Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-30 city council minutesBook 27 Page 116 SPECIAL MEETING June 30, 1986 7:30 p.m. The Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Cowles. The Mayor introduced the Councilpersons, the City Clerk, City Engineer, and Chuck Larson from J.U.B. Engineers. The Mayor informed the audience that if they cared to speak to the issue at this meeting, it would be necessary for them to sign the sign -up sheet. The sheets were available throughout the auditorium. Mayor Cowles also pointed out that the purpose of the meeting was to hear testimony with regard to the proposed L.I.D. Only those who live in the Caldwell Municipal Irrigation District would be allowed to speak this evening. This was the time set for protests with regard to the proposed pressurized irrigation district. The purpose at this time was not to answer questions. If there was questions, the City Engineer and Mr. Larson would be happy to answer their questions during the recess or after the meeting. The Mayor requested that the Council President read Ordinance No. 1627 which was an Ordinance establishing and fixing the rules of procedure for public hearings before the City Council; and providing an effect date hereof. This Ordinance is of official record in the Office of the City Clerk. Councilman Marmon was then asked to read the rules written on the sign sheet pertaining to the rules, and procedures: Rules of procedure for public hearing as established by Ordinance No. 1627 passed August 17, 1982, as stipulated by Idaho State Code states that no person shall be permitted to speak before City Council at a Public Hearing until recognized by the Mayor. All persons speaking shall speak before a microphone in such a manner as will assure that the recorded testimony or remarks will be accurate and trustworthy. At the commencement of the Hearing, the City Council shall establish a time limit to be observed by all speakers. When the Public Hearing is quasi- judicial in nature or one after which the City Council is required by law to make Findings of Fact, each speaker must swear or affirm that his testimony will be true and correct. Any person refusing to comply with rules will be prohibited from speaking during the Public Hearing. The Mayor again asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to sign the sheet. Mayor Cowles then requested that the City Council establish two time limits; one for an individual and the other for a person representing a group of people. MOVED by Mallea, SECONDED by L. Carter that not more than three minutes be established for individuals and not more than ten minutes for an individual representing a group. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor asked for a roll call vote of the City Council. Those present: Raymond, J. Carter, L. Carter, Mallea, Marcus, and Marmon. Absent: none. Mayor Cowles requested that all of those who intend to speak at the hearing stand stand and affirm that their testimony will be true and correct. The Oath was then administered by the Mayor. Several members of the audience commented that they had hoped to ask some questions during the hearing. The Mayor again explained that the purpose was to hear protests and testimony, but not to Book 27 Page 117 answer questions. If anyone had questions, please contact the City Engineer after the meeting or during working hours at City Hall. Mayor Cowles then opened the hearing and asked that the City Engineer review what has taken place up to this time. Mr. Redmond's comments were as follows: Tonight's protest hearing is to allow property owners the opportunity to protest against a proposed improvement that is intended to replace and upgrade the current irrigation system within a major portion of the City of Caldwell. The proposed system and improvement is offered as our recommended solution to the condition and current problems of the Caldwell Municipal Irrigation District. The - solution is costly and as such will have a significant effect on property owners. However, any solution, if a high level of service is desired, will be costly. It may be appropriate to review the work and events that have led to tonight's hearing. More than three years ago, we attempted to assess the levels of service of our current system by developing a system inventory. This was used to monitor size and line condition, and assisted in the scheduling of leak repairs. These past few years we've more than doubled our personnel in the summer in order to provide even a moderate level of service. In 1985, we completed a study funded by the State Department of Water Resources on the feasibility of a pressure irrigation system City wide. The feasibility study indicated that on a City side basis, the cost for replacement of our current flood system and the cost for installation of a high pressure system were virtually the same. An additional benefit of the pressure system was that over a million dollars in drainage facility costs could be saved. This savings would come as a result of reducing the size and capacity of our drainage facilities by not having to provide capacity for irrigation runoff water. The study primarily reviewed two alternatives: Upgrading to a new pressure system, and replacement of the existing flood — system. In reality, there are at .least 5 alternatives available. These alternatives were addressed in detail at a public meeting held May 6, 1986, at this location. Therefore, I will only list them at this point: 1. Replace and upgrade the current flood irrigation system to a reliable level from which all :residential and agricultural areas could be served. 2. Replace the existing flood irrigation system with a high pressure irrigation system. 3. Use City municipal water for all water use. 4. Do nothing and continue as we have in the past. (No distribution line replacements.) 5. Limits facility improvement over a long period of time. Following the pressure feasibility study, we sent out 1,000 questionnaires city wide. The majority of those responding would support increased fees for upgrading of the system. The highest irrigation preference was for a pressure system. This sring, the Council authorized preliminary engineering work preparatory to the establishment of a local improvement district for the Caldwell District. This decision was based in part upon the feasibility study, the questionnaire and the need to proceed with some improvement. Approximately a month ago we held the aforementioned public meeting and attempted to provide residents with background information on -the proposed pressure system improvements along with system alternatives. At the end of the meeting, an informal show of hands was requested indicating the audience's preference of alternative solutions. Approximately 73% indicated a preference for the proosed pressure system. Book 27 Page 118 On June 2nd, the City Council passed a Resolution of Intention to form a local improvement district for purposes of construction of a pressurized irrigation system. This resolution outlined the work to be performed and the framework upon which the local improvement district is to be based. It also established the date of this Protest hearing and required proper property owner notification. Your comments should be directed for or against proceeding with the project as outlined in the Resolution of Intention and summarized in the public notice. At this time, I would like to introduce Chuck Larson of J.U.B. Engineers. He will summarize the proposed project and the projected assessment costs, one final time. The Mayor recognized Mr. Larson who summarized the proposed project and the projected assessment costs. The comments made are attached to these minutes as Exhibit A. As the Protest Hearing was opened before the City Engineer's comments, Mayor Cowles informed the audience that he would proceed by calling each name as appeared on the sign up sheets. Although all comments were not typed in full within the minutes, the tape will be retained in the Office of the City Clerk and all written comments will be attached to and retained with the official minutes. Those recognized by the Mayor and presenting testimony were as follows: George Wolfe, 1109 East Ash; Minnie Doty, 202 Everett; Donna Howe, 316 Everett; Helen Witzig, 722 South 6th Avenue; Elsie Karr, 711 South 6th Avenue; H. R. Himes, 1702 Everett; La Mar Bollinger, 1805 Everett; William McKinley, 315 43rd; Dan Kurtz, 2018 Arthur; Steve Purcell 1808 Cleveland; Berniece Skogsberg, 1015 Grant; John Tegge, 218 Everett; Jim Eby, 118 Palo Alto; Elsa Phelps, 1617 Blaine; Betty Courtright, 912 Freeport; Carrie Jones, 705 Denver; Eldon Hunter, 1608 Maple; Burley Howell, 1622 Everett; Lynn Spillman, 2105 Washington Avenue; Dick Naylor, 121 West Oak; Jay Richardson, 907 Grant; Chester Haynes, 219 Cleveland; Pearl Eidemiller, 1321 Blaine St.; Pat Bevan, 2302 South Montana; Warren Taylor, 1604 Fairview Avenue; Klaus Eischolz, 1908 Oak; Ivan McMillin, 2307 College Avenue; Harold Stiles, 624 Logan; Mike Gable, 1023 Cleveland; John Cuddy, 1709 East Linden. The Mayor recognized Mr. Herb Rettig who was present at the hearing representing a group of Caldwell businessmen. Mr. Rettig submitted a written statement relating to protests to the formation of Local Improvement District No. 86 -1 of the City of Caldwell. That statement was as follows: Due to restrictions in the time permitted to present protests imposed by the Council it is impossible to outline each property covered by the protests by the parties described on the attached Exhibit "B ". The properties referred to and owned by the persons described on Exhibit "B" are all commercial properties and for the most part are properties located within the downtown Caldwell core area. Legal descriptions of these properties accompany each protest. These properties presently use no irrigation water furnished by Caldwell Irrigation District and none is to be furnished under the proposed improvements to be constructed by the proposed Local Improvement Distract. The City apparently proposes to assess certain properties different from others based upon whether they are "serviced property" or "non- serviced property ". The resolution and the mailings by the City does not say which properties are which, but I understand that the downtown core area are considered ° ° non- serviced" properties which will be assessed at a different ratio than the other properties within the District. This rate is approximately 40% of the rate for "service" properties. Certain of the property owners described on Exhibit "B" are located outside the downtown core area and are therefore to be Book 27 Page 119 considered "serviced properties" and will pay the full rate. These properties which are owned by the parties listed on Exhibit "B" have no need for the irrigation water as their properties most all contain buildings and parking lots. All of the properties owned by the parties on the attached Exhibit "B" will receive no benefit for the improvements which are comtemplated by this Local Improvement District. The law clearly provides that properties which received no "benefit" from the improvements should not be included within the Local Improvement District. The benefit required must be a special benefit to the individual properties. No such special benefit is observable to these properties and to include them within the boundaries of the District is contrary to law and is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and oppressive. The Council is obviously mistaken in including the property within the District and any attempt to include these properties within the District or to assess them any portion of the costs of the improvements contemplated by the Local Improvement District should not take place. A copy of this statement is attached to the official minutes as Exhibit B along with the listing of the thirty -one businesses represented by Mr. Rettig. Mayor Cowles also reminded those in the audience that if they have letters or cards to please feel free to turn them in. At 9:10 p.m., the Mayor asked for a five minute recess. The Meeting was then reconvened by Mayor Cowles at 9:20 p.m. and the hearing proceeded. Mayor Cowles asked if Camilio Lopez was still in the audience. Those in the audience reported that he had left the building. The Mayor stated that Mr. Lopez did sign the sheet, but his residence was not in the District. During the recess it was determined that he owned property in the Caldwell Municipal District and would be allowed to speak. As he was not present, the Mayor continued with those signed to speak. The Mayor recognized the following who presented their testimony: Sam W. Lydick, 1217 Elgin Street; Sam D. Lydick, 1217 Elgin Street; Terry Dye, 1207 East Elm St.; Dick Crowley, 2112 College; William Ball, 2118 Iowa Avenue; William Brown, 1510 Cleveland; Gib Hunt, 2103 Colorado St.; Ruth Roelofs, 2215 Washington; Milton Roelofs, 2215 Washington; Phil Frye, 903 Blaine; Fred Alley, 1621 Arthur; Joe Pirnie, 106 South 17th; Raefeal Menchaca, 1822 Montana; Dave Frailey, 601 Fill-more; W. E. Hallstrom, 2214 Wisconsin; Otis Brumbalow, 2410 Colorado; Pam Cone, 2309 South Illinois; Joe Lane, 1021 Fillmore; John Hull, 2316 Washington Avenue; Stan Lenuson, 1908 Wyoming; Clarence Frerichs, 2220 South Indiana; Bill Boyd, 1317 Elgin; R.oy Payne, Caldwell School District. Mayor Cowles stated that all who signed up to speak had been recognized at this time. He then asked the City Engineer, Ron Redmond, to respond to some of the questions. Mr. Redmond was recognized and informed those present that any Governmental Agency will not be assessed which would include the School District. To clarify the concern expressed that the City should have more than one estimate or bid for this project, the estimate quoted at this time was only a preliminary estimate based on preliminary engineering studies. Should the City Council choose to proceed with this project, final plans and specifications would be drawn up and the project would be put out to bid. Contractors from all over would be welcome to bid on the project and the bid would be awarded to the lowest qualified bidder. Dollar amounts discussed at this meeting was just an estimate; it could go higher and it could go lower. Mr. Redmond further said that one of the other questions was where are the lines located? In the Resolution of Intention to create the District, the location of the lateral lines and the Book 27 Page 120 main lines were identified. He believed that they were also identified in the Notice sent to each property owner so they could determine whether they bounded on the property or where the main line was contiguous to their property. With regard to drainage relative to the downtown area and drainage in general. The City Engineer stated that in the Local Improvement District as now presented, there was some drainage facilities included but only those drainage facilities that are necessary to the implementation of the pressure irrigation system. With regard to benefits from the pressurized system, Mr. Redmond said that at this point he would have to rely on Nampa as an example. Their system has been growing annually for approximately ten years. They started at a low rate and have been expanding the system as years go on through small L.I.D.s. It was Mr. Redmond's understanding from the Nampa City Engineer that their domestic water use has been declining as people are being converted over to the pressure system. This would be a benefit. A secondary side benefit would be reduction in flooded basements. Mr. Redmond further stated that his Department has not had an opportunity to conduct an impact study on the damage that irrigation water flowing in the streets does to the streets. His guess though was that thirty percent of the deterioration of the streets could be directly caused by irrigation water. The cost for replacement of the pressure irrigation system was approximately 3.6 million dollars. If it was determined that the flood irrigation system would be replaced, the time frame would also be a two years. The cost, however, would also be in the neighborhood of 3.6 million dollars. The comparison made relative to the 20 year time frame was that at the current irrigation assessment rate, it would take approximately 20 years to improve the current system. If the City wanted to improve the flood system in a short term similar to the proposed pressure system, it could be done in two years. But, again, the dollar cost would be approximately the same as the pressure system. The City Engineer said that another question was guarantees with regard to water. There just was no guarantees that could be promised. The City was trying to provide a system that was capable of providing sufficient wager a majority of the time. There could be times during the peak months when people would have to shift to odd, even type watering in order to have adequate water pressure. If the size of the line systems was designed to handle the peak months, it would probably add 20 to 30 o cost to the improvement. Mr. Redmond also said that an attempt would be made to screen off the major debris out of the source of supply. There would be a number of screens installed. Also questioned was the high buildup of silt and other materials in the lines. The high water pressure and the higher velocities that are experienced in a high pressure distribution should keep the sediment suspended to the point where the sediment buildup should not present a problem. If it does, there could be blowoff valves located at strategic points in the City which would be a periodic maintenance operation performed by the City crews. Councilman Raymond stated that it was discussed earlier as to whether or not the City should extend the time frame that was provided in the Notice to accept testimony. The original notice established 5:00 p.m. on June 30th, 1986, as the closing time for acceptance of testimony. The City checked with legal counsel that afternoon and found it was permissable to extend the time for acceptance of testimony. Councilman Raymond further said that he would MOVE, and it was SECONDED by Marmon that additional testimony would be accepted through 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 2, 1986. Book 27 MOTION CARRIED Page 121 Councilman Raymond further commented that he felt this particular issue has been discussed for some time and he would like to have it on the Agenda for action at the Regular City Council Meeting of July 7, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. MOVED by Raymond, SECONDED by L. Carter that Consideration for establishment of L.I.D. 86 -1 be placed on the Caldwell City Council Agenda on July 7, 1986. MOTION CARRIED Council President Raymond stated that he was pleased with the attendance at this meeting and with the frank way the citizens have spoken. The Mayor also said that on behalf of the City Council and the Staff and for himself, he wanted to thank those in attendance. The Protest Hearing was then declared closed. APPROVED AS written THIS 7th DAY OF July 1986. Mayors Cit Co, ncil f Coun / Ci�y,ICouncilperson CSC ` y ouncid%]�erson City Councilperson City Councilperson ATTEST: City Clerk