corner. Not fifteen to twenty feet as your application says. MS. BUXTON: Would you say that again please. MR. MILLEMAN: At the northwest corner the berms are approximately twenty-five feet high, your application says they are fifteen to twenty feet high. This benign facility runs approximately twenty-two 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 those are going to be added in to the record. MR. BIETER: And for the record Exhibit 33 will be all of M Resorts exhibits for the record with a subpart for each of those. MS. ARP: Okay. MR. BIETER: Premarked. MS. ARP: Exhibit 33. Okay. MR. BIETER: 33, submarked MR. MILLEMAN: Okay. The conditional use permit application. You have no staff report. You have no staff. You have the applicant's report. Normally in a public hearing you have a staff report from a paid staff member who will tell you how the application comports with the requirements of your ordinance and irregardless of whether the person says this application doesn't make it or makes it, goes to work the next day and is paid. You have a report from your employed engineer who has a financial interest in this project. You do not have a staff report. I ask that you consider it as such. It is your report to yourself. Let's orient ourselves to the property. This is your proposed project. This is your proposed eighty acres of open space and excavation. To the north is the White Tail property. You, the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the Impact Planning and Zoning Commission approved the White Tail planned unit development in 1996. It is a recreational, 112 to twenty-four hundred feet long. It runs approximately eight hundred feet across the top. This is what your application says about the impact on the White Tail property: It says that the developer has indicated that a guest staying in the upper floors of the hotel -- which is located to the north on the property -- may be able to see the reservoir, however, no approvals have yet been granted by the Commission or the City Council allowing a height greater than thirty-five feet. Continuing, and I quote: ^The berm at this location varies between fifteen and twenty feet tall. Included in the concept approval is a twenty -- two hundred and fifty room hotel. The hotel is to be located approximately a half mile from the facility and at a slightly higher elevation. It is possible that if a hotel taller than thirty-five feet is approved, guests on the top floors would be able to see the ponds.. Well, to begin with, the developer made no such representation to staff and I don't know where those representations come from. So let me Show you the actual elevations and begin to give you a sense of the impact of this project. This document which is Exhibit 7 of our exhibits was prepared by Toothman-Orton, it gives you a rough cross-section from the lodge site to your berm. Sheet 2 gives you the actual elevations. In fact, a guest standing on the ground at 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the lodge site would be top of your berm. MAYOR EIMERS: that. Is that -- MR. MILLEMAN: 113 standing sixteen feet higher than the Steve, I can see a curving line like What this represents is the elevation at the lodge site which is higher, and the elevations as we get down to the eighteenth, seventeenth and fifteenth fairways and greens. Referencing the elevation at the top of your berm. So, unlike what your application states, in fact a guest standing on the ground at the lodge site would look over the top of your berm and into your twenty-two hundred foot long storage facility. Not on the thirty-five foot level but on the ground. To make matters worse, as we get down to the fairways and holes, some of which are almost flush with your property line, those people are going to look up, anywhere from twenty-three to twenty-five feet at your berm. So what are our impacts? Our impacts is that we have visual impact both from ground level on the golf course holes which have already been designed and already preliminarily graded. We have visual impact from the lodge site, which you approved, looking down on what can only be described as an industrial facility. We have the issue of odor which Mr. Peterson has 115 MAYOR EIMERS: Malovich. MR. MILLEMAN: Exhibit Number 15 of the M Resorts Exhibits will be Ann Lloyds Edwards' new view. The line across the top is the new horizon which your berm running up to thirty-seven feet high will create. What does your application say about impacts? It first says that they were identified in the draft supplemental environmental assessment. The draft supplemental environmental assessment makes no mention of White Tail whatsoever. The only mention it makes of it is that you can't condemn it for this facility because it's too expensive because it's already substantially been developed as a recreational PUD, because it already has a 404 permit, because it already is on its way to getting groundwater permits for irrigation systems. Acknowledges it's a valuable property, it just doesn't mention that there are any impacts on it. It does acknowledge that the development will reduce the property values in the Blue Jay Subdivision. There isn't the slightest doubt it will reduce the property values on the White Tail property. In fact it is our position, as currently designed, that project will not happen if you do what you are about to do. And I will note that Mr. Locke, to his credit, did not try to present the report that Mr. Peterson presented today, because as a planner who desired to leave with some 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 25 114 conceded will exist at least during the fall and spring times of the year. We have the issue of overspray which Mr. Peterson tells you not to worry about. At thirty miles an hour it will only go a hundred and eighty-seven feet, under their model. That puts it on top of golfers. And I don't care if it's a health safety or not. Let me tell you, it is not going to be an attraction. There isn't a long enough fence to pick it up. You've got twenty-two hundred foot fetch here to pick it up. What does the -- well, let's talk about the visual impact. I submitted four exhibits which are photographs from a variety of perspectives, and they are our Exhibits 12, 13, 14 and 15. And I'll show you these and I'll let you pass these around. This exhibit, which is Exhibit Number 13, this is a photo from the Malovich [phonetic] property. The line drawn across will be the new horizon, which your benign facility creates. Everything under the line will be that which they will not look at anymore. Exhibit Number 14, it's from the south end of the Bixby property. These are in your record. Again, the horizontal line would be the top of your berm. This will be the Bixby's new horizon. MAYOR EIMERS: Who's the first one? MS. ARP: This is the Malovich property. 116 shred of integrity, he couldn't make the case. What he said to the Planning and Zoning Commission is, these are the eleven standards and you must evaluate it on those standards and if you can't get there on any one of those you must deny this application. And I give him credit for that. What your application says is, well, we shouldn't really worry about what impact this has on Blue Jay and these other people because, gosh, there could ultimately be a lot of unsightly homes out here that they'd have to look at. Mr. Mayor, do you have -- MAYOR EIMERS: If you're going to keep using that, could you turn those lights back on 'cause it'd help my [unintelligible] -- MS. ARP: They were actually the TV lights. (Off -record colloquy) MR. MILLEMAN: So the argument is made, we really shouldn't consider view because there could be large, thirty- five -foot -tall unsightly homes in -- under the normal -- under the current zone, the R5, R10 zone. I'm going to tell you this is R5, so for starters you can only have one home per five acres. The ordinance only allows 8 percent of the lot surface to be covered with buildings. And so under the current zoning, in fact, there could not be any significant impairment that even begins to approximate your twenty-two hundred foot long solid monolithic 117 118 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 berm. Now, your application goes on to say that as to White Tail -- and I quote -- "With proper landscaping and screening, the facility should be rather unnoticeable." Now, we really need to be honest with each other about this. This process is difficult, at best. It is my view that it is a charade, at worst. But to suggest that this facility won't be noticed is simply not a palatable comment. So, what is the landscaping and screening which is going to make it unnoticeable? And I will suggest to you that under your ordinance, this is your application. Not some further design that has yet to be done. If this project hasn't been designed, we have no business being here. This is the project. And I want to ask you to remember each point we make here because I want to tell you that you are about one way or the other to make precedent. On each of the points we talked about. And if the precedent becomes that I can now come to you with a CUP and say, I'm not really sure what the things's going to look like, but here's what it's going to be, and we'll get a design later after I get the permit. If that's what you're going to do here, do it. But please don't look me in the face next time I have a private applicant in front of you and tell me that there's a different standard for my client. 119 And I'm not trying to be glib here, but I stood here and heard your consultant's presentation that you were going to have landscaping and screening. I've read viewpoints back to October that says it will be so well -treed that it will be an amenity to the neighborhood The application before you says you'll have approximately one tree for every two hundred and forty feet and it will be a five -gallon tree and it will not be irrigated. Again, if that's an acceptable landscaping plan, let's set that down now. It will make my life much easier in the future. The subject of mitigation. Mitigation isn't just something that you should do to be honorable and good people. Mitigation is something :that you must do if you have any hope of shoehorning this thing into this neighborhood and finding that it does not change the essential character of the neighborhood. Let's go back. One of your eleven standards says you must find that this facility will not change the essential character of your neighborhood. You can't do it the way it is currently designed. It may be possible to alter the design and mitigate and come to the point. You can't get there as a reasonable, rational person with this design. So what do we know about mitigation? I want to tell you what our efforts have been. Because I stand here today in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 So, I heard lots and lots about, well, when we actually design this thing it will be a lot better. No, no, this is your application. If you have to have a design then I suggest you suspend these proceedings until you have one. So, what's the landscaping and screening proposal? Your application says there's a hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($130,000) in the budget for landscaping and screening. In looking at the update to the facilities plan I can only find ninety-five thousand dollars ($95,000) in there and that, by the way, includes all of the wetlands planting and mitigation. So, what is the landscaping plan for this project? You'll find it in Figure 7 to your contract bid documents. And I'll tell you what Figure 7 tells you. Is you're going to plant one hundred five -gallon trees on the twenty-four hundred foot east side of this berm. MAYOR EIMERS: Ladies and gentlemen, please. MR. MILLEMAN: That's what your application says you're going to do. You're going to plant one hundred five - gallon trees on the twenty-four hundred foot stretch on the east side of this berm. You're going to plant none on the north side between you and my client. I cannot find anywhere in your application that it suggests those trees will be irrigated. I can only rely on Mr. Ballard advising us in a meeting that they won't be. 120 a position in which I've spent the last two months trying to avoid being in, and which my client has spent the last two months trying to avoid being in. In mid -February we met with the Mayor, Mr. Locke and Mr. Ballard to express our concern that this project now looked hugely different than what had been represented last summer and even last fall. We've gone from a thousand foot setbacks to seventy foot setbacks. We've gone from no higher than fifteen foot berms to thirty-seven foot berms. This wasn't the same monster that was suggested back in the summer and spring. We had a good discussion. It was suggested to us that there should be money available for mitigation. That maybe it wouldn't be enough for our plan if we had a plan, but by golly there was money there. There might even be some items as much as two hundred thousand (200,000) in your budget that could be dropped out. In fact we were -- we were told mitigation has to be done. If we've got to reduce the size to mitigate, that's what we'll do. We went away feeling very positive. We had Toothman-Orton Engineering prepare, at Mr. Manchester's expense, four mitigation plans. On February 25th, those four mitigation plans were presented in another meeting with the Mayor and Ma. Buxton and Mr. McCurty [phonetic] who handled your condemnation and Mr. Ballard, and I don't remember if Mr. Locke was there or not. 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 25 121 These were specific alternative mitigation plans that involved additional berming to allow additional planting. I will go through them briefly. I will tell you that we were told they would be presented to the Council that night. On February 25th your minutes reflect they were presented in an executive session. We were told the next day that they were going to be submitted to DEQ and that we would get a response. Our hope was this would be the beginning of a discussion that might lead to a solution in which the people in this room could be your partners instead of your adversaries. What are these plans? They're there to look at. They are in the record. The first is a fairly straightforward extension of the berm to allow for additional planting. The second is a variation on that, which curves the berm. Again, for your orientation, this is the White Tail property. You can see how close the thirteenth green is to the property line. You can see how close the fourteenth, you can see how close the fifteenth is. Option 2, wrapped the berm this way, assuming that you don't use the northwest forty acres for a gravel pit or for a barrow pit. Option 3 even -- did that and even did some shaping of the pond to make it look less like an industrial facility. And Option 4 which was laid on the table in that 123 funding sources for this mitigation; and we were told that we would receive the engineering document which back when the switch was made in sites, justify the switch, if one in fact existed, because we haven't been able to find one. That was on March 23. We were invited to an April 14 meeting with the same group which was canceled the day before the meeting, by Mr. West. We now stand here before you, two months later, having had not one single substantive response to any of the four mitigation plans that we put on the table. You have not met your legal obligation to mitigate the impacts of this project such that you can say with a straight face that it won't change the essential character of this neighborhood. That is your responsibility, legally. It is your responsibility, ethically and morally. We hoped that by now we would be into a detailed discussion involving not just M Resorts, but the folks on the west --.on the east side as well, and Ms. Edwards toward the end of some kind of a partnership, but it takes two to discuss. If I stood before you for a private applicant for this facility and neighbors got up and told you what I've just told you, you'd send me out the door. You'd say why haven't you met with them? Why haven't you discussed mitigation plans? You can't build this thing in a residential 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 25 122 meeting, was let's reduce the profile of this thing, let's look at cost effectiveness of mechanical dewatering, and let's do some berming, and you'll have this neighborhood supporting you instead of fighting it. Now, what I was told then was -- and what we asked for is a full engineered cost effectiveness analysis of reducing the profile and implementing some or all of these mitigation proposals. A cost effectiveness analysis. To reduce it, how much more will it cost you in mechanical dewatering? How much will it save you in not building these berms? How much will it save you in the severance damages you're going to have to pay Mr. Bezates for the impact you have on his remainder by building this big berm? That's what a cost effectiveness analysis is. How much will it save you in the potential cost of a failure by not having this thirty- seven foot berm? That's what the cost effective analysis was supposed to be. The next meeting we had was a meeting to which we were invited with the Mayor, Mr. West from DEQ, Mr. Robertson, Hugh McNair, who was really essential in setting that up. We again went through the subject of mitigation. We were told at that meeting that we would receive four things. A specific response to our mitigation proposals; we were told then the cost effectiveness analysis had been done and we'd get a copy of it. We were told that we would have a report on possible 124 neighborhood. What in the world are you thinking, Milleman? Come on, you've been here too long to propose this. Go mitigate it. Come back to us with a neighborhood agreement. There is no mitigation in your plan. There is no credible screening in your plan. That's the plan you have in front of you. That is the application you are being asked to approve today. The good news is that I don't believe money is the obstacle to the solution to this problem. And I note in the Mayor's April 22 letter to the Star News that the Mayor correctly takes some credit for going and renegotiating the Bureau of Reclamation agreement. And he says, "In other words, we need only build that capacity which can be built with grant and gift funds." Well, I would suggest to you the message to me in that is, the only thing that's stopping us from having a mitigation plan is that you have not deemed it important to do it. It is a cost item in this project. It needs to be there. If it reduces the size of your pond you need to stand up and say that's the only way we can legally do this project. Now, your application says what we should feel good about is that this eighty acres here, over to the west, is going to be open space, wetlands, interpretative centers, student projects. What your application does not tell you, unless you wade through your bidding documents, unless you 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 25 125 wade through these figures is you're going to take six hundred and twenty thousand cubic yards of material out of that property. Because that's where you're going to get to build the berms. You see if you look at your budget you have no money in your budget to buy material. Why? Because you're going to take it all out of the southwest forty acres according to your plans if you dig into them. You're going to excavate it. Six hundred and twenty thousand cubic yards is what will be required for this project. You're going to excavate it out of that property, including through wetlands. But here's the kicker. You're not going to have enough. Exhibit 25 that we submitted is the analysis by Toothman-Orton Engineering of your documents. Taking the topography. Taking the profiles you gave. Calculating the yardage. Do you know how many yardage you're going to get out of that southwest forty acres? No more than two hundred thousand cubic yards. So you know where you're going to go? You're going to go right up here to the northwest corner of that property, right in M Resorts' face. So, in fact, this application -- although it hasn't told you this, is an application for a sewer lagoon and for a major extraction, both bordering on my client's property. You have no reclamation plan, you have no details. But that is the reality of this situation. So to view this as some sort of an open space 127 dig a basement on their home. Let's go back to the definition of "extractive industry". Any mining, quarrying, excavating, processing, storing, separating, cleaning or marketing -- not "and" marketing, "or marketing" -- of any mineral, natural resource which it goes on to say includes dirt. Your definition does not limit extractive industry to excavating to sell. It is excavation for storage or processing or other use whether or not you market it. This, my friends, is excavation. Six hundred thousand yards is one of your bigger basements. Now, argument two, don't do this -- MAYOR EIMERS: Steve, we're up to thirty minutes now. MR. MILLEMAN: Okay. I'll try to wrap it up. Thank you. Argument two, don't do this, what Milleman's telling you, because you'll never be able to allow anybody to dig their basement or build a road. What's wrong with that argument is that those are what are defined in your ordinance as accessory uses. Accessory uses to an existing permitted use. And that's why people can do those. And that's why those are not extractive industry. This can only be defined as an extractive industry. It is not allowed in the zone that you have created. 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 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 amenity is a bit of a gloss on what is really going to happen out there. Now, where do I get this? Figure 7. Your figure identifies four areas, F, G, H and I. And Mr. Mayor, I will tell you they are all in the southwest half of that eighty acres that will remain open. We've got four quarters, if we think about it. You're going to use two of them for your ponds. You leave two. You're leaving eighty acres over here to the west. The south forty of that eighty has four areas identified on it in which you're going to cut, excavate and get your dirt. Your Figure Number 8 actually shows us how much you're going to take off in that area. And how far you're going to do it. An exhibit that we had prepared highlights that so we can better understand it. You're proposing to excavate almost thirteen of the forty acres, and this thirty acres to the north is being left as a supplemental area for excavation. You are proposing to take anywhere from five to twenty feet off the existing surface. And that's what these highlighted areas are and they are in the exhibits I submitted. Now, Mr. Peterson tells you that's not an extractive industry, and he gives you two reasons. One, because he says you're not going to sell the material, and, two, because he says, boy, if you adopt that interpretation nobody can even 128 So where are you? To fulfill your function you must either grant or deny this permit on the basis of the eleven standards in your ordinance. And that's it. And I will give you my opinion that that's where it must lie, is on those eleven standards. And for your reference I'll give you a copy of those eleven standards. These are the ones the Planning and Zoning Commission struggled with and could not find compliance with. I'm not going to discuss them all. I'll only discuss those that I think are most egregious. Number one, you must find that the uses for which you are applying are conditional uses in the zone. The public facility is, the extractive industry is not. Number two, you must find that your application as presented to you in its current form is harmonious with and in accord with the general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Let's not play games. For those of you that have been involved in the planning process for years it is an absolute no brainer that this entire property and everything out to Black Hawk is planned for mid to high -end residential, in fill [sic]. If we had a revised comprehensive plan that's what it would say. And we all know it. Is this facility -- you tell me, is this facility as you look at it consistent with mid to high -end residential? Question three -- and you need go no farther than 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 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 question three. You must find that this plan as presented to you is designed and can be operated and maintained such that it will not change the essential character of the surrounding area. It also refers to the existing or likely character of the neighborhood. You must find it is appropriate and harmonious with the existing or likely character of the neighborhood. This is not quite as complicated as Mr. Peterson suggested. The likely character of the neighborhood, you zoned it. You took out the agricultural zone in '92. It's all zoned residential. The property's R5. The property to the west is R10. The Bezates property is R10. The property to the north is R5 and R10. The property to the south is R5 and R10. The property to the east is residential. The neighborhood is residential, and has been planned by you and your predecessors to be residential. You cannot find that this will not essentially change the character. Maybe a different design of this yes, but not this one. Not the one you have in front of you. You must find that it will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare. I just want to tell you that I don't believe you have a failure of scenario in front of you. You have an assessment that the risk of failure is small. What you don't have is an evaluation of the consequence of failure. The consequence of failure is your two hundred and 131 cetera will be applicable. We11, I agree, I think the site is large enough to accommodate the use, it's just that you jammed the entire use into the eastern 80 acres. Again, when the switch was made, and I'm not interested in discussing the switch it's a NEPA issue, I agree with you. But when the switch was made it was a great site, 1000 foot set backs, small berms, plenty of property, we're not shoehorned in like we were at Seubert. We11, guess what, we're shoehorned into 80 acres, we have huge berms, we have essentially no setbacks. So as far as I'm concerned the 80 acres upon which you are planning this facility is not adequate to properly set back or properly mitigate. Another design, maybe, not this one. If your answer to any of those 11 questions is no, you must deny the application. And in my view, you must deny it without regard to where it leaves you elsewhere in this process. I think the standards in your ordinance are clear. I think it's clear that if I came here for a private developer and put this in front of you, you wouldn't give it to me. I think it's clear that the neighbors are willing to work, if somebody will sit down with them and try to work with them. And in going through preparation for this hearing my attention was drawn back to an October 28, 1998 viewpoint. And at that point, Mr. Mayor, through the efforts of your hard 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 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 six to three hundred and fifty million gallons runs through residential areas on its way to finding a course to the river. Including Ann Lloyds Edwards' property which is zoned residential, planned to be residential. Number five, that it won't cause any harmful environmental consequences to lands or waters. I won't belabor the point. You don't know what the groundwater is here because your groundwater testing was done in October, November and December. Somebody in this room stand up and tell me they've gotten a septic permit with groundwater tests done in October, November or December. Mr. Robertson says he's got one. Congratulations. In twenty years I never have. I think your berm sizes are actually going to be higher when you get out there this spring and actually find out that the groundwater is at the surface in some places. Because you seem to be committed to not mechanically dewatering, that's going to drive you up even higher. Two final points -- (Tape Change) MR. MILLEMAN: The final standard -- (Off-record colloquy concerning tape change) MR. MILLEMAN: Okay. Thank you. The final standard I'd like to address is standard number 11. That is the standard that suggests that the site is sufficient in size to accommodate the use, it goes on to say, yards, open spaces, et 132 work, this is how you were describing why you were where you were. And I quote: .The original 40 acre site required the relocation of gravel making operations and the storage of huge mounds of gravel near two residential areas, Blue Jay and Rio Vista neighborhoods. The impact on these neighborhoods would have been profound. And was unacceptable to the residents or to our Planning and Zoning Commission, which recommended denial of this proposal. "We will have setbacks of over 200 feet from the property line on this project, talking about the new site. We will heavily buffer the 200 foot setbacks with trees so that the ponds will actually be an amenity for the neighbors.. Why is the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission that you have before you any less compelling than it was then? Why is the profound impact on the neighbors any less compelling to you now than it was then? Had you been able to put in front of you a plan that did what you said in October, I believe you might be able to approve it. But you have not. And under your ordinance it is my position that you cannot approve this application in good conscience without setting in place a chain of events that it's going to bring 133 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 private applicant after private applicant in front of you asking why are you asking me to do that which you yourselves did not do. I appreciate the time, I appreciate the extension of time. MS. ARP: Thanks. MAYOR EIMERS: Thanks, Steve. Okay. With that, we'll break for lunch and -- MS. ARP: Until when? MAYOR EIMERS: What time, you guys, you want to come back at 1:30, 1:45? MS. ARP: Well, which? MAYOR EIMERS: I don't care, you tell me. (Off -record colloquy) MAYOR EIMERS: 1:30. Let's break for one hour. (Off -record colloquy) MR. MULLER: Okay. Mr. Mayor, reopen discussion. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. We'll reopen the public hearing. Chelsi, could you call the first witness, please. Or the first testifier. MS. SHOLTY: Rand Walker. MR. WALKER: Boy, after a good lunch I don't know if you want to start off with me or not. My name is Rand Walker I'm a resident of McCall, I live at 905 Davis. This affair, this of course pertaining to 135 it was a rebuttal. How can the city P & Z be rebutted to the city itself? I'm sure that Mr. Peterson -- is that your name, Mr. Peterson? MR. PETERSON: Yes. MR. WALKER: I'm sure you didn't mean to be insulting or demeaning, but you were, I feel, when you told us that this water is going to be clean enough that some people play in it. If you want your children to play in it, that's fine. We'll attach swimming boards or diving boards, but I don't want my kids in water that I can't drink. If you can't drink it, don't play with it. And also, if you're living in a home within a 100 to 200 feet, I don't care what it is. And the noise of a pump hits 50 decibels. This statement took my breath away. It's like having a dishwasher. Are you going to personally, city councilpersons, turn on your dishwasher for 24 hours a day, seven days a week for five months? I mean, if this is a kick to you, if it's funny, hey. The people on the P & Z thought this was a no brainer also. It didn't make it. Comparisons were made to homes. Gee, how would you like it if the Best Western was set up there where Mr. Manchester's hotel is going to be. Would the guests of the Best Western like to look down into the ponds? The Best Western, of course, being more than a one story facility would have an excellent view of this pond. People don't want to 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 25 134 the CUP, has a rather sad history to it. For over nine months now we've been considering this whole issue in one form or another and it has been resoundingly slapped down at every level, clear back to the first drawings. There shouldn't be much question of the problem. I mean, everybody is pretty much aware of it. We're to the point where we have to have attorneys tell us to admit records into the evidence, letters and everything. Everything has to be a record. We didn't have to used to do business this way, but unfortunately I'm afraid we're to that point now. The second P & Z meeting, the one where the city P & Z considered the conditional use permit, it wasn't even close, it was a no brainer, it was unanimous. P & Z voted it down on five points. I mean, these are unpaid appointed representatives, citizens of McCall. And admittedly, the same people show up. I mean, although the group today appears to be a little larger. The same people showed up because they're involved. There's more people today because there's a little more publicity about it. We hear in the papers that a few people are concerned here and there, it's always a few. And yet petitions with names in the hundreds have been turned in on more than one occasion. The public really can't say much more than what it has said. It has said no. What does it take to get through. The P & Z itself said no. Today we had -- it was almost as if 136 live next to it. Geographically, we have a map right here, there's nowhere for the city to grow. You have federal to the north, west and east. The city can only go south. So we're putting the ponds at what's going to be an entrance to the city, surrounded by residential. Okay? This will be an epic thing that we will get to look at for the next 50 years, 100 years, who knows. Earthquakes. You're right. If an earthquake hits that's big enough to take this puppy down, there won't be a town. We don't need to worry about it. Personally, I want it to stay if it's built. I don't want anybody to get hurt. I think earthquake is kind of a side issue a little bit.; Structurally, we're on hard rock, so supposedly that's a pretty good thing. A lot of the country is. The bottom line is, do we want to live with it? And then we're told -- we're told consistently the EPA requires us to do this. The DEQ requires us to do this. That is bunk. Pure and simple bologna. The DEQ is made up of people. Okay? They work for the government. In Idaho, they're even Idaho residents. The Idaho Department of DEQ handles this. Okay? You don't like it, that's what we have senators and representatives for, we can change a few people at DEQ. But they're not that way. The DEQ isn't there to hurt us or to 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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 137 slap us with huge fines, they're there to work with us. Okay? Instead of being on an adversarial basis and saying we're going to have a twenty five thousand dollar ($25,000) a day fine if we don't do something, why don't we say well, why don't you just turn your horse around here, folks. Help us put this somewhere where the people aren't upset. And then we won't have to pay fines, we won't have to spend the next five years in court. But that looks like where we're headed. I don't understand how a city P & Z commission could vote unanimously against something and how there could then be a vote to overrule? I mean, there both acting in the public interest. If it doesn't fit a group of people acting in the public interest, how can it fit a group of people acting in the public interest? If there's five things against it, would you want to live next to it? The city has nowhere to grow, it's going to go that way. You're going to drive by this puppy every day for the next 50, 100 years. No wonder Valley View is concerned. Blue Jay, how about Black Hawk? Hey, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for a lot. How do you get there, well, you drive, you know, you take the first right past the sewer pond and -- I mean it, in a way jokingly, but in a way I'm totally serious. This is our -- this is what we're putting forward to the community for the next 50 years. That's the only way we've got to grow. It's residential now. It's R1 139 Where is the ground swell of support in favor of the Bezates site? Where's this huge -- there's a few people concerned against it. Where's all the crowds that are saying, yeah, we love Bezates site? They aren't there. Aren't even close to there. In fact, we've gone to court, we've had to hire huge -- not huge numbers, but we've had to hire attorneys to make sure we're okay, 'cause every -- you know, that's the way it is now days, I suppose. This is wrong. It was wrong last year. It was wrong and the P & Z knocked it down and blew it away. MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, it's been over five minutes. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. WALKER: Okay. MAYOR EIMERS: Are you almost done, Rand? MR. WALKER: I'm just about done. I would sincerely ask that you think about the vote that the city impact in. The city P & Z [unintelligible] and it was unanimous. And that we not at all consider the EPA as a threat, they're there to help us. The DEQ is the same. They're there to help us. If we decide and we need to move a pond, they'll help us move it. If not, then that's what our representatives and senators are for. Thank you. 25 MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Rand. 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 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 138 now. R5, R10, it's all R numbers. There's no S numbers. Okay. I'm sorry if it appears that I am personal in this. I think people shouldn't, in office, feel that they're responsible to an agency, okay. The people of all agencies are responsible to us. We're the ones that support them with our tax money. A few people opposed to something, to me, all it takes is one or two and, boy, that should be of utmost concern. Utmost concern. If the same group of people is opposed to something for a year, then sooner or later you'd think the message would get through. Something might be wrong with this project. Do I think the Seubert site is the best in the world, no. I think it's better than Bezates site. A lot better. Number one, it's down. It's down low. There's nothing under it if it should break. Those are two real winners of reasons. There's big piles of gravel we'll have to look at for three years or four years and then they'll go away. Key word: "they'll go away." Mmm. You can put up with mot anything for a couple years if it's going to go away. These sewer ponds are going to be there forever. Okay? The people have pretty well made their feelings known. This isn't a personal issue in that people shouldn't be personally angered or something, you can be sincere and you can be concerned and I am. I want you to represent me in my feelings. Okay?. 140 MS. SHOLTY: Ray Alford. MR. ALFORD: I want to thank my wife for giving me her few moments that she had signed up for, but first I would like to demonstrate something here to the people that are here. It was stated earlier that the place would be landscaped every 200 feet with a five gallon pot. A five gallon pot usually contains, depending on the species of tree, a tree that is approximately that high. That's every 200 feet. Now, if you really get into some others, some of the other types of planting, it could go up as high as eight foot. That's a little more than I can reach, but that's only every 200 feet. And so that's supposed to hide this 25 to 36 foot pond wall. And they're only 200 feet apart. I've never seen a tree yet that grew in this country that would spread out spaced that distance to cover that amount of ground. So what you're referring to and what has been referred to as landscaping is hog wash. Now, my wife asked me to ask one question and that was, why doesn't the council members excuse themselves from the voting on the annexation? The annexation and this CUP are basically all one horse, I don't care how you divide it. But I think they should be considered all one horse and I think that if those members excused themselves from this, they should have excused themselves from the annexation as well. Because they all live within that area. And therefore, they 141 1 2 3 4 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 would be involved. And I personally feel that that's a conflict of interest. Now, what I'm going to say here I have to apologize for you -- to you because I wrote this very quickly. And I will go in and re -write it, fix it up and possibly even expound upon some points a little further. And I will give you copies of that when I can get them done, but I did this very quickly. And I what I would like to start with is, I have heard many people say they would like to go back to the good ole' days. I, for one, do not wish to be counted in that group. I do not think that those who want to return to the good ole' days can remember any part of them or the war that it took to bring that time of life to an end. Though I did not live through the old west, the roaring 20's, World War I or World War II, I do remember that the hard times did not end over night. Technology and progress have brought us to today, as we know it. One of the things that is certain, however, is that if we had gone back to the good ole' days, the reaction of those involved in this annexation and this land condemnation may well be a different story. Forced annexation, the act of bringing an unwilling subject under one's control. Now in the good ole' days could and often did result in shootings, lynchings, or at the very least a tar and feather ride out of 143 MALE SPEAKER: -- right here. MR. ALFORD: I'm sorry. Okay. The information that we had is a requirement by -- the concerned area by FAA was 10,000 thousand feet from the airport. I would like to tell you that at the information that we were handed, the Bezates site is 8,000 feet from the airport. I think that is a concern. Now, with this information in hand, I took four days. Please do not get concerned. I took four days of -- I saw you laughing. I took four days of my time and went to a city south of here -- and don't break these, I have no idea how old they are. The birds were sitting on them when we picked them up. I took four days and went to a town that has a facility like the one you propose to put on the Bezates land. This facility is located south of Kuna, Idaho. In fact, it is four miles south of town. The city owns the land, they bought the land, they did not condemn it, they bought it. Their entire city treatment facility is four miles out of town. The City of Kuna has currently 120 acres of land that is being sprinkled by the water of these ponds. Also, they're in the process of buying another 360 acres to do the same thing with. And this is all four miles out of town. The city owns the land, they own the sprinkling system, they own the hay it produces. They have a contract 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 25 142 town on a rail. Land condemnation, the act of forcibly taking some land away from someone. In the good ole' days this was done by those who could hire the biggest army. This often ended in shootings and lynchings. It is for these reasons that I am glad that we do not go back to the good ole' days. The residents of the west side of McCall have tried, have discussed, reasoned and put forth logic. And as far as we can tell, this has fallen on deaf ears. i consider myself a logical and patient person. So I'm willing to try once more. I will go -- I will not go over the same ground that has already been plowed and plowed again. You surely know that by heart by now. Some time ago, you stated that there was a concern and some hard rules set down by the FAA as pertaining to a city or others constructing ponds that may attract large flocks of birds in the areas too close to the airport. And I would ask Don Green, if I may right now, to tell you the information that was passed out to us. (Off -record colloquy, unintelligible) MR. GREEN: [unintelligible], they won't let me speak yet. MR. ALFORD: Oh, they won't let you speak now? At even at my request? MS. BUXTON: No. 144 with a local farmer to put up the hay for 50 percent. The rest the city sells on the open market. This sale of hay helps to keep the cost of sewer rates down. Here are some pictures I took of the pond. Please note -- and I apologize for not having them as large as Mr. Milleman's, but you can come up and look at this or I will pass it around. This is the City of Kuna's service truck right here. They took us out there, at our request. This is the new pond that they put in. This is the bank, and all these brown spots are seagulls' nests. Everyone of them had two to three eggs in it. This is one of the city employees who was there helping us. Here's another view of that pond with the birds in the air. As we walked through this they, of course, took off. This is another section of that same pond and it is also dotted with seagulls' nests. I would estimate that there was somewhere over 1,000 seagulls nesting in this area. By the way, their entire sewer pond and treatment facility is located on 35 acres. The 120 acres that they sprinkle now is adjacent to it. The 360 acres is to the west and adjacent to that facility. If you will look at this picture here, this is a picture of the berm that they control. As is contrary to what we were told some time ago, which I think has probably been thrown out the window by now, we're going to plant trees on this thing so we wouldn't notice 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 25 145 that it's a mountain or a damn. They won't let them. It can't be done. This is another picture of it. That berm .is approximately 50 to 60 feet away from the road, and you can just remember this is over three miles, in fact, it's 3.9 miles from the city limits. There's the only landscaping they have put in, it's right at the entrance. And I will tell you that those are trees that are planted about four feet apart. Currently they're about 10 feet high. But it does not hide this mountain of dirt. Now, I have other data that I've collected from them, including their rules and regulations for operating of that facility. I will also tell you that the City of Kuna is approximately the same size as the City of McCall, 2,000 residents. I was told a moment ago that the residents of McCall is somewhere in the neighborhoods of 2,000 to 2,200. We're within the same area. I also was told by those people down there that they can only put 60,000 gallons of water on that 120 acres in 30 days by EPA and all those other boards -- MAYOR EIMERS: Ray, I'm sure your five -- MR. ALFORD: -- two inches per day and that's all. MAYOR EIMERS: I know your -- I'm sure your -- yeah, you're way beyond five, are you almost there? MS. SHOLTY: No, he had ten. MR. ALFORD: I had ten. MR. ALFORD: MS. ARP: It MR. ALFORD: MS. BUXTON: 147 -- I do not have the other information. has to be now, for the record. -- public information. Let me explain it again for everybody. This is the city attorney again for the record, that -- MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Ray. MS. BUXTON: -- this is the time for information to come into the public record, so this will be part of the record and it will not, as far as I know, be open after the public hearing is concluded today. And so Mr. Alford, do you want the pictures in the record too? MR. ALFORD: Yeah, I've got negatives, you can have those. MS. BUXTON: Okay. MR. ALFORD: I would like to sympathize with Mrs. Arp though, if I may for just a moment. I think that based on what you were -- MS. BUXTON: Mr. Alford, please come up here so they can hear you for the -- to get it on the tape. MR. ALFORD: I would like to sympathizes with Mrs. Arp. Your attorneys told you that you cannot talk about -- or you have to use the entire record, city records to make a decision and not just what is entered into the record. I was under the impression you had to have what was in the record at the time you make the decision so that it's based on that. 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 MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. 146 MS. SHOLTY: but your ten minutes is about up. MR. ALFORD: Ten is up too. Boy, how time flies when you're having fun. MAYOR EIMERS: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ray. MR. ALFORD: Well, anyway, I have that other information, if you folks would like to see it, I would be more than happy to give it to you. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. A11 right. MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor, the city attorney for the record, if -- MR. ALFORD: Please keep those eggs because then you can start your own flock of birds. MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor, the city attorney for the record. If Mr. Alford has any documentation he would like to place in the record, we'd be happy to take it in the record right now. Is there anything that you have? MR. ALFORD: Right now? MS. BUXTON: Yeah. MR. ALFORD: Well, I'll give you what I already written and like I said, I was going to clean it up. I'd be happy to give it to you at another point in time, I will give you the other information if you wish it -- MS. ARP: For the record it has to be now. 148 But if what the attorneys have told you is true, then I'm afraid that if you really carried that out that means that you have to review, you consider the records of the City of McCall back to 1906 when the city was first incorporated. Then if that is true, then what I'd bring you day after tomorrow or a week from now is still valid. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Chelsi, are you ready to go -- whenever you're ready. Thank you, Ray. MS. SHOLTY: Marjorie and Bill Erlebach. MRS. ERLEBACH: My name is Marjorie Erlebach. 922 Valley Rim Road. And I just had a couple of questions that were -- MALE SPEAKER: A little louder. MRS. ERLEBACH: I had a couple questions that weren't right -- I just didn't get them answered. Mr. Robertson made reference to an Exhibit 17 and 18 dealing with the pending lawsuit before Judge Winmill, and I wasn't sure whether it was a letter from Judge Winmill or whether a decision had been made in that case or not. Can anybody answer or can you -- are you not allowed to answer that question. Do you know? Does anybody know? MS. ARP: Direct Susan to answer. MAYOR EIMERS: Susan, would you please answer her. MRS. ERLEBACH: Can you answer that? 2 3 4 5 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 25 149 MS. BUXTON: Mrs. Erlebach, again for the record -- MRS. ERLEBACH: Yeah. MS. BUXTON -- this is the city attorney, Exhibit 17 is the memorandum decision and order from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, District Judge Winmill, which is an order denying the motion by Westside Coalition for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the City of McCall for proceeding with the construction of waste water storage ponds. MRS. ERLEBACH: So it was made then? MS. BUXTON: So the decision was made on -- I believe it was filed on April 7th, 1999. MRS. ERLEBACH: So there's no pending suit? That was my question. MS. BUXTON: Mrs. Erlebach, actually the suit is still pending. MRS. ERLEBACH: Oh, okay. MS. BUXTON: It was a motion for a temporary restraining order, the suit is still pending in federal court. MRS. ERLEBACH: Okay. MS. BUXTON: Right now there are no -- there is one motion before the court which is a motion by the State of Idaho to be dismissed under the llth Amendment, which is the llth Amendment would allow the state not to be sued in federal court. And right now the court has not made a decision on 151 didn't take into consider Blue Jay, but Mr. Robertson gave a million dollars, something, figure on that one. I didn't take any vacant land, I just called the Valley County Assessor to find out what Pine Terrace was worth, the market value. What Valley View 1, 2 and 3 were, market value. And the Falcon Ridge, which is -- there's two lots sold but no houses, so I would say approximately one third, maybe two thirds are all vacant lots. And the value was twelve million, eight hundred and eighty-eight thousand, three hundred and ninety-nine dollars (12,888,399), which I considered to be quite a value. I tried to get some estimates of what it would be maybe devalued by -- but no one could really give me a value. The only thing they said would be common sense dictates, that it would not be advisable to buy a lot and build an expensive home where you had to come by the sewer ponds. The golf course, of course, I don't think -- I think that would be an amenity, not a detriment to the area. And then I did some other calling around and I wanted to find out •-- it's bothered me that these were going to be earth and dams and up so high. And I just thought there might be and I thought, there's a lot of area out there, someplace where the water table isn't high so that these could be in the ground. I called surrounding areas, I called -- well, I've been to Donnelly and I know what they have. I called Emmett, 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 150 that. MRS. ERLEBACH: They have not. Okay. So it's up to Judge Winmill to make a decision then? MS. BUXTON: That's correct. MRS. ERLEBACH: Okay. Thank you. I just wondered whether I was wrong or whether I -- I would not go ahead with this, you see, unless I had a decision on what was happening; whether there was a restraining order or not. But that may be legal, I may not -- that may be legal for them to do that and I didn't know that. Okay. And I had an exception to Mr. Peterson's comments from RH2. Yeah, there you go. When he talked about the neighborhood and what he called a mix, and I don't know how you can mix when he talked about the variety, I would not lump a golf course and condos with the project. I know there is the Seubert site and the industrial and you go straight ahead and that is a real big bumper zone, I know you've all been out there. And so you don't even see anything when you come in and out of the subdivisions. You have to come in, egress and ingress to those subdivisions that are beyond that are all through that road and by that way. And it was all zoned, as someone already said, residential when we bought and that was in 1973. 24 So, I took the liberty of calling to find out just 25 what the value of our -- what value we have out there. And I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 152 I know what they have; I called Cascade, I know what they have; I looked on the internet and a lot of them are just -- all of these in the surrounding area are in the ground. And I just don't think that anybody would object to that much being in the ground. But you know you can laugh about an earth and dam and, you know, the earthquakes and all, but you tell -- when you talk to people from [unintelligible] and, you know, I mean things happen and besides the eye sore. So I just wondered if DEQ couldn't possibly, Mr. Peterson, help, like you say. We spent a lot of money I know, but it's gone. So if it's gone in your household budget, it's gone. And I think we just have to look further. And I think we can get more money if we know what we're doing, but not to waste, like's been done already. Thank you. MAYOR RIMERS: Thank you. MR. ERLEBACH: My name is Bill Erlebach and I live on 902 Valley View Rim. I made a few notations here that I'd like to find out some information. I'm sure all you folks are quite aware of this, but I'd like for my own information on some costs here. Now, how much grant money did you folks get for this project, can I get an answer there or we just -- MAYOR EIMERS: Susan. MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor, generally, for the 153 154 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 audience's information, this is not a question and answer session, it's a time for you to give us your comments. MR. ERLEBACH: Thank you. MS. BUXTON: Wait, I'm not -- wait one second, Mr. Erlebach. But if the council would like for that -- that question to be answered then you can certainly direct staff to do that. MAYOR RIMERS: Okay. Staff, go ahead. Answer the question. MS. ARP: That's an easy one. MAYOR RIMERS: Is it okay? MS. ARP: Yeah, that's an easy one. MAYOR EIMERS: Please. MS. BUXTON: And Mr. Mayor, if you can answer it, you can go ahead and answer it yourself too. MAYOR EIMERS: The present BOR grant, there are two present BOR grants and a remainder in the DEQ previous grant for phase 1. And together those amounted to 6 -- around 6.8 million dollars. 2.5 for BOR grant 1; 3.6 for BOR grant 2; and there was about seven hundred thousand (700,000) left in the DEQ account. MR. ERLEBACH: Now, for phase 1 we're talking around six million dollars, is this right? MR. ROBERTSON: Closer to 7 million for phase 1. MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, somewhere in there. 155 MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. ROBERTSON: No, no, no, no, no. If you're going to include phase 1, which includes the distribution system, then it's close to 7 million on phase I, and 6.8 million, it's close to $13 1/2 million were the total amounts of money available, some borrowed. In phase 1 there was over $3 million borrowed. MR. ERLEBACH: Now, the city borrowed this money? MAYOR EIMERS: Yes. MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. M.R. ERLEBACH: What interest is the city paying on this money? MAYOR EIMERS: Boy, I'm sorry, I don't know. MS. ARP: The water fund revolving. Yeah. MR. ROBERTSON: 4.5. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. ERLEBACH: Four and a half. Okay. MR. ROBERTSON: But out of the total 13 and 1/2 million, about 9 million of it's spent now. MR. ERLEBACH: Okay. MS. BUXTON: I'm going to -- this is the city attorney again, in for the record. Please everybody, please say what your name is for the record, because on a tape it's going to be impossible to tell who is talking. MS. ARP: Right. 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 MR. ERLEBACH: Okay. MS. ARP: Which is not this money. MAYOR EIMERS: This -- that's aside from this. MS. ARP: This is not this money. MR. ERLEBACH: Okay. Now, how much of this money have you folks spent so far? MR. ROBERTSON: For phase 1? MS. ARP: No, phase 2. He's talking about phase 2 is what you're talking about, which is the lagoons project. MR. ERLEBACH: Yes. MS. ARP: Phase 1 was putting the pipe -- MR. ERLEBACH: We11, all -- but altogether how much money on this particular project. MS. ARP: Okay. MR. ERLEBACH: When I say the project I'm talking about the ponds and the whole -- MS. ARP: The distribution? MR. ERLEBACH: Yeah. MR. ROBERTSON: Close to 9 million. MAYOR EIMERS: 9 million, all together, Bill? MR. ROBERTSON: Close to $9 million. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. ERLEBACH: You had grants of almost seven MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. ERLEBACH: -- and you spent nine? 156 MS. BUXTON: So please, please do that. And Mr. Robertson has been talking, Mr. Erlebach' been talking. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MS. BUXTON: Ms. Arp's been talking. Mr. Eimers has been talking. MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, so, okay, we should obey that as well. Sorry. Okay. A11 right. MR. ERLEBACH: Now on a bottom line, you folks as I understand spent quite a bit of money on engineering. Now, do you know how much each homeowner is going to have to pay to pay for this project? MR. ROBERTSON: May I answer? MAYOR EIMERS: Sure. Well, okay, go ahead. Yes. MR. MULLER: State your name. MR. ROBERTSON: My name is Bi11 Robertson. The first phase of the project, the only amounts of money that the homeowners are going to have to spend is to help pay back the $3 million loan. The second phase of the project, the homeowners will not pay anything. It's all on grants. So therefore, it's the cost only for the first loan, and to pay that back, the amount of money, there was a calculation done two years ago, I have just recently reviewed it and we want -- we need to get into the budget cycle another two months before we finalize it. And so that number I do not know. MR. ERLEBACH: A11 right. Now, with this money 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 25 157 that's been taken in and spent, do you folks feel comfortable that you get your moneys worth? MAYOR EIMERS: MR. ERLEBACH: MALE SPEAKER: MAYOR EIMERS: MR. ERLEBACH: I don't know. The mayor says -- What are you -- what you saying here? I don't understand -- Well, I mean, you've taken a lot of this money from the grants and you borrowed some money, I mean now the money that you -- MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, oh. Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead, please. MR. ERLEBACH: The money that you have paid out, you don't feel that any of it's been wasted, it's been to a good cause? That's what I -- and me as a taxpayer I don't waste any money, 'cause I haven't got that much. So I just wanted to know if you folks, that are running this show, feel that you're very comfortable with the money that you've spent? That's my last question. MAYOR EIMERS: Well, Allen. MR. MULLER: Allen Muller for the record. Bill, I can't speak for phase 1, 'cause I had no decision making in that whatsoever. That was prior -- this was done with prior council decision. So I can't speak to whether I think they spent the money well or not. MR. ERLEBACH: Mm-hmm. Well, since you've been 159 money in this project and I'd just like to say don't let the investment that you've made on this site influence your decision here. You can't -- you just can't do that, you've got to divorce that totally from your decision. And you have to make your decision totally on the merits of this CUP application. Having said that, I'd ask you to please reflect on what the people have said here today, because they've made some just excellent, excellent points and I'm not going to reiterate those, other than the most obvious ones. And what they're telling you here today is that, hey, don't build this facility on this site. It just -- it simply isn't compatible. This is a residential area, you've got Blue Jay Subdivision to the east, you have Pine Terrace and Valley View subdivision is to the south and you have White Tail Golf Course development to the north. You know, and this is a 360 mullion gallon, 160 acre sewer monstrosity. And well, I should say 80 acre barrow site and whatever acres of sewer storage and its industrial nature. It just isn't compatible. There's obvious health and safety issues associated with the site, you know, in the residential area. There's obvious impacts to the perimeter property owners, including a dramatic devaluation of their property. The hideous smell. View, there's I guess the lack of view, there isn't a view. Not to mention -- well, I guess I've already mentioned that, 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 25 158 involved -- MR. MULLER: At this point in time -- MR. ERLEBACH: -- the money that's spent do you feel comfortable in it? MR. MULLER: -- at this point in time with this project, if this technology is a correct technology, yes. MR. ERLEBACH: Okay. Thank you. MS. SHOLTY: Christopher Seubert. MR. SEUBERT: My name -- for the record, my name is Chris Seubert, 1121 Chad Drive. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter here today. I know it's been a long and arguious tsic] process for all of you involved. I know that somewhat, from having been involved in early stages of this project. I was kind of tired of it then, but I'm sure you are by now. But, you know, these people -- really the testimony that's been given here today has been outstanding. And it's largely, indicated to me, that your decision should be pretty easy based on the CUP here today, that we're addressing here today. In that you simply haven't met the criteria. It just isn't there. You guys should be able to vote any time here now and just say no to this thing, because it's just not there. You haven't met the criteria, so. Having said that, I'll go on here a little bit to say that I know that you've invested a substantial amount of 160 its industrial nature. Mr. Mayor, you in your article in the paper last week, you indicated that there are only a few Blue Jay residents that are opposed to the site. Surely that must have been a misprint. And I'm not, you know, I'm not picking on you here Mr. Mayor, but doggone it, you've had a lot of people, you know, call you on the phone, you've received petitions, you've had visits to your office, you've had faxes, you've had -- I don't know if you've had any E-mails or not, but, hey, it's pretty obvious here the people have come out and they have said, no, you know, they don't want it. And so, I think maybe, I mean, and I might be out of line here, but you might owe those people an apology because you ignored them. You know, the fact is that the vast majority of the people in Blue Jay, valley View, Pine Terrace and the people in the city have expressed to you, their one-on-one by letter, by phone, by fax, petition, that they're opposed, they're opposed to this thing. And you know, for good reasons. It doesn't fit. Your own P & Z, you didn't address them in your letter either. You didn't -- you know, your own P & Z unanimously denied this CUP on this site. The first night it was heard, it was that obvious to them that due to the fact of the gross deficiencies of the CUP application, they had only 6 7 @ 9 12 13 15 20 22 23 24 25 one decision and that was that they denied it -- they recommended denial of the CUP. it was that obvious to them. I was there that night and the testimony and evidence was just overwhelming. Overwhelming. Although, you know, we appreciate Gene Peterson's comments made on behalf of the P & Z, the facts and findings of the P & Z, you know, he didn't address those. You know, the city, in my opinion, would have to unlawfully ignore its own ordinances to approve this application. That's the bottom line. And you know, this site has other problems such as mitigation and the problem with mitigation is, the fact that there is no mitigation. I believe and I've been involved in a lot of extraction barrow site permitting, we've done a lot of that, that's our business, we do that. And I've been heavily involved in that process. I believe, that you people would have to have a separate CUP for the extraction barrow site on this thing alone. You know, you've got a -- you've got to show a pit development plan, you've got to show a reclamation plan, you have to show a bond on that reclamation plan. You have to have a water management plan on those barrow sites. You have to show that that those~barrow sites aren't going to impact the wetlands that are there, even though you aren't going to be right out in the middle of them, you have a great ~otentiat when you excavate below a wetlands area to disturb 163 1 being at the Seubert site. So write that down. 'Cause I 2 heard you again, out there to the cameras, telling them that 3 we objected to the ponds at the Seubert site and that we'll 4 object to them no matter where they're at. When I was brought 5 up, that was a lie; you know the truth, you same something 6 contrary~ I don't know why you insist on doing it. I 7 couldn't feel right with myself. I'm going to try not hold it 8 against you. 9 The scriptures say to love your thine enemy. I 10 mean, it's easy to love your wife, your kids, friends. I 11 understand why the scriptures say love your enemies, 'cause 12 they need help. And I'm saying this to hopefully help you, i3 'cause your one lie is gonna go on to more lies~ 14 And I'd like to see this council make a correct 15 decision here. And I'd be lying to say that I'm not affected. 16 And ~I wouldn't wa~t to say contrary. And I'm sorry to being 17 so emotional. And I hope what I'm saying here can sink in, 18 because I'm not -- I don't mean it to hurt you and I just 19 would l~ke to see the truth come OUt. You'll find that things 20 may go a lot easier for you if you let the truth come out. 21 Thank you. 22 MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, John [sic]. 23 MS. SHOLTY: Tom Haynes. 24 MR. HAYNES: I'd like to thank the city engineer and 25 the city attorneys for wasting 40 minutes of my time, while ~ 5 7 9 12 15 16 19 20 22 23 24 25 162 those wetlands area, because you might cut off water to those wetlands. You have to address those things, you haven't done that. Again, and I'm going to close with this, because you've heard a lot in here this evening, and some of this is redundant because we're reiterating things, but the bottom line is your decision should be pretty easy. It should be real easy. It should just be a flat no, because you haven't met the criteria. You know, unless you're willing to overlook your own ordinances. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Chris. MS. SHOLTY: Steve Bixby. MR. BIXBY: Hello, my name is Steve Bixby and let me know when my five minutes is up. I'll try not to direct anything towards the council, I don't want the lawyers jumping I'm afraid I had things to say, but people have done very well. It kind of upsets me when I overheard the mayor Out there with the -- in front of the camera. I can't really count the numerous times in -- and I assume the mayor probably knows this, in documentation, meetings like this, letters written to the papers, but it's been stated many times in the past to clarify this point, that when it came to the Seubert site we objected a zone change, we did not object to the ponds 6 7 8 9 10 12 15 20 22 23 24 25 it's going to be a big house. 164 sat waited for you to come back to the meeting. It seems like this is the way we get treated anymore in this city. It's not right. There's no reason for all of us to sit here and wait 40 minutes why you have lunch, -- oh, we're sorry. I think everybody has said the detail stuff as usual, it's kind of fun to come back at this end, but I think what we need to talk about, the procedure. The mayor keeps saying we've had these meetings, we've had this, we've gone over this, but if the procedure would have followed appropriately, we'd of had the public meeting, we'd of talked about this before they bought the property, before the engineers did t~is, if it had followed the regular process. The people that came to the meetings, look at some of the stuff these%people have given out. If you ignore that, the you're wrong. If we'd of followed the procedure we woulchl't be here today. IA would have been ended and we would have looked for a different site. We would have been dealing with the Government a year ago to solve our problems. And now, probabl~ subconsciously, if not consciously we spent a lot of money for this project and it's going nowhere. You know, if I was a builder, as I am, and I said, Steve, I'd like to - you know, Steve calls me up and wants to build a house and he says, well, let's go to Boise and let's pick out the front door. Let's buy an expensive one, 'cause So let's go spend five thousand 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 16 18 2O 22 23 24 25 165 dollars ($5,000) on this door and let's go ~ut here and let's put it out here on the third green. Let's just prop it up out there. Now, what I'd like to have you do, Steve, is I'd like to have you give me a deposit of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), because you want to build it. Now, of course, you don't own the property. We haven't built the house so you don't need the door. But now, listen, Steve, let's take one more step, I want to take you to Boise where my office and let's sign a contract to design this house for you. Now, let's spend a lot of money designing this house and goodness sakes, we know we're not going to build it on the third green of the McCall golf course. But guess what we did with the money, we wasted it. This is even worse. I think they've been lead down the rosy red line with the RH2 Engineering firm. I think the nei~kborhood feel~ the same way in our conversations, I think I hear that everywhere I go. Cost. They went through the water thing. Oh, we got thi~ money, it's going to pay for this, it's going to pay for this. I can't stand here and say, we do have to pay any more for it, because our city manager said that phase 2 is paid for by grants. Might be. But goodness sakes, if we hadn't had a little argument here, we couldnJt ask that question to find out; and thank you for doing that. We don't get any information. 2 5 6 7 9 20 22 23 24 25 I want to thank -- I want to thank Mr. Milleman and Mr. Manchester, because while We're standing here, which we shouldn't be standing here, we should have taken care of this a year ago, has spent much time and much energ~y and that's our only source of infor~ation. It doesn't come from you, it doesn't come from you, you, you. We had a guy that had enough money to buy the best lawyer we got and work his ass off so we can get little bits of information. The coalition would go to a meeting, oh, gosh, darn it, we don't have the information for you. Oh, well, maybe we'll get it for you in the morning. It's just unfair how it's been taken care of. If we'd a done it like buy the land, like we did and not know we could use it. We fall falling backwards. So here we got a piece of property that we all drive to, we drive by it all the time. It's beautiful. I'm 57 years old. I'm just about don~. The next g~neration is going to have to build their houses somewhere. The generation after that is going to have to build somewhere. This property isn't for sewer lagoons, it's fo~ city expansion. The city bought it. Gosh, maybe a park some day. This is absolutely the wrong use of this property. Mr. Eimers knows it's the wrong piece for the property. Mr. Muller knows it's the wrong piece of property for the situation, but for some reason, that nobody knows, they want to put it there. We can't put it there. And I think there's 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 14 20 22 23 24 25 167 enough citizens that want to stand up and fight this and hopefully we can. Fu~d again, thank you Mr. Manchester for your help, Mr. Milleman, that we have enough information now that maybe we can stop the develop of the sewer lagoons ouer there. It should never be here. We should have followed the same procedure again, as I mentioned earlier, the same thing I have to do as a developer, builder, you'd of laughed at me. The fact is, you wouldn't have even laughed at me, you wouldn't have talked to me. Just sent me back out the door and say, Tom, come back to the next meeting. So you have to stop. You can't put the burden on the next generation, the next generation, the next generation, for the income that they could get to the city for this property. This is beautiful property. I happe~ to be involved at Black Hawk. I jast can't wait until I have to drive by a 37 foot high foot damn to get there. I just can't wait. Of which was 15 to start with. So we've got to [unintelligible] this, we have to start over and we have to put some stuff together that means something that has some sense. I want to thank Marilyn. I want to thank Ralph for standing up for some logic, when after all these meetings and everything Allen just absolutely ignores it. Kirk ignores it. So we said the other day, what do we do now? 5 6 7 8 9 2O 22 23 24 25 168 MR. MIILLER: It's five minutes. MR. HAYNES: I'll be shortly. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. A~e you almost done, Tom? MR. HAYNES: I have a few things to say. MAYOR EI~RS: Okay. MR. HAYNES: We decided that we'd - we'd personally, 'cause I know the mayor likes to have the public input. And it's like the only people here that don't want the lagoons are the people that live on Wisdom Road. That's not true. I didn't run into one single person in this community, in a week and a half, that wants the lagoons out there. It's a waste of the property. So you have 310 signatures. If you have any conscience, any honesty, there's No way that you can vote to override this conditional use permit until you have dissolved that, resolved that, thought about that and use some honest sense. Now let's start over. I think there's a lot of us that are feeling like we've a~solutely been abused; and we have. We've been lied at. Lying is not giving you the information as much as giving you the wrong answer. If you call up and want to get something, oh, I'm sorry, I just don't know who has it. That's lying to me; especially when you're coming to a hearing to ~ke a decision that affects Steve Bixby's property over there. 2 4 5 6 8 9 16 18 20 22 23 24 169 Well, Steve, I'll tell you what, if Mr. Peterson's statement to sell this thing to the conditional use permit was a regular meeting, the whole audience would have laughed. And if it's true, Steve, your property is worth two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) 'cause you're going to have a lake across the street you can use for boating, fishing, whatever you want to do. Is that enough of a joke? Thank you. MAYOR EIMER$: Thank you very much, Tom. MS. SHOLTY: Julie Eddins. MS. EDDINS: For the record, my name is Julie Eddins. I live at 1004 West Lake Street, McCall, Idaho and I am a taxpayer in the City of McCall. I don't live on the western [unintelligible]. This was the council that was going to listen. That was a comment i heard made from the last council meeting t~at I departed from. I hope you are listening now, folks, 'cause the people are here at a public hearing to address their concerns. I provided a map today to show you in red the annexations that have taken place in the last 10 years in the City of McCall. The city limits is outlined in yellow. The proposed a~nexation, which was proposed then, now gone past you, is done in green~ I get q~ite frustrated going to council meetings, P & Z meetings and etcetera and there is not 25 a map of the City of McCall to refer to, either by the 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 19 2O 22 23 24 25 170 attorneys or the applicants. Until today when Mr. Robertson made a presentation there was no cost estimates of how much it would cost to annex this property and if it would be equitable to do so. Previous annexations have caused the city services to be spread too thin and placed additional burdens on the taxpayers. Mr. Martens said he was waiting for a road in Rio Vista to be paved. I've got news for him. I've lived across the street for 40 years from a dirt road and I've been in the city limits for 30 years. Every parcel that you annex spreads those services that much thinner. The people who advised you to pursue this annexations and conditional use permit are a person from DEQ, the former city manager and a city attorney. These people do not live in McCall nor do they pay taxes here, we do. I would like you to note too, that when you switched from the Bezates site -- or the Seubert site, excuse me, to the Bezates site, the property with which the Dinehard connect~r would have been completed was given up, except if you condemn it. If the time, effort and money that had been devoted to the Bezates site had been used at the previous location, the project would be near completion at this time. A~d you wouldn't have had all these hard feelings and heartache. Thank you. 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 2O 22 23 24 25 171 MAYOR EIMERS: Julie, could you repeat your last sentence? I'm sorry, I was -- I missed MS. EDDINS: Do you want me to finish MAYOR EIMERS: No, just your last sentence, do you remember what it was about. If you had completed MS. EDDINS: You could have done it without all these hard feelings and the heartache that you've caused. MS. ARP: You got to back up one more sentence, ma'am. MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, I'm sorry. If we had done MS. EDDINS: If I'd written this down I might be able to do that a little easier. MS. ARP: Yeah. Spent the money -- I think you said if we had spent the money -- MS. EDDINS: If the time, effort and money that has been devoted to the Bezates site had been used at the previous location, the project would be near completion at this time. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Got it. Thank you, Julie. MS. SHOLTY: Rory and Coleen Bean. MR. BEAN: My name is Rory Bean. I live at 280 Wisdom Road, right across the street from this swimming pool. Last night I had an appraiser at my house trying to figure Out how much my property value is going to drop if this storage lagoon was to actually go in. They said it would be approximately 50 percent. 6 7 8 9 2O 22 23 24 25 172 Now, from what I understand from Mr. Milleman, we have approximately ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) allocated toward mitigation. Okay. What are you going to pay everyone else? That's what my cost appraisal would drop, was ninety thousand dollars ($90,000). You know it's approximately -- it was appraised at approximately a hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($180,000), and 50 percent, that's ninety thousand (90,000). A~d I'm sorry, that's like a lot of money to me, I mean, when you're talking millions I'm sure it doesn't mean much of anything, but to me that's a lot of money. You represent R~2, is that correct? Are you guys planning on doing a water table test now that the water is melting, the snow is melting out there? Or was that -- (Off-record colloquy [unintelligible]) MR. BEAN: Okay. Whoever it is that's supposed to be doing that, ca~ you answer that q~/estion? MAYOR EIMERS: DO we want to _r Marilyn -- MS. ARP: I'm writing the question down. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MS. ARP: And I'll ask it at later date. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. We'll ask it. MR. BEAN: Okay. Well, the reason being is obviously we've had a little more snow in the last few months than we did last - when was it done, November or Decew~Der time frame. 2 3 4 5 6 ? $ 9 10 2O 21 22 23 24 25 173 And curiosity q~/estion, if the water table actually does go up, are they going to rechange the desig~ of the dams to raise the elevation, raise the dam walls and redo this whole thing and make it even worse from our point of view? You know, I mean looking at it now it's bad enough, but now it's, you know, instead of a wall it's a skyscraper. So that's about all I got to say. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. MS. SHOLTY: Larry Moody. MR. MOODY: I have no comment at this time. MS. SHOLTY: Rot Campbell. MS. CAMPBELL: My name is ROZ Campbell. I live at 979 Valley View Lane. And just a couple comments. The proqess appears to be backwards. Okay. You've acquired land by a condemnation, you've annexed other property and you still have no definitive answer on a site location. You've requested b-ds on the Bezates site, but you haven't completed the NEPA process, so how can the bidding process be accurate since the site has not yet been approved. You've advertised for bids while the site was under snow, so how can bidders give you an accurate bid on what they're going to build, how they're going to build it without seeing an actual site. You might end up with changed site conditions once the snow goes away. 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 20 21 22 23 25 And are there any contingencies regarding cost overruns on any contracts to be awarded again, because the site is not yet locked in and there appear to be many other unresolved issues. And finally, as to the issue of awarding a contract, I thought I read in the paper that you all would not award the contract to build the ponds until the CUP was approved. And then I thought I heard or read that you're going to make a decision perhaps at this meeting or afterwards. So if you do award a contract and you still don't have site, you know, you don't have all your permits, you haven't completed your NEPA process, are you going to get into contractual issues that are going to cost the city more money. You're going to have bidders who, you know, might have a problem with having prepared bids and it's not really a viable bid or anything like that. So I 9n/ess my major concern is we seem to be throwing money dow~ the drain, no pun intended, but to maybe just to say can you all slow down and maybe start to look at -- listen to all of us and maybe make the decisions based on better facts. Thanks. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. MS. SHOLTY: Jack [sic] Campbell. MR. CAMPBELL: My name is John Campbell, 979 Valley 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 20 22 23 25 175 View. I have sat here and in previous meetings and my mind just goes a little bit fuzzy. I come from a career in federal procurement where safeguarding the American taxpayer dollar was a pretty big part of my job. I keep hearing grants, grants, grants, this kind of millions, those kind of millions. Ladies and gentlemen, where do you think that grant money comes from, a faucet? It's American taxpayers that are putting this money on the table for you all to use. ~d you have a solemn, solemn responsibility to use it judicially. I urge you to slow down and take a look and see, are we doing the right thing. I'm not convinced you are. I don't have all the facts, but from what I read and what I hear it's just more hosing the water down the drain, I mean of -- of money and I'm concerned. The Dep~rtment of Interior Hazard Inspector General. What if that inspector general comes rolling Out here or his assistant for audit and says, you guys are doing a cru~smy job, you're ~asting American taxpayers dollars. What are you going to do with the bill for collection from the Department of Interior? These are real concerns. And I urge you to slow down, take a good look at the alternatives, because the dissatisfaction of the Blue Jay people would be a small fraction of the dissatisfaction of the American public, if they find out that they're getting a fleecing, as you see on. 2 6 7 8 9 12 17 20 22 23 24 25 176 the Tom Brokaw show every night. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. MS. SHOLTY: I can't read the next signature, but it's 942 Valley Rim Road. The address is. MR. ALTER: That's me. My name is Hobie Alter, I live at 942 Valley Rim Road. I came in a little late on this project, the neighbors got me involved and I drive bythe site every day to go home. I'm going to kind of just give everybody how I look at things, maybe a little bit differently than I've heard here. If I was put in charge to find this site and I was working for the City of McCall, the first thing I would do would be to find the site Outside the city limits. I think if you ,go to other c~ties, you'll find the sewer lagoons are usually east, south, across the railroad tracks, they're somewhere else. I think the problem with that thinking is that the site that benefits the City of McCall residents ends up in the backyard of other people who happened to move there for a reason. We moved out to these subdivisions because we like the dirt roads, we like the septic systems, we like the well water that we drink, we don't mind not having police cars coming by our houses every day. I think the problem is, if I was told to go look for a site, I'd probably look for a site 177 1 that not too many people would complain. I know that there's 2 not too many homes around the Bixby's area, so that was 3 probably a good choice. I think I might have chose a site 4 close to the sewer site, close to the sewer plant. But it 5 happens to be in non-residents of McCall backyard. 6 It's even more interesting when you think about the 7 opposite effects to the people whose backyards you're putting 8 the site in. The city does not need to provide any services 9 for the people whose backyard the site is going in. For 10 example, you don't have to provide them the sewer that the 11 sewer lagoons are for because we have septic systems, you 12 don't have to provide us water because we have wells. You 13 don't have to provide us roads because we're not in the city 14 limits. You don't have to provide us police because we're not 15 in the city limits. So you don't have to provide us anything 16 so we didn't come into any of your cost analysis. Yet we get 17 to enjoy the ponds that the City of McCall residents are going 18 to flush their toilets to. 19 And the things that really bugs me the most is the 20 fifteen dollar ($15) library card. We don't get a library 21 card. Here we live out there with these ponds and we don't 22 even get a library card. It's unbelievable. 23 So I think to kind of reverse the thing, as I've 24 heard about this new motorcross/snowcross track that they're 25 trying to put out by the dump, which I've heard people don't 2 3 4 6 7 8 13 14 16 18 2O 21 22 23 25 178 even like going out by the dump. And I would propose that all the non-McCall residents really fight hard to stick %hat thing right down at the west end of the McCall Golf Course. I really think that the McCall Golf Course should have the motorcross track in the summer and a snowcross track in the winter, right dow~ltown McCall, so we can enjoy the services of McCall while we recreate. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thar~k you. MS. SHOLTY: Teresa Bixby. MS. BIXBy: My name is Teresa Bixby, I live at 290 Wisdom Road and I just wanted to say that I adamantly oppose the winter storage lagoons being built on the Bezates property for the same reason, that everybody has mentioned, I don't know how many times over and over and over again at every meeting that we've been in. And there's one more thing that I'd like to mention though, and this is for you, Mr. Eimers, I hope that you really ~ake a good look at the names on the petitions that we turned in. I want you to know that there are approximately 20 people in our Blue Jay area that I live in, in that subdivision, and those are the same people that you've repeatedly mentioned that were a few neighbors oppose to this site. A/id I'll say over again, there are 310 people on that )etition and they didn't hesitate to sign that petition at 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 179 all. And when I came back from lunch, I heard you talking to the media again, after we've already handed you that petition and you know how many people have signed it, you, again, have mentioned that there's only a few opposed neighbors. And it really scares me to hear that from you, because we're hoping that what you do is listen to us today. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. MS. SHOLTY: Nick Weiser. At Box 2058, McCall. MR. ROBERTSON: Nick Weiser or Weisey. MALE SPEAKER: Nick Weiss is his name. MR. ROBERTSON: Weiss. Nick Weiss. MALE SPEA/{ER: He's not here. ~MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. MS. SHOLTY: Don Green. I'm sorry, I skipped. MR. GREEN: Well, I'm up here, can I go ahead? MR. ROBERTSON: Well, you have to ask Jean Od~rk. MS. ARP: You have to ask Jean. MR. GREEN: All right. Come on, Jean. (Unintelligible of record colloquy) MS. ODMA/{K: My name is Jean Odmark and I live at 141 Lake. So I am not part of the people that live out there. I was -- f have been a resident of McCall for 27 years. I was - I've been on the Planning and Zoning in the past, I've been realtor for 20 years and I've been asked by many people in~ 180 1 that area to please give them an idea of what I think this - 2 as proposed, how it would effect their values. And I came 3 today specifically to find out if I had been premature in what 4 I said and I find that I was not emphatic enough. 5 I look at this project as designed -- as the 6 headlines are going to read: "McCall, Idaho wants to teach 7 the world how to have reverse economic development." I'm 8 serious. You talked about -- it's kind of like the golden 9 goose, we have a golden goose and everything is wonderful, we 10 keep progressing and so on and so forth, and now let's kill 11 it. That is the area where we're going to have future 12 development that's going to bring in money for the city in 10 13. years, 'cause you're probably going to annex it. It's going 14 to increase property values, it is the perfect place to go. 15 Now, we have ~ Lloyds Edwards' property Out there, 16 the 320 acres, if we cut that in half value that means the 17 houses that go OUt there will be cut in half value, Manchester 18 will not do his development, the Shore Lodge will not be 19 improved, we will not have a destination resort. Bottom line 20 is, how does this make any economic sense whatsoever? 21 Think about it in 10 years. Where are you going to 22 be in 10 years? These people, I mean, okay let's just say you 23 can't -- I can't possibly imagine approving this as it stands. 24 If you go into mitigation, if you change it, maybe you make it 25 a scenic little lake and it only had a five or a ten foot berm 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 22 23 24 25 were opposed. Two were neither in support. 181 1 zone or -- and you go down, but I do not understand how you 2 can take a water test in Novenlber, I've never been able to get 3 one, I've tried many times, and people say I want to sell my 4 property, sorry you can't do it until this spring 'cause we don't know what the water tabt~ is. So maybe there's a new formula that you can do it. I just think you have to either find another place or you have to fix the one you have now so that everyone going to the west side of the valley, which is a beautiful place to be for future residential development, is palatable. I please - I urge you to please not do this. Thank you. MAYOR EIMSERS: Thank you, Jean. MS. SNOLTY: Don Green. MR. GREEN: All right. Now, I'm not going through all this stuff, so do not fear me. All right. Number one point, P & Z ruling three to zero. I've discussed it with these people after the fact and I believe it would have been five to zero. This thing is pretty obvious. A~d I'm going to bring this point up first, because then I'm going to go to a secondary point which I hope Maril~ will listen real careful 'cause I've got some questions for you. Anyways, 16 people spoke at the public hearing, 14 Six negative 2 3 5 6 7 9 12 13 20 22 23 24 182 letters, 11 documents. Nothing positive. I'm going to leave that alone. The second thing - oh, did I announce myself? didn't sorry. MAYOR EIMERS: You did, Don. MR. GREEN: Did I? Okay. I get a little nervous. We've come forward to you many times. And an example, March 18th, 1999, Duane Nelson prepared this for Westside Coalition. This guy is a business consultant, 35 years. We've tried hard to Get our point across and I'm just hoping that you're recognizing these things, we've spent a lot of money to do this; to get our point of view across. we've brought lawyers in, maybe not at the right time. We've brought business consultants in, we've brought engineers in. MS. D~Rp: Is that in the record? MALE spEAKER: It's in the meeting -- MR. GREEN: I submitted it -- MS. ~RP: Oh, okay. MR. GREEN: -- during the city P & Z meeting. MS. ARP: But it's in the EA -~ MALE SPEAKER: That was submitted for the hearing -- MS. ~qP: Okay. MALE SPEARER: -- for the March i9th cut off of the NEPA. MR. GREEN: Oh, no, I'm sorry. It's submitted here 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 22 23 25 too in the -- let me read the title. do you - 183 This is the - what date MALE SPEWER: It's in the results of - MR. GREEN: April 20th city P & P facts and findings. It's in there. MALE SPEAKER: It's in the package you -- MR. GREEN: Okay. So now we go onto some questions about environment impacts. You know, most of the stuff I had today I've been waiting all day and you quys have heard it all and I don't have much to do on that other impacts. But I do have some environmental questions because the agencies are here and I think they should have spoke before, because there's been questions. We've been waiting until March 19th to get our answer on the record~ a decision, has not been made available yet. And I don't -- there's no date yet or anything, do we know? Nobody is going to speak, that's okay. But as I understand, there's not one today? So under conditional use permits, Chapter 31, City Code 33~ 020, environmental assessment. Planning commission may require environmental assessment be submitted prior to issues of a CUP. I won't go on to bore you with the rest, but it says with stant [sic], professional, demonstrated competent people, the agencies. We don't have that yet. How can you possibly issue a CUP without a record of decision. Spur a thought here. I'm going to leave that one alone. 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 20 23 24 25 184 Okay. Marilyn, I'm going to direct these for you. 'Cause I believe you want to have some information out here. Documents that I have received, I've got five of these binders at home. This is just the latest one. But the first one, I brought this up with the city manager, Andy Locke and we'll bring it up again. I'm concerned about this issue. And nobody has answered it yet. MR. ROBERTSON: City planner. MR. GREEN: City planner, sorry. Today, huh. January 15th, 1999, subject: additional services, Kleinfelder. Number four: An embankment failure analysis was requested by IDWR. The failure analysis was imitated based on verbal approval. It doesn't matter there. Analysis consists of evaluating of the pathway of flood waters in the event a breach occurred in the reservoir embankment. The analysis wil~ address floo~ water heights along a likely path to the Payette River. This will be completed on approximately January 20th, a final report that includes this results of task will be forwarded to you and RH2. I've asked for this as late as April and we have not got it. Cost -- MS. ARP: What are you reading from? What are you reading from? MR. GREEN: This is a letter Kleinfelder, if you want to see it. MS. ARp: No, that's all right. 2 3 6 7 8 2O 21 22 23 24 25 185 MR. GREEN: Okay. It was Kleinfelder was to Karla Donica at that time. Dam failure analysis, nine thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight dollars ($9,878). I'd like to see that thing. We haven't been able to obtain it. I've asked for it numerous times. And I'll have two more letters here in just a second. As soon as I get to them. I've been running out of paper clips all day, so. Okay. September 22nd, 1998, DEQ to Jack Gantz [phonetic], technical engineer. Addressed to Mr. Rick Ballard, RH2. Preliminary submittal of storage lagoon. Point and references at the bottom. Or number 4. Figure 2 indicates a setback of 200 feet between the water surface of the storage lagoon and the edge of the roadway. DEQ will require a minimum setback of 300 feet between the nearest component of the winter storage facility and the property line. Now, this is a preliminary work. I understand that. I'd like to know what's Going on, why is it forward or not. Nobody ~as given us these answers yet. These are concerns of ours. We had one more from Jack Gantz too. Where he's - basically the point is, he's been talking to R/{2 talking about why this thing is so far forward. And I know they negotiated and discussed these issues, but they're not in the public record yet. A~d I'm concerned why they've moved it so far 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 17 2O 21 22 23 24 25 186 forward. Here we go, one more. December 28, 1998, this is from DEQ again to Rick Ballard, RH2, from Jack Gantz. Section number 12. And I will provide these if you need them. The DEQ still considers the effluent storage facility as a waste water impoundment and as such, subject to certain regulatory requirements. Variation from certain regulatory requirements may be allowed if adequate justification is provided which ensures the protection of public health. about other things, but then at the end it says, and respecting addressing the [unintelligible] attractions. These are our concerns, these are just two that I found that Jack Gantz has addressed to Rick Ballard and we don't have the answers to them yet. And that's why -- we'd like to know why the agencies could not have spoke first, even if we could not question them, so that I could have these answers. Before you issue a CUP on a site without an environmental assessment, without a FONSI [phonetic], finishe~. Or a facility plan, as I understand. And all of the rest of the stuff has been said, so I'll leave it there. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Don. MS. SHOLTY: Dean Martens. MR. ~U~RTENS: Thank you. My name is Dean Martens. live at 321 Cece Way in Rio Vista. And I want to thank a 5 6 7 8 9 14 15 20 22 23 24 25 187 few people who have spoken. Steve Bixby talked about truth, way to go, Steve. Mr. and Ms. Campbell, I don't know you, but Ms. Campbell, this has been a topsy-turvy process, ! totally agree with you. Mr. Campbell, fiscal accountability, what a great topic. We have three people who ran here. Citizens for fiscal responsibility, listen up, this is it now. Okay? Federal dollars. You need to be responsible and accountable with those dollars. Tom ~aynes talked about the public process. Public process is tough, it is not easy, it is not short. It is not measured by how short your council meetings are. It's measured by how much information you get to the public and let them comment on and public process does not occur in the backroom of the Best Western Motel. It occurs at the council table with the full council there talking about issues. Okay. Staff, Mr. Peterson, I'm going to have a question question period here, 'cause I'm not allowed to have a question and answer period and I wanted to hear from agencies, so I'm going to bring up some questions. I don't need answers right now, but I'll bring up questions. Number one, what's the actual pond volume needed? Who calculated 360 million? And how long will 200 million, that's being proposed for just the first pond, how long will that last and be sufficient for the city of McCall? Wetlands. Mr. Peterson talked abou[ wetlands. He 5 6 9 13 15 20 22 23 24 188 said there will be a positive affect on wetlands. That's what the application says, okay. Mr. Peterson, I believe we don't have anything yet from Mr. Greg Martinez of the Army Corps of Engineers, who I speak with periodically and who's notably absent today. That's one of the agencies that's not here. We have several agencies, but unfortunately Mr. Martinez is not here from the Army Corps of Engineers. I might point out that the claim of a positive effect on wetlands has not been decided to this day. And I believe that maybe not having that 404 peri,it, and We don't know what the mitigation will be on that, 2 to 1, 4 to 1, 5 to 1, 6 to 1, we have no idea. I assume that's what's holding up the NEPA document Or part of what's holding up the NEPA document. That has to be disclosed in the NEPA document. Mr. Martinez has had it for about four months and it must be a pretty tough decision 'cause it hasn't come back. So that's still hanging out there. Groundwater, I hear will be tested on a regular basis. I know when the groundwater was tested and we've talked about that. I heard groundwater will not be harmed. I hear it will go away from residences. I'm interested in, will it really go away from residences and what's the rate of the movement of that groundwater and I'd like DEQ, who is here today to talk about how comfortable they feel with the rate of 25 movement, tied to what the monitoring is going to be? If that 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 13 16 19 20 22 23 24 25 189 rate of movement is fast, if ~ lived in Blue Jay I'd want constant monitoring. If it was slow, periodic monitoring. I don't know that we know if it's adequate right now, so Mr. Weiss or Mr. Peterson, I hope you can answer that today. It's interesting that the NEPA document still hasn't been able to spell that Out either. We don't have the NEPA documents that talk about what the frequency exactly will be and what the impacts are. I'd like to hear from each agency. I know there's at least two agencies here. A~d they're sitting in the second row back here that I know of, there may be more. I'd like to hear from RH2, Mr. Harbor or Mr. Ballard. Mr. Weiss, Mr. Petarson and I believe another agency is here and I don't know who it is, but I'd like to hear about the question of dam stability. Once and for all, what is the answer? A~ld I want to hear about it on both sites. A~d I think you'd better hear about it on both sites. Another important point that should be covered in the EIS,' and we still don't have answers. I was at a council meeting three or four weeks ago, these agencies were going to be at the next council meeting. Somehow they got thrown off the agency because those answers -- those questions and those answers were going to be at that council meeting. Here we sit, still don't have it. Okay. Last, mitigation. The mitigation that I see 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 190 proposed would not have made it to a P & Z meeting, a hearing such as we had several weeks ago {Tape Change) MR. MARTENS: ... if our P & Z administrator would have turned that applicant around and said, go do a decent job, we're not going to waste P & z's time looking at this. These people are volunteers, they're doing hard work for us and we're not going to bring rubbish before them. The mitigation in this is rubbish. Take a close look at this application, which is your own application. It's your application, council. Are these standards, or lack of standards I'd call them, for mitigation. The precedents that you want to be setting for applications in the future? I hope not. I don't want to see this type of mitigation all around the city with every application that comes in. I want quality. I want to see quality. I ask you to turn dow~ your own application. Listen to the people. Listen now. Thank you. MS. SHOLTY: Peggy Clemmer. MS. CLEVER: Well, Tom said that he was past done. And I'm way past done. MR. MULLER: Ma'am, you need to identify yourself. MS. CLEM~ER: I'm Peggy Cler~mer. I live at 227, I think, I haven't been there veT long, Rio Vista in McCall. have lived in the area for 33 years, almost; and witnessed a 4 5 7 8 9 12 13 2O 22 23 24 25 all these details. 191 1 lot of this sort of thing. And I'm terribly distressed with 2 the situation that I'm hearing and seeing today and have 3 heard. I left here the llth of January and I was very supportive of everything that the present council had done up until that point, Just as I left, Mr. Ellison was necessary to relieve him, but he was a very strong leader and he had a great deal of support and I'm glad that something came along that showed it up so that something was done to eliminate this, but he has brought in many, many things into this area which have contaminated many of the players that are here now. And I feel, that having been gone and I come back and the whole scene, all the designs, everything is so different than what they were projecting at that point, that I feel that it should be looked at extremely well. ~nd I don't fee/ that the council, at the present time, is really looking at this. I've tried to talk to them, they say they can't talk to me and all that, well, fine, but the citizens need to have all the~e. A lot of this has come Out to day, but not all of it. And I do feel that there's still people who are very powerful and are working with the city administrators and that type of thing, to put their thing down and they say there is no alternative, this is what we have to do. Don't listen to And there are a lot of details and they've 6 7 8 9 13 15 20 22 23 24 25 192 been rushed with it, but on the other hand is it haste makes waste, and this is going to be very bad if they don't open their ears. I wanted to go out today at lunch and get a pair of funny ears that would look up and say, where are your ears, are you even hearing it today? I've watched your faces and I think at times you've listened and at times you still are compulsive to this thing. I hate to have it go through. Now, when Mr. Alford got up and spoke there was one idea that sort of hit me, I feel that the present engineers and the present attorneys, because of their conduct today and other times, are -- their situation is actually contaminated, because they came in with Mr. 01son and a lot of these things are still habitually going on. And I think that the security and feeling of many of your citizens, it is very strong now, it ~ay be today you realize it, but I don't know whether you realize it yet when you give the -- the report that you just did to the TV. You have to accept it and open your ears and know these things are real and they are happening. A~d people are frantic for you not to get a vote today, but to listen and do some more research. Then you say, well, there's no place else to go. Well, my feeling has been that if you -- you still could have gone back to the first thing. I went to the hearings when they had the J-Ditch. Oh, we have to have a J-Ditch and all the reasons for it. And there was a lot of objection to that. That was going dow~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 19 2O 22 23 25 193 SOUth, but when Ray spoke about Kuna, if Kuna can do it, why should our county commissioners, whom I also question with their brilliance and their ability, why should they say, oh, well, you have to annex in order to do this. In other words there are other options that should have been listened to and considered right from the beginning. And because of the lack of being able to actually communicate accurately, a lot of people are very belligerent now and they're very, very unhappy~ And I think that if you'd get rid of some of the people that are making some of these decisions and have made -- gotten you totally off track. But you can look for other options, this is just one I mention. It's a possibility. You might say, oh, no, we can't do that and you'd have your rational why you can't. But you've been rushed into this thing and we're all going to suffer if you don'it stop and listen to what's happened today. I think there are other actions and I hope you take your time and stop and listen and realize there are a lot of people that mean busines~ about this. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Peggy. MS. SHOLTY: Ann Edwards. MS. EDWARDS: My name is ;~nn Ltoyds Edwards I live at 109 West Lake Street. I completely agree with the comments o~ Steve Milleman. I have never, ever been approached. I am a property owner, have never been approached by the city for 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 16 18 2O 22 23 25 194 any discussion in any mitigation. Thank you very much. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. MS. SHOLTY: That's it. MAYOR EIMERS: That's it? Okay. Before we stop, is there anyone else that did not sign the list that would like to testify? MS. FIDER: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to. MAYOR EIMERS: Please. MS. FIDER: If I may, please. MAYOR EIMERS: Please. MS. FIDER: For the record, my name is Carol Fider and I reside in 992 Valley View Road. And I want to support those neighbors of mine in Valley View and the Westside Coalition. And I do have a letter that's on file with the Planning and Zoning folder and so we've - a lot of the comments that I made in there are the one's that you've heard today and I also still stand on that position. There are two things that I wanted to talk about, very briefly. One, is I agree with Mr. Bixby. I came to the first meetings on Mr. Seubert's land and we truly were looking at a zone rechange for the asphalt plant as being objectionable. We were not talking about the ponds themselves, in fact, we k~ew there was a ~eed for ponds. The second thlng, I think as I've been very 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 16 20 23 24 25 195 disappointed in every meeting that I've gone to, we have had an adversarial role. And I don't think we need to, in fact, when I first saw the stakes going up on Mr. Bezates' land, I had to be actually convinced that that was the height of the pond. Because one of the things that I had heard that we were going to change over and put something across out, you know, a buffer zone of a 1000 feet and that we would look over the top of that. And that was part of, you know, and people were kind of then talking about, you know, we need these kinds of things, we need it here. I'm very -- been very disappointed that I've heard a couple of times Mr. Bezates even offered another piece of property farther away from the residential area. I was very disappointed today to hear that Mr~ Manchester had looked at some very good options, at least on paper for the first time I had seen them. And that were, to me, at least visually pleasing and not just a wall of dirt. And I guess my last point is, I live over on Valley View, I 'know how hard it is to make things grow over there and I know what it takes in top soil and watering and I just -- I'm really thinking that if you're going to have a landscaped area, I don't see how it's going to ever come to fruition over there. And with our climate, with our soil types without irrigation and topsoil. Thank you very much. 5 6 7 8 9 10 22 23 25 196 MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. Are there others? M~J~E SPEAKER:There is one here. MS. ARP: Oh, there's one. MAYOR EIMERS: Please come up. ~4R. LEMON: My name is Ron Lemon, I live at 757 Chad Loop and I can't add anything. I don't have time to dig up any more facts. It is so clear to me, the people that live in Blue Jay Subdivision there, the time that the sun goes down is going to change at their house. They can't see Red Ridge anymore when this is all done. You can't do that in clear conscience. You simply can't. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. Additional? Okay. Please. MS. CHISHOLM: My name is Eloris Chisholm, I live at 482 Boydstun. And I'd like to just point out to you one thing about groundwater. I want to ~how you where I live. I live right hers. Our property touches this corner. I know they've talked about all the properties surrounding this site, well, they ne~er mentioned us. But we're right here at this corner. A/id right in this area right here the elevation of our property is approximately the same as where this is going in here. And every spring we get a pond On our property and it stays there until approximately the first part of August. And we have ducks that come in and it's a nice little place, but the water table is very high in the spring and it goes clear 197 1 until about midsummer. So testing the water level in November, it's always dry there too. So you need to really consider that ~s well. MAYOR EIMERS: Eloris. MS. CHISHOLM: Yes. MAYOR EIMERS: I'm sorry, I can't see it. YOU pointed at the -- 8 MS. CHISHOLM: At the northeast corner of this site 9 it touches our property,and it's just about a 100 feet past l0 that that this pond is - 11 MS. ARP: You would be on the other side kind of 12 adjacent to White Tail? 13 MS. CHISHOLM: Right. There's a little strip of -- 14 MAYOR EIMERS: On the north -- 15 MS. CHISHOLM: - other private property there, but 16 basically, yes. 17 MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, northeast corner. I've got Mr. 18 Alford in the north -- 19 MR. MULLER: Right north of Alfords. 20 MS. ARP: North. Outside of the green. She's right 21 outside the green area. 22 MR. MULLER: Right across from Mr. Alford. 23 MAYOR EIMERS: I'm sorry? 24 MR. MLrLLER: It borders Mr. Alford's to the north. 25 MS. SHOLTY: Eloris, could you repeat your address? 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 14 15 16 19 2O 22 23 25 MS. CHISHOLM: 482 Boydstun. MAYOR EIMSRS: To the north, okay. MS. ARP: Right. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Eloris. Okay. Additional? MR. PORTER: I would like to one -- I had a short one before, but I've got after really hearing all that, I'd like to make one little small comment, do you mind? MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. PORTER: After hearing all this and lots of MS. BUXTON: State your name for the record. MR. PORTF~: Oh, Richard A. Porter again. Mayor and the council, what I see out of all this -- this whole thing is and I'm one of them Out there that is a non city resident. I'm in the impact area. I don't vote in the city and it seems like this is a big slam dunk to the people that's out there. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you~ Okay. Okay. Additional? Okay. ~ think what's going -- MR. EDWARDS: Can I just say something? MAYOR EIMERS: Have you spoken before? S 6 7 9 12 20 22 23 24 25 199 Boydstun. What I'd like to say is just some testimony to what Eloris said. Last summer about 100 feet from our property line that was touching the property that the ponds are going to be on, I dug a hole maybe about a foot and a half deep before I hit groundwater. I couldn't dig anymore because the groundwater was so high, you know, I couldn't dig it was just flowing in. ~d I'd just like to say that there's no way that the groundwater could be as low as they say it is, 'cause I hit it at one and a half feet last summer. Thank you. MAYOR EIMSRS: Thank you. Okay. Additional public comment? Okay. I think what we're going to do, if I understand the process, is we're now going to take lik~ a 15 or a 20 minute break. And staff is going to prepare a rebuttal, is that the next step? MS. ARP: Apparently -- MAYOR EIMERS: No? MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor, the city attorney. For the record, I believe that what you had asked for earlier is that you wanted an opportunity to ask questions of the agency folks that are here available. MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, I thought that was going to come later. Do you want to do that now? MS. BUXTON: D~nd actually it's right now, since the 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 20 22 23 24 25 200 public hearing is still open MAYOR EIMERS: Okay, so -- MS. BUXTON: -- it might be appropriate for you to do that. And we still want everybody to identify themselves for the record so it's easier to identify them on the tape. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Well, I misunderstood. Let me make clear then, after we've asked our questions of the agency people, that's different than what David told me earlier, but MS. BUXTON: Actually, wait, wait, give me one second, I apologize. MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor and members of the council, Dave Bieter, city attorney for the record. What I think Mr. Mayor where -- where we didn't agree, I don't think we need any time to break unless you want -- if you want 5 minutes. We Should go ahead and rebut, then have the agencies. Susan and I didn't have a chance to talk about this part of this beforehand. Go ahead and have the rebuttal, then have the agencies speak if you're inclined to do that. Then close the public hearing, then we'll see where we are. I don't think we need any break unless you want a break just to take a pause. MAYOR EIMEP~9: Okay. Well, I - let's do take a break. MS. ARP: Five minutes. MAYOR EIMERS: Five? 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 22 23 24 201 MS. ARp: Five. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Let's -- are you guys ready to go -- do your rebuttal? MALE SPF2~KER: Whenever. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. So let's take a 5 minute break and then we'll have the rebuttal and then we'll open up to discussion or questions for the agency. (Recessed at 4:02 p.m., until 4:09 p.m.) MAYOR EIMERS: Ladies and gentlemen. Once again, this time it was my fault, because I'm not very efficient with eyes and I was going back through the notes making some - summarizing some things. I'm sorry it took longer than we thought. Okay. At this point we're going to open it up to council to ask questions of the different agency people and the engineers, and I guess staff, if we choose to, at this point. So with that, who would like to start and go ahead. MR. ROBERTSON: Mr. Mayor, we still need to make sure th2t the people identify themselves. MAYOR EIMERS: Yes. MS. ARP: Okay. I'll start. I'm Marilyn ~rp, council member. And I'll probably be all over the map going down a few of these things. First question I have and I guess it would be to 25 Eugene Peterson when it was presenting the CUP application 2 5 7 8 9 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about constantly monitored for leaks. How much is constantly? This is hard, isn't it? MR. PETERSON: Gene Peterson, P~q2. The rate of monitoring would be established by the Department of Environmental Quality. ~nd so I couldn't speak to the exact, you know, whether it would be every hour or every day or once a month, that would be something that would be worked out in the final design and approval process through DEQ. And so they may be able to speak to that a lot better than I can. M~J~E SPEAKER: Can't hear you. MS. ARp: Oh, they can't hear you. MR. BALLARD: I could add to that, Marilyn. MS. ~RP: Okay. Basically I think he said that would be up to DEQ to set. Is that a fair -- MR. BALLARD: That's correct, but I just wanted to add -- I'm Rick Ballard with R/42. It's, as it's proposed now in the draft facility plan, it's a quarterly monitoring. And there's a number of constituents outlined in there, but that would, you know, DEQ could come back and say -- MS. ARp: This is leaks on the impoundments. That's what I was -- MR. BALLARD: This is quarterly monitoring of the underdrain system. MS. ARP: Okay. The -- okay. On the impoundments. MR. B~J~LARD: And also all of the groundwater 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 203 monitoring, wells on the site. MS. ARP: Okay. Let me ask you to stay there, because another question I know I have is about monitoring groundwater, monitoring wells. And it particularly came to mind when Valley View folks talked and they have wells as well. MR. BALLARD: Mm-hmm. MS. ARP: HOW far will this monitoring go out as far as monitoring -- particularly looking for contamination in wells? MR. BALLARD: It would be recommended to monitor their wells as well. Both before you start out there, during and after. MS. ARP: Can you give me any idea of how far we would be talking about on the map or what subdivisions? MR. B~G~L~RD: Again, I think that's -- and I'm not a groundwater hydrogeologist, but I think they would start with the wells on site and maybe the homes just right adjacent to it. An~ not move out from there until they saw a problem show up or something like that, but we wouldn't anticipate a problem, but that might expand the area you start looking in. MS. ARP: Okay. Actually though, hang on there, since you're there, that goes back to I think what Dean Martens was talking about. ~bout how fast the water is running, who should be answering that for me? Groundwater, 2 3 7 8 9 13 15 20 23 24 25 2O4 the rate of movement and is that tied to the monitoring and freguency? MR. BALLARD: Again, i'm not a groundwater hydrogeologist, but we had a report done, I expect that those are usually transmisivity, I think is the tez~ they use for that. I believe those terl~s and numbers are in that hydrogeologic report that Kleinfelder provided. MS. ARP: Okay. I guess I probably need to address this to DEQ as well, on this, which my interest was in groundwater the rate of movement. Do we have - we do have those results, or do we not? MR. BALI~LRD: Yes, we do. I believe they're in the groundwater report. MS. ARp: Okay. MR. B~J~LARD: That was part of their work was they did what they call pump testing to try to deter~ine - they pump wells out, until they're dry basically, and then run them at long term rates to see how fast they recover. And they essablish those rates of transmisivity. MS. ARp: Okay. So that can be looked up someplace? MR. BALIJ~RD: I believe so. MS. ~RP: Okay. ~R. BALLARD: Another thing on that same issue that's been brought up a lot of times is, the underdrain system in the lagoons is a positive control system, it's not 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 12 16 17 2O 21 22 23 25 2O5 like a drain field that you have in your backyard where you're not controlling water coming onto your drain field, it's just left the way it is. You're not actually draining water out of your drain field, you're putting water in your drain field. So, that's why that's an issue with where the water level is year round with the drain field, because you're not in control of it. As to the performance specifications were written for this project was for the design builder to design a system that would intercept water at any level in that drain system through the boundary of the cells, either coming from the lagoons or coming from the outside of the lagoons. So groundwater then is controlled underneath the cells at a specific elevation. MS. ARP: And in fact, pursuing groundwater more than - do we have a current spring groundwater test? MR. BALLARD: I don't believe you do? MS. ARP: Are we planning one? MAYOR EIMERS: Can -- MS. ARp: Go ahead. MAYOR EIMERS: Can I ask, I guess I'd like to ask Larry Peterson. Larry, are you here? ,MR. PETERSON: Yes, I am. MAYOR EIMERS: Can you tell us, from your standpoint, and if you'll share the mic, from your standpoint 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 i0 12 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 206 if you would, if you're the right one, the implications of -- a~ld you're getting to the groundwater test having been done in the fall rather than in the spring. MS. ARP: Mm-hmm. MAYOR EIMERS: Could you talk to us about that. you the right one to talk to us about that or can you? MR. PETERSON: Well, I can certainly give you some info~ation relating to it. And I'm Larry Peterson with DEQ. And the question, Marilyn, I believe you're asking is the test that was done -- MS. A~RP: Right. MR. PETERSON: -- under Kleinfelder's report was done I believe in the fall of the year. And many people have indicated other times of the year the groundwater level is considerably higher. The answer here goes to what Rick was jus~ explaining that the desig/% will have - that the design build contractor will - will turn in, that DEQ will approve, must provide positive control at all times, regardless of the height or source of water around the peripheral drains. So that it's always at least two feet from the liner. So even though they took a test in October/November, the design has to account for a groundwater saturated to the surface outside the boundary of the drain or inside under the cells. So it's always kept away from the cells. MS. ARP: So are you saying that this -- this is 4 5 7 8 9 10 12 15 16 2O 22 23 24 25 207 Marilyn Atp, council member, that this would or would not require them to do another test at this point in time? MR. PETERSON: It doesn't require another test, it simply requires them to have the assumption that the groundwater is saturated and that they'll have to keep it away at any depth from any direction. MS. ARp: Okay. MAYOR EIMERS: That's a design criteria? ,MR. PETERSON: Yes. MS. ARP: Okay. N/~. PETERSON: Okay. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Thank you, Larry. Sure, Rick, do you want to talk - MR. PETERSON: It's not to say they won't, and I think that's probably what you're going to talk about. MR. HARBERT: Right. MR. PETERSON: Okay. MR. F~ARBERT: This is Rick Harbert from R~2 Engineering. I think that it's especially important that we talk about -- a little bit, for the benefit of all of you who have spoken adverse to the project, that we talk about some of these design criteria, but also talk about what work has actually been done. Because I think there's a lot of mis information that's been circulated through the community. NO design work has been done at this point. So 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 might as well take a shot, huh. 208 let's clear that up right away. What has been done is preliminary engineering. And the question that's being asked right now is, has there been a test of the groundwater level in the spring? And the reason that you'll hear us answer no, is that we've said as design criteria, that is for the engineer of record and it won't be R/42 Engineering, but for that engineer of record who actually designs the layout of the facility. A/id no matter where it's located, it's done under a design build, they'll have to design as though you had the very worst conditions. And that's groundwater at the surface. Ko the very point that this lady and young man had referred to, is a very good point. And we have taken that into account in setting the criteria that the designer must adhere to. They must consider the very worst condition. Groundwater at the surface. So even though we may measure something, at som~ point in the year that's less than that, we're saying, no, that's not good enough. It has to be dealt with as though it were the worst condition. Okay. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Rick. MS. ~A~P: Oh, I've still got some more. MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, please. MS. ARP: And actually it was - MAYOR EIMERS: For Rick? MS. ARP: Well, I don't know. Well, you know, he Williams Creek, will there - 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 209 is there -- will there be any release, will any of the drain go into Williams Creek? That was brought up by someone. MR. ROBERTSON: Rick, do you want to address where it's anticipated that the groundwater -- excuse me, the drain system will pump back to? MR. HARBERT: Yeah, I can show it on the site here. MS. ARp: Does that include Williams Creek? MR. BALLARD: I believe it does. This is Rick Ballard speaking. (Off-record colloquy) MR. BALLARD: There's -- MAYOR EIMERS: Rick, can you speak up. they -- I'm sure MS. ARP: Or you're going to have to bring the thing up. MR. BAL~IRD: Well, maybe I can just say it's in the lower left hand corner of the lagoon. Now, as they look on the layout for their benefit. That's the approximate area of the dis6harge point and it comes out by gravity. But it may or may not come out there because there's a really large pipeline all the way around the perimeter of the base of the lagoon e~f0ankments. And that pipe is perforated all the way around. And so, in some areas it's deep and in some areas it's shallow and is shallow more towards this -- the bottom, towards the south end. And so, if you're intercepting 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 210 groundwater up in this area you may not be intercepting groundwater down in the lower end. So, at that point it will discharge to the ground. So that at any one time, obviously in the spring it will probably have water coming in all the way around. That's the way it is here when the snow melts off. A~other issue of that is all the snow now that falls on this entire site that is from the center of the embankment in toward the cell, will be captured by the cell. And it will not infiltrate into the ground. And that's been taken into account. So, in the wettest, worst time, you probably say there's definitely going to be discharge there. That -- MS. ARp: Into Williams Creek? MR. BALLARD: That discharge -- MS. ARP: Some. MR. BALLARD: Some evaluation Of that discharge was made in hydrogeologic report and it goes to a waterway, which in the spring has water flowing in it normally anyway. So that, f~om what we can tell, that would be allowed. By conversations with the agencies and different issues with that. But if it was necessary to divert that discharge or it's been discussed to use it to enhance the wetlands, that could be done as well. MS. ARp: Let me ask you another, algae was brought 7 8 10 12 20 23 24 25 211 up. And someone wondered about chemicals to get rid of the algae problem. Would there be such a thing as chemicals used? MR. BALLARD: I don't anticipate that because algae needs light to grow, the ponds are 33 feet deep. Algae will only probably occur in the top five to six feet of that. Maybe down to eight at the most. So as you drain the cells, the water you'll we'll be drawing off comes from the bottom. So that will it draw down and by the time you get to that last bit there, I think it's only a couple of weeks it takes you to get out that last run of the water, so. MS. A-RP: So you're saying you would not anticipate using any chemical to get rid of anything like - of the algae? MR. BAiJ~ARD: I wouldn't anticipate we'd need to get rid of the algae in anyway. And there was a specific chemical discussed. Oh, i~secticides, I didn't anticipate that either. MS. ARp: That's what I was referring to. MR. BALLARD: That that would -- this is a big open body of 'water it's not an attraction to mosquitoes. Typically, they like, you know, shallower warm water that can't be stirred up that's a little more calm. MS. ARP: Okay. Let me ask another about the overspray. And I think particularly Mr. Milleman talked about the overspray over the heads of golfers. Now, I certainly didn't see in the report I read anything about that. 212 1 MR. BALLARD: That is addressed in the -- well, the 2 discussion of that's in the facility plan. 3 MS. ARp: I read the model and I read that. 4 MR. BALLARD: Right. One of the issues that was of 5 interest to me was, early on in this process some discussions 6 were held with M Resorts representatives in which they've 7 indicated they were interested in utilizing that effluent for 8 both the ponds on the golf course as well as for irrigation. 9 That's a very typical thing across the country when you talk 10 about water reclamation. Carson City uses it on all their 11 golf courses. They actually sell it to the golf courses. 12 MS. ARP: Would that be permitted in Idaho? I'll 13 ask DEQ. 14 MR. WEST: Without -- my name is Steve West and I'm 15 with the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. Without 16 knowing the specifics of the permit, I mean, but yes, I think 17 that's a concept that we would look at in this instance and 18 probably be open to some discussions that would lead toward 19 utilization of the water in that way. 20 MS. ARP: Let me get back to my next question. Or 21 somebody else can jump in. 22 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. I don't want to go off on a 23 tangent, but I -- 24 MS. ARp: Well, I'm off on all kinds of tangents 25 just going down my list. 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 15 16 18 19 2O 22 23 24 25 213 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Okay. Do you want to go, Allen? MR. MULLER: Dam stability on sites, no matter where it is, depends apparently on the models that are tested, computer models that are tested for potential earthquake fault and having an earthquake, what could cause those. If don't know if you want to use the word dam or you want to use the word piers or you want -- I don't know what you want to use, but embankments. What do we have in terms of the ponds on the Bezates site of a slope? What do we - we're using a 3 to 17 MAYOR EIMERS: So you're addressing this to IDWR, Allen? MR. MULLER: IDW -- any of them agencies or even Rick Harbert if he could -- 'cause I'm sure he's worked on that to a certain extant. MS. ;LRp~ Annd I -- just a follow up question, Marily~ A/p, city council. The - what would be the designation of this impoundment? We went through this. Is it a high risk dam, is it a large dam, is it -- and that would be Department of Water Resources. MR. MULLER: That's 36 or 37 feet on the southwest corner, that's the highest part of the dam. 5Lq. BAiJ~ARD: That's correct. And that's -- those are 3 to 1 slopes. MR. MULLER: Those are 3 to 1, how about the rest? 5 6 7 8 9 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 214 MR. BALLARD: The rest of it is all 3 to 1 - Rick Ballard with RH2 Engineering. I'm getting my -- the eyes of the attorneys over here. Yeah, it's 3 to 1 inside and Outside all the way around. And the height on the - the kind of critical -- the height location is just as you said it, the southwest corner. It's about 37 ~eet. And that would be where you would think it would probably fail, but that's not necessarily true because it also depends on the underlying soils. So that analysis was done in the geotech report. MR. MULLER: Did it -- what did it establish? MR. BALLARD: I believe it established that these would work within the criteria of the stay for this project with the local, most probable earthquake and it was something like 256 years or something like that. A~d I may be mis~oting, but t~at information is in that report. MR. MULLER: ~nd the 3 to 1 sloping and that would be a permittable slope for -- or IDWR. MR. BALLARD: And I think -- yeah, it's a good time to have IDWR kind of address that because I have talked to them and they kind of indicated that. MS. ARP: Yeah, it's a good time to have them. MAYOR EIMERS: Dave, could you come up. Is it Dave Hollingshead? MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: Mr. Mayor, council members, I'm 4 5 6 7 8 9 16 20 22 23 24 25 215 Dave Hollingshead, Department of Water Resources, safety of dams section. Could you rephrase your question and I'll see if I can attempt to answer your question. MR. MULLER: At a 3 to 1 slope on this site, are those -- will those slopes be permitted through your agency? MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: The design that we've evaluated, as it's been explained earlier, weJve been dealing, as Rick very carefully pointed out, with concepts. And in this attempt to satisfy the various agencies criteria, we've had discussions with your consultants and it does confoIm to our criteria by the preliminary indications. The analytical evaluation, the computer modeling, if you will, it does confor~ to the department's criteria. The State's standards. These are geotechnical standards. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. HOL~INGSblEAD: To withstand the forces that it would be subjected to. Not only with the loading from the impoundment for this perimeter embankment, we've also identiffed a fault that's capable, just to the west of this project location, and that has been taken into consideration when it was evaluated by Kteinfelder. MR. MI3LLER: Okay. Thank you. MS. ARp: Can I follow up on that? What would you -- we went back and forth over this high risk dam, da-da- da-da, what would you classify, given this design that you've 4 5 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 20 22 23 24 25 216 heard about, what would that be classified and how would you reach that classification? MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: Councilmen Arp, the department through our safety dams program, we identify projects both by size, those that we regulated have to be a certain size or they're not part of our program, they're not regulated. Certain dams are classified by what has developed below that project. MS. D~qp: Mm-hmm. MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: So to correct the identification of a project if there is development below a dam project, it can be identified as either high risk, significant risk -- MS. ARp: Mm-hmm. MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: -- or low risk in those instances where there is no development to speak of. MS. ARPi Given this project, what - as designed and what's out there, what would likely come through on this? MAYOR EIMERS: YOU mean, what would it be called? MS. ARp: Yeah. What would it be designated? MR. ~OLLINGSHEAD: It's been identified probably for evaluation and the design as is going to subject the area below there to a risk or a consequence if it were to fail, and that's the reason for our classifying those projects. NtB. /LqP: Okay. MAYOR EIMRRS: Right. 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 15 16 17 19 20 22 23 24 25 217 MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: And they have used a very conservative design when they have developed this, so far, developed this preliminary package of design evaluation material or design report. MS. ~J{P: Okay. 'Cause I ~uess -- and the question was asked also wanting to look at the other site because when I -- I ~uess my take on it when I was hearing this high risk being thrown around it was not taking down below the dam, they were, I thought, referring more to height on that. And then I 9tess I have another question I would like to ask and I think Don Green talked about it, it is in the record, it's a two page report from Kleinfelder. And it's modeling and it's on the Seubert site. And I would like you to interpret that, because I've heard a lot of different interpretations of that. Maybe somebody needs to get that for you,~ because if I:just look at that, I mean, there's a lot of modeling and things like that. I would like to have your interpretation of what that means. I have certainly gotten conflicting interpretations. MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: I'll do my best. MS. ARp: Well. MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: I would also point OUt as Mr. Robertson indicated earlier,we had addressed a letter back to your former city manager that when we were in communication with some of the consultant bodies that have been involved 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~2 13 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 218 considering this, we had, up front, indicated, go through the site selection and then we can better assist you with picking what you need to do to conform with our criteria. MS. ARP: Yes. MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: Okay. Does that stimulate more questions or does that - MS. ARP: Well -- MR. HOLLINGS~EAD: -- begin to answer. MS. ARp: -- I quess it because in fact though I have heard other things being put out in attributing it to the Department of Water Resources, you know about the high risk dam. And I have read that letter, you did not say that. MR. ~OLLINGSHE~kD: NO. MS. ARp: You did not -- you said if the situation so warranted it could be classified on that, so. MR. HOL~INGS~EBJD: We were trying to respond -- MS. ~RP: I also saw letters though that Mr. Olson wrote using that te~inolo~y and it was cc: to Department of Water REsources, and I never saw anybody say, hey, wait a minute we didn't say that. So. MR. HOLLINGS~E~dD: I can't make a defense on what terminology or what went to different people during the course of this thing, it's been under consideration for quite awhile. We have attempted to make an interpretation as different sites were being considered of what our criteria, how that would 5 6 7 8 9 14 18 20 22 23 25 219 apply and effect the design when this site consideration was still unsettled. And so it's the key element is the soils that are going to be used to put the embankment together and taking into account the forces the e~foankment will be subjected to. And whether they made a full accounting of that or whether there was some misinformation and I can't explain that. MS. ARP: Okay. And what I think I heard you say is it was still preliminary and you had not made that -- MR~ HOLLINGSHE~d~: No. MS. ~Jlp: -~ judgment, but when it came forward then you would say this is what you will have to do dependent upon -- to meet your criteria. MR. HOLLINGSH~d]: Right. Yeah, and that in effect is our response that we addressed back to Mr. Olson in July of '98.~ And Mr. Rob~rtson, as I indicated, this is one of your exhibits. It's Exhibit 8. ~S. ~P: Yes, and I've read that letter many times. MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: That was our response from the department regarding some of these issues. Technical issues. MS. ARP: The other thing I asked you was to help me to interpret the Kleinfelder report, the two page, did they give it to you? MALE SPEAKER: Yes. MS. ARp: Oh, okay. Because I have heard 5 6 8 9 10 2O 22 23 24 25 220 interpretations and I heard it today saying that that report says that the preliminary ~ that it showed that that site would fail. Then I've also heard an interpretation no, that says that the east wall would not fail. Or maybe we can give you a chance a~d we ca~ co~e b~ck to that. Let's do that. That's not fair to have you ~ MR. HOLLINOSHEAD: Yeah, if you would, 'cause this might take some process. MS. ARp: Let's do that. Yes, I think that would be more fair, if you would come back to that, I would appreciate that. MR. HOLLINGSR~F~AD: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. A~e you ready for another one? MR. MULLER: Yeah, I guess a question I have also MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, before -- it's a logical follow on, I think, but unfortunately we've got him. Who's going to talk to 'us about -- because I can't remember, I think it was Dean brought up, or maybe it was Don or maybe it was both, in the event this failed ~he flood flow. And are you with me? MS. DdlP: Mm-hmm. MR. ~OLLINGSHEAD: I'm not sure that I'm the one to answer that question, but I'll give it a whirl. Quite often with high risk projects one of the other standards the 221 1 department has within its rules is development of what we 2 identify as an operation plan for a dam project. Our whole 3 accumulation of different projects that we regulate, typically 4 these are water storage dams. And on occasion waste treatment 5 facilities if they're sufficiently large, are also regulated 6 under our program, which is the case here for this proposed 7 project for the City of McCall. 8 We -- in those operation plans are rules for high 9 risk projects require that operation plan be developed, that's 10 normally a responsibility in conjunction with the owner of 11 that project, the consultant identifies the things -- the 12 increments that go in -- the things that need to be included 13 in that operation plan. An emergency action plan is the 14 common nomenclature for delineating the area that could be 15 impacted to identify the hazard. And as a result of a project 16 if ~here were a dim incident, those people, if there are 17 populations within that identified delineated area, would be 18 on a calling list to be notified to move or evacuate the area. 19 That's ~ precautionary thing that's developed in conjunction 20 with the operation plan for this project. 21 Another thing that's been mentioned here earlier is 22 monitoring. You asked about the frequency of the monitoring 23 of the groundwater level. And the leak detection system 24 that's been conceived, the purpose of your operation plan, as 25 you would gear up and take over the responsibility once this S 6 7 8 9 12 20 22 23 24 25 223 know where that is? FOkLE SPE~JfER: I do not. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MS. ARP: I guess we better find out. MAYOR EIMEP~: Find Out. MALE SPED~KER: I have it already written dow~ on MAYOR EIMERS: Does anybody know the result? MS. ARP: Nobody is saying on that one. MAYOR EIMERS: Bill, you've talked with Sonny Hornbecker about that, I think. Is that a true statement? ~Lbout the flood flow path? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes, the logical - what I've discussed. MS. BUXTON: Bill Robertson. MR. ROB~RTSON: My name is Bill Robertson. And let me go up here. I'm Bill Robertson, city manager. I had some discussions not with Sonny Hornbecker of IDWR, but with Kleinfe~der themselves. On the subject of likely where would there be a failure and what would be the impact if there were a failure and the most likely spot, as has been pointed to earlier, is at the highest part of the dam~ And that's where it would be most likely. If it were to occur there the exl~ectation is there would be a sheeting effect. And by the time the water 2 3 4 5 7 @ 9 10 13 15 16 17 20 22 23 24 25 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 2O 22 23 24 25 222 is turned to you from the consultant, would to be -- and that we would expect in the operation plan, some monitoring arrangement~ Some maintenance arrangement for that facility. We may, once this issue is settled, make a decision about whether this project can be approved for construction if it conforms with our criteria. If it becomes a regulated project, we will inspect it every two years. That's.part of our statutory requirements. And we would expect to look at such documents that you have on monitoring to see whether this project is performing as it was designed. We will also be present during the course of construction to conduct construction inspections to make sure that it's put together in accordance with the plan that's approved. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Well, the flood flow analysis was done, was it ~ot? MS. ARp: Well, that's what he said, and I think Don's question was, where is it. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. And -- MS. ARP: Anybody know? MALE SPEAKER: I don't have it. MS. ARP: According to some records -- MALE SPF2%KER: The city hired Kleinfelder to do them. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. SO is that -- where -- do we 224 got to the road, it would be less than a foot high. That's if it's coming out of the southwest corner. If it's coming out of other places you would have different heights. It could be, you know, let's say that we had a 10.0 earthquake. I don't know if there's been such a one, but let's really pick a big one. 'Cause I did that example, wanted to know. And what if it were right across the street from Teresa and Steve Bixby. If you had that type of a situation, t was told that you would expect that you would have water at six feet high going across the road. I then asked can you put a second berm along the road and would that be of any value, and they said absolutely. That would minimize it and direct it so that by the time it did come out to the road it wpuld be a different type of a pattern, I did not pursue it after that. Only because we need to -- that's par~ of the desi~ criteria in the mitigation that we're going to be talking about when we have a project awarded. That's part of what's got to be put together in that. And that's part of~the design before these folks are going to license it. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. And so Soruny is in possession of that flood flow analysis. MS. ~RP: And where is it? That's the .MR. ROBERTSON: My concern is I don't know what a flood flow analysis is. MS. ~RP: Well, we better find it. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 16 20 22 23 24 25 226 MR. ROBERTSON: I have one report which Dave is reviewing right now from Sonny. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. ROBERTSON: There is a geotech, big large book, that was part of the bid specifications. A~d I don't know if either of those is known as a flood flow analysis. MAYOR EIMERB: Okay. ~/ld Kleinfelder is not here today, so. MS. ARp: Yeah, 'cause I think the question was Don was asking that I think they've asked for it. I am assuming they've asked for it and haven't gotten it. This is Marilyn Arp, council member, I need to follow up just to make sure I understood, Dave, to say that before construction could start there would need to be an operational plan that we were talking about for safety. Do I understand that right, just nod if that's what I understood, before construction began that you would have to approve? MR. ~OLLINGSHEAD: Dave ~ollingshead, Department of Water R~sources. NO. MS. ARP: No, okay. MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: Approval for construction would follow from our department for this project, if you'd pursue this project, after the consultants have completed the whole )lan and construction specification package and submitted it to us. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 18 19 22 23 24 25 226 MS. ARP: Mm-hmm. MR. HOLLtNGSHEAD: An application has been filed for this project. But we have not received the technical package. When we receive that and I think that's where we attempted to be of some assistance to the city, so that this whole thing could be expedited, we've been working with your consultants to make sure that the proper technical evaluations were completed. The analytical evaluations for the structural stability of this project were completed, so that they conform with our requirements. So all we need to do is formalize a presentation to us and take action on it. A/id that's forthcoming MS. ARP: Okay. MR. HOLLINGSHEkD: -- based upon your decision to pursue this project. MS. ARP~ Okay. Thank you. I was -- MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: Then -- MAYOR EIMERS: Just help me with this, you guys here, t~ose technical evaluations he's talking about, is that a common -- is that a familiar term to you? Do you know what he's -- MALE SPE~J4ER: This is on Kleinfetder again? MAYOR EIMERS: NO, I'm back - MS. ARP: Technical MAYOR EIMERS: -- what he just said. But maybe you 227 1 were involved in another discussion. 2 MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: Yeah, we're looking at this 3 strictly as confined to what we have jurisdiction over within 4 the statute provisions. 5 MS. ARP: Sure, right. 6 MAYOR EIMERS: Right. 7 MR. HOLLINGS~EAD: Those are all the geotechnical 8 aspects for this project; to assure that what's put together 9 will be stable -- 10 ~A¥OR EIMERS: Right. 11 MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: -- and it will perform its 12 function. 13 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Rick, did you hear the 14 discussion? 15 MR. BALLARD: Yes, I did. 16 MAYOR E~MERS: Okay. And where are we with respect 17 to being permitted on this particular project On this -- with 18 IDWR? I'm sorry. Is my voice distinctive enough? 19 MR. BALLD~RD: It might be better for me. 20 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. 21 MR. BALI~RD: 'Cause I actually talked to Sonny the 22 other day. 23 MAYOR EIMERS: Ail right. 24 MR. BAiJ~ARD: A~d Bill was there actually and he 25 talked to Sonny too, I think, anyway. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 15 20 22 23 24 25 228 MALE SPEAICER: Who are you? MR. BALLAP~D: Rick Ballard with Pd{2. I talked to Bonny and asked him -- MR. MULLER: Be sure to identify who Sonny is. MR. BALLARD: Sonny Hornbecker with IDWR has been collecting this information and I believe this is his boss that's here now. So you can correct me if I say something wrong, but Sonny's perception and I asked him that exact question, where are we, do we -- you know, are we there for a permit? And he says -- he said, yes, you know, if we get a final set of plans, you know, we're comfortable with the concepts that we've gotten so far, the geotech report. ~-nd I want to kind of clarify with that something that was said by Bill awhile ago was that -- I mean, he asked these guys if I had a magnitude 10 earthquake. I mean, every point on the richter scale is ten times more than the previous point. So this, according to the geotech report, has been designed to stand up to the most probable earthquake in the valley, 'and I think it's a 6.75. And then they calculate in acceleration and they used all that information and they used a safety factors, which are the guidelines of the state. And this embankment holds up to that earthquake with safety factors. Bo -- MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. BALLARD: - it isn't that it's going to fail, 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 15 19 20 22 23 24 25 2 3 5 7 8 9 19 2O 22 23 24 25 229 it's that Bill just said, well -- MS. /~RP: If there were. MR. BALLARD: -- you know, what if the world falls apart on us what's going to happen, so. MAYOR EIMERS: Rightl Okay. MR. BALLARD: And you guys realize that McCall will have a lot of problems if you have a magnitude 10 earthquake. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. So, in effect, it's certain, or it's relatively assured that this design, and if I heard David correctly, it's a relatively conservative design and it would likely be licensed once the rest of the stuff is -- or whatever required is provided? MR. BALLJ~RD: And Dave can correct me, on the Cascade Reservoir Dam is designed to this same criteria. MAYOR RIMERS: Okay. MR. BAL~RD: The same earthquake loading. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. BALLARD: I believe that's where they got the original' information from. MR. ROLLINGSHEAD: The original seismic [unintelligible] study was done by the Bureau of Reclamation folks for the Cascade project. SO, it takes into account all the capable faults in the immediate area and that's the one that's identified off of -- west of this project [unintelligible]. 231 respecting mitigation. When will we do that? MR. WEST: I think we're in the process of trying to set up a meeting next week. I think Mr. Milleman and I talked briefly and we agreed to get together. He indicated his intense desire -- oh, my name is Mr. West. Steve West. Indicated his desire to enter into those discussions as quickly as possible. We certainly agree with that. So out intent is to have a meeting next week to provide some review of the initial mitigation plans that were provided by M Resorts. As well as the -- to the best we are able to respond to the issues that he had raised earlier with them. MAYOR RIMERS: Okay. A~d as I understood that, correct me if I'm wrong to make sure we're on the right track. One of the things Steve said that there was a meeting and Bill Robertson and I attended, as we were invited by you, as I recall, and along=with Steve and Bob McKenna and also Hugh McNair. And at that I think you were going to get from our engineers, if it was available and I think it probably was, an estimat~ of the costs -- one of the alternatives, there were three, Steve had three and there was a fourth, and that was a cost to put it further into the ground. Has that been developed? MALE SPEAKER: I can address that. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. So that's been developed? Or ou'll talk about it. Okay. 7 8 9 l0 13 14 15 16 19 20 22 23 24 25 230 MAYOR RIMERS: Okay. MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor, this is city council -- this is the city attorney here. Make sure that we've got everybody identified again. Mr. Hollingshead just spoke. MS. ARP: Oh, okay. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. I -- MS. BUXTON: This is again -- MS. ARp: She's just throwing it in. MAYOR RIMERS: I'm sorry. MS. BUXTON: -- certainly not a way I like to run a public hearing, but given the questions that you've received from the community and everybody's interests because they're still here at almost 5:00 o'clock, I believe this is s[ill the best way to do it, so let's try and I know it's difficult to do it this way. But please do the best you can, I even need the ~counsel to identify themselves. MAYOR BIMERS: Okay. MS. BUXTON: Especially Kirk and Alan are hard to distingdish on the tape. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. A~d I'd like to ask a specific question of Mr. West. Is it my tu/n? I'm Kirk Rimers. MS. AKP: Tell them who you are. MAYOR EIMERS: I'm Kirk Eimers. Steve, Mr. Milleman brought up the fact that we haven't gotten back to him yet 5 6 7 8 9 20 22 23 24 25 landscaping effectively. 232 MALE SPEAKER: I can address that. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. So we'll come to that next. So we'll have those, and then the other thing that I recall was that you were -- you were going to search in your own mind, in your own organizations and in your own way, for various potential funding sources to help us with mitigation. Was that a correct statement or is that a correct assamption? MR. WEST: That is a correct statement. Yes, that is a correct statement. I think that, you know, I would note that this project as it's moving forward, there probably is the opportunity or the need for a variety of partnerships to be explored, not the least of which would be with M Resorts in trying to come up with an appropriate strategy for an acceptable level of mitigation as it r~lates to this facility. I'm also aware that the mayor and Mr. Robertson did fly ~ack to Washington D.C. to see if additional funds could be identified to help with this effort. I think once the designs are finalized or in the process of finalizing engineering designs, it needs to be done with an eye towards what mitigation measures might be appropriate or incorlDorated in the designs as it moves forward. Now, I think one of the things that I wanted to stress is that somewhere between zero money for mitigation and the sky is the limit, let's use all of the dollars for There's got to be a middle ground. 233 1 We talked about responsible stewardship of federal 2 dollars and state dollars. And I think that we can't just, 3 you know, throw that OUt the window, we haven't and certainly 4 in looking at this project we need to be responsible in what 5 -- to what extent those dollars are utilized for mitigation 6 specifically. 7 You know, I guess, lowering the profile, you know, 8 that very implications for lowering the profile of the 9 facility once it's finalized and it relates to capacity. That 10 capacity relates or has an impact on the potential for growth 11 that this community has, both in the near term and into the 12 future. 13 But those are decisions, once the minimal storage 14 capacity is reached and there is zero discharge to the river, 15 the North Fork Of the Payette, those decisions with what 16 allowable growth you allow yourselves, are a decision that the 17 city would make. And I don't want to intrude in that. We do 18 want to offer obse~ations, provide insights, try to do what 19 we can ~o help make this possible in terms of securing the 20 funding and working with the city and their contractor and the 21 other agencies. But, you know, all of these decisions have 22 implications or result in changes elsewhere. 23 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Well, maybe -- I took a note 24 there and missed part of it, I think. So there are potential 25 fund sources of which you are aware we may be able to access? 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 19 2O 22 23 25 234 MR. WEST: I think that we need to look within the project first. I don't think that we've really had the opportunity to have discussions with other potential partners that would help in terms of mitigation. Perhaps some matching effort from various stake holders in the area as it relates to the White Tail development. I mean, I think we really need to sit down with a sharpened pencil and see what can be done. We have four proposals from M Resorts. I think that the review of those proposals and some assessment of the extent to which elements of those proposals could be incorporated in a final design is a discussion that's not been had yet. Once that's done and we have an idea of what we're looking at in terTas of the money necessary to incorporate -- to incorporate these mitigation measures and other steps that might be taken, then we'll probably know -- probably have some idea-of what direction we might go to get additional funding. The question of whether or not these measures need to be incorporated as you go, if there's an opportunity to retrofi~ some of them, I think all of those are on the table and I'm looking forward to a discussion with Mr. Milleman and the city and the contractors to find out what can be done. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. And so that will happen next week we hope? ~nd so did it in fact -- okay, that's fine. Okay. Thank you, Steve. MR. ROBERTSON: Mr. Mayor, could I add a little bit 235 1 to that? 2 MAYOR EIMERS: Sure. 3 MR. ROBERTSON: This is Bill Robertson. Part of the 4 group that he's - that he's included is the engineers who are 5 winning the bid. Because they're going to have a lot to say 6 about how -- what the real costs are going to be and 7 elevations and things of that type and that's part of this. 8 So this is a continuing process, it isn't going to be over 9 just in the three days. 10 MAYOR EIMERS: Right, I understand, but I need to 11 pursue this a bit more just so I'm clear. I'm sorry. I heard 12 you say look within the project, does that mean find the funds 13 within the money we've got? 'Cause I was hopeful that, and 14 maybe I'm still not understanding, I was hopeful that one of 15 the things you were going to do was to scratch your head on 16 where we might go to find additional funding. Is that true? 17 I'm sorry, I'm coming back to that. 18 MR. ROBERTSON: I think we can look both outside and 19 within t'he project to see if there's additional funding. I do 20 not have a specific source of funding in mind right now. 21 don't even know what it is we're asking for in terms of the 22 scope of mitigation measures that might be employed. 23 Now, as we, you know, in moving forward, looking at 24 the final price of the Bezates property, there are a number of 25 unknowns out there that will have an impact on how much money 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 22 23 24 25 acceptable. 236 is ultimately available to do mitigation measures. But I guess the take home message is that this is something that we will be focusing on and working very diligently to make sure that any mitigation measures that can be utilized or implemented, while at the same time ensuring that we reach our goals with respect to this project wilt be looked at. And then I think it will be up to the city to make a determination which of those are appropriate to utilize. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. Well, council member Colton, who isn, t up Mere with us today, brings up regularly and I think it's a great idea that Health and Human Services are -- the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality is in fact the agency that we're responding to on behalf of EPA to do this ~roject. And to the extent that we have funds available at the moment to do the project and some mitigation and some -- and ~a reserve, yo~ know, and what Ralph says is we' re doing a project and therefore since the agency is causing us to go in this direction, then the agency should step up to the plate in helping 'to make this a suitable or an acceptable alternative in the community. And, you know, he's talking about let's do some lobbying with like Mr. Robertson and I went to Washington and talked to our delegation. He's talking about doing some lobbying with your people to attract funds in order to precisely help us mitigate this thing in a way that is And 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 18 20 22 23 24 25 237 MR. ROBERTSON: Well, and I guess trying to find the middle ground is always a challenge. What's -- the bottom line for us in terms of an agency is meeting the requirement of the Clean Water Act. And we talked about this having been a 9 or a 10 month process in l~oking at different things. It goes back a lot farther than that. We've been involved with this for a number of years. And so what we need to do, our primary goal is ensuring that we comply with the requirements of the NPDES or National Pollutant System Elimination System permit, which requires zero discharge. And zero discharge at a time previously. There have been, because of the, I think productive working relationship we've been able to develop and moving forward we've been able to get concessions from the Environmental Protection Agency that allows some extensions to time to allow this project to move forward. NOW, the city, you know, is going to have to look at, as you're aware, how much of that money, in terms of capacity, you end up investing in terms of mitigation and whether'or not that's an appropriate use of whether Or not that's being responsive to what your constituents have asked you to do. We will look and I think support efforts to secure other beautification funds, things of that nature, I don't know where those might be. i do know that a number of other, you know, McCall is not unique in being in the requirement to adhere to the 1 requirements of the Clean Water Act. 2 And so that's the bottom line initially. TO go 3 beyond that, and delve into the possible scope of mitigation 4 measures as, you know, tagged onto that effort, you know, I 5 don't know that we've done a good job of describing what it is 6 we're actually talking about. So, we will spend time working 7 with the consultants, we'll spend time working with M Resorts 8 and the c~ty and try to do what we can to support you in 9 addressing that need. 10 I'm not aware of funds that we have, as an agency, 1t that would be put towards beautification, per se. 12 Nevertheless, we will do what we can Or see what case can -- 13 what case we can make to come up with funding to help you 14 achieve your goals. 15 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Well, one thing that occurs to 16 me ~t this point then, is that -- 17 MR. MULLER: What did you say? 18 MAYOR EIMERS: Well, one thing occurs to me at this 19 point, ~f we ~- is the size of the first cell at 206 million 20 gallons, on the table, if we decide today more fully mitigate 21 this project? 22 MR. ROBERTSON: Well, the size that you need to -- 23 the storage capacity needs to be such that you do have zero 24 discharge to the river. And my understanding is, that the 25 minimum amount, in a wet year, for that to occur is 206 6 7 9 19 20 22 23 24 25 239 million gallons. And we've been over those figures, there's been some discussion of that, but my understanding is that 206 million gallons is necessary to ensure -- to meet that zero discharge requirement. That would be the bottom line. Now, zero discharge I think is where you achieve a balance. And I'm not sure whether or not there are any allowances for growth, built into that zero discharge, that would cause you to exceed that balance. So, I think that is kind of the driver in identifying the need to move onto completion for the facility or finding a way to deal with the anticipated demands in terms of waste water capacity to allow for growth and development within your community. But I think the 206 million gallons is what is necessary to meet the zero discharge reguiremant pursuant to the permit. MAYOR E~MERS: Okay. MR. MULLER: And how was that established? MS. ARP: Yeah, that was the question. MR. MULLER: How was the 206 million gallons. MR. ROBERTSON: My understanding is MR. MLrLLER: I mean, I've heard 363 to 180 to now it's 206 and - MR. ROBERTSON: I heard - I heard, and you're right. In round numbers, okay, the 360 million gallons, I believe, is the figure arrived at for a 20 year build out. In 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 20 22 23 24 25 240 other words, projecting where the community is expected to be, growth projections we expect to have a need or a demand for 360 million gallons of storage capacity. MR. MULLER: This is Allen Muller, again, I spoke just briefly. What criteria was used to establish 363 million gallons? MR. ROBERTSON: I think -- MR. MULLER: How does that apply -- MR. ROBERTSON: Yeah, I think that 360 million gallons was a figure developed by a former contractor with the city out of the original facility's plan. Now, in looking at where the city's needs are now, you know, in terms of what the capacity requirements would be now, the 206 million gallon again, out of that same facility plan was identified as what was necessary. Now, there have been some discussion with -- is it 206 million gallons, 250 million gallons. I'm informed by my engineering staff that the 206 million gallon amount is appropriate, is legitimate. And so that's what I'm basing it on. MS. ARP: This is Marilyn ~,rp, council member. Do you have to permit that and are you ready to permit that? MR. ROBERTSON: Permit? MS. ARP: 205, 206 to stand by that, that you would give us a permit or that's what I'm trying to -- 9 13 20 22 23 241 MR. ROBERTSON: Well -- MS. ARp: Is this acceptable to DEQ to meet our - MR. ROBEHTSON: It's acceptable if it meets the criteria of zero discharge. A/id I thinz that's why your -- you've hired a very competent engineering firm to ensure that they meet the requirements of the zero discharge by having enough capacity in their facility to make sure that there are no Clean Water Act violations. ~d you know, I have every expectation that that's exactly what will happen. MR. MULLER: Well, then I guess I need to ask Rick Ballard Or Rich -- how do you perceive the 206 million gallons and what criteria did you use or did the facility plan that was devised and written by O]3B, how did they come up with it? 206, 180 or the 363. Can you elaborate a little more on that, please. MR. ~AP~BERT: Rick Harbert, RH2 engineering. 206 million gallons was the amount of storage show~ in the facility plan that has been approved by DEQ and that was developed by JUB. Independently, we've been in the process of calculating, based on climatological data since 19 -- that we have, that goes clear back to 1915. And also the waste water flow rates back to 1981. And so there's a lot of data that's available. And we're not quite finished with those computations yet, so we do know though, that the 206 is at least adequate if not more than adequate for today's 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 13 17 20 21 22 23 25 242 requirement. So your current requirement will be met by the 206, we know that. We've independently confirmed that. MS. ARP: This is Marily~ Arp, council member. How many years would you project that that would go out? MR. ~ARBERT: That's the part that we're uncertain of at this point. We've looked at the historical growth rate, in terms of waste water flow and it is not 2 percent, as we thought earlier during the Value Engineering exercise, it's actually less, it's 1.2 percent. And so we've been calculating that forward, but bear in mind, there are fluctuations between a dry year and a wet year. What I'm talking about is the average rate over the last, I believe, 17 years. MS. ARP: Is this -- I'm sorry, Marilyn Atp again. Is this taking into consideration not resident population, but second homes? MR~ ~LARBERT: It's taking into account all of your waste w~ter flow. MS. ARP: And the build out that doesn't show in a resident population. I mean, when we have MR. HARBERT: Correct. MS. ARP: -- when we say permanent resident numbers, that build out does not show the second home. MR. HD~RBERT: I'm not segregating between the two. 5 7 8 9 10 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 243 MS. ARP: Okay. Okay. MR. ~L%RBERT: What I'm saying is that if you look at your total waste water flow, whether it's -- MS. ARp: Okay. MR. ~ARBERT: -- partly year round residents. MS. ARP: And projecting out though? MR. HARBERT: Yes. MS. ARP: Okay. MR. HAl{BERT: That's exactly right. I want to elaborate just a little bit more on what Steve West was describing. The way t interpret that is that r_ and we've talked somewhat about this before. In trying to minimize the cost of the project, you're trying to reach a happy medium between minimizing your inflow and infiltration. And for those of you who aren't familiar with those terms, inflow is water that enters the sewer system at the surface. So as an example, if somebody has their roof down spouts connected to their sewer line and it ends up in the sewer collection system, 'it goes to the treatment plant and that's part of this overall 206 million gallons. That's not waste water that needs to be treated, though. It's storm water. There's no reason to treat it and store it. It's expensive to do that. So let's avoid that and to the extent that it's economical to do that, it can reduce the size of the ponds. So we're trying to look at reducing the inflow and 2 3 6 7 8 9 12 20 21 22 23 24 25 244 in addition, the infiltration. The infiltration is the component that's associated with what comes into the sewer system from below the ground surface. So what comes in because of a high groundwater table, as an example, leaks in a pipeline, say it's a side sewer or a collection line Or an interceptor. Those are examples Of infiltration. And there -- we know that there are places in the system that have excessive infiltration where it is cost effective to repair that or replace it and that also will reduce the pond volume. So I would very much like to give you a precise single answer in terms of your future growth, but we haven't finished those computations. However, I can tell you what you need currently. And that's 206 million gallons currently. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Okay. So that number is -- MS. ARp: Don't go away. 5~A¥OR E~MERS: Okay. MS. ARp: Yeah, don't go away, I have another question because in fact it was Don Green asked about the DEQ setback 'of 300 feet, has that been addressed that DEQ apparently in the correspondence? And then the second part of that and I'm not real clear what it is I'm asking, waste water impoundment, has that been answered. What was the question? MR. ~ARBERT: I'll ask Rick Ballard to address the setback. MR. MULLER: Has to do with public health. 2 3 4 5 7 9 19 20 22 23 24 25 setback. 245 MS. ARP: Oh, the public health, okay. MR. HARBERT: I'll ask Rick Ballard to address the MS. ARP: Okay. MR. ~ARBERT: And what we're trying to do here, by the way, is have the person from RH2 Engineering who's most familiar with that specific issue respond to that issue. That's why we're switching around here. Rick. MR. BALLARD: And I'll do this - this is Rick Ballard with Pd{2 Engineering. I'll do this in combination with Larry Peterson because this was a communication back and forth between the two agencies or the two groups. In this process and you've heard a lot of this about trying to find Out design criteria and what the issues are. And in this process you go to the agency and say, you know, what is your criteria? And their criteria doesn't always fit your situation perfectly. A//d so you take a look at that criteria and then you make an argument that well, this doesn't really ~it this situation, it's more like this or you know, so then there's kind of in effect, a negotiation, of, you know, what the criteria should be for this specific situation. So what took place there was a communication where I'm probably asking for criteria or information or I submitted a drawing to them. They came back with what they know about that situation and then I look at it, I decide how it fits 246 1 what I'm doing and then address that. And I addressed that in 2 the facility plan update. Each of those issues that Don Green 3 brought up on those E-mails are paragraphs in that report, 4: which is part of the record. A~d on the setbacks there's a section in here that I think goes on quite a bit about setbacks. And then another one I think he brought up was aerosols. And that's where this whole section -- that's where these sections originated, was probably from that E-mail that you read. 10 MS. /LRP: Okay. 11 MR. BALLARD: NOW, Larry, do you have anything to 12 add to that? 13 MS. ARP: So do I hear you saying that we're 14 probably not at the 300 foot setback that was q~estioned 15 there? 16 ~ MR. PETERsoN: Yeah, Larry Peterson with DEQ. 17 Council Member Arp, in regards to the question, Rick did give 18 an accurate description of how that information was relayed 19 back and forth between DEQ and the design consultant. The 20 original response that DEQ gave was that in instances that we 21 have waste water treatment lagoons, we recommend a 1000 feet, 22 that's our guideline policy. We had, on several occasions, 23 allowed as little as 300 feet and we indicated that to them. 24 However, in this case you don't have a waste water treatment 25 lagoon, it is a treated waste water storage impoundment. /t~d 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 20 22 23 24 25 247 our regulations don't specifically address treated waste water storage impoundments. They do address waste water treatment and there is a significant difference. So, in working with the consultant to analyze what would be an acceptable setback% we said we'd like 300 feet, but we can't require 300 feet, what does the specific situation make sense to allow? So the 300 was for a waste water treatment situation, that's not what you had. And the State of Idaho does not have specific regulations -- MS. ARp: Have any specifics for the impoundment, okay. MR. PETERSON: - for treated waste water impoundment. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Thank you. MS. ARP] Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: I need to ask -~ this is Kirk Eimers again, I need to ask one more question of - on the flood flow path analysis. That -- I heard you, I think Rick Ballard say that that was - that Kleinfelder worked with us, or contracted with us and so that was not really something that you were involved in or reviewed or looked at or have knowledge of? But rather that was -- MR. BALLAP~D: I have some knowledge of it. I mean, I didn't hire Kleinfelder to do that. 5 6 7 8 9 13 20 22 23 24 248 MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. BlkLLARD: I know it was talked about in the past, so that's kind of where I had - I have some kind of inkling of what it is you're talking about. There's some indication that -- and Dave might need to correct me if I'm wrong, but -- MAYOR EIMERS: But that -- MR. BALI~LRD: And it was kind of what Bill talked about, sometimes they say, okay, you have this thing, you know, it's designed, it meets all the criteria~ But, you know, what if there's a catastrophe? You know, what if we do have a -- and I'm not sure we've ever had a magnitude 10, I don't know, but you know. MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, I understand.~ MR. BALLARD: I don't the whole world has seen a magnitude 10, maybe they have I don't know. But anyway, what if there is an exceedence [sic] of that, you know, or there is some kind of a failure. So then the safety of dams people, in that instance if they determine that may be a critical issue, from what I heard Dave say, then they would ask you to prepare some kind of analysis of this thing failing in some fashion and for you to tell them where the water goes. And so I think that's what you hired them to do. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. BALLARD: Probably based on some coramunicatlon 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 20 22 23 25 249 they had. MAYOR EIMERS: I understand, but it was in response to a request from IDWR, so that's one that you guys just weren't involved in. MR. BALLARD: Right. MAYOR EIMERS: I understand. That's what I was looking for. Thank you. MR. BALLARD: And maybe Dave can add some to that, I don't know. MR. ROBERTSON: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR EI~RS: Yes. MR. ROBERTSON: This is Bill Robertson. When I took down my note at the time Don Green posed the question I wrote dow~ dam failure analysis. I just, you know, without calling MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, well, whatever, whichever. Okay. MS. ARP: I think that he's referring to the two page Kleinfelder report in April. MAYOR EIMERS: NO. Oh. MS. ARP: That's the way I MR. ROBERTSON: What I've wrote down that Don Green said was dam failure analysis and it was in February '99 and he's been asking since then. I just wanted to make MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Yeah, and I thi~Lk that's what he's talking about, where does the water go if it fails. 25O 1 That's what I was under - 2 MS. ARP: No, I have two. Pathway of flood waters, 3 that's for the Kleinfelder, the second one was dam failure 4 analysis and the Westside Coalition hasn't seen. Now, I 5 interpreted that to mean the two page Rleinfelder report which 6 we have given to Dave here, who is going to speak to it, huh? 7 MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: DO you want me back up here? 8 MS. ARp: Sure. 9 MAYOR EIMERS: Sure. 10 MR. HOLLINGSHE~D: Dave Hollingshead, Department of 11 Water Resources. Off the top of my head was a very cursory 12 reading. I'm not sure that I fully understand why this 13 request was made, but it's addressed back to the City of 14 McCall. It's one of your Exhibit 13 that Bill had referred to 15 earlier. And the reference is to a geotechnical engineering 16 evaluation for a proposed J-Ditch, Phase 2, McCall, Idaho. 17 And apparently Kleinfelder, it's under their letterhead, had 18 responded to some questions about whether these types of 19 analytical evaluations modeling, computer modeling, whether 20 that former site would measure up, based upon the geologic 21 inforr~ation, exloloratory borings that they had accumulated, 22 the former consultant had accumulated certain geoteehnlcat 23 information. 24 And they indicate in this letter that these are 25 preliminary results only and have computed, factors of safety, 9 t0 13 i4 15 2O 22 23 24 25 251 based upon this field information that they were asked to review. And it did not perform, would not conform to our stability criteria using that information in the analytical model. MS. ARp: Okay. Let me follow up On that. Someone has said to me that they interpreted that at the east wall, which apparently is the critical one, in fact, would exceed that. Do you not read that into that? Marilyn Atp, city council. MR. HOLLINGSHE;LD: Well, in the one Column they indicate what is required and these are our standards. A~d in the other column it shows what they had computed. A~d for instance, under a static analyses for the center erabar~kment, west slope, and they have these categories, center embankment west slope, center embankment east slope, eastern embankment east slope. And where that is and how it configures on the ground, I don't recall specifically. But these indicate, except for the eastern embankment east slope, that under either ~ static or pseudo-static stability analyses these material were not suitable, it would not conform to our standards or criteria. MS. ARp: Okay. But my understanding and again, correct me if I'm wrong, was that the east slope was the critical slope, in fact. Can anyone answer that? MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: I don't know. 252 1 MAYOR EIMERS: Rick, do you? 2 MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: I don't recall -- 3 MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, Rick 4 FEMALE SPEAKER: What faces the Blue Jay 5 Subdivision? 6 MS. ARp: NO, no, this is not 7 MAYOR EIMERS: This is the Seubert site. 8 FEMALE SPE~IKER: Oh, the Seubert site. 9 MS. ARp: -- this is Seubert site. We're talking 10 about Seubert site now. 11 MAYOR EIMERS: Rick, do you want to talk to that? 12 Thank you, David. 13 MR. FLARBERT: Rick ~arbert, RH2 Engineering. 14 Referring to the April 2nd, '99, letter and expanding a little 15 bit on what Dave indicated. 16 What they're - what Kleinfelder is referring to and 17 this is how I interpret it as the city engineer. Is that the 18 calculated results indicate that on the east slope of the 19 center e~bankment and the west slope of the center embankment 20 that the computed results would be less than what's required. 21 So those would not meet IDWq~ requirements. And that's what 22 Dave's referring to. The east slope of the east embankment, 23 however, would meet their requirements. So that's not talking 24 about the whole east slope, it's talking about the -- excuse 25 me, the east embankment. It's talking about just the east 5 7 8 10 18 20 22 23 24 25 253 slope of the east embankment. There is no reference to the west slope -- MS. ;~RP: West slope of the east okay. MR. HARBERT: -- of the eastern embarlkment. Now, I'm not trying to be overly specific. MS. ARp: No, I know what your saying. MR. HAP~BBRT: But we have to be careful here because you -- when you design these kinds of facilities, you must look at all of the slopes in each of the embankments to verify whether they'll fail or not. This -- the reason this is stated, I believe, at least part of the reason why it's stated as a preliminary analysis is just as a number of people here have testified today, and you want to try to minimize your cost. So prior to taking this to a complete analysis of all slopes in each embankment, just from engineering experience, you can generally tell which slopes you should be looking at first. So that's what was done here, I'm quite confident. They looked at what they believed were the most critical slopes, 'that's what they're reporting to you on. And my anticipation is, is that the remaining slopes would not be as critical as these. MS. 2LRP: Question. Why is the center that critical? MR. HARBERT: I think it has to do with the earthquake consideration. Remember that the ground is moving 5 6 7 8 20 22 23 2 failed. 3 MAYOR EIMERS: 4 whole thing? MR. BALLARD: MAYOR EIMERS: MR. BALLARD: 255 drain system and it starts possibly transporting or -- or it's In other words, you might lose the Sure. That's the point. It will take the path of least resistance at that point. MS. ARP: This is Marilyn Atp, City Council. Okay. And as everybody said, this is preliminary. Would something like this disqualify the site, since it is preliminary? MR. H~{BERT: I don't think it would disqualify the site. This is Rick Harbert from RH2 Engineering again. I think what it says As that there would have to be a modification to the approach that was used in order to be able to ~se the site, ~nd so, again, from my experience and this is conjecture on my part, but I believe that clearly the result would -- would be that it would add expense to the project. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Thank you, Rick. Okay. I'd like to -- is Steve coming up? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. I'm going to ask you a question next. MR. ROBERTSON: Did you have something to add to 25 what was already -- 5 6 7 8 9 15 16 19 20 22 23 24 25 254 and the water is sloshing back and forth, water that's stored. I'm familiar enough with these kinds of analyses that I could certainly cite that in terms of exactly how -- whether you have a coupling of the effect of water stored on one side of the center embankment and on the other, I'm not sure, but I believe that's probably what's occurring here. I could certainly see where -- MS. ARP: Okay. Because if it failed, it would go into the next -- MR. HARBERT: Not necessary. But it -- but I don't think they've looked at exactly how it would fail. They're just saying that it would be inadequate. MR. BALLARD: Can add to that -- this is Rick Ballard with RH2. There's a liner that keeps the water from going into the soil. The liner has to be placed on a very stable platform, And in an earthquake and you get a settlement of, I don't know how high that embankment was, but say it's 30 or 40 feet or whatever it was and Dave might be able to add to this '-- to me, you take a really good chance of tearing that liner somewhere when you got this soil failure, and that that tear could be very large. MAYOR EIMERS: Well, that's where I was going to ask you to go. The next step is when that happens, what happens? MR. BALLARD: And then the water goes under the liner and begins to erode the soil on its way through the 4 5 6 7 9 15 19 20 22 23 24 256 MR. WEST: No. I thought he might ask a question. My name is Steve West. MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, are you going to talk on that or - Okay. Go ahead. MR. WEST: Well, I just wanted to make a point of clarification, but -- but go ahead with your question, Mayor, please. MAYOR EIMERS: No. You make your clarification first. MR. WEST: I wanted to clarify something because there's been a lot of - just so that there's no confusion, some of the what if scenarios, what if it's not done on this time line, that that you're being told that you'll be fined twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) a day if this isn't done, and I just want to clarify what some of the implications are of not meetin~ the deadline that we had agreed to on the consent order and the revision to the -- to the - to the permit and those kinds of things. The failure to achieve the zero discharge requirement would result in a violation of the Clean Water Act, and -- and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could fine you up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) a day for every day that you're out of compliance. Now, there's a couple of other things that probably 25 come to bear. One is the review of undeveloped lots, and 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 16 18 19 20 23 24 257 whether or not it would be appropriate, as an agency, lifting sanitary restrictions on undeveloped lots, whether or not that would go forward, and I suspect not. I mean, in the case that it's in -- not in compliance with the Clean Water Act, anything that would add to the waste water situation I would not see that being approved. Similarly MAYOR EIMERS: You're saying that you -- MS. ARP: There would be a moratorium. MAYOR EIMERS: You might give a moratorium? MR. WEST: There would be a moratorium? MS. ARP: No, he's -- MR. WEST: I'm saying that there needs to be an understanding of, in the event that we're in violation of the Clean Water Act, what are some of the things that could -- that could happen. And that's not a threat. That is a realistic acknowledgement of, okay, what - what are we dealing with here. Similarly, we would be in a difficult position to justify the approval of plan specifications of public ~ater systems that in any way contributed or added to a system that was already in violation of the Clean Water Act. MAYOR EIMERS: I'm sorry. Say that again. MR. WEST: In other words, not just the lifting of sanitary restrictions, which would be a Public Health Department function, but that would -- that r~ns -- there's 25 the potential that that could come to bear. 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 13 14 16 20 21 23 24 258 Our role in the review of public water systems a/~d drink - and sewer systems, our ability to approve those systems, while an ongoing violation of the Clean Water Act continues, would be -- would be severely hampered at best. There's also the - I think the question with respect to federal money or the $6.1 million that was made available two years ago and then last year for the final portion of that, I have no opinion or expectation that that money will be available beyond the deadlines that have been - that we've agreed to. So what we're looking at is an uncertain funding situation if we -- MAYOR EIMERS: Hold on. Sir, please. MR. WEST: What we're looking at, is an uncertain situation with respect to funding, some time critical elements with respect to remaining in compliance with the Clean Water Act and some -- same unknowns if we don't follow or -- or adhere to the schedules that we've worked out with respect to the consent order that we entered into with the City of McCall.'I think ultimately we're still going to have to get to the zero discharge. There's an opportunity now to take advantage of some funding that's available and some concessions with respect to the deadlines that were originally set up, and in acknowledgement of some of the deliberations that this Council 25 has gone through with respect to the evaluation of the various 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 16 20 22 23 25 259 sites that were considered, which I think are legitimate and valid positions to have taken, in te~s of what you look at, in terms of future flexibility for the city, the community, in ter~s of unkno~sns such as pote'ntial risks, in respect to potential stability problems at one facility versus the other, some unknowns with respect to impacts on groundwater and the costs, I think you've done a good job. I really do. I'm saying that, you've asked me about that, and that's what I really believe. I understand that there's a lot of controversy and a lot of anguish over the site that you've selected. I understand that. What we can - the best that we're going to be able to do, as an agency, is to try to work with you and come up with ways to -- to mitigate the impacts on that site. ~%nd it's not a -- I'm not trying to do any kind of saber ratt~ling, but I d~n't want you to make decisions with that element of what may happen, may MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MR. WEST: -- being anything other than what it is, at least as I see it. And those are the potentials. MAYOR EIMERS: As long as you're here -- thank you, Steve. As long as you're here, could you give us your professional opinion of the two sites, Seubert versus Bezates or do you feel competent to do that? MR. WEST: Well, what I can give you is my 8 9 10 12 20 22 23 24 25 260 assessment of the decision-making process that the city went through to arrive at their decision to go to the Bezates property, and I think that that's -- I think that that's sound. I think that you looked at a number of things and based on the information you had available at the time, figu~red that into the mix, the conversations, looking at -- at what kind flexibility would be available for this community, not only now, but 20 years from now in tetras of other alternatives, and I i think -- you know, I support your decision, and I -- and if I ~- if I had a compellinH reason to believe otherwise, I would -- I'd let you know. MS. ARP: I'i1 follow up on something. This is Marilyn Az-p, council member. In fact, some that that decision making has been preceded by comments that in discussions with DEQ, they have told us that the Bezates site far outweighs the seUb'ert site, and~I have said where is the documentations. So I'll say to you, where is the documentation, and have you said that? MR. WEST: I have not said that, but I -- I don't know that I would contradict that assessment. This is Steve West. What I -- I think that early last summer, there were concerns raised about, with respect to the stability of the structure, some unanswered questions with respect to whether or not the Idaho Department of Water Resources were going to be able to approve a facility as it was designed at the 2 6 7 8 9 12 13 16 18 2O 22 23 25 261 Seubert site. I think that the -- without -- without presuming to have read into what you were thinking, I think that's a legitimate concern. I think that you took a look at that and tried to get some insights on what that meant in terms of costs and probably came to the realization that with infinite money, infinite time, we might be able to arrive at an appropriate engineering solution to problems posed potential problems posed by the Seubert site, and you made a decision to look somewhere else where some of those problems went away. I don't question that. I think that, you know, from where I sit, that seemed like a good -- a good decision to make. There's still some -~ an awful lot of work that needs to be done in reruns of trying to mitigate the impacts of the 'site - of th~ facility at that site, but I think the overall basis for that decision was sound. MS. ARP: Let me follow with that. Did you see any documenfation that would support the questions and speculation of all this added cost? MR. WEST: I think that the issues raised that did I see the documentation, other than the letters that have been introduced into evidence, no. I have seen or been party to discussions where these things were talked about, and it was raised as an issue, as were other elements. In other 263 1 city went through to arrive at the site that you're on. 2 MS. ARP: Can I ask another -- Marilyn Atp, City 3 Council. On this document, which is the supplemental 4 environmental assessment, and it's BOR and DEQ, this document; 5 right? 6 MR. PETERSON: Okay. 7 MS. ARP: It's your document. Where did the 8 matrixes come -- in the back. I have some real q~estions 9 about some of the -- where some of the information came from? 10 In fact, today we've heard some, shall we say, rebuttal to it 11 from, actually, the citizens that were involved in that zoning 12 hearing. Yet, some of these things are put down that all the 13 people hated it there. I guess -- so where did this -- the 17 information for this matrix come from? 15 MR. PETERSON: That matrix is prepared by BOR and 16 DEQ.~ I did not w~rk on the matrix. I don't -- I don't know 17 it and I -- but I do understand that responses to comments are 18 still being drafted to this environmental document, so it is 19 not yet 'complete. 20 MAYOR EIMERS: Which -- well, I -~ 21 MS. ARp: Which one is it? 22 MAYOR EIMERS: NO. What table are you talking 23 about? 24 MS. ARp: Well, I'm talking about the tables in the 25 back which are the site appraisal matrix, the -- and the 1 words, at the end of the 20-year lease with the J-Ditch 2 pipeline, then what does the city do? In other words, are 3 there -- has there been an adequate site assessment or 4 characterization with respect to historical or possible 5 contamination issues at the site of a former asphalt batch 6 processing plant. Were the -- you know, other questions that 7 you may have looked at, were the negotiations in the purchase 8 of one property versus another such that it became difficult 9 to defend pursuing those. I mean, all of those, I thi/Lk, 10 figure into your decision on where you ended up going and I -- 11 I don't think you were wrong. I wouldIl't second guess that. 12 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Is Larry do you have 13 something, Steve? 14 MR. WEST: No. 15 MAYOR EIMERS: Is Larry here, Peterson? 16 MR. PET~RSON: Yes, I'm here. 17 MAYOR EIMERS: Could you come up and answer the -- 18 could you give us your professional opinion of the two sites. 19 MR. PETERSON: This is Larry Peterson, DEQ. And I 20 don't know what else I could add to what Steve West has 21 indicated. We certainly identified questions as they were 22 raised regarding costs and time schedule. Those -- those 23 questions were -- were posed as the city looked at them, and 24 they made their decision, so, again, I really don't think I 25 could add much more to Steve's evaluation of the process the 5 7 8 9 13 1S 17 20 22 23 24 25 let's see, one had to do with distance from F~J~ -- for the FAA. We talked about that. 264 MR. NUOioLER: The reasons, the alternative site -- MS. ARP: Feasible size. MAYOR EIDERS: Okay. Ail right. MS. ~d{P: Yeah. ~AYOR EIMERS: Okay. This is the alternative analysis. I'm with you. MS. ~RP: Yeah. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MS. ~RP: On that because, in fact ~~ MAYOR EIMERS: One thing I was going to ask, I noticed somebody said -- I think it might have been Don, maybe it was Tom Ha~rnes. I'm sorry I can't remeraber. Somebody said that the -- that the Bezates site was 9,000 feet away from the airport. How far'away is the Seubert site? MS. ARP: Less. It's 4,000 I believe, according to r_ MAYOR EIMERS: Four thousand, okay. MS. ARP: - I can tell you. MR. HD~RBERT: I can address that. MAYOR EIMERS: Huh? MR. H/~RBERT: I can address that. MAYOR EIMERS; Can you, Rick? MS. ARp: It's 4,000 -- 4 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 265 MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. MS. ARP: -- according to the ~- MR. HARBERT: Rick Harbert, RH2 Engineering. The distance in this case is approximate, because it depends on which point on the site you select, but the 9,000 foot distance that was referred to earlier is correct for the Bezates site. The Seubert site is approximately 4,000 feet from the center of the airport. We've talked with F~2% about this particular issue because there was a letter w~itten to FAA in reference to this specific point, and, clearly, there's some problematic issues associated with where the airport is located. If you view it as though the - the waste water treatment plant, where it is right now with its ponds, its lagoons, its filters, its water holding structures, they're technically in violation of FAA's requirements. But FAA understands that, and so what they do is they write up what's known as a variance. And what they're trying ~o do is minimize the exposure, recog//izing we don't live in a perfect world. If we had a perfect world, all of the concerns raised here today would be addressed to everyone's satisfaction completely. That obviously will never occur. And so FAA recognizes that as well. And their criteria goes directly to the type of aircraft that are operating in and out of the airport. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 15 2O 21 22 23 24 266 If you did not have turboprops and jets coming in and out of your airport, then that criteria would reduce to 5,000 feet. In other words, they'd allow large water holding ponds at a distance of 5,000 feet or more from the airport. So even then your existing treatment plant wouldn't conform to that criteria. But you do have jets and turboprops occasionally coming in and out of the city airport. Therefore, the requirement goes from 5,000 feet to 10,000. And so under both alternative sites that have been considered, each would be in violation of that criteria although one satisfies it to a greater degree than the other. MS. ARP: Rick, can I follow up? MR. HARBERT: Sure. MS. ARP: Marilyn Atp, council member. However, we could be required if -- if, in fact, it did create a problem at either site, to mitigate that somehow by scaring birds away, whatever, FAA could recp/ire that on either site? MR. BALLARD: Yes. AS a matter of fact, you have agreed Co do that. MAYOR EIMERS: Yes, please. MS. ARP: If necessary. Ail right. MR. HAP~BERT: That was Rick Ballard responding by saying, yes, the city has agreed to that mitigation and that's quite common, as a mitigation means, that's -- that's done in 25 a number of airports that - that I am aware of and have 20 22 23 25 267 worked on. MS. ARP: What kinds of things would that be? Would there be noise involved? What would be involved with this at either site? MR. ~LARBERT: There's a nu~er of different measures you can -~ you can take, but usually it's not noise that's audible to humans, but it is very offensive to birds. It's analogous to what happens with dogs. They hear noises that we don't, that's out of our audible range. In addition, you can do something as -- do things as simple as put owls -- I'm not talking about real owls. I'm talking about artificial owls. There's also occasionally different types of mitigation that can occur in the for~ of if there's any gunshot act - you know, any firing range activity, something of that character. SO sometimes it is noise that's audible to us, although, don'~t anticfpate ~hat in this instance. MS. ARP: Thank you. MR. HARBERT: A~d I guess one other point is that I think t~e history, if I recall correctly, of bird strikes in this area has been at an extreme minimum, and, therefore, FAA's sensitivity to this issue is -- is at a much lower level. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. I've got -- at this point, I'm down on most of the end of mine, right. I got down here Dea~ asked a question about wetlands, but I don't know -- do you 268 1 have that? And if you don't have it, I'm going to ask him if 2 he's still here. 3 MS. ARP: That was a mitigation that apparently not 4 clear that it is a one to one, which is what is showing up, 5 and that that determination has not been made by -- I lost the 6 agency -- Army Corps. 7 MR. MULLER: Wetland mitigation at 8 MS. ARP: Right. 9 MR. ~%~3LLER: -- two to one, four to one, five to 10 one. 11 MS. ARP: Right. That that determination hasn't 12 been made -- 13 5~AYOR EIMERS: Oh, here you go. 14 MS. ARP: - but the application talks about a one 15 to -- does the application? I'm a little fuzzy here. 16 Something talks a~out a one to one. 17 MR. MULLER: Yes. 18 MS. ~P: It's a facility plan that's in the 19 5t~LE SPEAKER: [unintelligible]. 20 MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, where are we with respect to 21 that, please. 22 MR. MULI~ER: Where are we in wetland mitigations 23 and 24 MAYOR EIMERS: And tell us -~ tell us if you know 25 anything -- that's all right. Go ahead, please. 269 1 MR. BALLARD: This is Rick Ballard from RH2 again. 2 I didun't specifically address this issue, but, again, I have 3 knowledge of it. 4 What took place was, again, as we've talked before, 5 we've had communications with all the agencies. As a matter 6 of fact, we had almost all of them out there on one day and -- 7 and looked at these wetlands and asked what would be required, 8 what was the criteria. A~d we discussed all the notions that, 9 you know, we were Going to remove the fence and build another 10 fence to keep the cattle off something like 30 some acres of I1 wetlands that are now intensively overgrazed. So they 12 consider that a possible benefit. And then we said, you know, 13 what's required for the disturbed area, and there was some 14iissue about it being less than three acres that that could 15 change the application from a standard permit of 404 to 16 something I tkink~they called a nationwide 26. So we made 17 every attempt, as you should anyway, to minimize the impacts 18 to the wetlands, and they're well under that three-acre 19 threshold. 20 And so based on conversations with the agencies, 21 what's been proposed is this one to one. But, again, in 22 design when they actually move forward, if they came back and 23 said we need twice that much~ that could easily be built in to 24 this same area. A/~d it's likely that in that barrow area, you 25 may actually -- because of the Grading down, actually produce 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 18 20 22 24 25 270 8/7 environment where a wetland would be established just because you've lowered the soil. MS. ARP: Can I follow up on that -- Maril~rn ~ -- because, in fact, one person brought up the point that when you do barrow, you could be, in fact, draining some of the wetlands you already have. MR. BALI,%RD: And that's another good point that people brought up, and that was a biG concern of the A~ Corps representatives. ~a/d Rob Tiedemann [phonetic], who we had do all the wetlands evaluation, he was very concerned about that as well. Also, he was concerned about the drainage system, we've talked about~ actually drying up the wetlands. So Kleinfelder made an evaluation of that situation, and that's been incorporated into the documentation, and their modeling results on that, indicated that they would not dry up those wetlands adjacent to the berm enlbankments as Rob was concerned about. And in the graded areas, we're not digging down below the wetlands. They get most concerned if you -- if you excavate below the wetlands, then you can see that it tries to drain away from there so they -- MS. ARp: DO we have a report on that? MR. BA-LI~RD: Yeah. That was included in the bid documents -- MS. ARp: Okay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 15 16 17 22 24 25 271 MR. BALLARD: - all of this -- the -- the wetlands mitigation plan, I believe, is in there. And that's how the bidders established -- and Gene, actually [unintelligible]. MR. PETERSON: That's okay, Rick. Gene Peterson, R/q2 engineer. Just a little bit to expand on what Rick said, there was some question raised about the fact that we don't have a 404 permit yet and it is a federal action and this is exactly the way we ex]pected it to Go, because the Corps has to comply with NEPA and they cannot act on this and we know they're not going to act on our application and our proposed mitigation until after the NEPA process has been completed with the DEQ and BOR. So -- MS. ARP: But will be -- MR. PETERSON: - that's not -- that's not area 272 1 MS. BUXTON: SUS~ Buxton, city attorney. Let me 2 make sure I understand your question, Ms. Arp. You're asking 3 whether or not the Corps of Engineers is participating in the 4 - in the Bureau of Reclamation EA; is that correct? 5 MS. ARP: Yes. 6 MS. BUXTON: It is -- that's -- that is not my 7 understanding. My understanding is that the Corps of 8 Engineers is awaiting a -- whatever result comes out of the F2% 9 process, and if it's a favorable result, then they would 10 process the permit under the Corps of Engineers pez~itting -- 11 permitting processes, which do not entail the Corps doing a 12 separate NEPA analysis. 13 MS. D~RP: Okay. And that's when you would get 14 whatever the standard is -- is to be? 15 MS. BUXTON: That's my understanding. I have not 16 done that many wetlands cases to know that specific question. 17 MR. ROBERTSON: Mrs. ;krp, this is Bill Robertson. I 18 have discussed - had some discussions on this subject with 19 the Bureau of Reclamation, and they asked have we been hearing 20 from the U.S. Al-my Corps of Engineers. I said, no. They 21 said, well, we've had some conversation -- our conversation, 22 theirs -- 23 MS. ARP: Mm-hmm. 24 NLq. ROBERTSON: -- as well as the fact we're not 25 having any is a good sign as far as they're concerned because 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 12 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 16 2O 22 23 24 25 273 if there were a problem, we would have been hearing a lot of information. So I've been reading it as a positive. But it's still pending as Susan said, the NEPA. MS. ARP: In fact, ~hat was one -- Marilyn Atp, City Council one of the questions was the date for the decision. Do we have -- what's our best guess because my understanding is we're, to a certain degree, at the mercy of the agencies. MS. BUXTON: Susan Buxton, city attorney. I have been in contact with the agency attorneys and asking them when they were going to have this done. AS you know, the city has no power over the federal or state agencies to complete these documents. I do know, as Mr. West has already stated, or Mr. Peterson, one of the two, stated that DEQ is still working on their responses to the comments. The community did provide numerous comments, and many of them were very, very good, and it does take time for the federal agencies and the state agencies to -- to respond to those comments, and that is a requirement of NEPA to respond to those comments. ' And my understanding is that -- that we will hopefully see a final document, a final decision, and I do not have any clue what that decision will be. And, hopefully, we'll see it in the next week or so. I don't know if Mr. West or Peterson has anymore information than I do. I believe that that's current. MS. ARp: Because we have had different target 275 unfortunate, but I -- but ~ do know the process we we~t through, and I know how we came up with our -- our numbers for that, so I can go through that with you. MR. MULLER: Fine. MR. BALLARD: And I don't understand their confusion completely, but I'll explain to you how this works for me. Is there something I can draw on somewhere? DO we have a big black pen? MS. ARP: Nobody has a -- on a -- MR. BALLARD: Maybe I can just use -- ~'11 just do MS. ARP: -- newsprint or something? MR. BALLARD: ~~ do with what I'm doing, but -- MR. MULLER: Yellow pen and paper. MR. BALLARD: A~yway, on this -- within this footprint of where you would build these ponds -- MR. MULLER: Right. MR. BALLARD: -- there's a lot of soil. MR. MULLER: And that's assuming these are 363 million gallons for both ponds; am I correct, on what you have drawn there? MR. BALLARD: Well, in total. MS. ARP: Yes. Those are total. MR. BALLARD: In total -- MR. MULLER: and 1807 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 19 20 22 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 22 23 24 25 274 dates. MS. BUXTON: That is correct. The target dates were -- the first target date was April 1. The last target date that I had that was -- appeared to be relatively sound was yesterday, April 30th, and my ~nderstanding is that they're still working on that. MS. ARP: Okay. Thank you. MR. MDLLER: This is Alan Muller, City Council. Rick and Rick from RH2, it was brought up that the use of materials for construction of dikes on a three-to-one slope were going to have to be excavated from the -- from the 40 acres to the west that the -- the facility would not be constructed on, and from that, we would have to take considerable materials from the north from that 40 acres and the south of that 40 acres. Can you elaborate on that in ter~s of how you're going to construct the dikes on the MR. BALLARD: Yeah. That MR. MULLER: - 206 million gallon pond? MR. BALLARD: That was the question Mr. Milleman brought up about the -- MR. MULLER: Yes, it was. MR. BALLARD: -- the Toothman Orton -- MR. MULLER: Yes, it was. MR. BALL~IRD: -- situation. Okay. I have not been provided with that information prior to today, which is 276 MR. BALLARD: Yeah. 180 ~ one MR. MULLER: 180, 180. MR. BALL~JtD: I don't think yellow will work. But, anyway, so t]rpically what you do and back to cost savings is minimize your effort on a site to build an impoundment, so - so you go in and what you do, what's called a balance, and you take a site and you dig down no more than you have to to take the soil out of here to build the embankment out of. So that was done and a balance was reached but turned -- turned out that in order to get the gravity drain system to work, it actually needed to be a little higher. So it was raised a couple feet or something in the original thing in the bottom, there's a lot of material in a couple of feet. MR. MULLER: Right. I understand. MR. B~J~RRD: And so that was in order to get this drain system to work properly by gravity from this -- this top cell, actually, was the one that was raised two feet, I think. I think we left this one the same, to my recollection. So what happens here is like has been pointed Out, that on the higher grouDd, the embankments are real low, and on the lower grounds, they're higher. $o I need less fill at the low part and more fill at the high part, so this balance was made, but then we moved a little bit, so it required us to need a little bit more material. So we got that material down in this area right here. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 20 22 23 24 25 5 6 7 8 9 I0 20 22 23 24 25 277 MR. MULLER: Is that a wetlands area that you're referring to there? MS~ ARp: NO. MR. ROBERTSON: Clarify what you're referring to by here. MR. BALLARD: Oh, I'm referring to that mound out there nearby the grave MR. MULLER: Oh, I got you. Yeah, yeah. MR. BALLARD: But we don't disturb the grave in that it's a 250 foot radius around the grave, so. MR. MULLER: Right. MR. BALLARD: But -- so we kind of came in here and graded this so that, you know, it would look kind of normal, and it's got four to one slopes, and it'd get all replanted and that also includes part of the wetlands MALE spEAKER: -- a reconstruction area -- MR. BALLARD: - but you could put the wetlands - new wetlands anywhere adjacent to other wetlands and make it work. MR. MULLER: Alan Muller, City Council. How much material do you think will be used from the north section of that west 40? MR. BAIJ~ARD: It's like I said, I haven't been able to make that valuation, but the majority of the cut is in the upper end because it's higher. 279 divided into 180 MR. BALLARD: Right. MR. MULLER: -- where would a 200 -- go up there? MR. B~_LLAP~3: It's about a hundred and thirty feet from the embankment that you see here. MR. MULLER: The e~bankment on the top or at the bottom? MR. B~LLL~d~D: From the center of this embankment -- MR. MULLER: Right. MR. BALLARD: -- it's about a hundred and 30 feet south. MAYOR EIMERS: Further? MR. BALLARD: Yes. MS. ARP: If you would do one at 206; is that what we're talking about? ~LR. B~LLARD: Yes. And that's in the bid documents. There's a figure that shows that. MR. MULLER: And then it would be established, hopefully, if you go to the -- Alan Muller, City Council -- it would be established, hopefully -- it better be established then if you -- if we go to a second cell, that the size of that is going to be influenced by I & I? MAYOR EIMERS: And also the calculations you all are running now? MR. HARBERT: Yes. Rick Harbert, RH2 Engineering. 5 6 7 8 13 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 278 MR. MULLER: Right. MR. BALLARD: Amd it kind of has some small ridges in it, and so obviously - and then if the embankments aren't as high down here -- or on -- up here on the north end as they are on the lower end, so when this was a balance, some of the material from the upper pond would be used in the lower pond embankments. b~R. MULLER: But see there number -- see Number B? MS. ARp: Yeah~ MR. MUI~LER: Just to the just to the west of that material? MR. BALLARD: Right here. MR. MULLER: -- you're going to use much of that MR. BALLARD: We don't anticipate to use any of that material in the northwest MR. MULLER: That's what I was referring to. MR. BALL~RD: -- corner of the property. MR. MULLER: That's what I had referred to. MAYOR EIMERS: So that's the part next to White Tail? MR. BALI,%RiD: That's correct. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. MULLER: Can I just ask you -- Alan Muller, City Council -- if this were 206 million gallons rather than these 280 1 The answer is directly, yes. There are other factors that 2 enter into it as well. And as an example, the city and the 3 Payette Lake Water and Sewer District both have their waste 4 water treated in the city's sewage treatment plant, and that 5 total effluent would be storedin these ponds. Again, not the 6 raw waste water, the plant effluent. So after it's been 7 treated, that's where it would be stored. So instead of going 8 directly into the river as it has been for a long time, it 9 would be stored in the ponds. 10 ~%d the district has put on the table that as part 11 of the negotiation of the capacity that we need, the position 12 that they may need less capacity, that their growth as it was 13 -- as it was previously projected as considerably less that 14 what they believe they need now -- pardon me. I stated that 15 incorrectly - that the previous projection was considerably 16 more than what they believe they need now. So that would 17 further reduce the capacity needed and where we need to 18 finalize that number with the district, so that's yet another 19 factor fn addition to the I & I. 20 And so I'm answering your question regarding I & I 21 directly, and then I've added another component that must be 22 considered. So we're trying to make sure that we respond to 23 their needs as well. 24 MR. MULLER: What's -- Alan Muller, City Council. 25 What's our time line, do you think, on that? 281 $ MR. HARBERT: Well - 2 MAYOR EIMERS: On the volumes? I'm Kirk Eimers 3 sorry -- City Council. Time line, Alan? 4 MR. MULLER: Yes. MAYOR EIMERS: On the volumes? MR. H;~BERT: The overriding time line factor that we've been trying to meet is clearly what's contained in the consent order and the cooperative agreements. We do not want to lose the grant funding, and we want to make sure that we're in compliance with federal and state discharge requirements, 11 and so that has taken highest priority in terms of time line. 12 And so the continuance of the negotiation with the district 13 has had to be put on a back burner until we are in compliance 14 with their time requirements. 15 MAYOR EIMERS: Kirk Eimers, Council. When -- and I 16 g~es's Larry Peterson is involved in this too. When do we 20 21 23 24 25 e~pect to come set [sic] on the initial and long-term volumes? ~LR. HARBERT: I would think that we'd have our calculations finished within probably another week or two. The -- and we didn't originally plan to do that. We had accepted the numbers that were prepared previously and then realized that it was the right point in time to go back and recalculate those and so that's exactly what we've done. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Well MR. ,qARBERT: SO to answer your question directly, I 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 22 23 24 25 282 believe a week to two weeks on the computations. In addition, though, we'll have to submit that for review and approval to DEQ and BOR, possibly others, simply because it's based on the latest data and we are obligated to submit it to them for review. But we're trying to minimize the -- the cost of the project, and at the same time, if that means minim/zing the size of the ponds, sobeit. Coupled with that, we're trying to do what's cost effective from an I & I standpoint, and I know that the Council's well aware of this, but those in the community may not be, and that is that just as you know that there's a highest groundwater table during the spring and -- and a little bit after that each year, there's also highest I & I inflow and infiltration conditions at that time, and so we have to wait until that point in time to measure that and its effect on flow into the sewer, and I know that the other staff people in the city are pursuing that as rapidly as they can. So that -- those are numbers that we have to factor into it as well. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. And so you have a week or two, and, then, how long does it take to review, so I can -- MR. ROBERTSON: DO you want to respond to that? (Tape malfunction) MAYOR EIMERS: Larry? MR. ROBERTSON: Larry or Steve? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 20 22 23 24 25 283 MAYOR EIMERS: Larry? MR. PETERSON: Yeah.' Larry Peterson with DEQ. Depending on how much volume we get to review, I wouldn't expect it to take longer than a week to review and give comments back to your engineer, comments or approval of the numbers. MAYOR EIMERE: Okay. So - and if I'm hearing you correctly, in the two- to three-week time frame, we should have a view of the applicability, and, absolutely, the i is dotted and t's are crossed, if it isn't already on the 206, plus the ultimate number we're looking for? MR. PETERSON: Sounds right, yes. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Thank you. MR. HARBERT: Rick Harbert from R~2 Engineering. Again, there are two other key parts to that, though, that I don't think can be solved in a two- to three-week time frame. That is the I & I - MAYOR EIMERS: Correct. MR. HARBERT: -- impact and also the true district capacity desired. 5L~. MI/LLER: And what was the last one? MR. HARBERT: The district capacity in the overall plant, that's been an issue for a number of months, and - MAYOR EIMERS: Right. MI{. HAR~ERT: -- I think it's giving them a good 5 6 7 8 9 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 284 deal of time to think about it because whatever they commit to at this point has a cost responsibility, but in exchange for that, they, of course, get a capacity. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Kirk Eimers, Council. I -- so, essentially, what you're s~ying is the ultimate volume -- or that you talk about in two to three weeks would only take into account, essentially, the growth factors. It wouldn't talk to the -- to the I & I and - I mean, essentially, it would be growth factors; is that true and maybe some other stuff like evaporation or whatnot? MR. HARBERT: I think to be as responsive to the Council and the community as we can, we can put in some additional assumptions regarding what we would expect to see in the way of economical I & I reductions as well as what the district is currently telling us. So we can put that into the numbers that we would report within two to three weeks and tell you that, obviously, subject to actually being able to prove that, in terms of an actual I & I reduction, and, in addition, the district committing via contract, via an update of the existing agreement to a specific capacity. MAYOR EI~RS: Okay. Kirk Eimers, again. You're saying you could build in assumptions, but those would have to be verified? MR. HARBERT: Right. We try and keep you abreast of exactly what those results are. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 16 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR EIMERS: MR. HARBERT: available. MAYOR EIMERS: answered mine. 285 Right. SO that you have the best inforraation Okay. Thank you. I think I've MS. ARP: I think I've done mine. MAYOR EIMERS: Have you answered yours? Alan, have you answered yours? MR. H~i~BERT: While you're looking through the remainder of your notes, if you'd like, I'd be glad to respond to a few other points that citizens who had made comments earlier. ~LAYOR EIMERS: Do you want to -- you want to go right on now, then, to the -- are you proposing to go on for the -- the staff rebuttal? MS. BUXTON: That's correct [unintelligible]. MAYOR EIMERS: Are you ready? I was just waiting for you to answer you questions. Are you ready? Okay. MR. MILLEMAN: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR EIMERS: Steve? MR. MILLENL~N: Steve Milleman. Are you allowing questions from the public of any of the agencies? MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor, that was not the intent of what the City Council decided at your last meeting. It was the intent to have them there available for the Council to ask ? 9 10 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 286 questions. But it's up to you, again. The agencies came here understanding it was that that was the questions of the Council, so it may not be something that they would agree to do. MAYOR tIMERS: What's your sense? MS. ARp: Well, I guess I find it difficult not to allow that to a certain degree because I don't know how effective I have been in trying to get all the questions asked. MAYOR EIMERS: Mow many do you ~~ Steve, would you be the questioner? MR. MILLEMAN: Oh, I have no idea. I have a couple. I have no idea whether anybody else has questions or not. MS. B~XTON: Mr. Mayor and Council - MAYOR EIMERS: Susan. MS. BDX+ON: -- I'd like to caution the Council that this is -- again, it's a public hearing, and it is not a time for cross-examination. It is an information gathering session.' If you would like to have limited questions from the audience and if the agency representatives would agree to that, keep that in mind. MAYOR EIMERS: What's your sense, Alan? MR. MULLER: Well, in reference to the fact that this is a public hearing and it's for input and not cross- examination, I would think that's a reasonable rec,]est. 6 7 8 9 l0 12 13 15 16 20 22 24 25 287 MS. BUXTON: What we could possibly do, Mr. Mayor, to ensure an orderly meeting, if we could take a five-minute break and have people from the audience who have some questions, write them down and give them to the chair, and the chair can ask the questions. MAYOR EIMERS: Is that okay with you, Steve? MR. MILLEMAN: I object to the whole process, but I'll take any opportunity I can get. Thank you. This is -- Steve Milleman. This is precisely why I think the agency people should have been questioned before the public co~uuents so that the people who have sat here all today would have had an opportunity in their testimony to address some of these points. That hasn,t happened. I certainly appreciate any opportunity I have to sabmit anything. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MALE SPF~%KER: We did ask for that at the beginning of this hearing. MS. BUXTON: Council's pleasure. MAYOR EIMERS: And what's your pleasure? MS. A/{P: I guess I -- I think we should take a recess and ask further questions in writing and then we're going to have to figure out what we're going to do with timing. Obviously, we are running into a timing crunch so. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Ail right. Five minute recess. 5 6 7 8 9 17 I8 20 22 23 24 25 288 (Recessed at 6:06 p.m., until 6:16 p.m.) MS. ~P: Okay. Are we here? Guess what, Dave? MAYOR EIMERS: Ladies and gentlemen, can we start, please. Okay. MS. ARP: These are questions to Department of Water Resources. MS. Dd{p: From the audience. Prom the audience. I'm sorry. These are from the audience, and there's two I'm going to read because they're both the same issue. What is your assessment of risk for the Bezates site knowing that berm heights are up to 37 feet, and they're asking about high significant or low. And the other just said, please explain the risk level, i.e., low, medium, high risk at both sites, given that homes are 350 feet from the Bezates site and no homes below Seubert site. So can you work both those in? MR. HOL~INGSHEAD: I can. Dave Hollingshead, Department of Water Resources. Our rule categorizes dams by size, large, intermediate and small. A~sociated with that is the quantity in storage impounded, the height of the embankment. We also categorize hazards. That is things that could be impacted below that project. It has nothing to do with the stability of the embankment. That's what we're all about. When we review and have requirements ~or e~bankment style dams, it's expected when that package is put together, it has to conform to stability requirements under its load, 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 20 22 23 24 25 289 considering its storage capacity and its height. What's impacted downstream gets to be subjective, and our attempt to classify dams by high, significant or low, we ask what might be impacted by that project being located there. If it's populated, there's habitat dwellings below the project, that immediately identifies it as high. If it could be impacted by a flood wave that would be released by that impoundment if the dam failed. Significant is an arbitrary distinction between high ~and low that lies in between, and in that instance a full depth and velocity is estimated to distinguish what could be identified as significant. Typically, a low-hazard dam would be one in a desert setting or where there is no - virtually no development below it, no roadway, no service facilities, nothing of a whole lot of c~nsequences, ~here the impoundment, if it were to be released, would flush downstream below that project and the flood wave wouldn't be attenuated until it reached something. If it's 'not going to impact anything by that impoundment capacity, as a result of a sudden release and it's presumed that it has an associated hazard classification, the area that's impacted. Is that a better explanation? MS. A~RP: I'm going to ask you one more that another - that another person asked. 55AYOR EIMERS: Well, I think what they were asking 2 3 4 7 8 9 15 19 2O 22 23 24 25 29O was, have you categorized them? MS. ARP: With the residents -- this is a gnestion, direct -- with the residents near Bezates, would not this be defined as a high risk? MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: It would. AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Thank you. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. So can you categorize -- Kirk Eimers. Could you categorize -- is it on height and storage capacity, those are the two that you -- risk? MS. ARP: Might be affected downstream. MR. ROLLINGSHEAD: Categorize by size, yes. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. A~d what would you - MS. ~RP: Go ahead. MAYOR EIMERS: What are the - what are the -- then what are the classifications? Didn't you ask him the two sit~s? MR. MARTENS: NO. Just one. What -- FEMALE SPEA/(ER: Just one. MR. MARTENS: Now about the Seubert site? MS~ ARp: Right. MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: You'd have to identify what would be impacted. I don't know. MR. MARTENS: So you're not aware of -- MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: No. MR. MARTENS: -- what's down [unintelligible]? 8 9 10 16 2O 22 23 24 25 audience? 291 MS. ARp: Is it Dean Martens that's talking from the MR. MARTENS: I'm sorry. MS. A~RP: For the record. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Thank you. MS. ARP: I have another one. Don't go away. There's another one directed to you. In regards to the criteria for dam structure, it was indicated that they based information from data from the Cascade Dam which was built in 1948. In 1991, the Uniform Building Code expanded the earthquake analysis data that was necessary. Why are they using data from 1948 when it's quite evident that the data needed to be reviewed and upgraded to a higher standard? MR. ~OLLINGSHEAD: Again, specifically, to respond to that comment, the seismotechtontic [phonetic] study, don'~ recall the ~ates that was completed. That could very well have followed after the construction of the Cascade Dam. More recently, let's say that science has moved - or there's been progress in seismic evaluations where capabl~ faults are identified and what magnitude earthquake might occur as a result and the things that might be impacted and obvious adjustments in the Uniform Building Code have occurred. There were some areas initially that are delineated in the Uniform Building Code that have had pretty severe adjustments in more recent times. 7 8 9 10 12 2O 22 23 24 25 292 MS. ARp: A/~d so I think that they're asking was this all taken into account, the updating? MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: Yes. For the site that's been discussed today, the capable fault has been identified and the maximum credible -- what's identified as a maximum credible earthquake, which we refer to in our rules or regulations, they have evaluated its effect, its travel and its magnitude and frequency that - as it might affect this impoundment that's proposed. MS. ~P: Okay. I think that's all I have -- but I won't promise - directed to you. I think now I have stuff for the engineers for -- and I start, has a written cost effectiveness analysis of placing the ponds in the ground and m~chanically de-watering been prepared? If so, where is it, when was it prepared? MR. BAL~%RD: I'm going to kind of regress a little bit on this and go back to the - MAYOR EIMERS: This is Rick Ballard. MR. BAJ~LARD: Oh, this is Rick Ballard with RH2. Go back to something Steve was talking about - Steve West was talking about a while ago about trying to -- a balancing act between no mitigation and a lot of mitigation. And around the site, you know, we have the White Tail to the north, and they came to the city with this plan that - this proposal that's been talked about, and there were four - four concepts in the 293 1 as was stated before, in the plans they submitted, they had 2 three concepts. They gave their own cost estimates for those 3 concepts, and Z believe the majority of them were berms that 4 were constructed along the north side Of the Bezates property. 5 So I'll just kind of read off to you what those cost estimates were. And so you have some idea how this fits into -- to what's going on is the cost estimate for building a storage impoundment is in the range of 3- to $4 million, and that included the mitigation that we had anticipated in that estimate. So you have a 3- to $4 million project. The 11 concept one of the mitigation -- and my recollection is that 12 one of these went all the way across the boundary. One went 13 partway and then down, and another one was an irregular shaped 15 2O 21 22 23 24 25 cell, and it might have had some berms or something. Concept one was eight hundred and eighty-three thousand dollars i$883,000) basically. Concept two was five hundred and six thousand dollars ($506,000), and concept three was six hundred and eighty-se~en thousand dollars ($687,000), and I j6st read the first three digits. And this is entered into the record. This is the 48 items that I thir~k M Resorts submitted as -- as evidence for this. And that's what I'm reading that out of. Are these nu~lbered? It says 24. MS. ARp: So let me -- so you're responding to a written cost effectiveness analysis of placing the ponds in the ground and mechanically de-watering? 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 16 18 19 20 22 23 24 294 MR. BALLARD: Well, I'm not through yet. That's the ~irst three alternatives. MS. ARP: Oh, okay. MR. B~I-J~ARD: Okay. So the least costly one of the three is -- is a half a million dollars on a 3- to $4 million project. And that w_ that just takes care of the neighbor to the north. So -- and I don't know if that was -- I don't know how long that was, let's just say a half a million dollars would take care of all the neighbor to the north, so based on this length, it would be fair to maybe the neighbor to the south would want the same work, maybe the neighbors to the east would want the same work. So if we put that on four sides, we have $2 million of mitigation potential. And included with this was these items were landscape type materials that included aspens on embankments that would require, you know, full-time constant irrigation systems to keep the roots wet constantly. Aspens need a very wet environment to grow in. A/1 embankment would be a difficult site to keep that growing. So on top of that, you'd have all the 0 and M costs from now until the future to maintain this facility. So that seems pretty costly when you look at the cost of the facility. The fourth item was to lower the lagoon cells and very quickly we took a look and in our discussion, these 25 meetings have been discussed before, we discussed two 5 7 8 9 14 22 23 295 alternatives of the concept. One was to lower the cells such that no embankment would be any higher than 17 feet, and the other was to lower the cell such that no embankment would be any higher than six feet. Now, in both of thes~ options in doing that, lowering the cells would make you see down into the impoundment more, in more area of the M Resort site than you do now, because as you lower it, you'll be able to see into it more and more which is one of the largest complaints that they had about the project, but they indicated that if you lowered it, a lot of our problems would go away. So that didn't make some sense to me. But, anyway, on alternative one, to lower it so you had a maximum height that was no -- no more than 17 feet would require a cut of about 1.2, 1.3 million cuJsic yards of material, and thai material would have to be hauled off the site because it wouldn't look good to pile it out there. That's what we're trying to get rid of is embankment, so that's ~ very high cost potential, depending on how far away you have to take it to. AS we're proposing now and what the bids are based on is excavating material immediately available to the embankment that you're placing it on so you don't haul it - you don't load it in a truck and take it out on the highway somewhere. So cost for this type of excavation and haul could 5 6 7 8 9 2O 22 23 24 25 296 be as high as 3, $4 a yard, clear on up to 10, $12 a yard, depending on where you haul it to. MAYOR EIMERS: For 1.2 -- Kirk Eimers. For 1.2 million -- MR. BALLARD: For 1.2 million cubic yards. So on the low end, you're looking at $4 million just for the excavation. Now, for the no embankment any higher than six feet, it's about 2 million cubic yards. Amd in both of these alternatives, it's necessar~ for you to have a de-watering system, which the system that's proposed now works on a gravity system, and gravity is fairly reliable in comparison, because it doesn't depend on power and machines and valves and people and alarms, and the more complicated the pump station is, the more expensive it gets. And this de-watering system would have to be very reliable because if it fails, the groundwater will recover rapidly because you have a depressed cone that you've drawn dow~ around that facility anywhere from this 17 more feet or however ~ar down -- I think it was close to 30 feet. It's 30 feet you're taking it down on one alternative. So you got a 30-foot depression plus what it's down already, that if a pump goes off for like an hour, this is going to start recovering, and when it does, what you have under the liner is a sandy material, and when it comes in the layers, it will tend to erode that material, and if it can 297 move it dow~ underneath the liner further, it will make a hole there, and eventually the liner will move into the hole, and it's a possibility of having a failure. So it's a -- it's a risky thing to do, and that's why it's not a desirable thing to do. MS. ARP: Okay. The next question was -- MR. MILLEMAN: NO. Excuse me. Steve Milleman. The question was, was there a written cost effective analysis, and I would ask, in a cost effective analysis, do you not also analyze the cost savings from the proposal as well as 11 additional costs? 12 MS. ARP: Yep, that was the question. 13 MR. BALI~RD: In answer to that, the specific area 14 that we planned to have this dealt with was in the FONSI 15 because that's where it was kind of entered into was -- or not 16 the FONSI, the ~. It was entered into in the NEPA process, 17 so these plans, these cost estimates have been delivered to 18 DEQ and BOR, and discussions have been made there, and it's my 19 understanding that that will be -- that written response will 20 be in that document. 21 MS. ARP: Okay. Next c$/estion: What assurance does 22 the Council have that the design of the project will not 23 deviate from the design presented in the CUP application? 24 MR. ~AP~ERT: Rick Harbert, R~2 Engineering. I want 25 to emphasize yet again that the -- the contract documents and 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 19 20 22 23 24 298 the drawings that were put into those contract documents are not designed drawings. They're illustrations prepared for the purpose of bidding the combination of the design and constr~ction. Given that type of process, they're - and the clear desire by the community represented here today who's demanding additional mitigation -- and we hear you loud and clear -- it's only natural and reasonable that you'd want to see some deviation from the illustrations that we've shown. And our discussions with bidders indicate that bidders are willing to do that. They certainly want to be responsive to the community so long as their costs don't go up significantly. They're equally interested in seeing the project be a success, not only for the co--unity, but also for - for themselves. I know that some of you here are contractors, and the last thing you want to do is do something that's adverse to the community when you can accormnodate them. So there is that flexibility built into it, by intention. MS. ARP: When will the contractors design be available? MR. HARBERT: It depends on if the project moves forward and permits are obtained and so forth. So no one here can provide a specific response to that given that there are a number of other conditions that have to be satisfied, but certainly, time is of the essence. There is no question about 25 it that we're going to miss this construction season and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 15 16 20 22 23 24 25 299 subject rate payers, both inside the city and outside the city, to some enormous risk in terms of additional costs if this project does not move ahead. MAYOR EIMERS: Well, if you make -- Kirk Eimers. To follow along on that, Rick, if you make some assumptions, just take -- take the best assumption that Bill or staff could provide at the moment and then answer the gnestion. MR. ROBERTSON: Could I answer that, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR EIMERS: Sure. That's what I'm -- MR. ROBERTSON: This is Bill Robertson. According to the time line that's been put forth in the bid by Earth Tech, who is the likely receiver of the award, it's 10 days after we sign the contract. Their e~pectation is when we award the.contract, there'll be a period of time for negotiation. They were anticipating five days. We'll have to see reality. Once we get to that, there's a pre-construction kickoff, and 10 days later they plan to get back with a preliminary design. During that 10 days, they're expecting to include the public to some degree. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. So, just put that together. MR. ROBERTSON: If we award the bid and we get NEPA approval, right now the latest we were hoping for, prior to yesterday, was that we would have NEPA approval on May the 14th. Then, by w well, between now and then, if can award the bid, we can have the negotiation of the contract out of 19 20 22 23 24 25 approximately, cubic yards of fill. 300 the way. So that that would mean on the following Monday, which is the 17th, two weeks after that they would be in here a preliminary design. So the 31st of May. That's probably Memorial Day. SO, it would probably be the 1st of June. But, anyway, itJs that type of time frame. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you. That's what we're looking for. MS. ARP: How many -- excuse me. HOW many cubic yards does P/q2 calculate will be excavated from the west 80 acres? MR. HARBERT: Rick, do you want to respond to that? MS. ARP: Do you want me to read it again? MR. HARBERT: HOW many -~ how many -- MR. BALLARD: Yeah. ~ MS. /LRp: How many cubic yards does P~q2 calculate will be excavated from the west 80 acres? MR. BALLARD: The west 80 acres. Okay, I'll just review my numbers here. Our rough calculation, preliminary look at this, again, as I said we tried to balance it and then we had to raise this cell a little bit, and that material is coming from the earth. What we anticipated is that we needed 461,000 w we had 461,000 yards of cut in here after grubbing, after you skin off the organic material, and that would be placed on w_ to make the fill, and then we needed 605,000, So what we ended up 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 13 15 2O 22 23 24 25 - oh, no. 301 needing was around 150,000 cubic yards out this area. As it's shown, I think it's around 160 some, as it's shown on this drawing. And there's - you've got to keep in mind with earth work Geologists and these people like Kleinfelder that made the report, they can estimate shrink and swell factors for soils based kind of their knowledge of a lot of soils, but you never know without a doubt what that factor will be. Their opinion of this was that it would be fairly equal between the cut being almost the same volume when it's compacted in the -- in the fill, so they ended up equal in this case, but it's not uncommon to see shrink and swell factors of 10 and 20 percent. So, that's where the unlikely numbers kind of come into play, so you don't want to just use exact figures on this one but -- it can be plus or minus. MR. H~3~BERT: Why don't you qualify the -- that it's not 80 acres, that we're referring to the area in yellow. MR. BALLAR]D: Yeah. This is, I think, the 80 acre parcel that they're talking about. The excavated area is just this light green area way down in the lower corner here. We did not anticipate taking material out of here unless there was some kind of a problem found with material in here, which we don't anticipate. MS. ARP: Okay. Well, let's see, somebody may be up Here's one -- may be up for grabs. If you are 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 22 23 24 25 302 going -- and this is from someone who lives in the Blue Jay Subdivision. If you are going to monitor the water level under the liners and keep it at least two feet from the liner, how will that affect my well during the different seasons, i.e., dry and wet? MR. BALLARD: I'm sorry. MS. ARP: I'll read it again. MR. BALLARD: Rick Ballard again. MS. ARP: Do you want me to read it? MR. BALLARD: Yeah, please. I'm sorry. MS. ~d{P: If you are going to monitor the water level under the liners and keep it at least two feet from the liner, how will that affect my well during the different seasons, i.e., dry and wet seasons? MR. BALLARD: Okay. Again, I'm not a hydrogeologist. ~leinfelder dealt with this in another meeting. But their assessment was that this drain system that goes around, it - water kind of comes back to the drain in a - in a ~ind of an ark. They call it cone of depression. The cone of depression from inside the liner kind of goes down in a real shallow angle into the drain system, and then it goes up out to the outside of the embankments, so they've evaluated that based on this transmisivity we were talking about before and their assessment of the groundwater and tke soil characteristics under the site, that there would be no impact 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 16 18 2O 22 23 24 25 303 to those wells and that was addressed. MS. ARP: Okay. Well, we've got kind of an assorted mix here. Well, I don't know who to do -- let me do a quick ior Dave Hollingshead, and it's a question from someone. "Did I hear you say that former city manager Brian 01son had overstated the risk factor of the Seubert site?" MR. HOLLINGSHE/%D: Dave Hollingshead, Department of Water Resources. I think if I haven't satisfied that question, I'm not sure that I understand it. MS. ARP: "Did I hear you say that former city manager Brian Olson had overstated the risk factor of the Seubert site?,, ~ think it's Getting at where he was quoting it was a high risk dam. MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: I don't know the origin of that and how that label got placed on what was conceptually developed at that~loca¢ion. MS. ARP: Is that an overstatement, I think is the-- MR. HOLLINGSHEAD: I'm not sure -- I don't have anythin~ but an opinion. I think it is. I don't have any basis, facts -- factual basis. MS. D~RP: Well, let's see. Another from this - this same questioner. "Has anyone contacted Kirby rickets of JJ3B regarding 206 million gallon figure? And then in patens, Kirby states that 206 million figure comes from the Mackie site where effluent could be applied more intensively for a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 20 22 23 24 25 longer period. Both SUB and Payette Lakes Water and Sewer state 250 million are needed to get out of the river., going to -- MALE SPEAKER: Rick Harbert. MS. ARP: Herbert and perhaps DEQ? MAYOR EIMERS: MALE SPEAKER: MALE S PE~JLER: MALE SPEAKER: MR. HARBERT: Yeah, and Steve -- [unintelligible]~ Pardon me? That's what he recalculated. Rick Harbert, RH2 Engineering. 304 personally have not contacted Kirby Vickers of JUB primarily because we are in litigation with the firm of JUB. They filed a complaint at the Board of Professional Engineers against R~2 Engineering, and we have filed a counter complaint against JIJB Engineers. Having said that, the information that we have relfed upon from JI3B is contained in both the facility plan with its amendments and the update that we have developed of a facility plan, and we had previously and still do rely upon their n~mbers that they've generated. And I'm aware of the -- of the statement made by Mr. Vickers. We, however, have been in the process of recalculating the capacity required, based on current information, and I want to emphasize for all those here that that is the specific reason why we're doing it, is because we want to determine, based on current information, because the. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 16 17 19 20 22 23 24 305 information that JUB had developed their capacities on is now significantly out of date, and so we have developed, and we're not q~ite coraplete yet, the current capacity requirement. And, again, it's subject to the qualifications that I mentioned previously regarding a considerable anticipated reduction in I & I, and we've not factored that into, yet, the numbers that we stated earlier today. In addition, there's also the -- and I find this extremely ironic. It's a complete contradiction. That is, on the one hand, if I understood the question correctly, there was the element of the question that said that the district's opinion is that the capacity required is greater than 206, that it, in fact, is 250 million gallons? MS. ARP: It says both JUB and Payette Lakes Water and Sewer District state 250 million are needed to get out of the river. MR. HARBERT: I think that that's, of course, directly in opposition to the district's also previously stated position that they believe that they need less capacity than on~qthird of the plant. So one is -- one position by the district is in favor of more capacity. The other one is in favor of less capacity and I don't know which one is their -- or will be their final determination, but that will need to be determined and from our standpoint, we're willing, certainly, to accommodate what capacity they need. They -- they simply 25 need to state it definitively. MAYOR EIb{ERS: Okay. plan is JUB's? MR. FL~RBERT: Yes. 11 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. 12 so far confirm that number? 15 16 17 MR. PETERSON: 18 MAYOR EIMERS: 19 statements? 20 MR. PETERSON: 21 MAYOR EIMERS: 22 23 24 25 3O6 MAYOR EIMERB: Kirk Bimers, Council. If I if I understand what you've said so far, I'm just going cut right to it, I think as simply as I can. The 206 million gallons came out of the facility plant, did it not? MR. ~ARBERT: Yes, it id. MAYOR EIMRRS: Okay. As the beginning number? MR. HARBERT: Correct. Number one. And the facility Number two, your calculations MR. HAR~ERT: That's correct. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Thank you. Is Larry Peterson -- do you have any - Larry. I'm sorry. I don't know where you are. DO you have anything to add to that? No. That's accurately stated. Do you concur with both of my Yes. Thank you. MS. ARP: Okay. I have a question specifically to Gene [sic] Peterson. "Why was a one-to-one wetland replacement assumed for the Bezates site when A~dy Locke and the city acknowledged during the Seubert rezone hearings last 307 1 summer that three to one was generally as good as it gets? 2 Cost per acre last summer was 15 to 20,000. Three to one 3 triples the wetland replacement cost that you need. So the 4 question is why was a one-to-one wetland replacement assumed? 5 MR. PETERSON: One-to-one wetland replacement is 6 assumed and proposed based upon meetings and discussions and 7 field visits with Greg Martinez and he -- his indication that 8 he felt comfortable with that because of the restoration of 9 the additional 30 plus acres that will occur as a result of 10 this project. So the characterization of this as a straight 11 oneqto-one replacement is a little bit misleading in the sense 12 that we are constructing 1.9 replacement acres for the 13 wetlands that we will be covering up with the bergs. 14 But in addition to that, because of the nature of 15 the project and the siting of the facility that we -- we've 16 changed it's - it's dimensions and moved it to avoid 17 impacting wetlands, we're able to restore over 30 acres of 18 wetlands, and in my calculation, that's about a 15 to 1 19 mitigation. And Greg, in all the discussions that we've had 20 with him both in the field and over the phone and through our 21 wetland consultant, has indicated he felt comfortable with 22 that. 23 Now, obviously, he has the discretion to change his 24 mind, and we have, you know, maybe somebody else that - at 25 the Coz/Ds would not feel comfortable with that, and we 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 15 20 22 23 24 308 wouldn't end up with that, but everything that we have heard from the Corps on this issue is that they're comfortable with the approach that we're taking and very pleased. MAYOR EIMERS: Kirk Eimers, Council. Before you leave, I remember that discussion and it happened a couple of times. Andy was referring to a six acre, roughly, wetlands observed on the Seubert site, and he was talking about -- my recollection on that is that wetlands -- and you can help me with the -- with where -- where this goes. That a wetlands of that size - and that was on the relocation site as I recall -- a wetlands of that site -- size would not allow you to go under a nationwide -- would not allow you to go under whatever the provisions would be, would be one to one, and I remember a two to one, but ~'m not -- MR. PETERSON: Well, I -- MAYOR EIMERS: I reme~ber a two-to-one replacement on the six, but it went to 12, and he estimated 20,000 an acre. Our alternatively a quarter of a million dollars to do that. MR. PETERSON: I can't -- I can't respond to -- MAYOR EIMERS: I know, but what I'm saying is -- MR. PETERSON: -- to the cost numbers, but I can respond based upon my experience in dealing in wetland mitigation that the notion of two to one Or three or one 25 replacement, if you're going to destroy wetland, two to one or 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 22 23 24 25 309 three to one replacement is - is a very common requirement. So MAYOR EIMERS: And this -- MR. PETERSON: So to assume the difference that we have in these two situations -- and, again, I haven't been -- I haven't ever been on the Seubert site to actually see this wetland, but my understanding of the difference is that on the Seubert site, we have no opportunity to restore existing wetlands as we do on the Bezates site, and so that would immediately kick you into replacing with constructed wetlands probably at some ratio of two to one, three to one, something like that, and, yes, there would be cost associated with that, and I can't -- you know, as far as the how much for acre that Andy came up with, I can't comment on whether that's good. MAYOR EIMERS: Right~ But that was the derivation. You just described where that came from. MR. MULLER: Allen Muller, Council. If in final design construct this project we find that we don't need to use 363 million gallons, that I & I taken in consideration, a 250 million gallon pond is constructed, how much less will that affect wetlands? MR. PETERSON: Well, this is -- MR. MI/LLER: You won't need the same. MR. PETERSON: As Rick Rarbert indicated, this will be done on the -- on the design build and so right -- I can't 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 12 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 310 answer that. I don't know how that would - or if it would even affect it. And that is really -- you know, we're going on the basis of the approved facility plan that ~ prepared. Correct me if I'm wrong, Rick, but it's my understanding from conversations with Larry that the approved facility plan that ~ prepared indicates 363 is where we need to get to. MR. BALL~%PJ~: Also Value Engineering. MR. PETERSON: And that MR. HARBERT: They produced MR. PETERSON: And that's what's show~ on the concepts that we have shown here, and if we were going to end up with a different nu~%ber than that, that's something that would have to be worked out with DEQ, and everyone would have to sign off on that. So I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be evasive, Alan. I just don't know. MAYOR E~MERS: Kirk Eimers, Council· I quess your point is is that you're presumption at the moment is that you will -- I think, that you will meet a nationwide or whatever the criteria be, that you will be able to -- help me with the words. Will you meet the nationwide current design, do you think? MS. ARP: Fall under that? FTR. PETERSON: That's a priori of getting -- if you get -- you have the meet the permit. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. 4 5 8 9 20 22 23 24 25 311 MR. PETERSON: In other words -- MS. ARP: But would you fall under the nationwide category -- MR. PETERSON: Right. MS. Al{p: Which is a different MR. PETERSON: Right. It's a different procedure. MS. ARP: Right. MAYOR EIMERS: You may as presently designed, so if it got -- if I heard you earlier, and, therefore, if it got smaller -- MR. PETERSON: If you disturbed less area, we would still it would be -- I suppose it'd be possible that we could be exempt from a Corps permit under some scenario, but I wouldn't want to speculate that we could. MAYOR EIMERS: No, I understand. I understand. MS. ARP~ Okay. Dow~ to the last page Of questions. Why was the site moved before re-engineering the Seubert dam problems? That's up for grabs. MAYOR E~MERS: I guess that's a question for Council. MR. HARBERT: I can respond to part of it if you'd like. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MR. HARBERT: Rick Harbert, R}{2 Engineering. I want to emphasize that this isn't just a consideration Of one site 5 6 7 8 9 13 2O 22 23 25 312 versus another. There -- there was an agreement for - in preliminary form. I believe it reached final form as well when the property - the Se~bert property went into escrow. So the City Council had previously made the decision to purchase the Seubert property. It went into escrow, and there were a series of conditions or contingencies, and without going through all of those, one of them clearly was that the Seubert relocation site as it was known, so not where the ponds would be put, but where the excavated excess sand and gravel would be located. We called it the Seubert relocation site. That's the area that had wetlands in the amount of approximately six acres, and that site had ~to be acquired. There were a number Of costs associated with it and so forth. So without going through all the -- and revisiting all the detailed discussion that the Council had regarding tha~, it was the ~eubert relocation site that, in my mind, was the primary problem associated with that parcel, that is the Seubert parcel for pond storage because the agreement contained in it the Seubert relocation site requirement, and that also carried with it a number of permit requirements in addition to the wetland issues, the planning and zoning issue that was referred to earlier by, I believe, at least one speaker. I have it in my notes regarding that. So I know that the Council's keenly aware of that, but I'm not sure that the citizenry is aware of that. So I think it's important to 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 19 20 22 23 24 25 313 recognize that, in answering the question that was posed. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Rick. I'm Kirk Eimers, Council. In part, and I'll speak for myself. That was a decision that was made by Council. MS. BUXTON: Mr. Mayor Eimers, this is still a public hearing, so if the questions are done, then you can do your deliberations. MAYOR EIMERS: That's for deliberation. MS. BUXTON: Yes. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MS. BUXTON: It sounds like you're going to deliberations. If you want -- MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah, you're right. I hear you. Okay, Marilyn. MS. ARP: Oh. And this - I think we've probably covered most of this, but I'll read it. "Why can't the holding ponds be either, one, lower in the ground, -- I think we heard that ....made to look more natural with curbed sides to look'like a small lake?" MAYOR EIMERS: You want to talk to -- MS. ~dRP: Well, is that still under consideration when I heard you talking about mitigation? Is that what we were talking about? MR. ROBERTSON: Before Rick -- this is Bill Robertson. I think there's also a question I'd like him to 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 13 14 16 20 22 23 25 314 respond to as to can you plant on the sides. MS. ARp: Okay. MR. ROBERTSON: Because that would be part of making it look like a lake. MR. B~LARD: Rick Ballard from P~q2, again. I ~uess to make it look like a lake, it has to -- I mean, when you walk up to Payette Lake, it's - you don't have to walk up a hill first to get to it, so I'm not sure it's ever going to look like a lake. MS. ARP: Yeah, okay. MR. BALL~kRD: A~other issue is with the impoundment liner, it would be very expensive to try to cover that so that it had a natural appearance. Was there -- there was another question. MS. ARp: It was planting, wasn't it? MR. BALL~%R~: Oh, on the plantings, there's a pretty extensive amount of planting proposed on the embankments. The seeding rate proposed was developed by Rob Tiedemann, who's somewhat' of an expert on natural wetlands and re-enhancement of embankments and planting and things, and he may have used other consultants, but he helped us develop a seeding plan, and the seeding rates are numbers like 96 and 100 pounds per acre because he didn't anticipate that we would water it, so it's all native seeds, and I've been told some of them are extremely expensive to obtain. 6 ? 8 9 I0 13 18 20 22 23 24 25 315 So there is a sig//ificant effort put into that for a couple reasons. One, to -- to make it look natural so it would grow also in this environment on its own so that it didn't have a long term 0 and M cost. MS. ~Rp: Okay. Thelmst one is why can't the ponds be at the location where the water is used for irrigation in the su~raer? MR. BALIOkRD: I'll try to address some of that again. My understanding of that -- a lot of that was -- was evaluated during the original facility planning process, and that sites were looked at down along the pipeline. Matter of fact, I think several different sites were proposed and there's some documentation on that in the facility plans and public meetings or response from public comments and that. MS. ARp: That's all I have. MAYOR EIMERS: Thank you, Rick. Okay. Are there other comments at this moment? Questions? Okay. Then we'll take a -- I guess what I would recommend, if the Council wants, 4o you want to take a break now and have staff report afterwards and then deliberations after that? MR. MULLER: The staff has basically reported -- MS. ARP: Did staff basically report? MAYOR EIMERS: Have you done your staff report? MR. BIETER: That's a good question. ~AYOR EIMERS: Okay. We're ready to go to 8 9 12 14 15 16 20 22 23 24 2S 316 deliberations then. Okay. So then I -- I guess we would declare the public hearing closed, and we'll bring it back to Council. DO you want to take a break and rest for -- a~d this time you guys tell me how long. MS. ARP: You're talking -- are you talking about a dinner break? MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah. Or a break -- yeah, to go do whatever you'd llke to do, rest or get a cup of coffee or have something to eat or whatever you'd like. MS. ARP: What's anybody's suggestion? MALE SPEAKER: It seems like we have alt these people here. We should keep going unless somebody needs a potty break. MAYOR EIMERS: Do you want to keep going? MR. MULLER: Keep going. I'd recommend it. MAYOR EIMBRB: Ail right. Okay with me. All right. SO where are we? MS. ARP: Lost in paper· (Off-record colloquy) MAYOR EIMERS: I ~uess I'll start. I've got to find the right page. But I MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I've just had a request from the agencies. I take it they're excused now too because we've taken care of all of our MR. MULLER: I would assume we've used all the input 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 20 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 15 16 20 22 23 24 25 from the government 317 agencies, you're going to [unintelligible] MAYOR EIMERS: DO you want anymore? MS. ARP: I don't know. MR. MULLER: Well, I won't take it then -- ME. ARp: I don't know. I don't know. MR. MULLER: Well, I've heard -- I've heard a lot of information today, and I know that this is an issue. But, wherever it is, it's not going to satisfy the public no matter what you do. I also feel that if we hadn't continued on with the Phase I of the J-Ditch, that we wouldn't be here, a~d we probably should be in some other t~e of technology. But since we have gone through with the process of the J-Ditch Phase I and we have a time line in which we have to comply to, in the government process, in which we have to be in compliance by having a hundred percent of the effluent taken out of the North Fork of the Payette River. Since, probably we communicate and work with [unintelligible] I don't think that's ~n issue to me. Court cases could be an issue to me, possibly, if Cascade Reservoir Association could come after us legally for not being in compliance. We really, at this point in time, can't consider another site. I would like to make a motion to approve the CUP based on the evidence presented on the 11 issues and which have been satisfactorily met with the -- with the condition in 319 letter that suggested the internal dam wouldn't hold. And then what happened for me and I was watching. We had DEQ come. We had Idaho Department of Water Resources come. We had staff come. You know, and through a series of meetings where we talked about this, I developed a sense from the agencies that they were nervous about the Seubert site. I also developed a sense from the agencies and of -- and there was even one meeting where we talked about reinforcing the dam and there was some -- the west dam, and there was some -- whichever dam, and there was discussion -- there was discussion of how much that would be and it was an estimate of a million and a half dollars and that was just, you know, that's kind of a -- I think at the time Brian had spoken with -- with Rick Harbert and there was -- so there was the prospect of a cost overrun and after the water treatment plant, I've very sensitive to that, so and I'm just explaining how I thought about it. There was also the issue that staff brought up of the wetl'ands, you kn%ow, the three acres -- or the six acres, you know, so I'm thinking a million and a half over here on the -- the dams and now there's the wetlands and so that's another six acres and it's -- that becomes twelve and - if I understood it correctly, and then the number Andy used was 20,000. That became another 240 or 250,000, so now we're at a million seven fifty, and the prospec~ of cost overruns at that 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 20 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 2O 22 23 24 25 318 [unintelligible] too, that we have the NEPA approval for going ahead on the Bezates property. Also conditioned on holding at least one meeting with the M Resorts to review of mitigation concepts with the city, DEQ, BOR and the contractor we select. MAYOR EIMERS: Second. And I want to go to discussions, and I want to talk about the things that I think of. And the last part of this really came down for me, because when we came through this whole day, the -- boy, the last - I don't know, the last few hours and all the questions we went through focused the doggone problem, and one problem is we have a project with the funds to complete the first part of the project and do some mitigation and [unintelligible] by a reserve, and there's some question about how long that initial -- that initial site and that initial pond will be - you know, will be good. Will it be good just for the first yea~ or will it b~ good for five years, and that's what the numbers are coming in -- now. So if we got the funds to do that. You heard and there w~s a question earlier about why - why did the Counucil change without a full engineering study and the reason for that was -- and I'll just talk for me and the others can talk for who -- however they choose. Earlier -- and this is the second part of the dilemma which is the - the Seubert site had cost risk in it and you heard the - the comment from -- or on the Kleinfetdgr 320 point -- and I don't know how big they would get, and I don't know how big they'rE going to get. So here we are. So number one, the cost overruns to me is an issue and staff and others were telling us that - and at least my sense was staff and others were indicating that that's the low side of the kind of exposure maybe, that we're looking at. At least that was my sense, baud so -- and now we've gotten the report just -- as it says, preliminary from Kleinfelder and it suggests that, in fact, one of the walls would not and all that does now is confir~ the intuition back then, nothing more, nothing less. But the prospect of cost overruns and the question that was brought out earlier why did we change. Well, one of the reasons, we didn't do a final desi~n~was just that. We said ~- at that point, we said, okay, if we look at alternatives, we ~ave a -- we have a prospect of cost growth there. Let's look at alternatives, and we did, and we came back to a site that at the time looked like it would provide us with ~ better alternative, you know, a lower cost. And as we found out, you know, we were more optimistic at the beginning than we are at the end. You know, you get closer to a project, the bigger it gets. Use that same logic on the Seubert site, the same thing would happen there. So what happens is that, you know, we've gotten closer to this because of wetlands. It had to get moved to 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2O 22 23 24 321 the east, you know, the banks. The banks have gotten higher. We've gotten smarter about it. A~d my intuition says the same thing would have happDned on Seubert, where you're starting at a million seven five or whatever the number would be and then as we got closer, it too would grow. But that's just my intuition. And so rather than - you know, we picked a site and picked a site that we thought gave us a better opportunity economically after looking at other alternatives and it was Bezates as we ruled out the other alternatives. And then I decided -- and this was me and the other Council can speak for themselves. We -- in fact, we had -- we had decided to run parallel geotech studies. You know, let's do it on Seubert~ and let's do it on Bezates as well. And then we got then we got a report from Mr~ Seu30ert himself and iwe -- I had m~de known and others too that the worry was the cost growth and the cost growth's effect on rates and the cost growth -- boy, I'm tired. Bear with me a minute while I pick through this. Oh, okay. And the cost growth on the Seubert site and we could invest some amount of money in pursuing it on the Seubert site and then whsn we got a proposal from Mr. -- and our -- our concern was, gee whiz, we're getting indications that the agencies will not license and authorize us on the 25 Seubert site as designed two to one slopes with resident 6 7 8 9 12 20 22 23 24 25 323 So, you know, the engineering study didn't happen on that basis, because staff stopped - or we stopped before running the cost through to completion on that site. And had we done so, the -- I'm confident the cost would be significantly more than where We are now. Then comes the third issue ~- well, the second issue. I too, you know, I'm with Alan. I wish we were on another technology, but we're not. We're halfway into this thing, and where we are is we now have a project that we can do. We can come out of the river and we don't know for how long and we've got limited mitigation. And, Mr. Robertson, I did just go to Washington to lobby Congress, our congressional delegation and have done so to get additional funds for I & I, for capacity enhancement and for mitigation and a significant block of mitigation. I don't know how much is the right number yet, but we've done it. And one thing that our congressional delegation told us while we were there was, well, you know, we got -- we've got to have -- again, we have the _w we have to have the impression that you guys are really anxious in getting this thing done and is this -- is this the amount of money you need now to get this thing done and we're through with you, kind of thing. And we've asked for the -- and we're -- to the extent that we go forward with this, we have to, and I'm going 2 5 6 8 9 10 2O 22 23 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 17 2O 22 23 24 25 322 materials. That's our issue and then Mr. Seubert himself comes forward with a proposal that suggests that after he's gone away and think -- thought about it, he recognizes that too. 'Cause in a -- in a meeting with -- he had indicated that he -- they would take the risk of building it and then lease -- lease the volume back to the city and - and we said, okay, go ahead and bring that proposal and they brought the proposal and it said, but I have to be able to get out of this if they won't license our designs. ~d so what Mr. Seubert did was take the same -- you know, in effect, recognize the same hazard that we had, and that was, that what we heard on the Kleinfelder report might happen, and, therefore, something else would have to happen in the design, and, therefore, the costs would begin to grow. It was at that point I had input from the agencies. I'm nervous about this. You know, I had input from staff that costs are going up, both wetlands and and so on. I had input f~om Mr. Seubert that indicated that he had the same concern and so at that point, I said, okay, this is me. Let's not -w given that if we're going to make a choice, we have the Bezates there that looks better, and we got the Seubert here that looks worse. Let's not invest those money on -- on those -- those dollars on Seubert. Let's stop that, put them all over on Bezates, and I made that motion and it passed. 324 to go to an executive session now. I don't know if I'm supposed to do it or not, but I'm going to do it anyway. You know, so we've gone to that extent to mitigate. I've asked Steve West to work with us -- Steve has -- to find additional funds. I know Dr. Colton has asked repeatedly for us to get the agencies involved because they're putting our feet to the fire, and, therefore, as long as our feet are in the fire, then get them involved in helping to make it a -- a suitable alternative for the community, don't just threaten, but threaten them help. You know, so ~- and he said that he'll work with us, but there -- there is that, that we need to do as well. We have to mitigate it and we're taking the steps that we can. There is a -- there is the potential -- I'll say it this way: There is the potential to trade capacity for mitigation. Steve brought that up today and we're going to push - and the reason I kept asking how soon will we know, how soon will we know, because there's the potential to do some of'that. (Pause in the proceedings) MAYOR EIMERS: Gosh, my handwriting. Oh, and then -- and then here comes -- here comes the agencies. I'm sorry. Not only am I tired, but I'm having trouble reading here a little bit. And then here come the agencies and whether you agree with what we did or how we did 5 6 7 9 13 14 2O 22 23 24 25 be. 325 it, you know, I still believe in my heart and my intuition is that we made the right decision from an economic standpoint to move from one site to another. You know, my intuition is still there. Although, the mitigation issue dollars now are going to be bigger than I had anticipated at the beginning. So I'll go back. I don't know where that mix comes. But now enter DEQ, and we've done what we've done, you know, and we are where we are, and now, okay, do we run the risk of -- of fines? DO we run the risk of, you know, not meeting the requirements? DO we run the risk of -- and, you know, he stood up here and told us what they are, and the other thing on -- one more thing on mitigation and it - I'm going to go to an executive session. Can I do that? Comment we had with Steve and something that -- and I don't know. I'm just one of Council, but I'm talking about where I talked -- wel~I, I'm just going to do it. The beck with it. We talked -- we talked with Council night about somehow deciding that over time we would create -- and this is just on~ idea and that's all it is. It's just one more thing we talked about. On creating a committee, having some people from Blue Jay, some people from M Resorts, some people from the south, some people from - and then committing a portion of funds over the next number of years from the sewer operating budget, some number, 10, 20,000, whatever it might That that committee would each year say, well, you know~ 327 1 in November and one in December and since. It seems like J- 2 Ditch has been on the agenda, you know, I don't know how many 3 times over time. And, you know, we've tried and maybe we 4 haven't done it or if we haven't done it perfectly, I'm 5 sorry. We've tried. Steve made a telling point to me when -- when he - and this is just me personally when he said that we may not have the final design yet in that the mitigation plans aren't all completed and we're going to have to be working with the engineer on how can you -- how can you sculpt it and maybe 11 make it look more presentable and how can you do other stuff. 12 And I heard what he was saying when he said if -- if I was 13 doing a proposal llke that, and I'm -- maybe I wouldn't get 14 away with it, but I can understand what he's saying, a~d that 15 had a profound effect on me as I listened to that because it 16 -- we are in a sense involving and what can we make this thing 17 look like and how can we improve it and, in fact, as late as 18 trying to look at what we can do with the volumes, you know, 19 and, and, and. 20 Oh, and Rand commented about the small number of 21 people and several did. And I certainly meant no offense at 22 that. If you're offended, I apologize. Anybody was. What I 23 was talking to was that, you know, there are 10 or 15 homes 24 there. The way that was juxtaposed and that, I think, was 25 that there are a small number of people and the second 8 9 12 16 22 23 24 326 this -- this looks -- we're weak over here. Let's go put some over there. And then they would have the -- the authority to come back, say, okay, here's what we want to do with the fund this year is to improve on this. And so, you know, just another idea. So without question, the community wants more mitigation. I want more mitigation. Now, how soon can we say how much, I don't know. But I -- but I'm absolutely committed to that. I've already talked about pond volumes and I -- okay, and I've already talked about the wetlands. Okay. And that - oh, the other thing in the cost issue, the other concern back on the cost issue of Seubert. That's the last one because it -- it led to the -- to my -- I was of the opinion, at the time, that we were headed for three-to-one slopes. You know, that - that was the -- that meant we're gong' to have to buy some more ground too. So, you know, that was -- those were -- those were my assumptions back then and -- and you know, that's how we got here' today and there are a couple of things that I -- that I would like tb say on another note and then I'll go off the air for a minute. Dean, I -- I heard Dean say earlier that we didn't do as much public testimony as we should have, and I've struggled with that. And what I think of is the meetings that 25 we had last last spring and summer and so on. ~d the one 6 7 8 9 10 20 22 23 24 25 328 sentence was we have an obligation to mitigate fully for them, and it wasn't to say, gee whiz, they don't matter, there are only a couple, who cares. It was simply -- that's all that meant, you know, and it wasn't to be offensive and if I offended, I do I do apologize. Oh, and Steve said -- no, it wasn't Steve. It was also Rand and -- no, Steve said it earlier this morning too. Steve indicated, don't be afraid to walk away from this just because you have stuff invested and I'm not. You know, if I -- if I believe that this was not the right decision, I wouldn't make it. A~d, you know, because we could get OUt of -- you know, whatever we've done, the worst thing, you know, bad money after -- or good money after bad. The worst thing we could do it seems to me is -- is to go forward on something that doesn't feel right in here. You know, and I'm -- and I'm still not to the point that we haven't done the right thing, but we've got more to do, and we've tried and we started is to make this thing presentable for all to the best of our ability including volumes, including more investment in mitigation, including working with the designer who if, in fact, it is Earth Tech. I think they've already had some thoughts on how you might sculpt and change certain things to make them better. So there's -- there's something that's got to be done a/id we've been sensitive to that, and we're -- I don't know how we get 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 16 20 21 22 23 24 329 to it any quicker than we are, but we're trying. And I sense -- Steve, I know you're -- I know everybody's frustration. The - and I think it was Steve Bixby said that during the interview, that I ~ that I talk -- that I misspoke about the -- the mis excuse me -- the rezone and the moving of the piles rather than project and if I did -- you know, if I didn't say project, if I said ponds, then he's right. It was not an intentional thing. It certainly was not, you know, I didn't - I'm aware of that. Pat made me aware of that and at the time, frankly, I've been listening and thinking about what's been going on in this room and that -- that was an error. That was an error or omission rather commission. Okay. That's, I think, the end of the -- the notes that I have for the moment. MS. ARP: Do I get a shot? MAYOR E~MERS: Sure. I'm sorry I took so long. MS. ARp: That's all right. Maril]zn A/]~, City Council. We have a motion on the floor. My understanding to, in fact,' comply with code is that we need to go down these 11 standards and determine whether we meet that or not. I thought that's what we were about. But before we do that, I'm going to take my opportunity for a little minority report here. As to how we got to the question was, was why did 25 we abandon the Seubert site, and I think Mr. Harbert talked -- 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 20 22 23 24 25 331 believe I asked the agencies today did they have anything that would preclude that and they -- they told me, no, they had no documentation. So having said that, though, I want to go at some point down this list. I think we have to go down this list to comply with code. MAYOR EIMERS: Did your -- did your motion include -- do you want to -- do you want at this point amend it? MR. MULLER: Not at this time. MS. ARp: Are you telling me we are not going to go down these one by one? We don't have to go down them one by one? MS. BUXTON: I recollect your motion talked about the 11 factors. I recollect that your motion talked about the 11 factors. MR. MULLER: Is that what I said? Yeah. I just said it's based on the evidence that is presented on the 11 issues by staff that each of 'em satisfactory met and with the condition we have the N-EPA approval for going ahead on the Bezates property and also conditioned on holding at least one meeting with the M Resorts for review of mitigation concepts with the city, DEQ, BOR and the contractor selected and it was seconded. MS. ARP: Okay. I'll bring up an issue under discussion. That Number 10 says not result in the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 13 20 22 23 24 25 330 or one of the Ricks talked - of R~2, talked about it being in escrow, and that is true at that point of time. However, there certainly was a proposal passed that that would have -- that would not have impacted wetlands, that would not have moved the batch plant. That proposal, I do know every Council member got a copy of that. It never made the Council table for discussion. It absolutely never made the Council table for discussion. As far as cost overruns, I still maintain, you've heard me say it before, I think many of those are unsubstantiated. When Mr. Seabert did bring -- he was -- because he was asked to bring some kind of a privatization plan and, in fact, one of them was simply couldn't do it because you couldn't do it with grant funds. I think one -- that that was simply illegal to do. But he was asked to do that. I agree with you. I am anxious to get it done, but done right because ultimately I think we do -- we do have an obligation to get that pipe out of the river but done right. I am very disturbed to hear that the Mayor's impression is that the agencies were giving impressions that they wouldn't permit the Seubert site, yet today they told us they had no documentation to any -- anything of that nature, so that really does disturb me. It goes back to some of the things I feel like I have been hearing that agencies are saying in, off the record, that we have thus and such and I 332 destruction, loss or damage of important natural, comma, scenic or historic feature. Now, the staff report said, oh, that only applies to natural features. It says scenic here. So tell me how that works? How this -- this does not impact -- not result in the destruction, loss of damage of an important scenic feature. MR. MULLER: Well, in fact, my understanding was from the fact that the view, as it stands itself which is west mountain, it's not been disturbed. The view is still there. There's - MAYOR EIMERS: No, it's obstructed. No. What -- MR. MULLER: If you put a structure there, a pond or you put a fence or you put -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAk'ER: [unintelligible] -- MR. MULLER: -- homes or whatever else is there, that~ you -- the view still -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could you speak a little louder, please. MR. MULLER: - the view would still be there, but you're not going to be able to see it, so -- MAYOR EIMERS: No. And -~ MR. MULLER: That's how I understood it, is that that's [unintelligible]. UNIDENTIFIED SPEA/<ER: You understood that then. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. I'm sorry. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 333 MR. BIETER: We need order. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Yeah, order, please. And my understanding of it was is that -- MR. MULLER: Maybe that -- MAYOR EIMERS: No. The way staff read it -- or as I listened to staff and there is, as we saw the pictures and I -- I think was it Steve? At this point, I don't even remember~ The pictures that brought up showed that the -- that the views did disappear for the Bixbys, for another family and then from Mrs. Edwards. And as I understood it, an analogy might be a scenic thing would be a -- I don't know. I'm going to do something dumb because it's late. Would be the Alamo. And that come in and bulldoze the Alamo so that the scenic thing itself would be destroyed. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right. MAYOR EiMERS: And this is -- and what I thi~k if I -- and I'm going to throw a word out here because I huh? MS. ~G{P: That's historic MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Well, I -- okay. That's the thought. Or if there's -- if there's some - I don't what else it would be. BUt, okay, that's just an example. Okay. But there's a scenic -- there's a scenic thing there, I guess maybe a scenic easement or something like that would take away -- would preclude you -- and I'm not a lawyer -- from taking away a vision, but I don't believe there's a scenic issue in 2 3 4 5 8 9 15 17 20 22 23 25 335 MR. MULLER: Yes. MAYOR EIMERS: Yes. MR. MULLER: I do feel that way. MS. ARP: Setbacks are not a problem? MAYOR EIMERS: Do you mean -- MR. MULLER: Not to me it isn't. MAYOR EIMERS: Do you mean do you wish there were -- do I wish it was further away, yes. MR. MULLER: But I think the size that it's built on is sufficient to accommodate what's designed there. MS. ARP: Well, except for we're talking about setbacks as well. We're talking about -- MR. ~gJLLER: I think what we have MS. ARp: This is also to put it -~ a conditional use permit is putting it in -- MR. MULLER: I think [unintelligible] according to DEQ and what they said in terms of it's a waste water treatment facility and not a waste NL~¥OR EIMERS: Right. MR. MULLER: -- not a MS. ARP: Okay. MR. MULLER: Not a sewage facility, and, therefore, the 300 feet or a thousand feet does not apply in there MAYOR EIMERS: And it meets code. MR. ~3LLER: By their determination. 5 7 8 15 20 22 23 334 play here. But what is at play is the interpretation of the -- of the -- of the code that ~ays we're not tearing up a creek, you know, a scenic thing. We're not tearing up, you know, whatever it might be, a scenic thing itself. MR. M33LLER: Which would be West Mountain, you're not destroying it. MAYOR EIMERS: Yeah. You're not destroying West Mountain, taking away the scenic easement to it. Right. MS. ARP: Okay. Let me ask you. This is Marilyn Al-p, City Council. To MAYOR EIMERS: I'm sorry. Order, please. MS. ARP: To comment on Number 11, be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable. So do you think that this does -- the setbacks are sufficient? MAYOR EIMERS: Read it again, Marilyn. MS. ~P: Be on a site -- and I guess my other issue is I am 'really rather -- MAYOR EIMERS: Well -- I'm sorry, go ahead. MS. ARP: -- dismayed that it took somebody else to get us the 11 criteria rather than being in our packets. Be on a site of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use including the yards, open spaces, snow storage, walls, fences, parking areas, loading zones and design standards applicable, 336 MS. ~RP: Okay, but this is a conditional use permit. We are inserting this MR. MULLER: I understand. MS. ARP: -- into residential zone. MR. MULLER: I understand. MS. ~P: Okay. I don't. I don't agree with that, and I have I have some real problems with Number 3, be designed, constructed, operated, maintained to be ha/T~onious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or likely character of the neighborhood and that such use will not 11 change the essential character of the surrounding area. 12 Particularly, when I think about growth in that area. Okay. 13 I have some -- some problems with this. Not detrimental to 14 the health, safety and general welfare, I have some -- still 15 have some real problems about wells. 16 MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. But follow that for a minute. 17 But, read Number 3 again, if you would. 18 MS. ~RP: Be designed, constructed, operated and 19 maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with 20 the existing or likely character of the neighborhood and that 21 such use will not change the essential character Of the 22 surrounding area. 23 MAYOR EIMERS: All right. And here's -- now that 24 I'm not -- I'll think of it. Those criteria will be hazy 25 wherever this goes. 337 1 MS. ARP: If it's -- if you have to get a 2 conditional use permit, perhaps. 3 MAYOR EIMERS: Well, even if you go back to the 4 Seubert site and I'll correct -- and I'll correct the way I 5 said it. That particular one on the ponds themselves was not 6 the issue, but it was with respect to the -- was with respect 7 to the materials, the 6 or 700 or whatever it was, thousands 8 of yards on the Mackie site, it was whatever the Mackie site 9 was. 10 MS. ARP: Mm-mm. 11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEA/(ER: NO conditional use permit 12 would be required. 13 MR. MULLER: But I think those things are - 14 MS. ARP: Yeah. There wasn't a ~- 15 MR. MULLER: Those things will be addressed in 16 mitigation that should be addressed and I firmly believe that 17 the ongoing issue of trying to secure more funding to deal 18 with mitigation and deal with I & I can address these, and I 19 think the -- I think we are, at this point in time and 20 continue -- we'll continue to do so. 21 MS. ARP: Let me ask you another question. Why do 22 you think the Planning and Zoning Commission saw it 23 differently? 24 MR. MULLER: I don't -- I can't speak for them. I 25 don't know. 7 8 9 10 15 20 22 23 25 338 MR. ROBERTSON: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, been requested to raise the -- MS. ARP: Oh, to raise the voices? MR. ROBERTSON: The level of the deliberations a little higher so everyone can hear. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. MS. ARp: Okay. MR. MUI~ER: Oh, I can't address them. MS. ARP: My -- oh, did you hear my question? My voice tends to carry. MR. MULLER: ~ don't about Kirk. Maybe he can. MAYOR EIMERS: I'm sorry? MS. ARP: My question was simply, what are we -- what are you seeing differently or why do you think the Planning and Zoning Commission saw it differently? Did they not have this information? MAYOR EIMERS: NO. I -- you know, we're making a whole lot of money, you know, like 350 and 200 and 200 and - MR. MI/LLER: A~d they're making nothing. MAYOR EIMERS: -- we get to make the hard decisions up here because we make so much. You know, I don't know that it was -- maybe it's just they don't -- you know, they don't deserve to have that kind of a decision. Maybe, you know, a controversial decision like that, because I'll tell you something this doggone thing has turned friend against friend, 5 6 7 8 18 20 22 23 24 25 clarification. 339 neighbor against neighbor, McCallite against McCallite. (unintelligible colloquy) MS. ARP: Okay. I know. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAF~ER: Say what you mean. That's all [unintelligible]. MR. BIETER: Order. MAYOR EIMRRS: Yeah. Order, please. MS. ARP: Well, I guess on the other side, I would have to say, though, that this is what they do for free. They interpret this and this is not the only thing they have ever interpreted. They.interpret over and over and over. MAYOR EIMERS: Right. A~d from time to time, a council will disagree with the Planning and Zoning Commission. I -- you know, like Alan said, I don't know why -- how they made it or why they made it. MS. ARP~ Well, you've heard mine, so. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. You know, well, we - I'll say one more thing. You know, the ~riend ~gainst friend and stuff like that, I'm sorry that this issue has done that and it's not something that -- and it's something that we're having shoved down -- I mean, it's shoved at us all and it's been -- and it's coming from the outside. (unintelligible colloquy) MR. BIETER: Mr. Mayor, I just have one point of Part of your motion is directing that findings 7 8 9 16 20 22 23 24 25 340 and conclusions be prepared consistent with your -- your deliberations and vote today, and that -- that's normally done at the next -- that's set for the next Council meeting which I believe is when - I need to look at staff and get a nod if that's -- that's a doable time frame to prepare the findings and conclusions to bring back to you -- MAYOR EIMERS: Oh. MR. B~E~R: w [unintelligible]. MAYOR EIMERS: Because it is, in fact, for May 5th. I think it's on the agenda for May 5th. Is it Or is it not? I don't know. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your agenda is not out - MS. /LqP: Is it on the agenda? MS. BLVXTON: Yeah, it's out. The agenda's out. MS. ARp: The agenda is out. MAYOR E~MERS: Yeah, it is. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I mean it's not posted, it doesn't have to be posted. MAYOR EIMERS: Or maybe it's in the document itself. Oh, wait a minute. I may have something before me right here that goes with -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The agenda is not out. MR. BIETER: It will be out tomorrow. It has to be posted -- MALE SPEAKER: It's not posted. 2 3 4 5 7 9 12 i3 i5 19 20 22 23 24 25 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 19 20 22 23 24 25 341 MR. BIETER: It's a special meeting. MS. ARP: Oh. I have a packet with an agenda. MR. ROBERTSON: Yeah, I know you have a proposed agenda. It's not posted. MS. ARP: Oh, okay. MR. ROBERTSON: Jerry is sending that out, it's posted Monday. M/tLE SPEediER: Yeah. MR. BIETER: Either a clarification Of your -- of the motion -- MAYOR EIMRRS: Yeah. It's -- MR. BIETER: -- or that's [unintelligible] in the motion that we do that. That's [unintelligible]. MAYOR EIMERS: Okay. It's in this document that you all gave me. MR. BIE~ER: TO prepare findings and conclusions consistent with your deliberation and vote, whatever that is and add that to the motion. MS. ~P: The motion needs to direct staff. MR. MULLER: We need to add that [unintelligible} findings and conclusions be consistent with -- MR. BIETER: Direct staff to prepare them and have them for the May 5th if that's -- MAYOR EIMERS: On a separate motion or add to? MR. BIETER: Just to add to. 343 (Pause in the proceedings) MAYOR EIMERS: Is the motion okay? MR. ROBERTSON: Yep. MAYOR EIMERS: I'm sorry. I'm just - I thought you were - okay. MR. ROBERTSON: Yeah. We've got it. MAYOR EIMERS: Would you take a roll call, Chelsi, please. MS. SHOLTY: ,Mr. Muller? MR. M-GLLER:Aye. MS. SEOL~"f:Mr. Mayor? MAYOR EIMERS: Aye. MS. SHOLTY: MS. Atp? MS. ARP: No. MAYOR EIMERS: Motion carries. MR. MtlL~ER: Motion to adjourn. MAYOR EIMSRS: Second. It's moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor? kLL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Aye. MAYOR EIMERS: Opposed? Motion caries. PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 22 23 24 25 342 MR. MULLER: Consistent with -- what was it? MR. BIETER: Your deliberations and vote. MR. MULLER: Consistent with our deliberations and vote. Added to the motion [unintelligible]. Would you read that back. MS. SHOLT~f: Motion to approve the CUP on the 11 issues being that and to be consistent with your deliberation [unintelligible] -- MS. ARP: Findings and conclusions. MR. MULLER: Findings and conclusions. MS. A~RP: Direct staff to -- MR. MULLER: Direct staff [unintelligible]. Finding and conclusion [unintelligible] staff and then did you get in there conditions that we need to meet the NEPA approval on the Bezates property. Did you get that? MS. SHO~TY: Mm-hmm. MR. MULLER: There's also two conditions. One, that we have [unintelligible] conditions or meet the approval', going ahead on the Bezates property. And condition holding at least one meeting with M Resorts for the review of mitigation concepts with the city, DEQ, BOR and the contractor selected. MR. BIETER: Just for the record, can we get another second just to make sure MAYOR EIMERS: Oh, second. CERTIFICATION I (WE) CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE ELECTRONIC SOU~ID RECORDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN TEE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER. NORTHWEST TRANSCRIPTS, INC. P.O. BOX 890 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653 (208) 466-2743 FEDERALLY CERTIFIED MANAGER/OWNER bORI LU~Z. LAINIE CARPENTER. CONNIE DILWORTH 6/6/99 TRANSCRIBER DATE