HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-08E IDIAN ~' CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
MEETING AGENDA
AMENDED AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, April 08, 2014 at 3:00 PM
1. Roll-Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree O Keith Bird (arrived at 3:18 p.m.)
X Genesis Milam O Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
4. Proclamation
A. Proclamation for Meridian Middle School Future City Champions Day (Pg 2-
4)
5. Consent Agenda Approved (Pg 4-6)
A. Approve Minutes of March 25, 2014 City Council PreCouncil Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of March 25, 2014 City Council Meeting
C. Approve Minutes of April 1, 2014 City Council Meeting
D. Approval of Task Order 10489 for "Water Meter Survey" to Civil Survey
Consultants in the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $109,344.00
E. Approval of Task Order 10481 b for "Meridian Heights Water Sewer District -
Water Meter Design" to Civil Survey Consultants in the Not-To-Exceed
Amount of $58,618.00
F. Memorandum of Agreement with Iona, Idaho for Incident Tracking System
and E-Citation Software
G. Professional Services Agreement for "Kleiiner Park Live" Concert Series
Production Services Between Sona Productions and the City of Meridian
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, April 08, 2014 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
H. License Agreement Between the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
(NMID)and the City of Meridian for a Pathway on the Ten Mile Stub Drain
Within the Canterbury Commons Subdivision
I. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-009 Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 3 by
Ronald W. Van Auker Located 2950 E. Franklin Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building Lots on 6.81 Acres of Land in the C-
Gand I-L Zoning Districts
J. Final Order for Approval: TEC 14-003 Seyam Subdivision by Volante
Investments Located North Side of E. Franklin Road and East of N. Eagle
Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat
K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 14-003 Kennedy
Commercial Center by Derk Pardoe Located North Side of W. Overland
Road and West of S. Stoddard Road Request: Amend the Recorded
Development Agreement (DA) (Instrument #108119853) for the Purpose of
Excluding the Property from the Recorded DA and Incorporating a New
Concept Plan and Building Elevations Consisting of Office, Retail and
Multi-Family Residential into a New DA
L. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 14-002 Da Vinci
Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and
E. McMillan Road Request: Amendment to the Development Agreement to
Allow a Mix of Single Family Attached and Detached Lots Instead of all
Attached Lots and Update the Conceptual Development Plan
6. Items Moved From Consent Agenda None (Pg 6)
7. Department Reports
A. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 14-983: Appointing Rich Nesbit to Seat 5 of
the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission Approved (Pg 6)
B. Fire Department: Budget Amendment to Purchase Cardiac Monitors for a
Not-to-Exceed Amount of $42,365.12 Approved (Pg 6-7)
C. Continued from March 11, 2014: Community Development: Review and
Approve City Roadway, Intersection, and Community Program Project
Priorities for 2014 (Pg 7-12)
D. Community Development: Communities in Motion 2040, the Regional Long-
Range Transportation Plan, Public Comment Period Update (Pg 12-14)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, April 08, 2014 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
E. Public Works: Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) Project Agreement
- Well 211Watertower Fiber Optic Conduit Crossing at the Eight Mile Lateral
(Pg 14-15)
F. Public Works: "Wastewater Program - National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permitting (NPDES)" (Pg 15-32)
8. Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 14-1601: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code as
Codified at Title 11, Entitled the Unified Development Code Pertaining to
Modification of the Dimensional Standards of the R-15 Zoning District (ZOA
14-001) Approved (Pg 32-33)
9. Future Meeting Topics
Adjourned at 4:48 p.m. (Pg 33-34)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, April 08, 2014 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Workshop April 8, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, April
8, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, David Zaremba, Keith
Bird, Genesis Milam and Joe Borton.
Members Absent: Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Caleb Hood, Warren Stewart, Tom Barry,
John Overton, Mark Niemeyer, David Miles, and Tracy Crane.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba
X Charlie Rountree
X Genesis Milam
X
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Luke Cavener
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Welcome to our Meridian City Council meeting. We appreciate always
seeing young faces in our audience and so we would like to welcome our students from
Meridian Middle School. So, thank you for joining us and to all the other as well.
Including you, Ralph. For the record it is Tuesday, April 8th. It's 3:00 p.m. We will start
with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and
join us in the pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: A couple items to add or note on the agenda. On Item 7-A, the resolution
number is 14-983 and Item 8-A, the ordinance number is 14-1601. With those noted
change, Madam Mayor, I move that we adopt the agenda.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 2 of 34
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4: Proclamation
A. Proclamation for Meridian Middle School Future City
Champions Day
De Weerd: Item 4 is a proclamation. I am going to head down to the podium. So, this
is in recognition of some pretty amazing students that represented our city at national
with great poise and great talent and a lot of imagination. We were very honored to
have these students present what they were going to share at the national competition
at the State of the City address and -- and since the students have come to our
Community Development Department and shared their model and their information,
there is no doubt that these students are very passionate about what they put together,
very knowledgeable about it, and we have no doubt that the future of our community,
our state, and our country are in good hands. So, I will ask those students to come
forward and join me as I read this proclamation. Don't be shy. Come on up. Because
this day is yours; right? And, then, after I read this if I can have each of you introduce
yourself and say what roll you played in preparing the Future City in putting together
your application and your model. Okay? Okay. So, whereas the Future City program
gives young people the opportunity to do things that engineers do and to improve
students' understanding of science, technology, engineering, and math and whereas the
Meridian Middle School Future City team and their city named -- okay. What is the
name? Okay. That recently competed against 24 other teams and came in first place
at the 2014 Idaho region competition and whereas this victory earned them the
prestigious privilege of representing our great state in the 2014 National Future City
competition on February 15th in Washington, D.C., whereas they won the special award
for best management of water resources and whereas the guidance of the team's
engineer mentor Jay West and teacher representative Krista Schwartz helped team
members Macey Smith, Hannah Gray,, Conner Wittmuss, Sydni Merrill, Quinn McEntire
-- and if I mess up your names I apologize. Just join me, because most people say my
name wrong, too, so -- Josie Sanford, Olivia Pluim, Grace Ellis, Leah Cadillac, Ethan
Cash, and Cody David, focused on work ethic and desire and transformed them into a
winning team with each team member making valuable contributions. Therefore, I,
Mayor Tammy de Weerd, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, do hereby proclaim Meridian
Middle School Future City Champions Day in the City of Meridian and call upon the
community to join me in congratulating this team on their remarkable achievement and
for representing Meridian so proudly in the recent competition and I did sign this today
and I would like to be the first to congratulate these young members. Now, do you have
a team captain? Okay. Well, I will present this, then, to the closet standing to me and I
will tell you that I will make one of these for each of you, so you can do what you would
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 3 of 34
like with it. I won't assume you save them. You can hang them. You can draw on
them. You can throw darts at it. But we are very proud of what all of you have been
able to do in representing our community and showcasing the talent that we have right
here in Meridian. So thank you. And if you will, please, take the mike and introduce
yourself.
Merrill: I'm Sydni Merrill and I work in private home addition and help to write an essay
and so I worked on that with Conner.
Ellis: I'm Grace Ellis and helped to work on the narrative for the competition.
Pluim: I'm Olivia Pluim and I worked a little bit on the buildings on the model and on the
poster for the presentation.
Cash: I'm Ethan and I mostly worked on small details, like the palm trees and all of
other ones like that.
McEntire: I am Quinn McEntire and I helped Grace out with the Narrative and it's cool
that we have a holiday now.
Davis: I'm Cody and I -- for a little while I was helping with SimCity, which is another
part that is required in the competition and I also helped Ethan with the palm trees on
the model.
Smith: I'm Macey and I worked on the models in the competition.
Wittmuss: I'm Conner. I worked on the Essay with Sydni.
De Weerd: Now, could any of you -- can you give a brief explanation of what your
model was about?
Smith: Our model was part of our city or like our island. It was just part of it that was
like our city and like all of our districts and buildings just parts that were part of our city.
And transportation.
De Weerd: And why did you win the award for your water --
Smith: I don't think that's a question for me.
Wittmuss: We won that award because we used a lot of different really creative ways to
manage all the different wastewater in our city.
Merrill: Like we were a man made city and, then, we located in the middle of the
Mediterranean and so used water for -- so we desalinated the water around us for
drinking water and, then, we used -- and, then, we recycled all of our drainage water,
black water for -- in the sewage.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 4 of 34
De Weerd: Future employees. Thank you so much.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: I see a lot of cameras out there. Is there a chance that they might want a
picture with you and the whole crew together?
De Weerd: Okay. Are you game? Come on up.
Parent: I just want to acknowledge Krista Schwartz as a teacher who has been with
these students for the last three years developing their love for this competition and it is
a huge amount of time and commitment to these students, as well as the travel and the
organization involved in doing that, so, Krista Schwartz, thank you so much for making
Meridian Middle School shine.
De Weerd: Thank you. And you don't have to stay here unless you want to. Although
you will be hearing about wastewater and -- we know how to clear a room. Okay.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of March 25, 2014 City Council PreCouncil
Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of March 25, 2014 City Council Meeting
C. Approve Minutes of April 1, 2014 City Council Meeting
D. Approval of Task Order 10489 for "Water Meter Survey" to Civil
Survey Consultants in the Not-To-Exceed Amount of
$109,344.00
E. Approval of Task Order 10481 b for "Meridian Heights Water
Sewer District -Water Meter Design" to Civil Survey
Consultants in the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $58,618.00
F. Memorandum of Agreement with Iona, Idaho for Incident
Tracking System and E-Citation Software
G. Professional Services Agreement for "Kleiner Park Live"
Concert Series Production Services Between Sona
Productions and the City of Meridian
H. License Agreement Between the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District (NMID)and the City of Meridian for a Pathway on the
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 5 of 34
Ten Mile Stub Drain Within the Canterbury Commons
Subdivision
I. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-009 Olson & Bush Subdivision
No. 3 by Ronald W. Van Auker Located 2950 E. Franklin Road
Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building
Lots on 6.81 Acres of Land in the C-G and I-L Zoning Districts
J. Final Order for Approval: TEC 14-003 Seyam Subdivision by
Volante Investments Located North Side of E. Franklin Road
and East of N. Eagle Road Request: Two (2) Year Time
Extension on the Preliminary Plat
K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 14-
003 Kennedy Commercial Center by Derk Pardoe Located
North Side of W. Overland Road and West of S. Stoddard Road
Request: Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (DA)
(Instrument #108119853) for the Purpose of Excluding the
Property from the Recorded DA and Incorporating a New
Concept Plan and Building Elevations Consisting of Office,
Retail and Multi-Family Residential into a New DA
L. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 14-
002 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of
N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request:
Amendment to the Development Agreement to Allow a Mix of
Single Family Attached and Detached Lots Instead of all
Attached Lots and Update the Conceptual Development Plan
De Weerd: Okay. Item 5 is the Consent Agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and authorize the
Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign.
Borton: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Madam
Clerk will you call roll.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 6 of 34
Roll Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, absent.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 7: Department Reports
A. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 14-983: Appointing Rich Nesbit
to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission
De Weerd: So, we will move right to Item 7-A. Council, in front of you you have a
resolution appointing Rich Nesbit to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historical Preservation
Commission. Rich right now is involved with our historical society and has been
involved for the last several years. He's been a great contributor and I know he will
bring a new level of energy to this commission. I stand for any questions. Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I agree. I was very pleased to see him come forward to be appointed to this
position. He's a fantastic fit and with that I would move that we approve Resolution No.
14-983 appointing Rich Nesbit to Seat 5 of the Meridian Historic Preservation
Commission.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the appointment in front of you.
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, absent.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
B. Fire Department: Budget Amendment to Purchase Cardiac
Monitors for aNot-to-Exceed Amount of $42,365.12
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 7 of 34
De Weerd: Item 7-B is under our Fire Department. I will turn this over to our chief.
Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you. This budget
amendment -- I will give you a quick back history on this. This current budget year we
had replacement of six cardiac monitors, as well as the addition or enhancement of two.
When we got the initial bid prior to bringing that to you last year for approval, we
included in that the trade-in value, if you will, which was what we understood was kind
of common practice. Since then we have a legal opinion based on the state code that
does not allow us to actually trade those in when we get the new ones purchased. So,
with that, the amount of 42,365 that we had planned for trade-in value we cannot use.
We are going to take those cardiac monitors, put them on the auction block, if you will,
to specific bidders, because we can't just turn those out to the public. We don't want
those in the hands of the public. So, that is what the budget amendment is -- is for
today is 42,365 difference in what we had planned on for trade-in value and Bill and his
team took a look at it with a very fine tooth comb, if you will, on what the state code
allows and, unfortunately, the state code does not specify that municipalities can bring
in that -- that trade-in value. So, we want to stay with the legal side of things and do it
the right way, so that is a budget amendment.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve a budget amendment to purchase cardiac monitors in
the amount not to exceed $42,365.12.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: That was very specific. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, absent; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea;
Cavener, absent.
De Weerd: See, we do things down to the penny in this city. Pretty cool, uh? Good
stewards.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT..
C. Continued from March 11, 2014: Community Development:
Review and Approve City Roadway, Intersection, and
Community Program Project Priorities for 2014
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 8 of 34
De Weerd: Item 7-C is continued from March 11th. I will turn this over to Caleb.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. As the Mayor just stated
and as noted on your agenda, we discussed priority roadway intersections, highways
and community program projects on March 11th. I have made some amendments to
the priority list that you reviewed in March and am here today to, hopefully, seek your
endorsement of the revisions or some form of the revised list today. Changes from
what the transportation commission recommended during their March meeting and what
is before you today is in the far right-hand column. Similar to last month when we
discussed this, any change from -- so, in the 2013 priority range any change that the
transportation commission made that was plus or minus five points different than what
we had the year previous was highlighted yellow. I used a similar methodology to show,
quote, unquote, significant changes from what you saw last time to what is being
proposed now in the far right-hand column. So, for example, last year's priority project
number seven, Linder Road, Ustick to McMillan, was proposed by the transportation
commission to be priority project number three. It's since been revised to be priority
project number 11. So, again, because the change was more than five percentage
points -- or five spots I have highlighted those yellow throughout the -- all four of the
project lists. The other thing that we discussed and was requested last month was a
map. So, Brian helped me come up with a map. It should also be in your packet.
Hopefully you have that in color, because if it's in black and white it probably isn't as
much help for both the table and this map. But this map, hopefully, is what you all were
hoping for or get at least some of what you were hoping for. As you can see in the
legend the intersections are -- are circles and the roadway projects are squares. The
higher the number or the higher the priority the bigger the box or the circle and, then,
the smaller the circle the lesser priority it is, at least right now on the draft priority rank.
So, we can toggle back and forth. Again, you should have this map in your possession.
What we have done, again, is taken those lists and put them on a map to show where
the priority projects rank out or stack up or however you want to view that. So, again,
my hope for today is that we can have a list that everyone's comfortable with. I also
have a draft letter that I would like to have the clerk pass out to you. A cover letter that,
again, assuming we can -- we can get through this this afternoon, I have got a draft
cover letter that I would like as part of the motion authorization for the Mayor to sign a
letter. What we can do is take a little time and if you have tweaks to this letter --
realize you're seeing it for the first time, maybe you can a-mail me with any tweaks or
changes to that letter or a-mail the Mayor's chief of staff. But I would like to hand that
letter out. Again, I don't necessarily expect you to read it right now. If you have time, if
there is a lull in this discussion and want to, that's certainly okay, too. I tried to
incorporate some of the discussions from our last meeting and incorporate that, again,
into a draft letter, so have that as well. So, I'm not quite sure what the pleasure, Madam
Mayor, is of the -- of the Council. I'm not planning on running through project by project
again. I think we spent over an hour, if memory serves correctly, last time on this. I'm
hoping you have had a chance to review -- review the changes from last time. Maybe
just a little bit more background or insight into what's changed since last month. The
only comments I received from any Council persons were from Councilman Rountree
and so, essentially, what you see on the far right-hand column represents a lot of --
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 9 of 34
pretty much all his comments. So, if you're wondering what has changed over the past
30 or so days, we met, sat down and kind of went through all three of the lists. So,
again, Madam Mayor, I'm not quite sure how you want to tackle it. You were absent last
time, so if you want to -- if you want to go through it project by project we can do that,
too. I would just stand I guess and see what you would like to do at this point.
De Weerd: You know, Caleb, I did go through the list and we have so many priorities
that it's -- it's really hard to -- can we just put all in the circles one and call it good?
Hood: Madam Mayor, if I may, ACHD actually asked me to go the other way, what --
what they would like to do is -- well, sort of. Right now we have got an individual list for
roadways and intersections and they would like us to get to an overall top 15. So, now
we are pitting intersections against roadways a little bit there. So, if you can give me a
little direction. I don't know that we have to -- if you want to we can spend the time
doing that, if you want to give me the top five or ten or if you want me to just kind of --
you know, I kind of looked at it and to me our top four or five roadways are -- are right
up there, in my opinion. If you look at the top five intersections I don't think these top
intersections are as critical. That being said, I mean this one is getting some
improvement right now, so just for me I think our top five roadways kind of are more
important and we typically get a bigger bang for the buck doing intersections, but our
roadways -- again, the top three roadways seem to be -- but I will take any direction you
have that way, too. But ACHD has asked for a top 15 list, too.
De Weerd: Okay. When I looked at it I didn't look at it to -- to try and do that, so --
when -- when is this to be turned in?
Hood: Madam Mayor, the deadline is April 30th. Matt Edmond I'm sure would take it as
soon as we can get it to him. That top 15 1 think we can probably -- you know, if we
could finalize these lists today I think that would be great. I know Ryan is here as well, if
he wants to add anything to that. I can maybe supplement these with the top 15 later,
too, if you want to give a look at it and let me know what the top 15 looks like.
De Weerd: Well, Council, what I would propose is to go ahead and submit this and,
then, next week put it on for narrowing to our top 15 roadway projects and intersections
and that way they can see this list and we can try tackling the top 15. Does that sound
reasonable?
Bird: We are busy next week.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 10 of 34
Zaremba: I was going to say that works for me. For sake of discussion, I would like to
throw in one more idea here. We go through this exercise every year and we very
carefully consider what's being proposed. The last several years we have had a
downturn in development, which is changing. We are having an up turn in
development. And my concern is that -- as the Mayor said, you look at the top priorities
and a whole lot of these are top priorities that need to be done pretty soon or maybe
even last year and I guess what I would like to suggest that's -- somewhere in here or
maybe in the cover letter we have a paragraph that says that we really would support
ACHD in seeking greater funding, so that they are able to do more of these projects, as
opposed to seeing some of them probably aren't going to be done in the next ten or 15
years as you look down the list a little ways and that we would certainly support them in
an effort to seek their own greater funding to be able to do more projects -- not only for
us, but the other cities are presenting projects to them as well. We feel it's important
that we get many projects, because we are right in the center of the valley and
everybody's traffic comes through here. So, I think we are justified in wanting a high
priority for many of our projects. But Ijust -- I'm suggesting that we suggest to them that
the list needs to be getting shorter with greater funding and that we would support their
effort to do that. Any other opinions on that?
De Weerd: It's a fine question, Mr. Zaremba. Council, any comment?
Rountree: Well, I agree.
Milam: I agree.
Bird: I agree with him. I do.
De Weerd: Okay. I do believe it's probably at that point, Caleb, where it would be
helpful to have a meeting between our Council and the commission and so if you and
Madam Clerk could work on getting some dates identified that we could fine one that
might work for everyone that would be helpful, because I do think it is time for a
discussion and when we get together I think we need to have information in terms of
where development applications have come in, what has been final platted and start --
the whole idea behind Blueprint For Good Growth was to look at the -- not just what is in
the -- right in front of you right then, but the cumulative impact of all developments,
whether they are in and around us. South Meridian certainly is impacted by the growth
from Kuna and in the south -- southwest Boise and we are seeing a lot of building
permits in north Meridian as well. So, I think it's a timely discussion.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: One question for Caleb on the letter. The last paragraph references a great
priority. It's listed as number 13 and I think it -- I was curious what the purpose of that
paragraph is in light of its ranking. I wouldn't be opposed to that project being ranked
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 11 of 34
higher. I think you state the argument for it. I just didn't know what that was trying to
convey to them if it's not ranked any higher.
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I believe that project is actually ranked
number four on our community programs projects. So, it's this new project that would
be a community program. Pine, Locust Grove to Main Street. So, it's fairly high on that
list and it's new. So, that's another reason to kind of call it out. It came out of nowhere,
if you will, and jumped up higher. So, yeah, it's on the community program. And, I'm
sorry, there is -- it's two sided, that letter as well, so it's the last paragraph on the first
page. There are a couple of other -- there is a back side there.
Borton: Madam Mayor? When I look at the roadway project, Item 13, then, am
confusing two- different --
Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, you're not confusing them. Those are the
same --
Borton: Right.
Hood: -- if you look in the comment section we have that make community programs
and/or economic development applications. This project will most likely score better on
our -- the community program side of things, because it is geared toward and will really
benefit pedestrians and bicyclists.
Borton: Okay.
Hood: But still -- there is still a need there, too, for the roadway to be -- to be widened
and some turn lanes and those types of things. So, there is some duplication in that for
sure.
Borton: That makes sense. All right. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions or comments? So, Council, if you're willing
probably need for the record to have a motion on the list to move it forward to Ada
County Highway District.
Hood: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Hood: I know you weren't talking to me there, but can Ijust -- are we coming back next
week? Is that still the plan?
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Yes.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 12 of 34
Hood: Maybe I can update the letter with the one comment I have heard. If you have
others if you get them to me in the next couple of days so I can get it in your packet, we
will look at that letter and get a final buy off on the letter and I will even put together
maybe a draft top 15 to get us started and, then, hopefully, that will expedite things next
week and approve the final list, then, if that's --
De Weerd: So, we have to give them the final list combined?
Hood: I would like to do that. If you want to go to a different direction we can. I just
think that may help things move along. But either way. Or you can adopt this and we
can come back and talk about top 15. The letter I still need to -- if we are going to
include something about funding I need to make those changes.
De Weerd: Okay. So, Council, if you will get your comments into Caleb we can bring
something back to next week's meeting. Okay. Very good. Is that all you needed on
that?
D. Community Development: Communities in Motion 2040, the
Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan, Public Comment
Period Update
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-D is also in our Community Development under Communities
In Motion.
McClure: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm here to discuss the
Communities In Motion 2040. This is an informational item for you and if you like you
could participate in the public review processing going on right now. Staff will be back
later this year to discuss in more depth the outcome of this process and I have to
apologize in advance if some of this is low level for you, but 1 wasn't sure the familiarity,
so -- COMPASS is a regional metropolitan planning organization. One of the
responsibilities is to create and maintain long range transportation plans, which are
required to receive federal transportation funding. The plan Communities In Motion
2040 is for both Ada and Canyon county and must have a 20 year horizon and be
updated every four years. By anticipating areas and densities of future growth it helps
conserve roads, bridges, transit services, pathways, sidewalks and trails are ready for
future. The plan also includes optimal regional performance measures and goals in
topics like housing, health, public safety and economic development. The current
version of CIM, Communities In Motion 2035 was adopted by the COMPASS board in
September of 2010. CIM 2040 is expected to be adopted later this year. City staff has
been involved with CIM 2040 from the beginning. This includes helping to staff the
workshop tables during the three day public visioning process in 2012. The workshop
included over 170 participants, which developed 27 scenarios. Each scenario was,
then, evaluated for trends, which helped to establish a vision of CIM 2040. Staff helped
and is continuing to help to make sure this vision plan is supportive of Meridian's
Comprehensive Plan. There are overlapping -- or overarching and objectives for CIM
2040. This includes new housing and jobs in major activity centers. Focus is on
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 13 of 34
maintenance, existing recreation and open space. Focuses growth outside of prime
farmland environmental constraints. Insures a variety of housing types. Supports local
comprehensive plan. Supports a high capacity transit for Interstate I-84. And supports
multi-modal infrastructure services. What you see here is the -- there is a map for CIM
2040. This plan is intended to support a projected population of 1,020,000 people,
which is 422,000 more people than now and 462,000 jobs, which is 210,000 more jobs
than now. For Meridian this is a projected population of 154,780 people and 65,642
jobs.
Bird: Thank God I won't be here.
McClure: This map helps to identify locations in need and sort of sets the stage for
future transportation systems. CIM 2040 isn't just about transportation routes. It
recognizes that planning for transportation can't take place in a vacuum. It affects and
is affected by other things. It's reflected in the 2040 vision descriptions on the previous
slide and now you will see them in the elements above. The transportation, housing,
farmland, open space, health, community, infrastructure, land use and economic
development are all very important to this plan. Compass is fond of pointing this out, so
will as well. But the icons you see on the right correspond to the numbering on the left.
They use those in all of their marketing. There are goals for each of the elements listed
on a previous slide. These were developed by the COMPASS board and through public
comment in late 2012 and early 2013. There were 17 goals which support the eight
previously mentioned elements. Additionally -- and to make these goals more
manageable -- performance measures were created. These were developed in addition
to anticipated federal performance measures and identified through scenario planning
workshops. Each performance measure had to target something that is measurable
that we can compare to and see if we are making progress. There will be regular
monitoring reports to track progress and so that we can hold ourselves accountable.
COMPASS is also going to be preparing a dashboard online so anyone can go on there
and check out these matrix and in CIM 33 projects corridors and projects were
identified. The important thing to note is that they are all considered regional. That is
they have federal funding opportunities and, then, they also have air quality impact
considerations involved. This doesn't mean, for example, that not seeing Ustick Road
on here means Ustick Road isn't going to be built. Ustick Road is a local project, so
these are -- these are regional projects with federal funding. Numbers five, ten, 11, 16
and 29 have some overlap in Meridian's area of city impact and this is the same map
zoomed into Meridian's area of city impact. During the planning process it was
continually stressed that items lower on the list were going to be very difficult. The
federal funds could be used just in the top three. Councilman Zaremba made a point
earlier, which is timely here. This is the funding -- this is funding that COMPASS
projects will be available in the CIM to plan our transportation system. All funds shown
are in current dollars. There is no inflation accounted for. Those people support all
types of transportation funding, railway transit, capital maintenance and alternatives like
bicycle and pedestrian improvements. There is an annual shortfall of 159 million dollars
or 4.3 billion dollars over the life of the plan. Given that there is not enough future
revenue to build this infrastructure, the COMPASS board voted to focus all of its federal
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 14 of 34
funding on maintenance. That is federal funding over -- only, as I mentioned before,
local projects can still occur. ACHD can still build roads in Ada County and Meridian,
but federal funds are basically not available. Even with all federal funding going
towards maintenance there will still have to be local, state, and federal funding
combinations to handle that and it's still not enough just to maintain what we have and
what we will be building. That is a quick overview of CIM. If you'd like to be involved
there is an open house at COMPASS just down the street on Thursday and you can, of
course, also go online anytime and review the material and also fill out comment forms
there. There is the full array of resources on their website, so if you're looking for more
information that is all available and it's all organized on compassidaho.org and with that
I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brian. Council, any questions? Thank you. So, you do see the
open houses. You can go online and take a look at those. Those that haven't been as
intimately involved as their representative on the COMPASS board, I would strongly
suggest that you go on there. As you can see from the map that Brian showed, you
don't see Highway 16 connecting Chinden to the interstate and there is certainly a
concern in south Meridian with the road needs and the growth pressures that are going
on down there and I guess, Caleb, one of those in south Meridian certainly was
something that I know we will be having a meeting with ACRD on later regarding south
Meridian, but Locust Grove corridor continues to be one of those areas that have been
-- that our citizens down in that area have concern about, so that might be something
that we could discuss next week, too, but as you can see from -- from the map there is
serious need, as Councilman Zaremba mentioned, in terms of the funding shortfall.
E. Public Works: Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID)
Project Agreement -Well 21/Watertower Fiber Optic Conduit
Crossing at the Eight Mile Lateral
De Weerd: So, if there is no further questions on that item, we will go ahead and move
on. Item 7-E is under our Public Works Department. David.
Miles: Good afternoon, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I will be very brief. I'm here
to bring you the first Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District project agreement.
De Weerd: You know, it's more important that Tom starts out that way. Oh, sorry. Is
Tom here? Oh, good. That wasn't -- or there he is.
Miles: This project is for a fiber line under the Eight Mile Lateral to connect Well 21 to
the water tower. As you know we entered into a new master agreement for
encroachments with Nampa-Meridian a few weeks ago and this would be the first
project under that agreement. Nampa-Meridian has assembled that packet and
delivered it to us and I'm happy to report that the terms and process has worked as we
suspected and planned within the document. With that, really, I only have two items for
you to consider. One is to consider and authorize Public Works staff to sign the initial
project agreement for Well 21 and second is your consideration and direction moving
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 15 of 34
forward for future agreements whether or not Council wishes to hear a future agreement
or direct staff to go ahead and begin processing all future agreements moving forward.
As part of our plan, as you might recall, we are trying to do some time saving, as well as
some other things with a new master agreement and so with that in that process is
having staff sign rather than bringing the documents to Council if that's your direction
and pleasure. So, with that I will stand for any questions. That's really all I have and --
De Weerd: Thanks, Dave. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would comment that I appreciate all the work that has gone into this getting
to this point and I appreciate having the first one being brought to us, but beings that it's
operating the way that we hoped it would operate and I would be comfortable with not
bringing future ones to us. Personal opinion.
De Weerd: I would agree.
Rountree: I agree.
Bird: I have no problem with that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Miles: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: You're welcome. Well, congratulations.
Borton: Good job.
Bird: Thank you.
Miles: You're welcome.
F. Public Works: "Wastewater Program -National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permitting (NPDES)"
De Weerd: It's nice to see we are at that point; right? Okay. Item 7-F is also under our
Public Works. The long awaited NPDES update.
Barry: In the spirit of being brief we need lots of money and that's all I have. Any
questions?
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 16 of 34
De Weerd: Thank you. We are at the end of our agenda --
Barry: Fantastic. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this has been a presentation
long time in the making, because the work that we put into this has spanned a number
of years in preparation for what appears to be the final chapter in the NPDES permitting
saga for our wastewater treatment plant after years and years of delay with regard to
administration -- and administrative extension on its behalf of the EPA. We are finally at
the point where the EPA is ready to release a draft permit for the City of Meridian. So,
we thought it would be prudent to prepare you for that release and to share with you the
plans that we have developed in addressing our response in certainly the strategies and
actions and tactics that we are going to have to employ in order to keep the wastewater
treatment plant within compliance with this new anticipated permit. So, to that end our
agenda looks like this: We are going to go over the goals and objectives of the
wastewater program. I want to also introduce the staff and also the consultants that
have been primarily involved with this particular project. We will talk about NPDES,
which is National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting and the wastewater
program history and current status. Also discuss new compliance requirements. That
will be largely done by our consultants at HDR and, then, talk about the options that we
are going to be evaluating to meet the new compliance requirements and, then, develop
a foundation for sort of what comes next. Now, in anticipation of today's conversation
took the liberty to develop a decoder sheet for you and I'd like to pass that out for you
now. It's a list of acronyms that you're going to run across in the presentation. I will try
to disclose those as we go through the presentation, but we will be referring to them
several times throughout the presentation, so it will be nice I think to have a little
acronym sheet here, so -- all right. So, with that the goals and objectives of the
presentation today are to do three simple things. The first one is to inform the City
Council and the public for that matter of the complexities and the impacts of the
potential decisions that are going to be coming our way over the next several months
and into the following years. We also want to make sure that we educate the Council
and the community, so that they are prepared to make and support future decisions that
we are going to have to make, which will be generational. I mean we will be impacting
generations to come with the decisions and the changes that we have to make in the
wastewater treatment plant and in the program and, therefore, to develop a foundation
for what comes next from today going forward. So, with that I will give a brief
introduction to the team members that have been part of this team for the last couple
years. They include myself, our deputy director John McCormick; engineering manager
Warren Stewart; Clint Dolsby our assistant city engineer; Mollie Mangerich our
environmental programs manager; Tracy Crane our superintendent of wastewater.
Laurelei McVey our assistant wastewater superintendent and Travis Kissire our
laboratory manager. From HDR we have David Clark, who I wanted to read just a little
bit about. He's the principal on this particular project for HDR Consulting. David is a
senior vice-president. He also serves as HDR's market sector director for wastewater
leading strategic efforts and understanding wastewater market issues as they affect
wastewater utilities. Mr. Clark's participated in wastewater planning, nutrient
management planning, water quality analyses, total maximum daily loads, also known
as TMDLs and the NPDES discharge permitting on the Spokane River, the Clark Fork
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 17 of 34
River, the Yellowstone River, the East Gallison River, Boise River, Wenatchee River
and almost a dozen more. He's well qualified to be helping us navigate these waters,
so to speak. He's supported also by Michael Cash who is here today from HDR. Both
have been instrumental in helping us to navigate as I mentioned. We have also been
working intermittently with our regulatory agency personnel. Those include Jim Werntz
from the regional office, as well as Bill Stewart of the regional office of EPA. Christine
Psyk, David Domingo and Brian Nichols is our permit writer. Pete Wagner, Troy Smith,
Lance Holloway, Lauri Monnot and Todd Crutcher are also representing for Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality and that represents, really, the personnel that we
really have been working with as we have been evaluating these options and for
planning and preparing for the ultimate issuance of our next NPDES permit, which will --
as (mentioned is going to be quite a bit different than the last permit issued. So, let's
talk briefly about wastewater treatment in Meridian. Wastewater collection and disposal
is an essential and fundamental city service which allows our city to prosper and to grow
by responsibly collecting, treating, and disposing of our citizen sewage in a healthful
and sanitary ways and in a way that protects the public health and the environment, for
that matter. To provide the service we must comply with a variety of federal, state and
local requirements and some of them appear here. The Clean Water Act, which was
established in 1972, is -- mandates or prohibits I should say anyone from discharging
pollutants from a point source into surface waters unless that particular person or facility
has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued by the EPA or a
state that has primacy for issuance of such permits. IDAPA rules for the state of Idaho
are developed to establish procedures and requirements for wastewater facilities and
discharge of wastewater and human activities which may adversely affect public health
and water quality and, then, there is several ordinances that we have on the books as
well. One I will point to you, which I kind of found interesting in our research -- Title 9,
Chapter 4, says under city authority that the wastewater system shall be under the sole
and exclusive control the Mayor and the City Council. Obviously, that's been delegated
to staff in the Public Works Department and the wastewater division. Obviously, the city
made a decision many, many, many, many years ago to provide wastewater services
and we have invested accordingly for the reasons aforementioned, in addition to others,
and at this point in time we have a vested interest in wastewater equally on the order of
300 to 400, 450 million dollars in assets on the books for the wastewater treatment
facility. So, obviously, this is important to us. It's important to our community and the
health of our citizens. But we know that there are big changes ahead -- enormous
changes and that's what we wanted to, essentially, develop a primer for today to talk
about these changes. So, as we do that let's talk about some of the activities that we
have been undertaking over the last couple of years to plan and prepare for these
changes. We have developed models and have been supporting a variety of local and
regional models. We have been doing an enormous amount of planning and studying.
We have made significant treatments to the wastewater treatment plant and we have
also engaged our regulatory partners quite frequently during this process. Specifically
as it relates to modeling, we have done TMDL modeling support. We were actually
instrumental in helping EPA to embrace a new water quality model that is a little bit
more characteristic we believe in representing the intricacies of the lower Boise River
watershed. Our activities with the help of HDR have been instrumental in moving this
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 18 of 34
region towards the embracing of that particular model and getting EPA to embrace it.
We have also done independent modeling to understand the city's impact and how
those impacts directly impact that overall model and the water quality constituent, as
well as the macroinvertebrates and other biota that are involved and have to be
modeled over these -- in the lower Boise River watershed. We have been engaged in
our planning side in facility planning. You have been aware of that. We have also been
putting together an implementation plan, which is being -- we are being consulted with
by HDR and have to be committed to the Department of Environmental Quality, which
outlines our compliance with the permit requirements over the compliance window,
which we anticipate to be ten years at this point in time. We have also been positioning
ourselves financially. As you know we set up regulatory reserves back in 2009 and '10
and have been saving up for these types of costly improvements to the wastewater
treatment plant and we have really been instrumental in pushing the envelope both with
regulators and with nonprofits and our other colleagues in and around the Treasure
Valley to develop opportunities for trading and offsets and making sure that those
opportunities get preserved in NPDES permits going forward as a strategy to comply
with these constituent limits. We have been performing a series of upgrades. Tracy
Crane will talk to you about some of those upgrades on the order of tens of millions of
dollars planning and preparing for the improvements which have ultimately allowed us
to have a leg up over a lot of the other jurisdictions in the lower Boise River watershed
and have -- are going to position us well in embracing improvements that need to come
forward as a result of permit issuance. And, lastly, we have been heavily involved with
the regulatory agencies and this isn't just calling them up and talking with them every
once in awhile and asking them questions about what it is we think we should be doing,
it's actually establishing a leadership role and amongst the lower Boise River watershed
council. We have been instrumental in developing the TMDL. We have got
representatives from our -- from our city on the watershed advisory group of the Lower
Boise River Watershed Council. We have also been able to position strategically --
petition rather strategically an additional municipal board member to help round out that
board and make sure that those municipal insights that were being fully addressed in
the -- we have also participated in the total maximum daily loads, again TMDL, pack for
the lower Boise River watershed technical advisory committee. So, we have also been
involved in the TMDL municipal sub group and we have been very attentive to the
issuance of other permits in and around the lower Boise River to insure that those
permits don't become templates that might dictate or overallocate certain types of
capacities for water resources. A good example is the city of Boise recently had a
modification to their permit, which allowed in that particular permit for full assemble
capacity of the south channel of the Boise River and we called that into question,
because that, essentially, left no capacity available for the City of Meridian, which also
discharges into the south channel and had that been allowed we would have had no
additional capacity whatsoever for ourselves to be utilizing for compliance in the permit.
So, those type of activities are instrumental. This isn't just about being Meridian
specific, it's about being regional and looking at this thing as a watershed and therefore
adjusting accordingly. Let's talk very, very quickly about NPDES permitting in
particularly the City of Meridian. We talked about the importance of wastewater
treatment. A couple things you should know about the City of Meridian's program. We
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 19 of 34
discharged into -- by three different ways. The first one and the primary one is we treat
our wastewater and, then, discharge it to Five Mile Creek. Currently that's pretty much
where the majority of all of our discharge goes once treated. We do have a secondary
outfall known as the Boise River outfall and we have used that outfall on occasion and --
but it is not our primary outfall. And, then, lastly, the development of the reclaimed
water program has allowed us to divert certain percentages of flows during the irrigation
season for irrigation demand and that has, therefore, become a tertiary disposal method
for us. But because Five Mile Creek and Boise are considered waters of the United
States, they are regulated under the Clean Water Act administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency and, therefore, a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit is required for those discharges. Now, the federal Clean
Water Act was established in 1972. It requires this permit as I mentioned. EPA Region
10 administers that for the state of Idaho, because we do not have primacy, although
that is in the works for the state of Idaho currently. DEQ certifies our permit and our --
and establishes the permit compliance schedule, which is important, because we need
to make sure that we are given adequate time to not only design, construct, test,
operate, but also plan for these types of improvements and that planning includes
financial planning as well. These permits will dictate the required water quality of our
discharge, meaning we will have to meet certain characteristics that are going to be
defined in this permit that is effluent limits, if you will, and many of these will require
technology upgrades to meet the new water quality standards and we also will see the
TMDL allocation incorporated into our permit and let's talk a little bit about what that
specifically means, a TMDL allocation. This is what the regulatory process looks like
very quickly. Essentially if the state -- so, the state is supposed to monitor water quality;
right? And if it monitors water quality and finds a problem and that particular body of
water does not meet the beneficial uses that have been designated by the state for that
particular water body, then, that water body, by requirement under the Clean Water Act,
is added to the state's 303(b) list and 303(b) is a section of the Clean Water Act
numbers and letters, but it's, essentially, the authorizing section which requires the state
to report limitations on the -- on these water bodies. Then there is a requirement for the
state to develop a total maximum daily load. This is a pollution allocation, really, and it
is, essentially, just that. It is the maximum allowable pollutants that can be discharged
on a per day basis by per discharger inside that particular water body. Those TMDLs
are incorporated into the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit and
those permits, then, govern how much the particular -- or that particular agency is able
to discharge based upon the maximum daily load that's been established for -- by the
state for that particular water body. These permits are supposed to be issued generally
on a five year cycle as you know. Our permit was last issued in 1999. We reissued and
reapplied for a permit in 2004 and have been waiting ever since and that was -- the sort
of the stage here, that in 2004 we had the renewal, we had administration --
administration extensions from 2004 current, then, Idaho Conversation League sued the
Environmental Protection Agency for failing to issue permits in a timely basis. That
preempted the EPA to, then, go ahead and begin to issue permits and here is the
juxtaposition. Typically total maximum daily loads are established and, then, permits
include those total maximum daily load on a per discharge basis. Well, what's
happened with this ICL lawsuit or the settlement is that agencies are now having to find
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 20 of 34
permits or actually get permits before this total maximum daily load is developed and
that has been a big challenge for this region, because what it does is it sets into motion
compliance requirements by each of these agencies before we even know what the
allegations are going to be. And the EPA can do this by surrogate, which is what it's
doing with the Snake River Hells Canyon TMDL into which the Boise River flows and
so, therefore, that surrogate of 70 micrograms per milliliter is what we are going to have
to meet until we can prove that that's not the right allocation, if we can even prove that.
But until then we have to comply with this surrogate number, which is a big challenge
for us. So, next here Ithink I -- I have learned from IT that if you just turn it off and turn
it back on it will work. There we go. All right. So, here we go. As we are approaching
the process year of getting our new permit we have requested a courtesy pre-draft
permit. Now, this has not been communicated directly from EPA, this comes from the
Department of Environmental Quality and so when we say we have a draft permit, it's
not quite true. It's what we call a preliminary draft. Okay? This preliminary draft is
more like a discussion document and this discussion document is what's created a lot of
recent activity for us and our consultants to insure that the data that we have supplied is
appropriately integrated and appropriately interpreted and that the EPA's understanding
of our systems and their impacts are also appropriately understood. Now, after we get
through with this courtesy pre-draft permit discussion and sharing of information, a
formal draft permit will come out to which a 30-day comment period will be issued and
that 30-day comment period will allow anyone in the community, anyone in the valley,
anyone from other dischargers or whatnot to include comments in and around our
particular permit. After that 30-day comment period is completed the new permit will be
finaled and issued to the City of Meridian. The agency functions -- and, you know, I'm
not going to read all of this, but, essentially, there is a lot that goes into NPDES
permitting and each jurisdiction has a different roll in each of those activities and must
be diligent in order to insure that the permit is as reflective as possible and is as
meaningful as possible to achieving the water quality standards that the state and the
EPA ultimately agree on. So, with that I'm going to stop. I'm going to turn it over to
Tracy Crane, our wastewater superintendent. He's going to talk a little bit about our
program and the implications that this is going to have on our program and, then, Tracy
will turn it over to David Clark, who will talk about the nuances of NPDES permitting in
particular, what the preliminary draft looks like for the City of Meridian and, more
importantly, what the implications of that preliminary draft look like and what the
meaning of that is for the City of Meridian going forward. At the end of this presentation
I will open it up for questions by everyone who is in attendance. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Tom.
Rountree: Thanks, Tom.
Crane: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council --
De Weerd: Tracy.
Crane: -- good afternoon. I will be brief.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 21 of 34
De Weerd: Thank you. It's acomplex --
Crane: Okay. It really is. As you can see from the pictures on the slide here that there
has been dramatic changes at the wastewater plant since conception. It was actually
built on the current site in '76 and it's been -- been under continual construction quite a
lot, especially in the last 15 years. I showed up in 1996, so I'm just off the upper left-
hand corner here, but I will say that most of the major improvements have happened in
the last 15 years, which, incidentally, is the amount of time since we had a discharge
permit renewal. So, a little timeline here starting with that discharge renewal -- or the
current permit that's been administratively expended in '99 and, then, 2004. One of the
things that likely held that up was around 2000 -- late 2004, 2005, the word started
coming down that phosphorus is going to be a big deal in future permits and so we kind
of knew and had that vision that, hey, nutrients, meaning nitrogen and phosphorus, are
going to be a big deal in future permits, although at that time I would say we had no idea
how low or how extremely stringent these new limits were going to be. So, we tried to
do things in anticipation and as you know we are part of a growing, thriving community
and that growth has led to the need for capacity improvements, so a long the way we
have tried to add technology that would be complimentary to low nutrient discharges,
such as the -- it says BNR, that's biological nutrient removal and simply said the ability
to remove phosphorus and nitrogen would be biological activity. Also the tertiary filters
and reclaimed water program and along the way we have made those kinds of
improvements to try to improve technology as well. A couple other things that I would
point out that I think are pretty important on this timeline is in 2009 when we really
stopped and took a look at the rate model and rate impacts to the rate payers and
created the rate model, as well as operational and regulatory reserves, so that we
started saving knowing that this new permit was coming, so, you know, we haven't been
standing out idly by, that's for sure. You can see that since 2006 60 capital projects, 55
million dollars, has been invested in our facility and these investments have not just
been growth. Again, it's not just been driven by growth, but also technology and plant
optimization as well. So, Tom mentioned that we do have three discharge options.
They all have some different -- sort of brings us to today and where we stand and what
our discharge options are. Once the flows reach the facility it can go one of three or a
combination of three ways and they all have a little bit of nuances to them. I will discuss
them each briefly. The first two are the NPDES -- the permitted outfalls. Five Mile
Creek, which, as Tom said, is our primary one. The nice thing about it is it's a gravity
flow, so the flow leaves the plant and goes right to Five Mile Creek and there is some
good things that -- it's classified as secondary contact recreation, which means the rules
are a little bit less stringent. It's not listed for temperature, which is going to be a big
concern on the Boise River. However, it's a very small stream, so, therefore, it has very
little assemblage or dilution capacity so that kind of offsets the fact that it's secondary
contact recreation. The Boise River outfall, on the other hand, it has to be pumped like
six miles over to the Boise River. It's a much larger stream, so it has some assemblage
capacity and Tom mentioned the -- the deal with Boise and their assemblage capacity,
that we did have a favorable outcome where it was agreed that Meridian would share
the assemblage capacity of the south channel of the Boise River. On the down side it is
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 22 of 34
a primary contact recreation, so -- and salmonoid spawning, which I'm not sure what
that -- a little fish. But it has strict temperature limits and, actually, the limits -- the
criteria -- temporary criteria is nearly impossible to meet. I believe it's 13 degrees C in
April and May and wastewater is inherently warmer. It comes out of people's houses.
It's people's showers and their dishwashers and their dishes and things like that and it
flows into the plant warm and we -- I don't know that any plant that -- so, there is going
to be some -- some definite work that we would have to do to meet those temperature
limits. Also one small complication, too, is our reclaimed water system. Part of our
outfall that we use on the Boise River we repurpose that line -- or it's actually dual
purpose and it's used as part of our reclaimed water distribution to get the water down
to Heroes Park. Heroes Park and the reclaimed system requires chlorine and a chlorine
residual where the discharge to the Boise River does not allow chlorine residual,
therefore, those two cannot be used simultaneously unless we were to come in and put
in a second line for the reclaimed water line or vice-versa, the Boise River discharge.
On the other hand, we do have Idaho's leading reclaimed water program. It is the
premier program in the state. It was the first Class A municipal program that there was.
It has a lot of beneficial uses indirectly that prevents or offsets the nutrients from
reaching the river. Every pound of phosphorus or nitrogen that we can send to the
reclaimed water is prevented from going to the river. It's a great program, but this new
permit specifies concentration and mass limits, so the structure kind of diminishes the
capacity of reclaimed water to be the sole solution to our nutrient issue. But we do have
options. We have several options -- C-3 and we are looking at others, too, including
aquifer recharge and possible trading and those kind of things. So, I want to say that
the news here isn't necessarily all bad. The main point is these regulations, although
they are a significant challenge, with some foresight and some good financial planning
and the help of some amazing talented team members, most of which are in this room --
and not to be -- you know, probably most important, the leadership and guidance of this
Council. We are well positioned to meet these future limits. So, with that I will turn it
over to one of those amazingly talented team members, Mr. Dave Clark.
Clark: That's very kind of you.
Crane: Well, I figured after -- you know, it's all good.
Clark: Tracy had the upbeat part of this --
Crane: I got to deliver the good news.
Clark: Yeah. I'm afraid we will have to take a venture down a little bit darker pathway in
some of the regulatory requirements. I will tell a little bit about the regulatory drivers
and talk about how that affects the permit, talk about the city's options for getting a
compliant schedule. That leads to this implementation planning discussion where there
can be some strategies for the city on how to comply. What are a few of the city's
choices and towards that end we share a little bit on the potential financial impacts and,
then, Tom will come back up to wrap up. So, you have gotten a pretty good overview
so far of the facilities from Tracy and Tom and the bigger picture. We have mentioned
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 23 of 34
phosphorus. You have heard some of the parameters kicked around. Go a little deeper
there. Big picture here we have got two of these total maximum daily loads that drive
these phosphorus requirements. One is from the Snake River Hells Canyon TMDL,
that's been done for ten years or so now. And, then, the Boise River has a phosphorus
TMDL that's going on right now. So, we have had a period of time where we didn't have
to deal very seriously with phosphorus. There has been some time for the city to get
prepared. We are now approaching that point where it's going to become a part of the
effluent permit limits. Phosphorus is important, because it's a plant nutrient, creates a
number of problems in waters, because when you fertilize the water, things grow and
they die and, then, they consume oxygen, they interfere with the other biology that you
would like to have for favorable quality. So, that's how the phosphorus becomes an
issue for us and it's always present in the wastewater we discharge. It's not the only
issue on the Boise River. It's probably one that comes to the fore now and we will talk
about ammonia as a toxic, but there are other toxics and there are other water quality
issues on the Boise River, some impact some stakeholders more than others, but we
have to deal with bacteria, sediment, temperature, so there is a lot there. I think what
want to tell you about this slide is that the city has been working to prepare for this point
in time for quite awhile. So, this isn't a complete surprise and we have that Snake River
Hells Canyon TMDL on the books for quite awhile and so we have been able to avoid
maybe some of the financial impacts of that for quite a period of time. That's probably
been nice from a financial standpoint at least. So, these total maximum daily loads --
this is like putting the river on a diet. It gets a certain amount of phosphorus that it can
handle. The Snake River Hells Canyon TMDL established a real low concentration
target downstream at Parma. This 70 micrograms per liter, that's -- that's probably a
hundred times lower than the wastewater that comes into the treatment plant and it's,
you know, five or ten times lower than what we are able to treat to now without making
too great an operational effort. That's a pretty low target. When Tom mentioned that
EPA was going ahead with regulatory requirements, even though the Boise River TMDL
wasn't completed, what he meant was EPA is writing the discharge permits now with the
in point at Parma in the discharge permit. So, discharges have been getting permits
that they need to meet that's 70 micrograms per liter concentration in the pipe and that's
about the limit of treatment technology. Everything we can throw at it from the
standpoint of treatment technology. And it makes the plant -- the amazing part is we
can actually accomplish that level of treatment, but it's very expensive to do that. On
the Boise River TMDL the in points aren't determined yet. We have been trying to find
some flexibility there to get a little bit more room. I think Meridian is going to make out
here with more flexibility than other discharges that go directly in the river because of
the Five Mile discharge, but that TMDL isn't done. So, the city issues are how do we
best shape or influence what DEQ is doing to give us more opportunity here to come up
with a better way to comply, figure out what that treatment technology is, the schedule
and the budget that we can actually accommodate to get that into place. So, that's what
we are working on. Again, the phosphorus kind of comes to the fore, because that's
real present and it affects wastewater dischargers, but there are other diets that the
river's on here, so to speak, so there is a bacteria TMDL that's been done, a sediment
TMDL, that affects some of the -- the nonpoint sources and agricultural more than it
does our wastewater facility, but we have an allocation for solids and, then, we have got
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 24 of 34
these pending allocations, but part of that -- that diet or budget for the river that the City
of Meridian will get in the discharge permit. Tracy mentioned temperature. It's a vexing
issue throughout the northwest, because the trout and salmon require really low
temperature water to reproduce, so the city has a strength there and some flexibility to
choose whether to discharge into the Boise River or Five Mile. We don't have that kind
of cold water resources in Five Mile, so it's a lot more lenient for us in terms of
temperature. The discharges directly to Boise River, if we choose to use that outfall, we
face a more challenging situation, because it's not easy to get that warm water, as
Tracy said, coming out people's showers down to 13 degrees C. You would have to
build a powerplant next to the wastewater plant to cool the effluent. So, it's a problem
throughout the west and we are hoping that we will be able to avoid that stacking on,
but I think fair enough we should advise you that that's still out there and we are not
quite sure about how DEQ is going to handle the temperature. So, now picking up
where Tom left off in this longer flow sheet about the discharge permitting. We have got
this courtesy copy of apre-release permit and we started to talk to EPA about it, so I'm
going to pickup a little on that part of the dialogue and go a little bit deeper there. I think
we have been able to accomplish some things so far that are beneficial to the city, even
in the informal discussions with EPA. We know the permit writers pretty well. They
don't like to turn out a public notice permit that has any errors, so there is a need for
information exchange and as you heard a 1999 permit, that's a pretty old permit, so the
facts that they have to work with for writing a permit they need more information. We
have got some good things in that some obsolete portions of the permit that expired in
2004, a cap on flow to the city, is going to be removed and that's a good thing, because
your utility needs that capacity to grow, because we need to have capacity for a good
treatment here, otherwise, other negative things happen in terms of water quality. We
are hoping that we have shaped the permit writers' view of the structure, the effluent
limits in a way that will help us take advantage of some of the other programs the city
has, like the reuse program. The seasonality of the phosphorus requirements is coming
into play. It may turn out that we have an advantage going to Five Mile in that we are
going to get a more lenient concentration limit for phosphorus, but we don't know how
long the seasonality where we just have to control phosphorus during the summertime,
there is some things that have been telegraphed through the other permits that indicate
that EPA wants to see year around phosphorus requirements and the permit writers
have actually written something into the Meridian pre-draft that says we would have to
treat the phosphorus year around. I think the permit writers overreached there, but we
are not to the end of that story yet. And, then, Tracy mentioned we have got two
outfalls. So, we have preserved the ability to discharge to either and that may be or
may not be advantageous for some parameters in the longer term for the city. We will
have to see. The permit here, kind of big picture, it includes a lot. So, there are effluent
limits that you have to comply with, but there are things you have to monitor and there
are standard conditions and supplemental conditions that EPA includes where we have
to write reports for them, we have to meet interim milestones if we get a more generous
schedule to comply to show that we are making progress and there is -- there is actually
quite a bit to do there. So, to show that I guess in an even more complicated slide, I
have got a tabulation here. The table on the top, down the left-hand column, the
treatment levels in the '99 permit, garden variety secondary treatment. That's what
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 25 of 34
everybody had to do in the country under the Clean Water Act. Now, we are going to
have to have advanced levels of treatment, have to remove more things. So,
phosphorus, ammonia, control toxics. The effluent limits in the 1999 permit -- there
were six things we had to comply with. All pretty basic stuff. We are going to have ten
more. So, that's 16 things that we have to comply with in multiple combinations of
monthly and weekly and daily limits for those. Those monitoring requirements, all the
other things you get hooked with, we think we had about 32 things that we had to keep
track of. If we totaled up limits and different constituents and plans to report on from the
1999 permit, we think they will have over 120 things to juggle around and you can see
how we kind of compared in the bars on the base here to look at the old on the left and
the new. One of the things we will have to do a lot more on is going and out taking
samples in Five Mile Creek and the Boise River and reporting that. So, we have burden
shifted to us, so to speak, to keep track of what not only our effluent quality is like, but
also the quality of the receiving waters we discharge to and that makes more work for
staff and more work in the laboratory. So, if you look at what we had in the 1999 permit,
we had six parameters we needed to keep track of. Now this what the new effluent
limits table looks like for limits and monitoring, stacks things up, and I think the message
here is that overall you're going to have a lot more restrictive limits to deal with, you're
going have a lot more monitoring to do, you have a more complex operation at the plant
overall and we are going to be subject to quite a bit more regulatory scrutiny than we
have in the past. So, now just to drill down to the next layer on the two big parameters
that will drive a lot of the cost investment. First of all, on phosphorus. On the left-hand
side in the stream, the phosphorus is a nutrient, so we have got these in-stream targets
at .07 milligrams per liter and there is a benthic algae. The algae goes in the bottom of
the stream, there is a way to go sample that and keep track of how much growth. That's
the kind of targeting we have in the total maximum daily load. On the right-hand side
you see how the permit writer has interpreted this in this preliminary draft permit. So, if
we go to Five Mile Creek we have to get to 0.12 milligrams per liter. That's why I say
that's a little more lenient than the mainstream dischargers will get if they get that .07.
So, we have got a little bit of flexibility there, but current performance is around one
milligram per liter. So, the things we are doing now, we are controlling phosphorus.
That's good. But we got to get it down by a factor of about ten to meet the new
requirements. So, that's a pretty big requirement. More than 90 percent additional
removal at the plant and that's going to require a significant amount of engineering and
analysis to figure out the facility's design and construct them. So, there is a significant
investment that goes with phosphorus. On ammonia nitrogen it's a little bit different
story. Ammonia, if you get lawn fertilizer it can be a plant nutrient, but the issue in the --
in the surface water is that it's toxic to the aquatic organisms. So, fish and fresh water
mollusks, mussels and snails, and it's toxic at very low concentrations. So, if
wastewater comes into a treatment plant, maybe it has 30 milligrams per liter of total
nitrogen, most of that is ammonia, we discharge now -- you see over on the right-hand
side how permit writer has interpreted those in-stream standards. If we are discharging
at five or six milligrams per liter now, we getting quite a bit of the ammonia out, but not
nearly enough to meet the discharge requirements either for Five Mile or for the Boise
River. In fact, this .307 milligram per liter, that's a very low effluent limit. What that
means -- that's code for the engineer says you would have to be very conservative in
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 26 of 34
sizing things to get that performance and the performance is required even in the
wintertime when the bacteria we are using in the treatment process, their kinetics are
lousy, they are moving slow, that means that from a capital standpoint the reactors get
bigger and it costs more. So, these are very challenging effluent limits. They are at or
below the in-stream criteria for toxicity. We are not quite sure we have drilled to the
bottom of this with the permit writers to understand whether or not his calculations are
appropriate. I'm not sure that they are. We are going to look at that pretty carefully.
But these are very challenging effluent limits and they are lower than what the city had
anticipated in the past. So, again, there is a significant effort here to figure out the
treatment process, design and build it. The city needs time for those things. You can't
comply with those immediately. One of the things we saw that was disturbing in the
preliminary draft permit is the permit writers' perspective is we should be able to meet
these effluent limits now and we can't do that. So, we know we have got an effort to put
a shoulder into to negotiate a compliance schedule to give the city time to figure this out
and to make the investment and financial provisions to make it possible to build things.
The last thing at the bottom left-hand of the slide here is to say that we will probably be
back to talk more about ammonia in the future, because the fed EPA has changed the
federal ammonia criteria and it's even more stringent than the basis for this permit. It
hasn't been adopted in Idaho yet, probably will before the next permit is renewed for
City of Meridian. So, we have got something more challenging here with ammonia
that's going to have a long story line, just like the phosphorus is. Combination of the
phosphorus and nitrogen are going to drive most of the cost of the facility and I guess
that's not the end. We have new requirements in the permit for toxic. So, copper,
cyanide, Mercury and zinc have effluent limits. That's not especially welcome news, not
uncommon, though, to have permits in Idaho that have metals limits. We have got an
unusual one on the organic side, this phthalate, the permit writer proposes effluent
limits. This is a plasticizer used in PCB. We think the data that the permit writer used is
bogus. Most of the values are nondetect. I think the plant staff is going to show that it's
unnecessary to have any effluent limits at all, but we need do a little bit of monitoring
work to show that to the permit writer here in the near term and maybe we will get at
least that one out of the permit. The permit writer has already indicated some flexibility
in modified cyanide and how we comply. So, maybe things will get a little bit easier
here on some of the toxics. Longer term again just to say that you don't want to let
down your guard on any of these. The year around phosphorus requirements are
probably something that's going hang over our heads a bit here, so we need to be
prepared for that and think about that in terms of planning for the facilities. I mentioned
this revised federal ammonia criteria is even going to be more restrictive, maybe, than
we had as a basis for the current permit. Temperatures unresolved on the river and,
then, you will hear a lot I think in the news this year about Idaho and the negotiated rule
making process with EPA. On human health criteria are about 100 different toxic
constituents based on how much fish people eat. So, region ten has been moving
through the northwest stage. Oregon did rule making in 2011. Washington is in the
middle of rule making. It's been quite controversial and Idaho is stepping into that
beginning this year with some surveys of different populations and how much fish they
cook -- if you can imagine this, it's not just toxicity that we are worried about for
ammonia to the fish, it's human feeding fish that accumulate toxics that may govern the
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 27 of 34
water quality criteria that come back into NPDES permits. So, given all of that, there is
a lot to do. It's not easy to handle new challenges that come with lower effluent limits in
ammonia and phosphorus, because there is no knob to turn at the treatment plant just
to turn those down. You have got to build new facilities and operate them in a different
way. The good news here is that the federal permitting regulations say that you have to
comply as soon as possible. So, there is room for interpretation of that. Idaho DEQ
makes that interpretation for us in Idaho and they informed EPA we need to make a
case, then, if we want a compliance schedule that's longer than one five year permit
cycle, we need to explain and justify why we need that, which means we need to have a
good plan of attack for what Meridian does to comply, so that it's substantive enough
that it convinces DEQ and EPA that we need more time than five years and I think we
certainly do, but at the same time we need a strategy there that is one we can actually
afford to comply with and one that makes sense technically. So, there is quite a bit
there in this compliance schedule discussion. I think an important thing to mention to
you is that once we have those compliance schedule discussions and a permit is
issued, there will be some folks there from milestones to comply with and we will have
make sure we comply with those, even if we get a longer period of time, those interim
milestones are binding and we have to keep pace. There is serious consequences to
not keeping pace. Okay. So, a little bit, then, on that implementation plan to figure that
out. The idea of an implementation plan is -- is a synthesis of everything we need to do
and there is -- there is two main purposes. Again, to convince the regulatory agencies,
but the other part if it-- and maybe more importantly is that we know exactly what it is
we are going to do and it's in a formula that we can actually afford to do and, technically,
it makes sense. The big issues to prioritize are the facilities that go with making sure
the plant is reliable, making sure that we have the capacity to serve the city's needs,
and, then, doing that in a way that complies with all these water quality requirements.
Now, if you ask EPA what they want, they want all of the water quality requirements up
front in the implementation plan. We need to make sure that we have got a treatment
plant that the guys can actually run and will always comply in a reliable way and that we
always have capacity available. Meridian is in kind of a unique position that is valid,
because you have got more capacity need probably than some of the other
communities and EPA doesn't necessarily always see capacity in terms of water quality,
but that's a very important thing to explain to them, because if there is not adequate
capacity for you to offer service, it drives things into water quality problems. So, that will
be part of our challenge is explaining that in a way that makes sense to EPA that we get
the compliance schedule that we need. We are trying to structure the implementation
plan so that some of the engineering work that has the potential to result is a better
solution to save money is done up front, so that you can capitalize on that, rather than
the inverse to do the big capital expenditures up front and, then, lose the opportunity to
have some smart discovery that would reduce the cost of compliance. That's why this
view that the permit writer has that ammonia should be complied with immediately is
important for us to push out, because that will consume quite a bit of investment. So, in
terms our strategy here, that's an important thing to accomplish is the time to figure out
how to do this in a way that's economical and not have already spent all of the capital
money. So, that treatment technology part, figuring that out, is an important aspect of
our strategy that those kinds of studies and early decisions are built into the front, as
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 28 of 34
opposed to all the capital expenditures. So, options here -- a little bit of an overview of
what the choices are. So, there are some different things you can do and, of course,
you can do different things now, you don't discharge entirely to Five Mile Creek, you
have got that option for the Boise River, you have got the option for reuse, so you can
treat discharge -- if you just treat discharge and do nothing else it really leaves you with
only using the treatment technology and that can become expensive. Although that's a
pretty good way to comply if you know that the technology is available. There are many
in the valley that are attracted to these ideas of doing some water quality trading or
finding offsets in other locations. They may help us meet the effluent limits in a way
that's a little more creative. That might be a way we find some cost savings. There is
also more regulatory uncertainty that's associated with that. The city has a study
underway to look at not discharging to surface water, but saturating the ground and
infiltrating the groundwater, which is an interesting one, but it might change what
effluent parameters we need to control. It might shift the emphasis on phosphorus on
surface water to controlling nitrates for the groundwater. If you get in between we might
wind up with both and so figuring out what that combination is is an important part of
this early decision making. So, we need to put these things together in a way that we
can frame decisions for the city and decide what to do and what program makes the
most sense and, then, figure that out know in a way that -- that really is custom fit to
what Meridian needs to do and not necessarily others, but when you look at others it's
interesting to see what they are looking for. You know, Boise has less need for new
capacity than Meridian does, but they look outside of their service area and way
downstream to find offsets that they can trade with their discharge to the river. It's a
pretty creative thing. Nampa is looking at recharge. They have a different situation on
Indian Creek. Caldwell, I'm not quite sure what they are looking at for options. They
discharge in an area which is a little bit of a sticky wicket in terms of water quality,
because the worst water quality in the river is down near the segment they discharge
and Kuna has gone a hundred percent into the treatment technology part. So, they
treat and discharge, but they are able to meet that kind of 70 micrograms per liter limit.
So, there are a couple of different ways of doing that. Now, here is the part about cost.
The big circle on the right-hand side shows how we break down all the costs over the
next ten years according to whether or not they are driven by water quality, reliability, or
capacity and so the total dollars here in terms of present worth where we meld annual
operating costs with capital costs, you know, we are more than hundred -- nearly two
hundred million dollars. So, we are talking about a lot of investment to be made here.
The biggest driver there is water quality. That's the lighter blue 54 percent in the right-
hand circle. We pulled that out over on the left-hand side and we broke that out to look
at where we are spending the money, so we could see what's spent on capital, 88
percent. By and large the biggest part of the program were the capital costs. We have
got five percent there on some of the operation and maintenance and staffing. The
study part that we are saying we need to prioritize up front in a strategic way, that's only
a couple of percentages so we will wind up spending quite a bit of money on that, but
that's a small part overall. So, we want to do that up front, so we can get an opportunity
to tackle this big capital part and look and see if we can do in a more economical way.
We tried here to take a look at these planning level costs and see how they accumulate
over time. So, this is the synthesis, again, of capital and annual operating costs
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 29 of 34
together. There is a band there, because these are planning level estimates. We don't
have detailed cost estimates. So, they may vary a lot. And so we have kind of shown
how that evolved over time, at least according to a preliminary kind expenditure
schedule. So, it's a significant amount of money, a commitment over an extended
period of time and it's got regulatory hooks. So, we will have to make sure that we
accomplish the things that we commit to in the compliance schedule and the discharge
permit. This is a little bit redundant, but a comparison of options, you know, what could
we do. We can treat and discharge. A good part of that is you have got certainty that
you're going to meet the water quality requirement. The true to technology part, you get
that certainty in performance, but it comes at a price. The regulatory risk is low,
because you're certain you can get there. If you get a little more creative and you
incorporate the things with offsets or trading, you're dependent upon some things that
maybe give you an opportunity to safe some money, but come with a little bit more
regulatory uncertainty, you're dependent on others, and EPA may discount those
through trading ratios and other things that dilute the value of things that initially appear
to be valuable. The aquifer recharge I mentioned. Hey, that's the one entry here in our
matrix. It looks like it could reduce costs, but there is a lot of uncertainty there about
whether it complies and whether it invites more regulatory requirements. So, that's kind
of a summary of the choices that we tackle in -- in looking ahead. So, on that high note
-- I know it's kind of a downer to talk about costs, so we will get back on a positive note
here with Tom.
De Weerd: So, they gave you the bad news to deliver and --
Clark: But I got a nice compliment there from Tracy, so I appreciate that part.
Barry: Thank you, David. So, as you heard, the challenges that we are facing are
daunting and they are significant. They are monumental, if you will, and the way that
our program will have to mature over the next ten years to meet these challenging
environmental needs. These implications, including incorporation of new treatment
technology and additional equipment in order to meet some of these ultra low
phosphorus and other constituent requirements are going to be, as David mentioned,
costly and the reality here is that we have to be very diligent about the treatment
technology we choose, because some technologies compliment well one another, while
others actually compete with one another. So, insuring that we get the right technology,
which is compatible with existing technology and even future technologies for limits that
may be coming beyond these setup requirements is critical to us. So, as you know, we
are going to have to enhance and upgrade our existing treatment components in
addition to adding those new ones. We will have to modify our methods and processes
significantly and this will be an ongoing challenge for us over the next decade. That will
cause us to have a more complex operation and that complexity will bring with it the
need to add staff and to enhance the expertise of existing staff, as well as acquire staff
with additional expertise. And, of course, all of these will have future implication on our
financial operation. So, what 's next? There is no decision that's being requested from
the City Council tonight. This is really a primer to discuss and to plan and prepare you
for the decisions that will be many, often, and soon. Ongoing, though, we plan to
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 30 of 34
provide a number of studies that some of them are already in process. Others need to
be defined and developed, which will help to inform the decisions that we are going to
have to make. Obviously, that's going to cost money and if you saw what Mr. Clark
provided, we have got on the order of anywhere between one to two million dollars in
studies alone, which is really a small amount when you compare that to the capital
improvements that are going have to be made, the decisions that will likely come from
those engineering plans and studies. We are working with the EPA currently on the
pre-draft to make sure that we have the correct information that establishes the public
draft that's soon to come. We are developing and finalizing an implementation plan
that's been discussed before with the Department of Environmental Quality and working
to develop the compliant schedule that will obligate us to the improvements for the next
ten years during the compliance schedule window. Again, I should say it's not a
foregone conclusion. We are still working with DEQ and we do hope that you have a
compliance window of around ten years, which has been similarly offered to other
wastewater dischargers in and around the lower Boise River. We will get that draft
permit issued here fairly soon. We expect probably July, August, somewhere in there,
plus or minus a month. That will start a clock that's a permit period clock -- a comment
period I should say clock, after which we will get a final permit, which we are expecting
to receive certainly by the fall of this year. There are possibilities for appeal and I didn't
include any of that in this process, but certainly a discharger or anyone else for that
matter could appeal our permit and if that were to happen there is a whole set of
different timelines and processes that go into all of that, which I assume at this point is
not of interest until at least we see where we stand with the permit itself. We are going
to have to continue to evaluate the staffing, the infrastructure, the financial, the
technological, the operational component of the wastewater division and insure that we
are planned and prepared accordingly and to that end you will be hearing more and
more about the type of improvement, the permit itself, and other sorts of related and,
hopefully, interesting information associated with the changes that are going to be
required as of this issuance of the new permit that we are expecting. So, with that that's
all we had to share with you today and we bring this to a close and ask you for any, you
know, questions, comments that you might have while we have got the experts in the
room and anything that you might need in order to close any gaps in information sharing
today will be welcomed by myself and the staff. So, with that I will turn the time back
over to you and answer questions.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Tom. And 1 want to thank your staff. I think that the
wastewater treatment plant has had a long time reputation and vision for stewardship.
We certainly want our kids to enjoy the same Idaho that we do and that's what this is all
about. We do want to make sure that the standards and what we are being asked to do
is relevant to the watershed we preside -- or we exist in and it is unfortunate the timing
with the TMDL and some of the requirements that we might be asked to look at that are
not applicable to our current situation. I think that our staff and under your leadership
has shown an approach that thinks out of the box and looks for solutions that -- that
certainly address the concerns at a lower cost to our citizens. That's greatly
appreciated. And certainly appreciate that you have been looking at this in anticipation
of this draft permit and what we will be looking to enroll or roll out over the next permit
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 31 of 34
time frame. So, I guess with that said, Council, I would ask if you have any questions at
this time for Tom or our consultant or our staff?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I do have one and if I may I would direct it to Mr. Clark and while you're
approaching I will give a disclaimer to Tom Barry that he and I have had a conversation
-- a couple of conversations about the question I'm going to ask.
Clark: So, you know the answer, then; right?
Zaremba: Well, he has been very polite, but he has not given me much optimism that
anything is going to happen, but I'm going to put you on the spot with a question.
Clark: Okay.
Zaremba: It's specifically about phosphorus and we focus on what we are going to have
to do and the increasing expenses of taking phosphorus out of the water that is being
presented to us with phosphorus in it and the increasing cost of meeting increasing
regulations and tighter and tighter and my question focuses on the beginning part of the
process. How do we get people to stop putting less phosphorus in the water in the first
place and I relate that to what are a number of legal products that have undesirable
aspects on which we charge use taxes and I'm thinking tobacco and gasoline and some
other things like that. Is there any possibility of getting a movement to have use taxes
on phosphorus? I mean it's soaps that we all use in our homes, but we can make
choices to have lower phosphorus soaps. It's fertilizers and stuff, but is there any
possibility of getting a movement to have -- maybe change behavior by charging a tax
or not putting it in?
Clark: I think so. I think that's a great question and, you know, because of these water
quality drivers over the last 20 years, without a tax, there has been big changes in
products. So, about 20 years ago we had quite a move in some of the watersheds in
the country, including the Spokane River to the north, to eliminate phosphorus that --
the Spokane and the Clark River had some of the early movements to ban laundry
detergent and phosphorus and because of the way these grocery distribution systems
work, if you get a watershed or two that needs to limit that product coming into the
wastewaters, just as you say, you might affect the marketplace in a pretty big way and
that's, essentially, what's happened around the country is that when Proctor & Gamble,
these companies reformulate their laundry detergents they don't make a different
version just for the Spokane watershed, it goes in these big grocery distribution chains
and so you look across the country where there have been problems with phosphorus in
the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes and the Spokane River, well, essentially, we
have had a laundry detergent phosphorus ban in place for more than 15 years anyway.
It's evolved in the way without -- without a tax. Interestingly from some work we had
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 32 of 34
with Spokane county in the early 2000s, we had a Spokane county commissioner Todd
Mielke that had a question just like you and he was very frustrated with the low in end
points on the Spokane River and he had been to the state legislature and thought in
Washington state he could write a bill. He wrote a bill to ban phosphorus content in
dishwashing detergent. That bill was signed by Christine Gregoire, the governor, in
about 2006 or so. Sixteen states did a copycat version of that bill and by 2012 we have
effectively got a dishwashing detergent ban on phosphorus across the country. So, if
you go in Costco now, like the Clark family does, and you look at those detergents and
you look at the Cascade dishwashing detergent, they substituted sulfates in their
formulations. They don't have phosphate. And the wastewater influent at treatment
plants around the country have fallen from the seven or eight milligram per liter range to
four, four and a half milligrams per liter. So, had we have had quite a reduction. The
Sierra Club got quite interested in this on the Spokane River TMDL and they thought
that this was an important thing and it is a very interesting development. I think the part
that they may have missed in tangling with the dischargers about having product bans is
that the orthophosphate that's used in laundry detergent or dishwashing detergent is the
easiest of the phosphorus to us to remove. The effect, though, of having these product
bans really helps us on the nonpoint source phosphorus out of the areas that are on
septic systems on site and don't come into a treatment plant. It probably saves us
money at the treatment plant, but at the core in municipal wastewater where we are
going to have these organic phosphorus compounds that come in from the things we
metabolize in our bodies, so, you know, about one percent of you and me and the food
we eat -- one to two percent is phosphorus, nine or ten percent is nitrogen. So, even if
we get all these commercial products out we still are going to have nitrogen and
phosphorus in influent wastewater. We may have got the low hanging fruit out of it
already and benefitted from some of the other watersheds that have already tackle this.
So, I think we have probably got a benefit here now. Did I get the answer right or
anything close to --
Zaremba: Very thorough. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions from Council? Okay. Thank you, Tom, for
being so thorough and giving the background, bringing up some of our Council
Members to speed and, again, we appreciate your staff and look -- we appreciate your
taking this all very seriously and being on top of things, because we know what an
impact it's going to have.
Barry: Thank you very much.
Bird: Thanks, Tom.
Rountree: Thanks, Tom.
Item 8: Ordinances
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 33 of 34
A. Ordinance No. 14-1601: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City
Code as Codified at Title 11, Entitled the Unified Development
Code Pertaining to Modification of the Dimensional Standards
of the R-15 Zoning District (ZOA 14-001)
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-A is Ordinance 14-1601. I will ask our -city clerk to, please,
read this ordinance by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 14-1601, an
ordinance amending Meridian City Code as codified at Title 11, Entitled the Unified
Development Code of the Meridian City Code pertaining to modifications of the
dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district and providing for a waiver of the
reading rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who
would like to hear it read in its entirety? Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing none, I move we approve Ordinance No. 14-1601 with suspension of
rules.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
absent.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Council, are there any topics for consideration in future agendas?
With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Milam: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council Workshop
April 8, 2014
Page 34 of 34
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:48 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
de WEERD DATE APPROVED
r;~~,
~..r~./ 4 3 :x I ~.. ~r