Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes from June 7, 2005 C/C Meridian City Council June 7, 2005 Page 21 of 56 Item 9: Continued Discussion from May 17, 2005: Discussion of Black Rock Subdivision by Brad Watson, Public Works Director: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, counsel. Item 9 is a continued discussion regarding Black Rock Subdivision. Brad. Watson: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I will try not to cover a lot of ground that we did three weeks ago. Three weeks ago I believe I was asked to go back and gather some more information and put together some bullet points of the pros and cons of the proposed Black Rock Subdivision that's located in our referral area. Those pros and cons would be in terms of the different scenarios for providing city services, as well as looking at some land use and transportation considerations. I handed out a hard copy to you tonight listing those things. There are three options, three realistic options on how the city could proceed. The one thing I want to point out is that we do have the singular issue of whether to provide water to this proposed project that has approval through Ada County or to allow United -- or just simply let United Water extend service to this subdivision, which has already been approved by the PUC. The bigger picture issue is whether or not we incorporate this formally into our planning, whether that's water, sewer, land use, transportation planning into the city. I think what is decided on the singular issue of providing water and/or sewer to this area really drives that approximately three square mile area that's bounded by Locust -- is that right? Locust Grove Road on the west, Columbia on the south, and that quarter mile -- quarter mile west of Cloverdale on the east, up to a quarter mile south of Amity. The photo that is on the screen right now shows that area. That area has the different colors and it's colored according to what the assessor's office has designated it as, whether it's residential, agricultural, bare land, et cetera. In addition to the pros and cons, there is a third sheet attached to my handout that talks about the number of lots, the number of acres that are in these different categories. I did a rather rough analysis of what the estimate in tax revenue is on that existing area out there and just on the residential plated lots, which would be around 50,000 dollars per year. The existing median assessed value on the residential is around 240,000. There are seven to eight recorded subdivisions in this area. Most of them have rather large acreages. There are a few that are small cluster type. They account for less than I thought they would. They are really only around 350 acres out of the total 1,860. Only three of those recorded subdivisions are nonfarm, which means they have additional acreage within that plat that can be developed once central services are there. Also, on that sheet you will see, again, a rather rough estimate of what the ultimate property tax revenue would be at the city's current mill rate, mill levy, which ranges from around 900,000 dollars a year at an assumed density of one per acre up to 1.8 million per year with a density of two per acre. It appears that little of this is potentially commercial, so I didn't include any of that in those projections. Please stop me if you have any questions. I'm just going to kind of keep rambling. If I'm covering information that is old or you have already heard, just let me know. On the pros and cons on the three options we went through last time, the first one we talked about operation of a satellite water system by the city. This would allow the City of Meridian to maintain a presence in that area and, theoretically, keep United Water in Boise city's area of impact. There would be minimal capital cost as well with this type of installation. Meridian City Council June 7, 2005 Page 22 of 56 Conversely, if this one -- if we agree to do it for this one, I think we can be sure additional proposals would be forthcoming. The user fees that we had in place for the general city I don't think would be sufficient to cover the cost of a satellite -- operating a satellite system. Didn't do an analysis, but it seems to be a fairly safe assumption, I think. There would be additional testing, monitoring, and some duplication of federal requirements in terms of reporting. I'm not sure that we can implement different rates. That's probably simply a legal question. We need to review those plans before the developer constructs those if we are to operate it. There was some discussion about a well and some water rights and who would own those and how would those be conveyed ultimately to the city. The second option was extension of both sewer and water to this development. It allows us to keep this in our planning area. We do, actually, have sufficient water supply to serve this area. There is -- there would be some significant off-site costs and there has been no discussion on who would bear those. It appears that there would be in the order of 300 to 400 thousand dollars of off-site water line costs to get to the outer boundary of the Black Rock Subdivision. There are several development applications between the existing Tuscany development and the northern boundary of this development that are pending. They have been at Planning and Zoning, they have not been before you. If those are approved, our sewer capacity on the Ten Mile trunk is whittled down to around 200 to 300 units, which would really, probably, only be enough to serve this development ultimately. The third option was to not provide water at this time, let United Water come over and serve this subdivision that would develop as a cluster sub with its own on-site wastewater treatment system. This allows the developer to proceed. The city could retain this portion of the referral area and potentially include it in the area of impact at a future date. As I said three weeks ago, the timeline for providing sewer to this area is dependent on a number of dominoes which begins with the Ten Mile interchange, I believe, and the intervening development between roughly Ten Mile and 1-84 at this site, which is, oh, three to four miles away. There is some administrative issues, negatives, with this proposal, if we do sewer in the future with United Water present, we will have billing concerns. There really is no -- as far as I know, any precedent for taking over a United Water system once they have been established in a development. And the other con as far as the developer is concerned is I think this would limit his ability to redevelop anything beyond his initial cluster subdivision. The other one that I don't have down here as a negative is that there would, obviously, I think, be additional developments that come in under this scenario if we did approve it with United Water -- or I guess we are not approving anything, but if we let this go with United Water with the intent to ultimately serving it with sewer, I'm sure other applications would be right behind this one. As was shown in this -- in the mapping that's on the screen, there is a significant amount of agricultural land -- even the stuff that's purple and called it residential by the assessor, is really -- maybe a house is on there or something. It is largely undeveloped. A very simple and quick look at the transportation issues. On the plus side Eagle Road will be widened to five lanes all the way to Victory Road in 2007. This is a mile and a half north of Black Rock's northern boundary and the intersection of Eagle and Victory will be signalized that same year. On the con side, all section line roads within one mile of the project are two lane rural sections and there are no other significant roadway projects in ACHD's five-year work program in this area. land use -- and the first pro I have there I'm not sure is really true Meridian City Council June 7, 2005 Page 23 of 56 in light of what I just said. A lot of this is not in relatively small parcels. There is a distribution of -- there are quite a few small parcels, but there are really -- there are quite a few tracks of larger areas as well that could be redeveloped. And, similarly, the bullet -- the first bullet point on the con side I'm not sure that that is extremely accurate, but there are some large tracts. I think the stuff that has been platted so far, the large acreages, has little potential to develop, but, as I said, it surprised me, there is only about 350 acres out of nearly 1,800 that meets that. This is no new concept to you, when we are serving less dense developments; the cost of services per dwelling is proportionately higher than in what we consider urban density development. Future land use, right along with that, this will likely develop to lower density. What has developed out there is -- is lower density. There are some cluster subdivisions that had lots in the order of an acre, acre and a half. The city would retain the ability to include this in the tax base upon future annexation, whether or not we have services there. The concern is that this raises a potential similar to the southwest Boise area regarding annexation of the existing development. As I said very early on, there is likely little commercial development in this area. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions. I hope that's more information than you really wanted. I couldn't think of anything else to throw at you. So, with that I'll answer questions. De Weerd: And I guess, Brad, I would have a question as far as the area -- I know this is kind of a difficult area and certainly one at the very corner. Is -- is bringing services out here in the best interest? Does it seem like this might be an area best left in the County? And I apologize, because I wasn't here for your original discussion, but how is serving that entire area, in addition to this -- this particular item? Watson: Madam Mayor, this area has been in our sewer master plan for at least ten years and these trunks have been extended down into the vicinity of this corner. Our water system master planning is -- is a little more -- we currently have planned down to the area of impact, but it's a very stepwise master planning system that we use where it could be extended down simply into our grid -- normal grid system. If this was to be served by Boise city, ultimately I believe they would have to pump over into the Cloverdale trunk, at least this western portion, whereas, this would all be served by gravity by Meridian ultimately. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: First of all, Brad, thank you for this. This was exactly what we asked for and then some, because we did say, you know, put it down in black and white what the pros and cons are of each one of those and so I labeled these A, 8, and C on those options and, you know, my limited knowledge and experience with water and sewer, other than I'm glad I have them, is that -- is that I really don't know, but this gives me at least a base of making a decision that I will feel comfortable with. And having said that, I don't Meridian City Council June 7, 2005 Page 24 of 56 like option C and I think option B, of course, is expensive at this point, but it seems like in my mind that it's down the road -- it's in the future and so it's just my opinion for whatever it's worth, I like option A. Now, for the public option A was the operation of a satellite water system by the City of Meridian. Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Again, thank you, Brad, for all of the information. I -- since we are really looking for opinions at this point from the Council, I disagree with Mrs. Donnell's opinion on option A and I would, actually -- we are really setting policy decision here and I think it's an important policy decision. At this current time I think we are in a situation where we have got -- we have got a property owner that already -- that is -- that has gone out and sought service from a utility and we have opposed that and had a ruling against what we thought was best practice and so I think we need to deal with that, but I don't necessarily want to -- want to remove this area from our referral area, because at some point when we have some increased capacity for the service -- for sewer service, I think it might make sense for a future council to decide whether they'd like to annex that property, so -- in that case, I would prefer option C, which would be to allow -- essentially, to allow this parcel to be serviced by United Water, which was the Public Utility's ruling. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comments from Council? Okay. Brad, have you talked to United Water on option C and about turning over service or how that relationship might work? Watson: Madam Mayor, no, I have not asked them that question. I guess I should ask them the question. I already know the answer, but I can if you wish. What they do in Boise city is -- is this system where they operate the water utility and Boise city operates the sewer utility, so I'm sure they wouldn't have any problem with that. De Weerd: I have asked the question. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Brad, on that point, one of the cons against that is the ability to administer a turn off and not paying sewer fees. How does Boise work that with United Water? Do they have some kind of an agreement? Watson: Madam Mayor and Councilmember Rountree, Council Members, they publish the names in the Statesman for delinquent accounts. They are not turn off by United Water. In fact, if I may add a point of interest, the University of Idaho's student -- engineering students devised a mechanism to go in the sewer line to turn people's sewer off. I'm not sure that that met with great success, but I haven't heard it being used a whole lot. De Weerd: That would get instant attention. Meridian City Council June 7, 2005 Page 25 of 56 Watson: It was in the paper one day. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. And, actually, the city of Boise patented that product and they do use it. Watson: Oh, do they? Nary: They use it fairly often in shutting off sewers. But that's just sewers, not water. United Water does the water. De Weerd: There you go. A whole new pleasurable experience. Dan, did you have anything you wanted to comment on? Wood: Mayor and the Council, I appreciate, you know, all of Brad's work. I got to take a look at this a little earlier. You know, of course, my option would be B. But I understand -- you know, I was glad to see at least option B there. I did like the little part there, one of -- well, I guess one of the positive sides of one of the cons there is he said there was a little sewer capacity. So, you know, because what I was hoping maybe if at all possible, that with the 44 lots, we'd love to be able to service it off of city sewer and that way for just the 44 lots. You know, looking at the plans here, you know, we are -- ACHD is planning on widening Eagle Road in 2007. Hopefully, that is going to be coming along. You know, the question -- I guess part of the -- you know, it's just a rough guess, I'm sure, or an idea what the cost would be to bring water, you know, from the City of Meridian, we didn't project that it would be that much, but, you know, again, that would be something that we could be definitely entertaining if it was something that we could work out with you guys. You know, it's going to be a nice area. I mean part of the contour of this ground, you know, with what Brad was saying to the west really -- that's probably the ground that would be easiest to sewer back to Boise, just because there is a big bench across there and it's probably 50, 75 feet higher than Eagle Road. So, hopefully, the sewer, it would be -- shoot it all the way back. You know, I was a little surprised, I thought the long-term planning for this area was closer to three units an acre, but with calculations here one to two, I could see that potentially it would be something totally different than what Meridian has elsewhere, meaning the density would be a lot lower, a lot of large lots and what we are finding, there is a lot of people that want large lots that's not necessarily good for the city taxwise. But it sure seems like a lot of people would like to see larger lots, so -- De Weerd: Any questions of Mr. Wood? Bird: I have none. Thank you. Wood: Thanks. Meridian City Council June 7, 2005 Page 26 of 56 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, do you need any further information from staff? I know they would like direction on what way to go on this. And I'm sure the folks in the audience would love to go home tonight at some point. Rountree: But not Frank. De Weerd: Frank always hangs in until the very last minute. We love you, Frank. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'm going to ask the same question I asked on May 17th. What's your recommendation, Bradley? Watson: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Bird, I'm really not trying to be obstinate about this, I guess. I can provide recommendations as far as water and sewer, but this really feels like a land policy decision that I'm not sure I'm comfortable recommending. What would be the most logical for the city would, obviously, be option B if we could do it. We can do the water. We can extend the water. There is a cost associated with it. There is little sewer capacity out there to serve anything other than this property. Option A is not real palatable, because we will, obviously, need more staff to operate not only this satellite system, but others that are sure to follow. I'm not sure that's real cost effective. Option C in the very short term that sounds great, in the long term I'm concerned about that -- that marriage between utilities. It does -- it has worked. You know, it depends on who you talk to in Boise city whether it's successful or not. The perfect world would be what we would do. But there is going to be another project right behind this one where we are having the same discussion and I can't provide sewer to it. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'm with you, Brad, on option B, because, you know, you can get water out there. I have a problem with the sewer. That is a natural flow to us. If the developer would agree to put his sewer system in -- his little satellite sewer system to our specifications, I would be -- I would be more favorable, put it that way, as long as he met our specifications, so that when we do sewer out there, all yòu have to do is just hook in. But being a developer and we have no control over that, I mean if it -- if it don't pencil out for him, he's not going to do it, and we are going to get maybe a substandard sewer system to hook into, or we will have to go back in there and redo it all. That's my one concern and I am definitely not for letting United Water in any of our area of impact. Watson: Madam Mayor, if -- I hate to prolong this, but if you'd like us to get together with Mr. Wood and investigate some sort of arrangement about sewer and how that Meridian City Council June 7, 2005 Page 27 of 56 plan review would occur and maybe some cost arrangements on extension of water line, I'm more than willing to do that. I know he's got a sense urgency to get this developed, but we have got time. He may not have time, but I am more than willing to meet with him and talk about some of those things if you would like us to. De Weerd: Well, we meet again in two weeks. Would that give you some time to come back and update Council? Watson: Madam Mayor, we will be -- I will be out of town with some of you next week and I have a week of vacation scheduled after that. Donnell: Oh, you can't go on vacation. Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Vacation? Watson: Finally. Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: And, Frank, please don't publish this, but I think it's time for the Council to get off the pot. Bird: I agree with you. Donnell: I think we need to make a decision one way or the other and not bring staff back again for -- to have them wrestle through these same issues. So, having said that -- De Weerd: You could have cut bait. Donnell: I liked the sewer comment better. Don't you report that. So, having said that, I would make a motion that we instruct staff to go forward with option B, which is the extension of sanitary sewer and domestic water to Black Rock and I guess we will find some way to pay for it. De Weerd: We have a motion on the floor to approve Item B. Do I have a second? Okay. That motion would die for lack of a second. Or fails. It doesn't go anywhere. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council June 7, 2005 Page 28 of 56 Rountree: I'll make a motion, but I need an answer from Mr. Wood, if you don't mind. What's the criticality of a decision timing wise? I know you wanted it a couple of months ago, but -- Wood: The sooner the better, but, obviously, I want to -- I want to see it be a Meridian subdivision. Rountree: You're already selling lots. Wood: No. We -- Rountree: Close. Wood: We are giving information, but we are not doing anything more than that. Too much of a nightmare. Rountree: And are you willing to explore public-private partnerships on both these kinds of systems that we need in terms of you're willing to commit some of your resources to make it happen? Wood: Definitely. We would be more than happy to do that. Rountree: Okay. And I'm not going to commit you to an amount, but you're already committed, so -- Madam Mayor, I'm going to move that along the lines of what the Public Works director has just indicated, that the city direct staff to work with the applicant to explore a public-private partnership that would address either the extension of or development of a domestic water supply for this potential future subdivision and that they further work through the design specifications for an internal to the subdivision sewage treatment facility that could ultimately be gravity fed into the ultimate extension of sewer -- Meridian sewer trunk lines and not committing to a date certain of when that hook-up might take place. Bird: Before I second that, have you got a time limit to come back for Mr. Woods? A time limit, give it a month? Rountree: I have no time limit in that it's a matter of coordinating between the staff and Mr. Woods as far as the development goes. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Please don't ask me to repeat it. Bird: Before I second that, I want to know what he said. I'll second it. De Weerd: Okay. So, we have a motion and a second to approve item A with the stipulation of the public-private partnership and the details would come back to Council at a later date. Meridian City Council June 7, 2005 Page 29 of 56 Wardle: Item A or Item B? Bird: Item B. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess a point of clarification. It would be item option B. I would add to that motion if there is no ability to reach consensus or agreement, that the city final ultimate solution would be Item C -- option C., Upon not reaching consensus. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: To deal with this issue and get something done. Donnell: Madam Mayor, before we take a vote, Councilman Rountree, if you hadn't of added that last part on there I would have supported your notion, but at this point in going to option C, I can't support that, so just to let you know. I liked it to begin with. Rountree: You can make an amended motion. Donnell: I wouldn't even dare try. De Weerd: Any further discussion? And I guess I would -- oh, not comment. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll? Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Donnell, nay. MOTION FAILS: ONE AYE. THREE NAYS. De Weerd: Okay. It's an interesting evening. Do I have another attempt? Donnell: Mr. Rountree, don't you want to make that motion again? Rountree: For discussion, I don't mind making the motion again, minus the alternative, but it seems to me that if we don't reach consensus, we need to have a solution. So, where do we go? Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: And, Councilman Rountree, I would agree, I think that we have to have some kind of -- somewhere to go, but I think, then, we cross that -- we cross the bridge then. And at this point right now at least we can get them going and begin to have some kind of resolution to this and if that doesn't happen, then, it comes back to us and at that point, then, we look at our options again. Meridian City Council June 7, 2005 Page 30 of 56 De Weerd: So, the added on, instead of item C, would be that it would come back to Council for further discussion. Bird: The motion was -- his original motion -- excuse me. His original motion covered that, basically, if they had an impasse it would come back to -- it would come back to us automatically. Donnell: Right. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I will amend my original motion by striking the reference to if no consensus is reached that it would move forward with option C, that if no consensus is reached that it comes back before the Council and that would be on the July 12th regularly scheduled meeting. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I don't need you to amend it, but just in the motion, since the other one failed, so -- okay. The motion is to do what Councilmember Rountree said the first time, but without the condition, and to come back on July 12th if it doesn't -- if all the details can't be worked out. Correct. Donnell: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Berg: Madam Mayor, if I just could ask -- do you want me to tentatively put that on the agenda for the 12th or would you like a report back from Brad saying it's worked out or -- I don't want to -- De Weerd: Let's have a report on the 12th. Berg: Okay. I just don't want it to fall through and you don't know what's going on. Thank you. Item 10: FP 05-033 Request for Final Plat approval of 78 single-family residential building lots and 12 common lots on 24.12 acres in a R-8 zone for Cedar SDrinas Subdivision No.8 (preliminary platted as Cedar Springs North) by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation - south of McMillan Road and west of Meridian Road: